Efficiency – this is an indicator that evaluates the relationship between costs and the results obtained. In economic science, the category of economic efficiency and the corresponding criteria for its evaluation have been thoroughly developed. In modern management, the same thing has been done in relation to the management of an organization (company) in conditions of market competition. The characteristics of economic and managerial efficiency can be used to determine the concept of public administration efficiency that we are considering. However, there cannot be a complete extrapolation (transfer) of signs of economic or managerial efficiency to the public administration system.

Public administration differs from other types of management primarily in that it is carried out with the help of state power and government bodies. 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, a meaningful 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 management activity of a political subject, which carries some political aspect.

Efficiency of public administration determined by the ratio of resources used and results obtained in achieving the strategic goals of the political system and realizing common state interests. Efficiency is an indicator of how fully the efforts (resources) expended by the managing entity and society to solve the problems posed are realized in socially significant final results.

The cost-benefit criterion is used as a conditional indicator of the effectiveness of individual specific decisions, but the meaning of these terms is interpreted in a broader sense than, say, in economic analysis. An activity can be effective - economical (in terms of minimal costs), but not at all effective in terms of achieving the set socio-political goals. The effective activities of state organizations as effective in the socio-political aspect are not always economical, much less profitable, especially when we are talking about activities, the results and consequences of which are manifested in a wide range of social processes.

Thus, the category “efficiency of public administration” is defined through the concepts: “public goals”, “results”, “state resources”. “Public goals” are ultimately politically significant goals; “results” – objects, services, processes related to meeting public needs and interests (expressed in policy); “state resources” - economic, social, political, ideological and information capital, regulated by the state both in terms of social expediency and possibility, and legal validity.

Sometimes the terms “partial efficiency” and “full efficiency” are used. The first concept is characterized by indicators of the effective solution of some problems, individual components of the overall goal; the second – indicators of successful solution of the entire complex of problems that form the common, final goal of the managing entity. For the public administration system as a whole, the concept under consideration is interpreted primarily as “full efficiency”.

What are criteria efficiency government controlled? The concept of “efficiency criterion” of public administration means a sign or a set of signs, on the basis of which the effectiveness of the management system is assessed.

Assessing the effectiveness of public administration is necessary both for government authorities and for society. It allows society to control the quality of the activities of state institutions, and it is necessary for managers and civil servants for self-control and to improve the management process. The problem of performance assessment is the problem of analyzing management activities and decisions made.

Criteria for the effectiveness of public administration are formed on the basis of a system of subjective values ​​expressed in the ideology of the social and state system, for the strategic goals of the ruling entity - the political course, in the national and state interests.

Often the interests of the ruling classes or dominant national-ethnic groups are presented as such. The above explains the relativity of the evaluative criteria of effectiveness, their dependence, first of all, on the type of political system, as well as on the specific historical conditions in which it operates. Values, goals, concepts, principles of public administration, the regulatory framework of the management system, and finally, public needs and interests - all these elements of criteria for the effectiveness of public administration are variables determined by the social and state system, the political regime and the specific environment (historical and natural), in which a given political community lives. Together, they constitute a mechanism for responding to the behavior of the state as a community of people to changes in the external environment and its internal state, a system of control over external and internal processes of change. The wider the sphere of control, i.e. rational influence, the higher the management efficiency. But control, rational management of society and the environment cannot expand indefinitely.

Depending on what is recognized as the main sign of effectiveness, three groups of criteria are distinguished: value-rational, goal-rational and pragmatic1. Determining the effectiveness of management based on the compliance of the results of decisions and their consequences with the values ​​​​recognized by the state, expressed in the political strategy, we call the value-rational criterion. If the compliance of the results of decision execution with the set goals and practical tasks expressed in government programs and plans is taken as an indicator of management effectiveness, then such a criterion is called goal-oriented. Measuring management efficiency by type - “input - output” or “input - result” is characterized by a pragmatic criterion.

These management criteria are general, because they can be used when assessing decisions related to the activities of a managing entity in any area of ​​public life. At the same time, each type of criterion can be applied to the analysis of decisions at various levels, scales and significance for the state and society. Value-rational criterion will help a politician or theorist evaluate the effectiveness of global, system-wide decisions of top-level authorities and management, the results and consequences of which are manifested in profound changes in the whole society or in many of its spheres. It is incorrect to judge the effectiveness of such decisions by individual positive results, as well as by identified losses. Both are felt and comprehended by the ruling subject and the governed gradually, often over a long period. Moreover, it is impossible to express these results and expected consequences in any exact numerical values. Only by considering what happened, what is happening and possible results through the prism of a value system, an analyst will be able to determine the positive or negative effectiveness of these large-scale management actions of a state entity.

Purposive rational criterion– also general, comprehensive, but it is focused on assessing the effectiveness of management using fairly specific indicators that characterize the immediate results of achieved goals, solved tasks, implemented strategies and programs, taking into account the government resources used. The integral indicator – compliance of results with the interests of the state and society is also more specific than “compliance with values”. The noted assessment indicators can be recorded using quantitative methods and qualitative characteristics. For example, indicators of the level and quality of life, political activity of citizens - voters, health status. The effectiveness of many government decisions at the highest and regional levels cannot be measured quantitatively, however, even in such situations, the latter can play a supporting role. For example, the effectiveness of the reform of the Russian education system, of course, is not measured by the number of secondary schools converted into colleges and lyceums. The main thing is to assess the quality of the new system of educational institutions, whether this quality has become higher than the Soviet level or not. However, quantitative data should be taken into account when drawing conclusions about the reform.

Pragmatic criterion efficiency involves assessing the effectiveness of individual specific decisions of governing bodies at different levels. However, here one should avoid primitive pragmatism motivated by the so-called. common sense and the ever-present shortage of resources. Such an approach by the authorities to the higher education system and to science put the latter in danger of degradation and led to the loss of previously won priorities. According to some press reports, currently 80% of Russian mathematicians and 50% of physicists work abroad. State expenditures on education and science, as is known, pay off over a long period of time; this is the basis for progress in the present and future, a contribution to the potential of the state. Vulgar pragmatism in educational and scientific policy is contrary to the fundamental interests of the people.

The effectiveness of public administration is made up of the interaction of many factors, the totality of the results of management activities in all spheres of state and public life. The problem under consideration is not limited to analysis general criteria efficiency. Along with general performance criteria, they are used specific for each sphere of management: political, social, economic, etc. The content of each of them also includes a general requirement: compliance of the results of management activities with certain state values, goals and norms, management principles and public interests. The specificity is determined by the essential signs of efficiency, which appear only in this type of management: for example, for political management - this is the level of development of the political activity of the masses and the protection of human rights and freedoms; for the social – ensuring an increase in the quality of life, etc. Thus, the theoretically known definition of the effectiveness of management activities as the ratio of “net positive results (the excess of desirable consequences over undesirable ones) and acceptable costs” can successfully “work” when assessing decisions on specific social economic issues related to individual organizations.

The efficiency assessment model “resource support for management activities – costs – results” allows us to compare the effectiveness of Russian management structures with Western ones. It is advisable to supplement the measurement of the effectiveness of the management activities of the public service in terms of the ratio of resources expended and results by determining the ratio of the resources involved and the volume of resources that turned out to be unclaimed, although necessary to solve the task.

Scientists note another feature of assessing the effectiveness of public administration, which has manifested itself in international practice. It is shifting towards factors of a sociocultural and spiritual nature, which reflects a change in the hierarchy of values ​​of management activities. Positive value indicators of a technical, technological and economic nature are pushed aside by sociocultural indicators.

Factors of public administration effectiveness are considered as starting premises and framework conditions in the analysis of management effectiveness. They can be system-wide, at the subsystem level– economic, social, political, legal – and subjects of the Federation, or at the level structural forms of organization of power and management relevant subsystems and levels. In the latter case, the role of system-wide and regional factors will be revealed indirectly - through an analysis of the conditions and mechanisms of corporate-scale management.

Resources in the public administration system quite a lot, the main ones include:

1) social resource - the objective attitude of the population, civil society to the public administration system;

2) material and technical resources, in particular, objects of property of government bodies;

3) financial resource (state budget);

4) organizational resource - a system of government bodies, processes and relationships between them;

5) human resource – civil servants, involves their assessment according to quantitative and qualitative criteria;

6) administrative and legal resource - regulatory legal acts and the practice of their implementation.

Thus, the resources in the public administration system are quite large-scale, however, for the most part, they are of a potential nature, i.e. are possible in principle, but in practice they are implemented to an insignificant extent, especially with regard to social and human resources. In this regard, when assessing efficiency in the public administration system, it is necessary not only to take into account the realized resource, but also to compare it with potential capabilities.

Based on the general definition of the concept of efficiency, the realized resource can be designated as costs or production costs, however, these categories in the public administration system are rather conditionally applicable. Thus, if the concept of production costs presupposes a materialized, objective ratio of funds to the employee’s labor (essentially to wages), then the concept of a realized resource is quite complex and cannot be easily calculated. For example, it is not easy to determine the social or administrative resource expended.

Therefore, the problem of assessing efficiency in the public administration system is of a combined nature: on the one hand, it is necessary to measure real efficiency, on the other hand, potential (target) efficiency. The first is the ratio of the result obtained to the resource expended, which involves a financial and economic assessment; the second is normative efficiency, which presupposes the relationship between the actual capabilities (resources) of the system and the needs (goals). We emphasize that this classification is extremely important for public administration, since the potential of this system is far from being fully used.

The key parameter for determining the effectiveness of public administration is its result. Result of public administration can be classified as follows:

1) the result in its content can be: financial, organizational, personnel, social, ideological, etc.;

2) the result in terms of scale, significance for the subject: strategic, fundamental or private, secondary;

3) the result according to the degree of achievement of the planned goal: compliance or non-compliance;

4) result from the point of view of potential realization: full realization, partial realization or lack thereof.

The result based on the implementation stages can be either intermediate or final.

It should be noted that the general theory of efficiency has come to the conclusion that the effectiveness of developed systems generally cannot be expressed by one indicator. Even something key breaks down into its component parts and has a number of aspects and subsystems. In other words, a system of indicators and criteria is always required. This is all the more true if we undertake to evaluate such a complex phenomenon as state power. Here you need to have a system of indicators and performance criteria, which should be end-to-end, but multi-level with interconnected elements. There may be one summary, generalizing, integral indicator in the center, but it will necessarily be based on many other indicators. In other words, a system of indicators and criteria is always required. In this case, the criteria should be different, but systematic.

Performance evaluation criteria We propose to group the activities of a public authority into the following types:

1. Value criterion– the relationship between the actual (obtained) results and the estimated role (capabilities, resources) of the government body in the development of the industry.

2. Financial criterion(criterion for assessing financial efficiency) - the ratio of the financial results of the activities of a public authority and the resources expended, expressed in financial indicators.

3. Social criterion– the ratio of the real (received) satisfaction of consumers of the services of a public authority and their estimated capabilities for satisfaction.

4. Functional criterion– the ratio of the actually performed volume of functions and services of a public authority and the established (calculated) volume of functions and services of a public authority, enshrined in law.

5. Time criterion– the ratio of the actual time spent on implementing functions and providing services and the estimated implementation time. In essence, this is a criterion for assessing labor productivity.

Efficiency mark of certain government programs (economic, social or cultural development) is possible with the use of the following indicators: the volume of work performed and activities carried out, correlated with expenses; 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 Russia, until the beginning of the 21st century, there was virtually no normatively approved system for assessing the effectiveness of government bodies. The structure of government bodies and the number of their apparatuses were determined by the leadership empirically. The criterion for evaluating employees was only their loyalty to their management and execution of instructions.

According to Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation dated June 28, 2007 No. 825 “On assessing the effectiveness of executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation” (cancelled by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated August 21, 2012 No. 1199) and dated April 28, 2008 No. 607 “On assessing the effectiveness of local government bodies of urban districts and municipal districts” a certain list of indicators was approved. In the first case there are 43 of them (in the amended version - 127), in the second case - 30.

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated August 21, 2012 No. 1199 “On assessing the effectiveness of the activities of executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation” approved a new list, including 12 indicators for assessing the effectiveness of the activities of executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated November 3, 2012 No. 1142 “On measures to implement the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of August 21, 2012 No. 1199 “On assessing the effectiveness of the activities of executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation”” approved a list of indicators for assessing the effectiveness of the activities of specific executive authorities of the constituent entities RF.

In these documents, the subject of assessment is the results of the activities of executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in the areas of economics and investment attractiveness, state and municipal administration, healthcare, education and housing construction.

Assessment of the effectiveness of the activities of executive authorities of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation according to the above methodology is carried out on the basis of analysis and comparison of indicators characterizing:

1) The final results of the activities of executive authorities of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation in areas. The final results of activity are understood as the achieved level of socio-economic development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, namely, the level of implementation of the main goals of the activities of regional authorities in various areas, the satisfaction of the population with the quality of public services provided and the activities of the executive authorities of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

2) Efficiency of using budget resources in a constituent entity of the Russian Federation by area. The volume of ineffective expenditures of regional budgets is determined on the basis of indicators (in accordance with standard or average Russian values) characterizing the budget network in the region and its use.

3) The progress of implementation of institutional reforms in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation by area. The implementation of institutional reforms refers to the introduction of new management mechanisms in various areas and their effectiveness.

All of the above indicators are interrelated and are considered in a single context.

In the Republic of Bashkortostan, Order of the Government of the Republic of Belarus dated February 21, 2011 No. 142-r approved the distribution of performance indicators of the executive authorities of the Republic of Bashkortostan according to responsible executors (state authorities of the Republic of Bashkortostan). 328 indicators were identified, combined into 11 groups according to areas of society: economic development; healthcare and population health; general education; primary and secondary vocational education; housing construction and provision of housing for citizens; Department of Housing and Utilities; road maintenance; ensuring the safety of citizens; organization of state and municipal government; energy saving and increasing energy efficiency; environmental protection.

Currently, in the Republic of Bashkortostan there is a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of the activities of republican executive bodies, approved by Decree of the Government of the Republic of Bashkortostan dated December 27, 2013 No. 640. This resolution also approved a list of industry indicators for assessing the effectiveness of the activities of republican executive bodies in the context of responsible executors.

The subject of the assessment is the results of the activities of the republican executive authorities in the areas of activity under their supervision. The result of assessing the effectiveness of the activities of the republican executive authorities is their ranked series, built on the basis of ordering these bodies in descending order of the integrated indicator of a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of their activities, calculated based on the results of the reporting year.

A comprehensive annual assessment of the performance of republican executive authorities is calculated based on three groups of indicators:

a) industry indicators assigned to responsible executors;

b) functional indicators calculated based on the results of the implementation of annual and quarterly action plans by each republican executive body;

c) estimated indicators obtained from the results of a public opinion poll on the activities of republican executive bodies.

It is worth noting that in accordance with the Decree of the Head of the Republic of Bashkortostan dated November 21, 2015 No. UG-302, the procedure for bonuses for ministers is linked to the achievement of industry indicators.

The current domestic (including republican) system for assessing the effectiveness of public administration has taken significant steps to introduce mechanisms to increase its effectiveness, but still has shortcomings.

There is still a lot to be done here - from developing specific criteria for the effectiveness of each department of the state apparatus to overcoming the psychological barrier among managers and specialists of government bodies that prevents them from assessing management activities from the standpoint of efficiency.

Questions and tasks to test knowledge:

1 Explain the meaning of the term “efficiency of public administration”.

2 What are the criteria for the effectiveness of public administration?

3 Name the factors of effectiveness of public administration.

4 How is the assessment of the effectiveness of government bodies in Russia and the Republic of Bashkortostan organized?

5 What are the reasons for the lack of efficiency of public administration in Russia?

27. Administrative reform in Russia: concept, content, stages and directions

Everything that exists needs to be updated, especially when it comes to such a complex and dynamically developing area as the public administration system. It is known that the control system cannot be less complex than the controlled system. If society (the managed system) is constantly developing, then public administration (the managing system) should be just as dynamic.

Term "administrative reform" has several meanings. In the broad sense of the word, administrative reform refers to the reorganization of the public administration system, sometimes even leading to a change in the political system. Thus, the administrative reforms of Peter I led not only to the replacement of the system of government bodies, but also to the formation of imperial Russia on the basis of the estate-monarchical state. In general, we can assume that in the Russian Federation a reform of this scale was carried out in the 90s of the last century and in the near future we can only talk about small, unprincipled changes.

In the narrow sense of the word, administrative reform is the reorganization of the activities of bureaucrats and government bodies to improve the efficiency of their work. Such a reform is yet to come.

The most pressing problems of the development of executive power and, in the most general terms, measures for its reform were outlined in the messages of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly starting in 1996. However, the concept of “administrative reform” was used only in the 2001 Address. At the same time, the main task was set: “. ..to review not only and not so much the structure and staff, but mainly the functions of government bodies.” And only the 2002 Message of the President of the Russian Federation speaks “...about the need for administrative reform” and defines the main directions of modernization of the executive power, currently covered by the concept of “administrative reform”.

The relationship between local government reform and administrative reform. State administration and local self-government represent two sides of public administration and, therefore, are closely interconnected. Both reforms are also united by the fact that they are aimed at increasing the efficiency of public administration bodies. The work of the apparatus of state and municipal bodies is of the same type, and the experience of effective work of some may be useful to others. Moreover, successful administrative reform is impossible without modern local government. The essence of local government reform is to give real opportunities to people to resolve local issues themselves.

Local self-government directly depends on the economic, political, ideological system in the country. Therefore, the reform of local government in the republic will be realized only when it becomes not only an integral part, but the core of all other ongoing reforms - political, economic, land, judicial, budgetary and financial and others.

Why should we develop towards greater independence and responsibility for local government? Of course, not because it is so accepted in the West. It’s just that, on the one hand, in modern conditions this system is much more effective and practical, since it allows us to better reveal the internal reserves, potential, and characteristics of local communities, and better ensure the resolution of issues of local importance. On the other hand, modern socio-economic processes create the prerequisites for the development of self-government on a new basis: a layer of citizens is being formed, economically independent from state dictates, possessing not only self-esteem, but also certain material capabilities, and, in principle, capable of becoming the social base of effective and independent municipal formation.

Ultimately, it is necessary to create a system of local self-government, where citizens themselves actively and responsibly resolve local issues. In the meantime, local self-government is more of a gift, sometimes simply imposed from above, and is not the citizens’ own achievement. Active assistance in the formation and development of local self-government in the Russian Federation is a priority activity of the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation.

The need for permanent reform. The more dynamic the society is, the more important the importance of these reforms. Today, in essence, we must talk about the constant reorganization of the work of the state apparatus. The introduction of innovations in the activities of officials should become the most important criterion for assessing their effectiveness. However, this is very difficult to do. Market structures (firms, corporations) in competitive conditions are forced, within the framework of natural selection, to “automatically” create and implement new things in their work in order to ensure their survival. Government bodies are monopolists in their field and therefore the mechanism for searching and introducing effective innovations can only be initiated from above, by the head of state and his immediate circle. In this case, of course, the head of state must proceed from the interests of the population and society as a whole.

Russia is a country with rich historical traditions, including in the field of state building. The most notable reforms in this area were those of Ivan the Terrible, Peter I, V.I. Lenina, I.V. Stalin. The construction of a new Russia in the 90s of the last century was quite comparable in scale to the above transformations.

To summarize historical experience reorganization of public administration in our country, the following features can be noted:

1. The transformations were initiated by the top officials of the state, and their initiatives were not always immediately understood and supported by society.

2. Successful (i.e., completed) were only those reforms where the resistance of officials to change was suppressed harshly and uncompromisingly, often in the form of repression.

3. As a rule, transformations did not have a serious scientific basis and were carried out on a whim, based on intuition or simple common sense.

4. The national-historical characteristics of Russian society were very rarely taken into account; more often there was organizational or ideological borrowing of foreign experience.

5. The positive experience accumulated within the previous system of public administration was practically not taken into account.

6. Even long-term and systemic reforms came at a very high price, often leading to unrest or civil war.

7. The population has never been involved either in the search for ways to improve the efficiency of the state apparatus, or in the implementation and evaluation of these transformations.

Thus, we see that historical experience requires us to take a more serious, careful and responsible approach to carrying out modern administrative reform. Russia, as a complex state entity, requires careful treatment and, as emphasized by the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, professional attitude.

The main immediate goal of administrative reform in Russia– ensuring the effectiveness of public administration in modern conditions, A main method – not just democratization and professionalization of this system, and the creation of such organizational and economic conditions that necessarily form the motivation of civil servants to perform effectively. Of course, this will require a change in practice in the style and methods of operation of the apparatus in accordance with the principles of the rule of law (legality, priority of individual rights, etc.). Special mention should be made of two important conditions, without which the reform will be doomed to imitation or chaotic throwing, even if development trends towards a free market society continue in Russian society. The first condition is presence of political will, which comes down not only to the sincere desire of the first person of the state to have a modern and effective state apparatus (however, in our country this is also important!), but to the real and, preferably, conscious interest of the ruling political elite in the real, real improvement of public administration in Russia .

The second condition for successful reform is its corresponding material and organizational support at a professional level. In practice, this means the creation of an organizational mechanism endowed with appropriate resources and powers to prepare and implement administrative reform in the country. In general, the reform should have a whole train of corresponding conditions: legal, personnel, political, informational, social, technical, international support, etc. Material and organizational support is especially mentioned here not only because of its nominal importance, but also because it is one of the bottlenecks in the reorganization of public administration.

In general, we can highlight two main immediate causes administrative reform in our country:

1. The role of the state in modern society not only does not weaken, but is becoming increasingly important. Society develops, its connections and relationships become more complex, but the need to organize and coordinate various social elements and structures not only does not disappear, but also becomes more urgent. Failure to understand this in the 90s of the last century led to the fact that Russia simply began to lose the main features of a single state; the destructive processes of statehood decomposition during the collapse of the Soviet Union spread to the Russian Federation.

2. The Russian state apparatus today is ineffective, it becomes a brake on the country's development. What essentially prevents us from becoming one of the most prosperous countries? We have excellent human resources, and our education system remains one of the best in the world. We have enormous natural resources, we are the richest state in this sense in the world - this is Russia’s indisputable natural competitive advantage. We still maintain leading positions in many areas of science and production. However, we cannot realize all these opportunities, primarily due to insufficiently effective management of this potential by the state.

The effectiveness of public administration is a concept that denotes the relationship between results and achieved public goals, results and government resources used. Effective management is an activity with the best possible results in meeting public needs and interests in the conditions of regulation of resources by the state.

Efficiency is an indicator of how fully the efforts (resources) expended by the managing entity and society to solve the problems posed are realized in socially significant final results.

Thus, the category “efficiency of public administration” is defined through the concepts: “public goals”, “results”, “public needs and interests”. Each of them reflects specific features of public administration with a political aspect.

“Public goals” are ultimately politically significant goals; “results” - objects, services, processes related to the satisfaction of public needs and interests (expressed in policy); “state resources” - economic, social, political, ideological and informational capital, regulated by the state both in terms of social expediency and possibility, and legal validity.

Assessing the effectiveness of public administration is necessary both for state authorities and for society. It allows society to control the quality of the activities of state institutions, and managers and civil servants need it for self-control and to improve the management process. The problem of evaluating effectiveness is the problem of analyzing management activities and decisions made. To assess the effectiveness of public administration, certain criteria are needed on the basis of which one can draw conclusions about the effectiveness of a particular management decision.

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 objects of assessment are various results of management activities: means of subsistence, types of social relations, processes, specific acts of activity and other “objective values”. In addition, there are “subjective values” - these objects are evaluated, i.e. their social significance is determined in accordance with ideals, principles, goals, concepts, norms, etc. They should be distinguished from “object values” (objects of assessment).

Each political system has its own system and hierarchy of values, objectively determined by the fundamentals of the state’s existence and the interests of society. For example, the basic values ​​of the modern Russian state are political democracy (democracy), the sovereignty of the state, its integrity and security, the rule of law, political and social human rights and freedoms, free labor based on the diversity of ownership of the means of production , pluralism, etc. Millions of Russians recognize many other, traditional values. For example, social justice, conciliarity (collectivism), Orthodox values.

Assessing the effectiveness of public administration in the theoretical aspect is a procedure for comparing the results of certain decisions with criteria that embody officially recognized values, interests, goals and norms. The assessment procedure is at the same time a process of identifying contradictions between the subjective and objective factors of management.

Such contradictions are quite natural: it is impossible (and there is no need) to fully take into account the diversity of objective trends and needs, interests and demands of society in goals and strategies, projects and plans, as well as to provide for the influence of constantly changing situations. Decisions fix a certain distance.

Contradictions between what is and what should be, actual and desired, realized and potential capabilities of the state and society, between achieved results and unrealized opportunities, between used and unclaimed resources, between indicators at the input and output of the management system are determined by the inadequacy of goals and means to the scale of development. nal capabilities and objective needs, as well as the volume of resource reserves.

The correspondence of the results of decisions with the values ​​and goals of the system, social needs, interests and potential opportunities for their satisfaction does not occur spontaneously. It is achieved by increasing the level of functioning of the entire management system, the adequacy of the principles, forms, methods and style of decision-making and implementation to the objective factor and the normative-value basis of management.

Depending on what is recognized as the main sign of effectiveness, three groups of criteria are distinguished: value-rational, goal-rational and pragmatic. The value-rational criterion is the determination of the effectiveness of management based on the compliance of the results of decisions and their consequences with the values ​​​​recognized by the state, expressed in the political strategy.

The goal-oriented criterion is an indicator of management effectiveness as the correspondence of the results of decision execution to the set goals and practical tasks expressed in government programs and plans. The pragmatic criterion is the measurement of management effectiveness according to the “input-output” or “input-result” type.

Along with general efficiency criteria, science and practice use specific ones for each sphere of management: political, social, economic, etc. The content of each of them also includes a general requirement: compliance of the results of management activities with certain state values, goals and norms, management principles and public interests. The specificity is determined by the essential signs of efficiency, manifested only in this type of management.

For example, for political management, this is the level of development of the political activity of the masses and the protection of human rights and freedoms; for social - ensuring an increase in the quality of life, etc. Thus, the general criterion is specified and supplemented by a special one, used to determine the effectiveness of management of individual spheres of public life.

Thus, the theoretically known definition of the effectiveness of management activities as the ratio of “net positive results (the excess of desirable consequences over undesirable ones) and acceptable costs” can successfully “work” when assessing decisions on specific socio-economic issues related to to individual organizations. Such decisions “can be called effective if the best result is achieved for a given time cost of choice”

For example, assessing 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 expenses; 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.

Effective concrete decisions of government organizations are, therefore, optimal. Those that ensure the implementation of generally significant goals, but are not associated with large costs; those that bring significant success to one side, but do not require large losses for the other side.

An optimal solution is a solution that brings significant positive results for all parties (“super-optimal solution”); a solution that ensures the achievement of a combination of conflicting actions, interest groups, the practical elimination of specific sources of conflicts or the settlement of the latter.

In conclusion, let us draw attention to the desire of foreign management theorists and practitioners to constantly emphasize the “critically important component” in the “successful change” of the management organization - ensuring a higher degree of people’s participation in this process at all levels (subjectivistic world).

Modernization of the public administration system is inextricably linked with the determination of optimal parameters that contribute to the formation of public administration as an open, dynamic social system. To form an effective model of public administration, a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between the political system, state power, civil society institutions, socio-economic standards and socio-cultural norms is necessary. In the context of changes in the political and social environment, the problem of establishing an adequate public administration system capable of effectively responding to the challenges of the external environment is becoming more urgent, and the development of a balanced system of indicators and criteria for the effectiveness of public authorities becomes obvious.

There are several theoretical and methodological approaches to determining essence of efficiency. In different fields of activity, the understanding of efficiency has its own characteristics. Thus, in politics, “efficiency” is considered as something positive and desirable, thereby obtaining the meaning of a value characteristic of activity. In relation to the activities of government bodies, this term has become an effective political symbol, capable of organizing public opinion in support of certain proposals. In the most general terms efficiency is understood as: the ability to achieve results; the significance of obtaining a result for those for whom it is intended; the ratio of the significance of this result to the amount of effort spent on achieving it.

In organizational theory and administrative management, efficiency is defined as the ratio of net positive results (the excess of desired consequences over undesirable ones) and acceptable costs. In economics and management studies, there are two approaches to assessing efficiency. The first is related to the assessment of technical efficiency, the second - economic efficiency. Technical efficiency indicators reflect the nature of the activity being assessed: it indicates that “the right things are being done.” Indicators of economic efficiency characterize how the assessed activity is implemented, how productively the expended resources are used, i.e., how “correctly these things are done.” The effectiveness of managerial or administrative work is assessed by determining the relationship between the result obtained and the resources expended.

In studies of the effectiveness of public administration, state bureaucracy and state institutions, several theoretical and methodological approaches can be distinguished that link efficiency with certain factors.

1) Leadership approach. Representatives of this direction link the effectiveness of an organization with leadership skills, management style, individual characteristics and qualities of government leaders, selection systems, assessment of task performance, motivation and professional development of civil servants.

2) An approach developing Weber's theory of rational bureaucracy. From the perspective of this approach, attention is focused on the hierarchical structure, functional specialization, and the presence of clear principles for regulating the professional activities of civil servants, which are considered as necessary prerequisites for the effective functioning of government structures.

3) Approach to performance efficiency, associated with the theory of life cycles, consists of considering the effectiveness of public administration in conjunction with assessing the influence of constantly and cyclically forming coalitions or pressure groups in government bodies. The nature of decision-making in bureaucratic structures and their effectiveness are considered in the context of the life cycles of organizational development.

4) Within the framework of the concept of professionalism effective activity is directly dependent on the professionalization of government bodies, the presence of career (professional) officials, and the level of their professionalism and competence.

5) Economic approach connecting the increase in the efficiency of government bodies with the presence of a mechanism of competition among departments, a system for introducing innovations, as well as political and social accountability of government bodies, primarily to taxpayers.

6) Ecological approach, within which it is emphasized that the results of the bureaucracy depend on the nature of the external environment (ecology of the organization) and the ability of public authorities to manage changes and innovations in order to adapt to these changes.

7) An approach based on the concept of quality management. Within the framework of this approach, the main focus is on creating a system of continuous improvement of processes and public services in government bodies; involving civil servants in this activity, making maximum use of their creative potential and organizing their group work. Quality management is based on the relationship between the potential of public authorities and performance results with constant correlation with strategic goals and the involvement of employees in quality processes, their training, increasing their competence and motivation.

Analysis of theoretical and methodological approaches to determining effectiveness allows us to conclude that, as a rule, economic efficiency and social. The independence of these types of efficiency is, of course, relative, since they are in close unity and interconnection. When analyzing the effectiveness of public administration, of particular importance is social effect. The essence of the social effect is that it must be sustainable, reproducing, progressive, and contain a source for subsequent social development. 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).

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 goals objectively based on their position and role in society. 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;

– 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, and 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 the legal status (and competence) of the body and public position; the legality of decisions and actions of state authorities and local self-government, as well as their officials; reality of control actions.

Efficiency The activities of government bodies are determined not only by the magnitude of the economic effect, but also, first of all, by the socio-political results of the activities of government bodies. To assess the effectiveness of public administration and the activities of public authorities, evaluation technologies and procedures are needed that would be sustainable, objective and allow timely adjustments to the activities of public authorities.

Various theoretical and methodological approaches to determining the essence of efficiency are reflected in conceptual models.

8.2. Conceptual models of efficiency

In control theory there are several efficiency models: system-resource, target, participant satisfaction model, complex model containing contradictions. The general characteristics of efficiency models make it possible to discover a complex complex, the components of which are targets and the external environment, organizational activities and structure, management technologies and methods for assessing efficiency.

System-resource model is based on an analysis of the “organization-environment” relationship. Efficiency in this model is the ability of an organization to exploit its environment to acquire rare and valuable resources in order to maintain its functioning.

From the perspective target model An organization is effective to the extent that it achieves its purpose.

Participant Satisfaction Model relies on individual or group assessments of the quality of the organization’s activities by its members. The organization is viewed as a cooperative incentive-distributive mechanism, designed to obtain returns from its members by providing adequate rewards for their efforts.

Complex model considers efficiency as an integral and structured characteristic of an organization’s activities. It includes assessment of economy, efficiency, productivity, product or service quality, effectiveness, profitability, quality of working life and innovation.

A model containing contradictions assumes that effective organizations do not exist. They can be effective to varying degrees because:

1) face multiple and contradictory restrictions of the surrounding social environment;

2) have multiple and conflicting goals;

3) have multiple and contradictory internal and external sources of assessments;

4) have multiple and conflicting time frames.

In the model proposed by the American sociologist R. Likert, efficiency is considered as a complex interaction of various factors, among which the dominant position is occupied by human and socio-ecological ones. Thus, according to Likert, effectiveness is determined by three groups of factors:

1) intra-organizational - the formal structure of the government, the economic base, the professional and qualification composition of civil servants;

2) intermediate variables - human resources, organizational culture, decision-making methods, level of trust in management, ways of stimulating and motivating activities;

3) resulting variables - growth or decline in labor productivity, degree of satisfaction of consumer demands.

Analysis of various efficiency models allows us to conclude that each of the considered models has its own advantages and, at the same time, limitations.

Various approaches to efficiency are manifested in structured complexes - aspects of organizational effectiveness: functional, structural, organizational, subject-target. Functional aspect includes performance; efficiency; adaptability, i.e. the ability to optimally perform given functions in a certain range of changing conditions; flexibility; efficiency and timeliness of identifying and solving management problems.

Structural aspect efficiency, as a rule, is associated with the effectiveness of goal setting (comparison of normative and implemented goals, comparison of implemented goals and management results, comparison of the results obtained with objective needs); rationality of the organizational structure (distribution of responsibilities and powers, organization of relationships between employees and departments); compliance of the management system and its organizational structure with the management object; management style (legal forms, management methods and procedures); characteristics of officials (general cultural, professional, personal).

Considering organizational and institutional aspect effectiveness, it is important to emphasize that the assessment of effectiveness is derived from what place and what functions the organization performs in the system of interorganizational relations. In this regard, the factors, criteria, and parameters for assessing the effectiveness of public authorities will differ significantly from commercial organizations, since they have different targets and other components of organizational activity.

IN subject-target aspect efficiency, depending on the targets, the subject of assessment and the compared parameters of organizational activity, types of efficiency are distinguished. These include: organizational, economic, technological, social, legal, psychological, political, ethical, environmental.

From the point of view of efficiency, any aspect (side) or characteristic of the activities of public authorities, considered as a social integrity and system, can be assessed.

Efficiency as an integral and structured characteristic of activity, it is not only an indicator, but also a process that needs to be organized and managed.

Performance assessment should be a continuous, total process of assessing the activities of government bodies, structural divisions and civil servants, which has as its content: the choice of a system of performance indicators; development of efficiency standards (standards and procedures); performance measurement; comparison of the actual performance status with the requirements of these standards.

The characteristics of the effectiveness of public authorities are multidimensional and depend on the goals formulated by the subject of assessment. At the same time, when using one or another technology for assessing effectiveness, it is necessary to clearly highlight:

1) the subject of assessment (his position, goals and value guidelines);

2) the object of assessment (it can be the entire management system or its individual element, for example, the scope of activity - process, result or consequences; structural and institutional aspect, personnel);

3) efficiency tools (models, aspects, types and technologies for efficiency assessment).

To evaluate the activities of public authorities, it is necessary to identify specific ones from the general criteria (economy, efficiency and effectiveness). This point is fundamental in preparing for the assessment. Some flexibility is needed in developing evaluation criteria. Efficiency criterion – signs, facets, aspects of the manifestation of management activity, through the analysis of which it is possible to determine the quality of management, its compliance with the needs and interests of society. Performance indicator – this is a specific measure that allows you to compare: the actual activities of authorities/employees with the desired or required ones; activities of the government in different time periods; the activities of various organs in comparison with each other.

Among the main requirements for evaluation criteria are the following:

1) the criteria must lead to the implementation of assessment tasks and cover all identified problems;

2) the criteria must be sufficiently specific so that the assessment can be carried out in practice;

3) the criteria must be supported by appropriate arguments and/or come from authoritative sources. In addition, the criteria used to evaluate the performance of authorities must be consistent with each other, as well as with those criteria that were used in previous assessments.

8.3. Integral indicators for assessing the effectiveness of public administration

In international practice, various integral indicators are used to assess the effectiveness of public administration, which were developed by international organizations.

1) The GRICS (Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot) indicator assesses the effectiveness of public administration in cross-country comparison. The indicator was developed on the basis of several hundred variables and consists of six indices reflecting six dimensions of governance. These parameters were identified on the basis of a general definition, according to which “public administration” is understood as a set of traditions and institutional formations and includes: a) processes of selection, control and replacement of government; b) the government's ability to formulate and implement policies; c) respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern social and economic interaction in society. The assessment was based on a comparison of six indices:

– voice and accountability(Voice and Accountability) - the index includes indicators measuring various aspects of political processes, civil liberties and political rights. Indicators in this category measure the extent to which citizens can participate in choosing their government. For example, an indicator of the degree of independence of the press;

– political stability and absence of violence(Political Stability and Absence of Violence) - the index includes a group of indicators that measure the likelihood of government destabilization and forced resignation as a result of violence (including terrorism and domestic violence). This index reflects the extent to which the quality of public administration can cause the need for drastic changes, a change in political course;

– government efficiency(Government Effectiveness) - the index reflects the quality of public services, the quality of the bureaucracy, the competence of civil servants, the level of independence of the civil service from political pressure, the level of trust in the policies pursued by the government;

– quality of legislation(Regulatory Quality) – the value of this index is related to the policy being pursued. It measures measures that are contrary to a market economy, such as: price level controls, inadequate control of banks, excessive regulation of international trade and business development;

– law supremacy(Rule of Law) - the index measures the level of citizens' trust in the laws of society and commitment to the implementation of these laws. It includes indicators of citizens' attitudes towards crime, the effectiveness and predictability of the legislative system, commitment to the contract system;

– corruption control(Control of Corruption) - the index reflects the perception of corruption in society, taking into account different aspects of the phenomenon, ranging from the frequency of “extra payment for getting the job done” to the impact of corruption on business development, as well as the existence of “big corruption” in high political level and participation of elites in corruption.

It should be noted that today there is no sufficiently clearly formulated development strategy or system for constructing target guidelines in government bodies. In addition, the new positioning of administrative structures occurs in conditions of changes in the entire system of public administration, in conditions of unclear positions of various subjects of management, both at the federal level and at the level of constituent entities of the Russian Federation. In this context, issues related to the creation of a comprehensive model for managing the performance of government bodies, including a system of goal setting, a reasonable choice of priorities, a system for assessing the quality of management and monitoring the results achieved, become of particular importance.

Precisely because the processes of public administration are becoming extremely diverse, variable and intensive, there is a need for the maximum possible structuring from the standpoint of broadly understood “resources” and “results”. This is also associated with the active use of formalized assessments. The performance measurement system is inextricably linked to the planning cycle, in which the scope and effectiveness of the government's activities are planned, achieved and assessed. The performance measurement system encourages the identification of various types of goals for which the authority is responsible, and the determination of the time period during which these goals will be achieved. Commitments to achieve results are captured in performance indicators. In this regard, a system for assessing the professional activities of civil servants, based on a balanced scorecard system, should be associated with the level of achievement of the strategic and operational goals of the body as a whole, and not be tied only to assessing the quality of implementation of individual management procedures and operations.

8.4. Indicators of efficiency and effectiveness of government activities

Performance evaluation based on the balanced scorecard has become a powerful tool for collective analysis in the process of achieving strategic goals. The balanced scorecard allows you to analyze the main strategic problems in several key aspects: financial performance; consumer relations; organization of internal administrative processes; training and development of civil servants.

Performance evaluation based on the balanced scorecard has many advantages:

1) the processes of planning, monitoring and communicating strategic goals and stages of their implementation to employees become more transparent; the presence of both leading indicators characterizing success factors in the future and indicators for the past allows for retrospective analysis;

2) the ability to identify and concentrate efforts on relationships with consumers of services and clients increases due to the presence of indicators of consumer satisfaction and quality indicators;

3) additional opportunities are created to achieve the efficiency of internal administrative processes and determine the conditions for improving the organizational structure and internal processes, professional development of civil servants;

4) the presence of logical and interrelated criteria makes it possible to differentiate the remuneration of employees.

The main advantage of the balanced scorecard is that it allows you to see a clearly expressed cause-and-effect strategic relationship between all key aspects of government activities. When developing performance and efficiency indicators, it is important to observe the relationship between the system of planning, evaluation, remuneration and the orientation of employees towards achieving planned indicators.

The system of indicators of efficiency and effectiveness of the activities of government bodies should include the following groups.

Indicators of immediate results. Reports on the activities of government bodies and structural units already contain a list of certain results. The content of the results of administrative activities is determined both by issues of competence and the nature of the functions that they perform. In this case, the indicator of the immediate result for it will be the number of services in a broad sense, management decisions in the form of legal acts and programs. An indicator of the immediate result can be the number of standardized services, deviation from given standards, and the number of recipients of standardized services.

Final effect indicators. Effect indicators characterize changes in the management object; the nature of the impact of the activity on the target group makes it possible to indicate the final effect of the activities of the executive body. The final effect for the authority is a change (or lack of change) in the state, functioning of the control object, target groups and, as a rule, is associated with achieving the goals of the authority. Indicators that may indicate the achievement of the final social effect are indicators of consumer satisfaction from the service provided or from the activities of the executive body.

Indicators of immediate processes associated with the nature of functioning, administrative processes, and requirements for them. The indicator can be formulated as the proportion of operations or procedures that meet the standards or requirements for the job. In fact, these indicators cannot be completely attributed to outcome indicators, although they are inextricably linked; the quality of administrative processes only to some extent determines the achievement of results. As indicators of direct processes, we can highlight, for example, the share of prepared documents completed on time and without violations, the share of operations carried out in accordance with the regulations (correctly and on time).

The indicators must correspond to the following requirements:

1) correlation – indicators must directly relate to the formulated goals and objectives of the government;

2) clarity and unambiguity, ease of understanding and use – In order to enable data collection and comparison, the indicator must be clearly defined. From the definition of the indicator it should be clear whether an increase in its value indicates an improvement or, conversely, a deterioration in the situation with the provision of this service;

3) comparability – Ideally, indicators should be comparable over time and allow comparisons between authorities;

4) verifiability – indicators must be formulated in such a way that their values ​​(collected and calculated data) can be verified. If possible, they should be accompanied by a description of the statistical methods used in the calculations and the construction of the sample;

5) statistical reliability – indicators must be based on reliable data collection systems, and those using them for management purposes must be able to verify the accuracy of the data and the reliability of the calculation methods used;

6) economic expediency - It is very important to maintain a reasonable balance between the cost of collecting data and the usefulness of that data. Where possible, indicators should be based on existing data and should be linked to existing data collection efforts;

7) sensitivity – indicators must respond quickly to changes. An indicator whose range of variation is too small can have only very limited use;

8) absence of internal “anti-stimuli” – When developing indicators, it is necessary to take into account what kind of behavior they will reward. It is necessary to avoid such indicators that can lead to the formation of counterproductive behavior of employees;

9) flexibility regarding innovation – the system of once defined indicators should not impede innovation or the introduction of alternative methods, systems or processes in order to improve the quality and quantity of services;

10) update speed – the indicator must be based on data that can be obtained in a time that is reasonable given the decisions made on the basis of this indicator, otherwise there is a danger that decisions will be made on the basis of outdated or no longer relevant data.

When introducing a results-based management system, it is important to take into account the risks and limitations; a complex preliminary assessment is required to determine performance indicators, since the establishment of an unreliable, biased and unbalanced system of indicators can entail even more serious consequences than the absence of an assessment system at all. The use of a performance measurement system increases transparency. Transparency in itself is a very valuable quality. Often, due to its absence and the closed nature of the activities of government bodies, bureaucracy develops, attention is paid to unproductive processes, methodological recommendations, and structuring. As a result, it is not entirely clear what relation some types of activities of the authority have to the main process and what the purpose of its existence is. In this case, defining efficiency and effectiveness indicators and meeting targets can lead to increased transparency and be an additional incentive for innovation. The introduction of performance assessment procedures can significantly improve the quality of internal policies and decision-making systems in government bodies.

The performance assessment system is linked to the personnel assessment system and human resource management in government agencies. Using a performance assessment system for “self-learning” and competency management, the government body takes another step towards organizational development. When developing and implementing results-based management elements, an integrated approach is required; it is important to analyze the role of contexts, relationships, remote and variable consequences of the use of innovative technologies, which contributes to a more effective use of results-based management tools in management practice.

EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Problems of public administration efficiency are among those that are the focus of modern science and practice. This is confirmed, in particular, by the encyclopedic work of American scientists and specialists - “The Efficiency of Public Administration” (Marcel Dekkerins. 1992. M. 1998). The work of scientists of the North Caucasus Academy of Public Administration “Problems of the effectiveness of state power and management in modern Russia” is devoted to the analysis of this problem. Rostov n/a. 1998. Vol. 12; “Effective technologies in the system of state and municipal government.” Maykop - Rostov n/a. 1999; Ignatov V.G., Ponedelkov A.V., Starostin A.M. Efficiency of public service // Public service: theory and organization. Rostov n/d.: Phoenix. 1998, etc. Issues of “measuring” efficiency are discussed in the course of lectures by G. Atamanchuk “Theory of Public Administration”. M. 1997. Authors, including foreign ones, emphasize the significant relevance of the problem for modern Russia. One cannot but agree, for example, with the statement of Prof. M. Holzer in the preface to the Russian edition of the work named: “The future of democratic power structures in Russia at all levels largely depends on their ability to ensure, in conditions of severely limited resources, the satisfaction of the most pressing needs of individual citizens and society as a whole.”... Long-term the nature and stability of positive changes is determined by a real increase in productivity... by the fact that government structures that provide various services to the population work more efficiently, by the extent to which any organizations that declare their goal to “serve the interests of the people” actually succeed in obtaining real final results, on the basis of which one can judge whether the goal has been achieved” /1/.

In this chapter it is necessary to clarify the range of issues that make up the content of the problem of the effectiveness of public administration; summarize some of the existing findings in the literature and try to understand issues that have not yet been sufficiently covered.

1. The concept of public administration efficiency, its criteria

The content of the concept of “effectiveness of activity” is generally known - this is the designation of any activity, including management, as productive, efficient, effective. In economic science, the category of economic efficiency and the corresponding criteria for its evaluation have been thoroughly developed. In modern management, the same thing has been done in relation to the management of an organization (company) in conditions of market competition. They can be used in defining the concept of public administration efficiency we are considering. However, there cannot be a complete extrapolation (transfer) of the characteristics of the concepts of economic or managerial efficiency.

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, as noted, 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.

of them reflects the specific features of public administration with a political aspect. “Public goals” are ultimately politically significant goals; “results” - objects, services, processes related to the satisfaction of public needs and interests (expressed in politics); “state resources” - economic, social, political, ideological and information capital, 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 determined 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: the requirements of society (the managed object), which determine the adoption of appropriate decisions, and the support of the managing subject - legitimacy (public trust) and the resources that the state has to implement possible decisions. At the “output”: 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 in application to the analysis of the effectiveness of both the internal management activities of individual state bodies in relation to other bodies, and external ones - in relation to society or its part. In this context, the concepts “partial efficiency” and “full efficiency” are used. The first is characterized by indicators of the effective solution of some problems, individual components of the overall goal; the second - by indicators of successful solution of the entire complex of problems that form the common, final goal of the managing entity. 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 clarifying 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, to improve the 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”. The latter indicates the social significance of certain phenomena (social and natural). The objects of assessment are various results of management activities: means of subsistence, types of social relations, processes, specific acts of activity, etc. They are called “objective values”. Objects are assessed, i.e. 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).

Each political system has its own system and hierarchy of values, objectively determined by the fundamentals of the existence of the state and the interests of society. The value system is the fruit of the collective historical creativity of a given community of people, reflecting the result of the interaction of the political community with the environment, as well as social relationships between its members. The system of values ​​of a particular political union (state) does not cover all their diversity that exists in the social world (for example, moral, aesthetic, scientific, and even political). It is composed of those values ​​that are most significant for the existence and functioning of a political union, which are enshrined in the constitutional foundations of the state system, in the ideology, political principles and goals of the state, embodied in the political strategy, as well as in the principles, concepts and goals of the governing entity.

The basic values ​​of the modern Russian state are political democracy (democracy), the sovereignty of the state, its integrity and security, the rule of law, political and social human rights and freedoms, free labor based on the diversity of ownership of the means of production, pluralism, etc. It is known that Millions of Russians recognize many other, traditional values. For example, social justice, conciliarity (collectivism), Orthodox values.

All of them are included in the criteria for determining the effectiveness of the main directions of state activity, decisions made by the ruling subject. Formulated by the ruling elites and political leaders, tested by historical experience and enshrined in law, basic values ​​acquire a generally valid, objective character in relation to members of society and governing entities. The smaller the gap between officially proclaimed values ​​and the current rules of the “game” of managers, the more effective management is.

The effectiveness criteria are based on the principles of public administration, since they are objectively determined regulatory requirements developed by the practice of social and public administration, and means of regulating the relationship between the goals and results of management activities. The principles express the requirements of objective control laws; their action is associated with the implementation of the functions of the management system and stimulates the initiative and initiative of the controlled masses. Whichever of the previously discussed management principles we take, be it the principle of entropy economy or bounded rationality, the unity of centralization and decentralization of power and management, democracy and legitimacy of decisions, each can act as a criterion for assessing efficiency.

Criteria for the effectiveness of public administration are formed on the basis of a system of subjective values ​​expressed in the ideology of the social-state system, in the strategic goals of the ruling entity - the political course, in the concepts, political guidelines and norms of the management system, behind which there are common national-state interests. Often the interests of the ruling classes or dominant national-ethnic groups are presented as such. The above explains the relativity of the evaluative criteria of effectiveness, their dependence primarily on the type of political system, as well as the specific historical conditions in which it operates. Values, goals, concepts, principles of public administration, the regulatory framework of the management system, and finally, public needs and interests - all these elements of criteria for the effectiveness of public administration are variables determined by the social and state system, the political regime and the specific environment (historical and natural), in which a given political community lives. Together, they constitute a mechanism for responding to the behavior of the state as a community of people to changes in the external environment and its internal state, a system of control over external and internal processes of change. The wider the scope of control, i.e. rational influence, the higher the management efficiency. But control, rational management of society and the environment cannot expand indefinitely. Its limit is the natural self-organization of society. We have already written about this in previous chapters. The ability of a state entity to combine targeted influence on society with the implementation of its ability to self-organize is one of the universal indicators of management effectiveness.

Assessing the effectiveness of public administration in the theoretical aspect is a procedure for comparing the results of certain decisions with criteria that embody officially recognized values, interests, goals and norms. The assessment procedure is at the same time a process of identifying the contradiction between subjective and objective management factors. Such contradictions are quite natural: it is impossible (and there is no need) to fully take into account in goals and strategies, projects and plans the whole variety of objective trends and needs, interests and demands of society, as well as to provide for the influence of constantly changing situations. Decisions fix a certain distance. Between the existing and the should, the actual and the desired, the realized and potential capabilities of the state and society. Contradictions between achieved results and unrealized opportunities, between used and unclaimed resources, between indicators at the input and output of the management system are determined by the inadequacy of goals and means to the scale of real opportunities and objective needs, as well as the volume of resource reserves.

The correspondence of the results of decisions to the values ​​and goals of the system, social needs, interests and potential opportunities for their satisfaction does not occur spontaneously. It is achieved by increasing the level of functioning of the entire management system, the adequacy of the principles, forms, methods and style of decision-making and implementation to the objective factor and the normative-value basis of management.

6. Name the government bodies in modern Russia that you know of that carry out control functions.

7. What are the main problems of implementing state control in our country?

Literature

1. Atamanchuk G.V. Theory of public administration. Lecture course. Ed. 2nd add. - M.: Omega-L, 2004.

2. Vasilenko I.A. State and municipal management: Textbook. – M.: Gardariki, 2005.

3. Glazunova N.I. State (administrative) management: textbook. – M.: TK, Velby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2004.

4. Public administration: fundamentals of theory and organization. Textbook / Under. ed. V.A. Kozbanenko – M.: “Statut”, 2000.

5. Zerkin D.P. Ignatov V.G. Fundamentals of the theory of public administration. Lecture course. – Rostov n/d, 2000.

6. Knyazev S.N. Management: art, science, practice: Textbook / S.N. Knyazev. - Mn.: Armita-Marketing, Management, 2002.

7. Pikulkin A.V. Public administration system: Textbook for universities. – 3rd ed., revised. and additional – M.: UNITY-DANA, 2004.

8. Radchenko A.I. Fundamentals of state and municipal management: a systematic approach. - Rostov n/d, 1997.

9. Chirkin V.E. Public administration. Elementary course.

– M.: Yurist, 2001.

10. Shamkhalov Felix. Fundamentals of the theory of public administration: Textbook for universities / Felix Shamkhalov. – M.: ZAO Publishing House “Economy”, 2003.

CHAPTER 6. EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

6.1 The concept of public administration efficiency

The concept of “operational efficiency” this is the designation of any activity, including management, as productive, efficient, effective. In economic science, the category of economic

effectiveness and corresponding criteria for its evaluation. In modern management, the same thing has been done in relation to the management of an organization (company) in conditions of market competition70.

In the modern theory of organization and management

management system efficiency characterized by the effectiveness of the management system, its autonomy, the degree of organization and self-government, flexibility, adaptability, cohesion of the organization’s team, etc. Efficiency of the management process is understood as the effectiveness of the very process of the subject’s influence on the controlled object.

Considering modern developments of the problem of management effectiveness in management theory, it should also be emphasized that in recent years more and more attention has been paid to a differentiated consideration of effectiveness within different organizational cultures.

Each type of organizational culture determines the criteria for the effectiveness of organizational activities and the style of managerial leadership. To achieve effectiveness in solving management problems, it is necessary to choose models of behavior that are adequate to the dominant culture of the organization. Management activities not only influence the development of the organization's culture, but are also its product. Thus, the analysis of management effectiveness is inextricably linked with the analysis of organizational cultures.

Efficiency research in the field of management theory has had a serious impact on approaches to efficiency in the field of administrative and public management. At least two main approaches or two paradigms have emerged here.

The first proceeds from the fact that public administration is not so radically different from management to develop a special theory of efficiency in this area. A well-known representative of the theory of administrative management, G. Simon, believes, for example, that “... in administrative management and in the management of a private company, many of the same skills are required. A statistician might move from a large insurance company to the Labor Department's statistical office in Washington and find that its functions remain virtually unchanged."71

At the same time, as G. Simon notes, the term “efficiency” is used in different ways and is often unclear and ambiguous. IN

70 Zerkin D.P. Ignatov V.G. Fundamentals of the theory of public administration. Lecture course. – Rostov n/d, 2000. - P. 239.

71 Public service. Textbook / Ed. Prof. V.G. Ignatova. – M.: ICC “MarT”; Rostov n/D: Publishing center “Mart”, 2004. – P. 251-255.

In ordinary conversation, saying that something is “effective” is often tantamount to saying that it is “good” or “desirable.” The term is ambiguous because what is “good” depends on the values ​​we apply, and those values ​​will be almost as numerous as the people who hold them. It is not surprising, then, that in politics many discussions about “efficiency” are really debates about what values ​​government should promote.

IN In those situations where we are willing to separate means and ends, we can define efficiency as maximizing the achievement of our ends through the use of limited neutral means. It is this meaning of the term that is most relevant

To traditional management theory."

IN In Russian literature we also meet followers of a similar point of view. For example, in a work published under the guidance of prof. V.A. Kozbanenko, this is the model of analysis of the effectiveness of government that is practiced. The authors, in particular, note: “Two measurable components of public administration activities can be distinguished: technical efficiency and economic efficiency.Technical efficiency of public administration determined by the degree to which the goals of the activity are achieved, taking into account “social goals”. Economic efficiency of public administration defined as the ratio

the cost of volumes of services provided to the cost of volumes of resources attracted for this purpose72.

Economic efficiency reflects the internal state of affairs in the public administration system, its own activities, and technical efficiency reflects the compliance of public administration with the requirements of the external environment, taking into account the impact it has on the state of society.

In the second paradigm, the effectiveness of public administration is considered within the framework of the theory of political management. In other words, public administration is analyzed not as management in one of the types of systems, but as one of the important aspects of the state system, including along with it the power and regulatory aspects.

Thus, illegitimate political power can hardly be considered effective from this point of view. Even with a well-thought-out organizational and managerial structure, it will face rejection and opposition from a significant part of the population and the counter-elite. The opposite is also true:

72 Public administration: fundamentals of theory and organization. Textbook / Under. ed. V.A. Kozbanenko – M.: “Statut”, 2000. – P. 335.

Legitimate authorities, having encountered significant obstacles, in conditions of crises and hardships, can successfully cope with difficulties, relying on the support and understanding of citizens.

Evaluative and comparative judgments regarding the effectiveness of government are expressed very often, relying, as if for granted, on certain universal human measures of effectiveness.

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, as noted, 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, but represents an element of the management activity of a political subject, which carries a certain political aspect.

Efficiency is determined not so much by traditional objective indicators of the effectiveness of decisions like “input-output” or “cost-result”, but by the relationship between the results and the various resources used to achieve the strategic goals of the political system and the implementation of general state interests. The cost-benefit criterion is used as a conditional indicator of the effectiveness of individual, specific decisions, but the meaning of these terms is interpreted in a broader sense than, say, in economic analysis. An activity can be effective - economical (in terms of minimal costs), but not at all effective in terms of achieving the set socio-political goals. Effective activity as effective in the socio-political aspect is not always economical, much less profitable. Even in the management of a company or enterprise, the concepts of “efficiency”, “economy”, “profitability” are not considered as having one meaning. Moreover, when we are talking about government organizations and their activities, the results and consequences of which are manifested in a wide range of social processes. The foregoing leads us to the conclusion: the concept of the effectiveness of public administration presupposes a definition that reflects the specific essence of it as an activity that is socio-politically expedient and purposeful. In this context, the effectiveness of public administration is a concept that denotes the relationship between results and achieved public goals, results and used

government resources. Effective management- this is an activity with the best possible results to satisfy public needs and interests in the conditions of regulation of resources by the state.

Specific: the content of the concept of “efficiency of public administration” can also be determined through the model

The “input-output” relationship characterizing the activities of the political system as a whole and the management subsystem as its part. At the “input” of the system are the requirements of society (the managed object), which determine the adoption of appropriate decisions, and the support of the managing subject - legitimacy (public trust) and the resources that the state has to implement possible decisions. At the “output”: a real change in the object as a consequence of the decisions made and the achievement of the goals of the managing subject (system).

Concepts used:"partial effectiveness" and "full effectiveness". The first is characterized by indicators of the effective solution of some problems, individual components of the overall goal; the second - by indicators of successful solution of the entire complex of problems that form the common, final goal of the managing entity. For the public administration system as a whole, the concept under consideration is interpreted primarily as “full efficiency” 73 .

The most developed set of problems should be considered to be the issues of increasing the efficiency of the executive branch of government. It is to this level that the main developments in the field of “public administration” in the West and in Russia appeal. This is where the greatest clarity has been achieved in terms of improving management efficiency. It is associated, first of all, with the use of the main categories of administrative management and the search for optimal combinations in the interaction of its main components: organizational and functional alignment, organization of a system for preparing diverse decisions and monitoring their implementation; alignment of communication processes; rational specialization and work with personnel; debugging mechanisms for evaluating results and responsibility; systems for promoting leaders and ensuring their interaction with subordinates.

In relation to Russian conditions, only now are several rational versions of systematizing the actions of all these components within the framework of the national administrative system being built. We are talking about carrying out the planned by the President of the Russian Federation and entrusted to the Government of the Russian Federation