The contribution of Russian scientists to the development of management thought in the 20th century (A. A. Bogdanov, A. K. Gastev, P. M. Kerzhentsev, S. Kondratyev, L. V. Kantarovich, V. V. Novozhilov, D. M. Gvishiani , A.I. Prigozhin, etc.).

The domestic school of management and its representatives also made a significant contribution to the development of global management thought. The Russian management model (see special article), based on communal, artel and monastic management methods, has shown its economic viability over the centuries, allowing Russia to play the role of a great power on the world stage. In industrial terms, Russia was one of the most developed countries in the world, and therefore management science here developed at the same pace as in Western countries. It is significant that Russian specialists developed the conceptual and applied foundations of “Taylorism” much earlier than F. Taylor did. In 1860-1870 Scientists at the Moscow Higher Technical School developed an original method for rationalizing labor movements, which was introduced in 1873. awarded a special medal at the World Trade Fair in Vienna. The technique was in demand and was actively used in English industry. At the beginning of the twentieth century. At the St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute, a course was taught on “Organization of Factory Management.” In the early 1920s, research in the field of management was resumed, and as a result, “the basic laws of the scientific organization of production and NOT” were formulated. The center of the national school of scientific organization of labor became the Central Institute of Labor, headed by the talented scientist and enthusiast A.K. Gastev. Domestic scientists, unlike Western ones, studied not only technology and the labor process, but also the worker, considering him a creative subject. Research has identified two main groups of management concepts: organizational-technical and social. The first included the concepts of “organizational management” by A.A. Bogdanov, “physiological optimum” by O.A. Ermansky, “narrow base” by A.K. Gastev, and “production interpretation” by E.F. Rozmirovich. The second group includes the concept of “organizational activity” by P.M. Kerzhentsev, the “social-labor concept of production management” by N.A. Vitke, and the “theory of administrative capacity” by F.R. Dunaevsky. One of the main developments of the Central Institute of Labor was the concept of labor attitudes, containing elements of ergonomics, engineering psychology, workplace organization, theory of labor movements, and self-organization of the labor process. CIT recommendations in the form of posters were distributed among production teams and hung in prominent places.

Synthesizing many areas of scientific research, D.M. Gvishiani identified five schools of management in the evolution of management thought.

12. State Duma of the Federal Assembly

The State Duma (the abbreviation State Duma is also used in the media) is the lower house of the Federal Assembly. Legal status The State Duma is defined in the fifth chapter of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The State Duma consists of 450 deputies. A citizen of the Russian Federation who has reached the age of 21 and has the right to participate in elections can be elected as a deputy of the State Duma (and the same person cannot be simultaneously a deputy of the State Duma and a member of the Federation Council). A deputy of the State Duma of the first convocation could simultaneously be a member of the Government of the Russian Federation (according to the transitional provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

From 2007 to 2011, deputies of the State Duma were elected using a proportional system (based on party lists). The pass barrier was 7%. From 2016, the barrier will again be 5%.

The First State Duma was elected together with the Federation Council on the day of the popular vote on the Constitution on December 12, 1993 for a period of two years (according to the transitional provisions of the adopted Constitution). The term of office of the 2nd - 5th convocation of the State Duma is four years. Starting from the 6th convocation, deputies are elected for a period of five years. Elections to the State Duma were held in 1993, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011. The work of the Duma is headed by the Chairman of the Duma and his deputies . Formation order State Duma - elections. However, the Constitution of the Russian Federation does not establish what kind of elections should be - direct or indirect, open or secret, nor does it determine the electoral system to be used. The procedure for electing deputies of the State Duma is established by the federal laws “On the election of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”, “On the basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in a referendum of citizens of the Russian Federation” and a number of other federal laws. The Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 103) defines the following powers of the State Duma and gives the right to make decisions on them: 1) giving consent to the President of the Russian Federation to appoint the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation; 2) hearing annual reports of the Government of the Russian Federation on the results of its activities, including on issues raised by the State Duma; 3) resolving the issue of confidence in the Government of the Russian Federation;

4) appointment and dismissal of the chairman of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation; 5) appointment and dismissal of the chairman of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation and half of its auditors; 6) appointment and dismissal of a human rights ombudsman acting in accordance with federal constitutional law; 7)announcement of amnesty; 8) bringing charges against the President of the Russian Federation for his removal from office.

Public administration is the rule-making, organizing, executive and distributive activities of state bodies vested with relevant state powers, carried out on the basis of laws. - organizing - determining the organizational structure of government bodies - executive - execution of powers - distributive - budget formation The main scientific schools that study the public administration system. Two main schools of the mid-20th century: the classical school (White, Taylor) and the school of human relations (Maslow, Mayo). Classical school. Its representatives argued that public administration should focus on achieving its goals using minimal costs with maximum effect. To achieve this, the public administration process must be formalized as much as possible. White formalization should be achieved by building a rational organizational management structure. o Hierarchy o Clear sequence of functions performed Fayol identified 14 principles of management: division of labor, discipline, unity of management, personnel remuneration, centralization, hierarchy, initiative, unity, justice. School of Human Relations. Originated within the framework of the sociology of labor, it focuses on the conditions for the effective performance of personnel. Mayo believed that social, psychological, moral and informal factors should be taken into account in relation to personnel. (There are always formal and informal leaders, the task is to establish relationships between them). Maslow proposed using techniques for managing human relationships: creating a favorable psychological climate in a team, opportunities for self-realization.

New concepts of public administration:

1. Managerial theory - Public administration should become a combination of 3 components: - orientation of civil servants to results and efficiency, - application of modern management technologies, - consideration of civil servants as managers, including through labor contracts.

Public administration needs:

1. performance indicators of the city district
2. Orientation g.o. to provide services to citizens.
3. Contractual basis for the activities of civil servants
4. Outsourcing is the transfer of government functions to private organizations.
5. State orientation client's organ.

2. Public choice theory - government agencies must act to achieve the goals of citizens.

3. The concept of “effective management” - appeared in the mid-90s. 20th century as part of the Third World development program:

1. The principle of separation of powers
2. The principle of democracy
3. Principles of election and turnover of personnel
4. The principle of government accountability
5. Law supremacy
6. Political pluralism
7. Media independence

4. The concept of political networks. Representatives: Marsh, Zatcher. The main idea of ​​public administration is customer orientation, the operation of service logic. For this purpose, a special network is being created - a set of agencies and private firms that provide public services to citizens and organizations on the basis of contractual relationships.

Features of the network model:

1. Informal nature of relationships between network participants
2. Self-organization of networks
3. No strict vertical or horizontal integration
4. Minimal rigidity on the part of the leadership center

5. The theory of e-government is based on three types of communication: 1. Interaction between government bodies (electronic document management, reduction of paperwork, etc.) 2. Interaction between government bodies. authorities and business (electronic auctions, platforms, etc.) 3. Interaction between government bodies. authorities and citizens (provision of public services) The concept of e-government arose as a result of administrative reform in the context of the development of the information society.

As part of the reform, the purpose of the state changed. It began to be seen as a provider of services to citizens and businesses. Prospects for the development of e-government:

1. Reducing costs for providing services (mainly for data processing)
2. Increasing the accountability of government bodies. authorities (transparency of activities)
3. Improving the quality of government services. services Methodology.

Methodology of public administration The following methodological approaches are distinguished:

1. Institutional Representatives North and Smelser. From the perspective of this approach, the state can function only if there are institutions whose interaction satisfies the needs of the citizens of the state. (for example, army, family, education).

2. Functional Representatives Easton, Almond, Parsons. The state is a set of functional spheres (economic, social, political, spiritual) that ensure the integrity and reproduction of society. The main attention is paid to the factors ensuring the stability of the public administration system. In particular, Parsons identified two principles on the basis of which it is built: the principles of distribution and integration.

3. Organizational Representatives – Maslow and Likert. Attention is paid to institutions regulating functional areas and institutions. Specialists within this approach pay attention to building the features inherent in the organization: - adaptability (adapt to changing goals of the state) - members of the organization must cooperate both among themselves and outside (building not only vertical, but also horizontal connections. Predominantly liberal style board) - the need for the participation of members of the organization in setting goals and making decisions, i.e. inclusion of a behavioral approach.

Currently, several historically established schools and directions are distinguished in the theory of public administration. The leading ones among them are American, English, French and German.

American school has a general empirical (i.e. experimental) focus on its research; many of its outstanding representatives were not only theorists, but also practitioners. In the 20-30s, representatives of the “school of human relations” movement tried to explain the functioning of administrative services through an analysis of the behavior of individuals and groups working in them. The most famous scientists of this direction in the USA in the 20-50s were Mary Parker Follett, E. Mayo, A. Maslow.

A. Maslow developed a hierarchy of needs, according to which the motives for people’s actions are mainly not economic needs (as the “classics” believed), but social, egoistic needs, allowing the realization of creative opportunities that can only be partially and indirectly satisfied with the help of money. Based on these findings, A. Maslow recommended using techniques for managing human relations, including creating a favorable psychological climate in the team, consulting with employees and providing them with greater opportunities to realize their creative potential at work.

In the 50s, a behavioral approach emerged in the United States, based on the desire to reveal human capabilities in the management process. Within the framework of the approach, McGregor's Theory X and Y was developed. Theory X states that the average person does not like to work and avoids work whenever possible. Theory Y states that it is as natural for a person to expend mental and physical energy on work as it is to relax or play. This means that a person can be encouraged to work if he is given the opportunity to fully open up, take responsibility, and feel his importance for the organization. McGregor worked on Theory Z, in which he tried to combine the needs and aspirations of the corporation and the individual.

At an English school Economists viewed public administration as a sphere of rational human activity. The English political scientist B. Barry developed the concept of an “economic type” of state power exercised through threats and promises. B. Barry considers power relations in society in terms of gains and losses. He believes that power relations exist only when one party benefits from maintaining them more than the other, having the ability to achieve obedience from the latter at the cost of minimal losses. The English philosopher M. Oakeshott in the 50-60s developed two concepts of public administration: targeted and civil. In his opinion, these types are not found anywhere in their pure form, since they represent ideal theoretical constructions. M. Oakeshott proposes the idea of ​​targeted public administration, where a person’s value is determined by his contribution to the “common cause,” which means the subordination of individuality to corporatism. Recently, new approaches and directions have appeared in the English school. According to P. Checkland, the only way to study integrity is to look at it from as many points of view as possible.

At a French school state Henri Fayol is considered a management classic; his “theory of administration” is outlined in the book “General and Industrial Management”. A. Fayol gave a classic definition of scientific management: “To manage means to foresee, organize, manage, coordinate and control; to foresee, that is, to take into account the future and develop a program of action; organize, that is, build a double - material and social - organism of the institution; command, that is, force personnel to work properly; coordinate, that is, connect, unite, harmonize all actions and all efforts; to control, that is, to ensure that everything is done in accordance with established rules and given orders.” A. Fayol formulated 14 general principles of management. These are division of labor, power, discipline, unity of routine, unity of leadership, subordination of private interests to general interests, staff remuneration, centralization, hierarchy, order, justice, constancy of staff, initiative, unity of staff. The rules formulated by Fayol were generally accepted for several decades. Alain, in his work “Elements of the Doctrine of the Radicals,” provides an analysis of the system of administrative and public administration in France. Alain emphasizes that in a modern state, true power is not exercised by politicians, but by high-ranking officials from the administrative apparatus.

German school Public Administration is the most influential among European schools. V. Weber believed that those who rule are entrusted with the task of creating an administrative elite, which must be legitimized (recognized) by the people and public opinion. Erhard's concept is associated with increasing the social role of public administration. It proclaimed the subordination of all groups of the population to the common good, strengthening the role of the government, and the reconciliation of all classes with the existing social system. The theory of social conflict developed by R. Dahrendorf is widely used in the theory of public administration. He proposed ways to regulate conflicts at various levels of government. methods and techniques for preventing conflict situations, stages of conflict, managing conflict processes. These are, in general, the main achievements of the German school of public administration.

1. Public administration system

1. Content of the concept of “public administration”. Public administration and management

Management is a function of biological, social, technical, organizational systems, which ensures the preservation of their structure and supports a certain mode of activity. There are 3 classes of control: in inanimate nature (control in a technical system); in organisms (control in biological systems); in society (social management). Management is always impact. The source of control influence is a person. Controlling influence is a practical activity, specific work, the implementation of an influence of an administrative-legal nature aimed at the execution of laws, the creation of legal acts. The control action contains: the moment of goal setting (choosing a goal for the ideal state of resources, etc.); organizational moment (the number of people to achieve a certain goal); regulation of the conduct of participants in the management process. State Management is a type of social management. The essence of social management lies in the purposeful organizing influence on a group of people to ensure the material and spiritual conditions of their life. State control is the purposeful influence of state bodies, its institutions and employees on various spheres of social life and the behavior of individuals and groups. The basis of state management is the possession of state power.

Properties of public administration:

1. In public administration, its control actions are based on state power, reinforced and ensured by it.

2. Extends to the entire society, to every sphere of activity of society, even beyond its borders, to other human societies within the framework of the international policy pursued by the state.

3. Objectively, systematically, organized.

The subject of the State Administration is not the apparatus, but the state, as a political and legal organization of society, the totality of all citizens and other residents of the country.

Management is the professional management of an enterprise under market conditions in any area of ​​economic activity, aimed at making a profit through the rational use of resources.

2. Development of the science of public administration. Main scientific schools studying public administration

The scientific school of management is represented by F.U. Taylor (1856-1915). In 1903, he published the book “Workshop Management.” In 1911 the book “Principles and Methods of Scientific Management” was published. The main provisions of the theory are: - creation of a scientific foundation in the science of management; selection of workers based on scientific criteria, their training and education; cooperation between the administration and workers in the practical implementation of scientifically developed labor organization; equal distribution of labor and responsibility between the administration and workers.

The classical school of management is represented by Henri Fayol (1841-1925); this scientific direction was based on the scientific development of principles for organizing administrative activities. He considered control as a universal process consisting of several interrelated functions. Henry Ford, Weber.

School of Human Relations Mary Parquet Follett (1868-1933) and Elton Mayo.. A distinctive feature of the school is the shift in focus from completing tasks to relationships between people.

Remis Likert School of Behavioral Sciences. Herzberg, McGregor. The objects of these studies were social interaction, motivation to work, the nature of power and authority, organizational structure, leadership. The main criterion is to increase the efficiency of the organization's activities by increasing the efficiency of human resources.

Russell Acuff School of Quantitative Management. The main direction of this school is the desire to introduce control methods and apparatus of the exact sciences into science. It arose with the emergence of cybernetics.

The following approaches to the development of public administration science are distinguished: processual- is considered as a set of processes for performing basic functions: planning, organization, coordination, regulation, control; systemic approach – any subjects and objects of control are considered as a system; situational approach– This is a probabilistic approach, depending on chance, circumstances and situations.

Case stage method a type of situational approach, an American method aimed at developing the depth and speed of thinking when making management decisions.

Modern paradigms and concepts:

1) strengthening statehood and maintaining the unity of the Russian Federation; 2) strengthening the federal government: the vertical of executive government power; 3) increasing the role and efficiency of the activities of the Government of the Russian Federation in state regulation of the economy, taxation and other areas; 4) improvement of public administration in connection with the reform of municipal self-government; 5) increasing the living standards of the population of the Russian Federation as the main goal of implementing state policy; 6) the fight against corruption in government bodies and management; 7) state management of the creation of a viable union of CIS countries.

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution

higher professional education

"Moscow State University of Economics, Statistics and Informatics (MESI)"

Minsk branch

Department of Economics

Test

Scientific schools studying public administration

Duboyskaya (Andrievskaya) A.A.

public administrative office school

Introduction

American School of Government

Theory of administrative and public administration in Great Britain

French School of Administrative and Public Administration

Theory of administrative and public administration in Germany

Conclusion

Introduction

Society is a complexly organized and multi-level entity. In order to fully satisfy the interests of its members and have opportunities for development, it must develop a regime of self-regulation and adaptation to the external environment. Developing such an ability means ordering elements, processes, institutions within a single system, the form of which is designed to make this ability the main condition for such self-regulation.

The condition for the formation and functioning of such a system is social production, the main goal of which should be the fullest possible satisfaction of people's needs, which is possible only with the correct and effective organization of this society, taking into account the basic values ​​formed in it. The basis of this organization is a set of social systems formed around functionally significant spheres of public life: economics, politics, religion, morality, science, culture, etc. The main coordinator of this process can be the state, responsible for achieving specific results obtained during the functioning of these systems .

Managing a social system means the ability of a subject to make its dynamics predictable and directable. Therefore, scientific management should proceed from the analysis of the controlled object and the identification of factors that determine the mode of its internal self-regulation and resistance to external influences.

Any control system has both a subjective and an object nature and can only be considered taking into account multi-level interactions with the environment. There is a subject that determines the nature of managerial influence. And there is an object in relation to which this influence is carried out. The specificity of public administration lies in the fact that the subject of this administration is a specially authorized representative apparatus that carries out its functions exclusively on a professional basis.

At the same time, in the field of public administration, the following ways of influencing a subject on an object can be distinguished: constant and episodic, forceful and soft, radical and gradual, direct and indirect.

Currently, in the theory of administrative and public administration, several historically established schools and directions are distinguished. The leading ones among them are American, English, French and German.

1. American School of Government

Already at the initial stages of the development of the American school of public administration, many of its outstanding representatives were not only theorists, but also practitioners. Professor L. White, who is rightfully considered one of the founders of the classical school in the American school, carried out extensive practical activity as a member of the Civil Service Commission. His fundamental theoretical work "Introduction to the Science of Public Administration" of 1926 is in many ways a generalization of the practice of public administration in the United States.

L. White believed that scientists should focus on studying the administrative-state institutions themselves in order to optimize their functioning and development. He paid the main attention in his works to the development of a rational structure of public administration as a hierarchical organization. At the same time, L. White considered public administration as a universal process consisting of several interrelated functions. He considered planning and organization to be the main functions among them.

However, the classical school in administrative and public administration underestimated the influence of the human factor on the development of the management process. Therefore, the achievements of social psychology and sociology in the 20-30s largely called into question the universality of classical principles that claim to be universal. Representatives of the human relations movement (or "human relations school") attempted to explain the actual functioning of administrative services through an analysis of the behavior of the individuals and groups working in them. The most famous scientists of this direction in the USA in the 20-50s were Mary Parker Follett, Elton Mayo, Abraham Maslow. It was Miss Follett who was the first to define scientific management as "the bringing about of work through the assistance of others." She noted that clearly developed administrative structures and good wages for employees did not always lead to increased productivity, as the proponents of the classical movement claimed. The forces that arose between employees during work sometimes exceeded the efforts of managers to turn the management process in the right direction.

Research conducted by A. Maslow has largely made it possible to understand the reasons for this phenomenon. He developed a hierarchy of needs, which was included in all textbooks on scientific management. In accordance with his concept, the motives for people’s actions are mainly not economic needs (as the “classics” believed), but social, egoistic needs, allowing the realization of creative opportunities that can only be partially and indirectly satisfied with the help of money. Based on these findings, A. Maslow recommended using techniques for managing human relations, including creating a favorable psychological climate in the team, consulting with employees and providing them with greater opportunities to realize their creative potential at work.

In the 50s, a new direction in the theory of administrative and public administration emerged in the United States - the behavioral approach. In contrast to the school of human relations, which focused on methods for establishing interpersonal relationships, the new approach was based on the desire to better reveal human capabilities in the management process, applying the concepts of behavioral sciences to public administration.

Discussions around the behavioral approach have continued throughout the history of "public administration" in the United States. During this time, the approach itself changed a lot and even the name was modified: from behaviorism it turned into behaviorism. The methodological significance of the behavioral approach did not lie in these or those specific conclusions or proposals, but in the general orientation toward transforming the theory of administrative and public administration into an “exact” science. Initially, the formulation of the “accuracy” criterion was borrowed from the psychological concept of behaviorism (created by J. Watson).

G. Simon introduced the concept of “solution” and developed the possibilities of its use both in purely theoretical and empirical terms. Currently, the “decision making” paradigm is recognized as the most general concept in the study of management processes in the theory of administrative and public administration.

D. Truman proposed the concept of "interest group", which is used for analytical purposes in public administration. These are groups “with common values ​​and attitudes that put forward their demands through state institutions or, on the contrary, make demands on the latter.”

D. Easton systematized the basic ideas of behavioralism, relying on the works of R. Dahl, C. Heinemann, D. Waldo, D. Truman. He proposed eight basic principles of behavioral methodology. In relation to the theory of administrative and public administration, they can be reduced to the following. These are patterns, verification, methodology, quantitative methods, values, systematicity, pure science, integration.

The most interesting management concepts developed within the behavioral approach are D. McGregor's theories X and Y and F. Herzberg's theory of motivational hygiene.

D. McGregor believed that management strategy is based on how the manager imagines his role in relation to ordinary employees.

Theory X is called "static control strategy." Its main postulates are as follows:

the average employee, by nature, does not like to work and, if possible, seeks to avoid work;

Because of their inherent dislike for work, most employees must be coerced, controlled, directed, or threatened with punishment to work hard to achieve organizational goals;

The average employee prefers to be directed, tends to avoid responsibility, is relatively unambitious, and prioritizes his own safety.

D. McGregor believed that these provisions contained a large amount of truth, but they should not be exaggerated, and suggested agreeing with them only if there was reliable evidence of their validity in each individual case. However, he considered Theory Y to be a more flexible and effective management concept, which was called the “dynamic management strategy.”

Here are its main provisions:

the expenditure of physical and mental effort in the process of work is as natural as in games or on vacation;

external control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for orienting people's efforts to achieve the goals of the organization. The employee is capable and will control himself if he strives for the goals in which he is interested;

the efforts made by an employee to achieve the goals set for him are proportional to the expected reward for their implementation;

the average employee, with appropriate training and conditions, not only accepts responsibility, but also strives for it;

the ability to clearly demonstrate creative imagination, ingenuity and a creative approach to solving organizational problems is characteristic of a wide rather than a narrow circle of people;

The intellectual abilities of the average official are far from being fully used in the management system.

D. McGregor understood that the premises of Theory Y are easy to accept, but difficult to implement. He also emphasized that Theory Y is only a set of hypotheses and not ultimate truths. It is much easier to apply to middle and senior management personnel than to ordinary employees, since managers, by virtue of their position, are required to make decisions.

F. Herzberg's concept of management is also based on the study of the motives of people's behavior in the management process. F. Herzberg carried out a series of studies suggesting that work that brings satisfaction to an employee contributes to his mental health. His concept is called motivational hygiene. Hygiene, as you know, is the science of maintaining health, but in this case, a healthy psyche and good mood in the process of work.

F. Herzberg divided all factors affecting the motives of work behavior into two groups: those that promote and those that hinder job satisfaction. The first group included: labor success; recognition of merit; the labor process itself; degree of responsibility; career growth; professional growth. According to Herzberg's theory, the presence of any of these factors (or all of them) enhances the positive motives of employee work behavior, since it increases the degree of job satisfaction.

F. Herzberg associated factors that impede employee satisfaction with work with the socio-psychological climate in the organization. If any of them turns out to be inadequate, this causes dissatisfaction in the employee and weakens the positive motives of his work behavior, increasing job dissatisfaction. If these factors are adequate, they will actively motivate the employee.

The analyzed concepts indicate a shift in the perspective of the study of administrative and public administration towards the study of the socio-psychological relationships of individuals in the management process, which led to the widespread use by representatives of behavioralism of the principles of microsociology (sociometry). The essence of these principles is to find a correspondence between the microstructure of the group (or psychological relationships between individuals) and the microstructure of society.

However, it gradually became clear that the principles of sociometry give a positive effect only in experiments conducted on small groups, and turn out to be completely unsuitable in relation to society as a whole. The nature of political and managerial relations in society is determined not by the psychological world of individuals, but on the contrary, social relations themselves are decisive in relation to the socio-psychological structure of the individual.

Supporters of behavioralism, carried away by criticism of the institutional-legal method and emphasizing its inability to identify and measure the factors that create deviations in people's behavior in the management process, themselves found themselves in a vulnerable position. Attaching primary importance to the study of various types of data on problems of minor social importance (for example, the study of signs of an authoritarian personality), they left aside the cardinal problems of administrative and public administration.

All these circumstances contributed to the development of a critical attitude towards traditional behavioralism and led to the emergence of new trends in public administration after the Second World War - “post-behavioralism”, “modernism” and “structural functionalism”.

According to post-behaviouralists, the main task of the theory of administrative-public administration is not so much to describe and analyze the management process, but to interpret it in a broader sense - from the point of view of current socio-political values.

M. Falco notes that post-behaviouralists from the very beginning advocated “applicability” and “action”, believing that these categories are of primary importance, and the means and methods of conducting research are of secondary importance. They stated that the theory of public administration has never been a neutral science in its conclusions and therefore, in order to understand the boundaries of the study, it is necessary to clearly understand the value criteria that underlie it.

D. Easton outlined the main ideas of post-behavioralism in his book “The Political System”. He believed that it is more important for a scientist to understand the attitude to the problem and its meaning than to perfectly master the research technique. Therefore, it is necessary to overcome the ideology of "empirical conservatism" of traditional behavioralism: one should not "become tied exclusively to the description of analysis and facts - this leads to a limitation of understanding of these facts in a broader context." He called on scholars to research and constructively develop democratic values. In his opinion, a scientist should bear special responsibility for the application of his knowledge."

In the theory of administrative and public administration, these ideas found expression in the requirement to expand the responsibility of “intellectuals” - experts whose role is to protect the existing values ​​of civilization and put their knowledge into practice. In other words, postbehavioralism is a kind of combination of positivist and value-ideological approaches to the study of problems of public administration.

Representatives of the modernist movement offer a slightly different approach to the study of administrative and state activities. Without completely rejecting the ideas of behavioralism, they at the same time strive to overcome the extremes and shortcomings of this method. In particular, modernists propose to supplement it with an institutional approach, i.e. pay primary attention to the study of administrative-state institutions themselves.

Modernists widely use theoretical and empirical methods of cybernetics, physics and mathematics. Various sections of mathematical statistics, and primarily factor analysis, various types of simulation models, content analysis method, verbal abstract models, game theory - these are the main methodological tools of the modernist trend.

However, the main drawback of the methodology of modernism is not that it relies on the means of natural and exact sciences, but that it overly absolutizes these means, thereby formalizing the scientific analysis of public administration.

Since the mid-50s, the structural-functional method has become popular in the theory of administrative and public administration, which was greatly facilitated by the work of D. Easton, G. Almond, T. Parsons. Considering public administration in terms of structural and functional analysis, American political scientists have focused on factors that promote or hinder the integration and stability of the existing system of administrative and public administration. Commitment to the idea of ​​social stability is gradually becoming a defining feature of the American school of administrative and public administration.

According to Parsons, structural-functional analysis in public administration is associated with two principles: distribution and integration. Distribution focuses on means and inevitably leads to conflict. Integration focuses on goals and the interconnection of goals, which creates stability in administrative and public administration.

Staffing is a process that involves establishing rules for handling funds and developing systems to allow people to move from one position to another. This refers to the training, selection and appointment of civil servants. Education is only the first phase in the distribution of personnel in the management process.

There are several principles by which personnel distribution can be carried out. T. Parsons identifies four: universalism, particularism, the method of achievement and the method of prescription. The principle of universalism assumes that people will be judged according to standards that apply to everyone (eg education, professional qualifications, length of service, etc.). The principle of particularism, on the contrary, involves judging people according to specific group standards. In this case, group standards can mean professional achievements (method of achievement) or certain prescriptions - social origin, political loyalty, nationality, etc. (prescription method).

The third type of distribution in the administrative and public administration system is awards. Parsons has in mind a special type of reward - symbolic elements of prestige. Every activity and every role in administrative and public administration is assessed in terms of prestige. For this reason, Parsons believed that prestige was "distributed."

The relationship of "rewards" to the distribution of means of production and personnel forms the core of the theory of integration from the point of view of structural-functional analysis. There are two aspects to the relationship between integration and distribution in public administration. First, how well funds are allocated in the management process. Secondly, what is the coordination between the various distribution processes. For example, if in the first case the question may be about how well civil servants are trained, then in the second - how much the existing training system provides specialists with the necessary knowledge.

The famous American political scientist R. Merton formulated three universal postulates of the functional approach:

functional unity of the system (consistency of functioning of all its parts);

universal functionalism (functionality - utility);

functional need.

In the early 70s, when the crisis events of the previous decade called into question the idea of ​​​​an equilibrium state of society, structural functionalism began to sharply lose intellectual credit. However, in the early 80s, the newly achieved state of relative stability and the strengthening of the stabilization orientation in the theory of politics and the theory of administrative and public administration stimulated a new appeal to the functional approach.

In recent decades, the concept of organizational development has attracted great interest in the United States. Its origins can be found in developments devoted to the training and advanced training of management personnel. In its theoretical premises, it borrows a lot from the works of A. Maslow, M. McGregor, R. Likert. Until now, there is no generally accepted definition of the concept of “organizational development” in the American school. However, it can be said that the initial premise of this concept is the statement about the increasing speed and complexity of the nature of changes in the social environment.

Organizational development specialists imagine the ideal structure of administrative and public management, built on the model of a living organism.

In their opinion, such an organization should have the following features:

it must adapt to new goals of public administration in accordance with the requirements of a rapidly changing socio-political environment;

members of administrative and public administration institutions must cooperate and manage changes, preventing their destructive impact on the entire system of administrative and public administration;

in developing institutions of public administration, the participation of each level in goal setting and decision making is the rule, so that civil servants feel involved in planning and managing change;

developing institutions of administrative and public administration must have favorable opportunities for self-realization of their members; this requires free communication (open communications) and high mutual trust of civil servants, which should contribute to the constructive resolution of all contradictions.

Consequently, the goal of organizational development is to increase the efficiency of the public administration system. This is ensured, among other things, by the ability of administrative structures to quickly and timely adapt to changes in socio-political and economic development, to changes in the structure and methods of the management system itself. The tool for achieving this goal is changes in the behavior of professional civil servants, consciously introduced through a targeted influence on the system of value orientations of people, their interpersonal and intergroup interactions. Organizational development specialists also pin their hopes on training civil servants in the latest management techniques. Great importance is attached to creating conditions for more intensive use of human potential on the basis of various methods of behavioral sciences.

2. Theory of administrative and public administration in Great Britain

The study of public administration in the system of English academic social science began at the end of the last century, when the London School of Economics and Political Science was founded at the University of London. This school, and later Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester, Liverpool and other universities until the Second World War, concentrated the teaching and study of government, political institutions, civil service, English constitutional and administrative law. These disciplines were taught in departments of the same name or departments of political science.

Until the early 1930s, scientific research was reduced, as a rule, to a formal legal description of state legal institutions, since the institutional approach to the study of administrative and public administration dominated. The most famous scientists during this period were E. Barker, D. Cole, G. Lasky, C. Manning, W. Robson, G. Feiner and others.

In the English school of administrative and public administration, behavioral methods of studying public administration are beginning to dominate. From the very beginning, within the framework of behavioral methodology, two main trends emerged - sociological and economic, the sources of which were two different understandings of the nature of human behavior.

The largest representatives of the sociological trend were E. Birch, I. Berlin, W. Reese, R. Rose. According to I. Berlin, the main thing in the philosophy of public administration is “obedience and violence”, therefore scientists have no right to bypass the issue of justifying power and subordinating it

R. Rose considers the presence or absence of consensus regarding the authority of the state in society to be the main issue of any political system. The authority of state power can be measured, on the one hand, by the degree of its support by citizens, and on the other, by the extent to which the latter obey its laws.

W. Rees identifies three main meanings of the term “state” in the Anglo-Saxon political science tradition: “a politically organized and territorially limited society”, “a politically organized society in accordance with moral ideals”, “government as an institution”. The latter meaning, emphasizes W. Rees, is much more common these days.

E. Birch's works examine three concepts of responsibility in public administration: responsibility to public opinion, the implementation of thoughtful public policy based on a comprehensive analysis of problems; responsibility to parliament. In his opinion, English political culture puts forward the second type of responsibility as its main virtue, when the government even goes to the extent of losing popularity in order to implement the course that seems most appropriate to it. E. Birch believes that the English state system provides an opportunity to influence public opinion: the government can and should find a compromise with leading groups in society, educate the public so that it understands the motives driving government activities.

In recent decades, the problem of the stability of state institutions has become central to the works of sociological scientists. Most English political scientists are looking for the reason for their stability in the country's political culture. The basis of the analysis is the concept of consensus as a democratic procedure.

The economic direction in the English school of administrative and public administration began to gain strength after the Second World War. Unlike sociologists, who relied on studying the influence of cultural traditions and value systems, economists viewed public administration as a sphere of rational human activity.

The famous English political scientist B. Barry developed the concept of an “economic type” of state power exercised through threats and promises. B. Barry considers power relations in society in terms of gains and losses. He believes that power relations exist only when one party benefits from maintaining them more than the other, having the ability to achieve obedience from the latter at the cost of minimal losses. To measure B's obedience, Barry offers the following criterion: A's obedience to B's authority is greater, the greater the discrepancy between them on this issue. In this case, A obeys B if for him the cost of compliance is less than the cost of possible losses in the event of a sanction from B. The probability of applying sanctions depends on how much the costs of their use for B are covered by the size of the gain in the event of A’s obedience.

The researcher himself believes that although his model explains some aspects of the process of implementing power relations in the state, it is very limited. In particular, this model does not take into account the differences that exist between the objective nature of motives, threats, promises and the subjectivity of their perception.

The prominent English philosopher M. Oakeshott, who headed the department of political science at the London School of Economics in the 50-60s, developed two concepts of administrative and public administration: targeted and civil. In his opinion, these types of administrative and public administration in their pure form are not found anywhere, since they represent ideal theoretical constructs. But it can be said that European peoples have progressed from the “unconscious solidarity of purposeful association” within the state in the late Middle Ages to the conscious civil association of our days. However, even today this process is not complete: in some states (Western democracies) the ideal of “civil association” has been realized to a greater extent, in others to a lesser extent. But even in Western democracies, excesses of a return to the regime of targeted public administration are possible.

M. Oakeshott offers the following characteristics of targeted public administration. Citizens in such a state are considered as employees of an enterprise that exists to achieve certain goals (welfare, level of production, cultural unity, etc.). There is no formal equality - a person's value is determined by his contribution to the "common cause", which means the subordination of individuality to corporatism. Legislation is administrative, regulatory, and applied in nature. The concept of justice is narrowed to the principle of distributive justice, the purpose of which is to subordinate the requirements of equality to the objectives of the efficiency of the administrative and public administration system. At the same time, management becomes a special limited sphere of activity to ensure and maintain general norms of behavior, which are considered not as regulations imposing basic types of activities, but as means that provide people with the opportunity to engage in any activity at their discretion.

Recently, new approaches and directions have appeared in the English school of "public administration". The most influential among them is the “soft thinking” system. Leading this effort is Peter Checkland, head of the research program at Lancaster University. The system of “soft thinking” appeared as a consequence of an unsuccessful attempt to apply engineering methodology (hard approach) to resolving weakly structured problematic management situations. The system of “hard thinking” proceeded from the premise of the immanent systematicity of the real world (and the sphere of management) and saw the problem in finding optimal ways to move towards known or given goals. The system of “soft thinking” transferred the sign of systematicity from reality to the process of its cognition. This approach allows for structuring management processes by exploring different views and positions and discussing their legitimacy in specific circumstances. According to P. Checkland, the only way to study integrity is to look at it from as many points of view as possible. It consciously moves away from the traditional paradigm of optimizing existing processes, based on an attempt to identify and analyze systems in the real world. P. Checkland considers his approach more interpretative than functional.

Another new area is organizational cybernetics. It arose as a counter-direction to management cybernetics, which was characterized by excessive mechanism. The philosophical and sociological paradigm of organizational cybernetics is structuralism. Structuralism assumes that there is some model of causal processes occurring at deep structural levels of systems. These processes produce observable phenomena and relationships. Thus, structuralism attempts to explain phenomena that are accessible to our senses by the action of hidden, unobservable mechanisms.

S. Beer introduced the central concept of organizational cybernetics - the “balancing system”. In his opinion, a system can be classified as balancing if it is able to respond to changes in the environment, even if these changes cannot be predicted during the creation of the system. To remain in balance over the long term, a system must achieve the "necessary diversity" to match the complexity of the environment with which it comes into contact. Diversity is a subjective measure - a measure of states corresponding to a specific goal - the survival of the system (the continuation of its existence). Consequently, the goal of an organization is always a compromise between the requirements of the external environment and its internal functions, and the organization's strategy can be defined as a balance strategy. S. Beer argues that such systems must have five functions: organization, coordination, control, collection and processing of information, and policy development. Concluding the description of the English school of administrative and public administration, it should be emphasized that in recent decades it has been significantly influenced by American political scientists. This influence is especially noticeable in applied research, which receives more attention than in the previous period.

French School of Administrative and Public Administration

In France, the theory of administrative and public administration emerged as a result of the development of the science of state (or constitutional) law. Since the end of the 19th century, the tendency of politicization has been clearly visible in works on constitutional law. Already in A. Esmen’s monograph “Elements of Constitutional Law”, published in 1895, not only the norms of constitutional law are set out, but an attempt was made to give a broader picture of public administration in the country. The traditional framework of constitutional law was significantly expanded by L. Dugis and M. Oriu, who formulated the concept of an institution in their works, laying the foundations for an institutional approach to administrative and public administration.

However, Henri Fayol is rightfully considered a classic of the theory of administrative and public administration in France. He is the most significant figure that Europe gave to the science of management in the first quarter of the 20th century. His “theory of administration” is set out in the book “General and Industrial Administration”, published in 1916. Fayol headed the Center for Administrative Studies that he created. He argued that the management principles he formulated are universal and applicable almost everywhere: in the economy, in government services and institutions, in the army and navy.

A. Fayol gave a classic definition of scientific management: “To manage means to foresee, organize, manage, coordinate and control; to foresee, that is, to take into account the future and develop a program of action; to organize, that is, to build a double - material and social - organism of the institution; to dispose, that is, to force personnel to work properly; to coordinate, that is, to connect, unite, harmonize all actions and all efforts; to control, that is, to ensure that everything is done according to established rules and given orders."

According to Fayol, the management of any organization (including government agencies) includes six main groups of functions: technical, commercial, financial, insurance, accounting and administrative. Moreover, administrative functions are the main, determining ones. None of the five previous functions includes the task of developing a general program of work for the institution, selecting its working staff, coordinating efforts, and harmonizing actions. All this constitutes the task of administrative functions, and that is why they have a leading role.

A. Fayol formulated 14 general principles of management. These are division of labor, power, discipline, unity of routine, unity of leadership, subordination of private interests to general interests, staff remuneration, centralization, hierarchy, order, justice, constancy of staff, initiative, unity of staff.

The rules formulated by Fayol were generally accepted for several decades, taught in personnel training schools, and used by organizational practitioners. Fayol's ideas have many similarities with the theories of American management classics (F. Taylor, G. Emerson, G. Ford). They constitute the “golden fund” of the school of “scientific management” with its predominantly mechanistic view of the place of man in management.

The French school of administrative and public administration has a number of specific features that distinguish it from other national schools - American, English and German. In the first two stages of the evolution of the theory of administrative and public administration, the theory of institutions was especially developed in France.

The institutional approach to the study of administrative and public administration allowed French political scientists to quite successfully overcome the formalism of the traditional science of constitutional law. From the very beginning, French authors did not limit themselves to studying the legal norms designed to regulate the functioning of political institutions; they also examined how these norms were actually implemented. At the same time, other, non-legal material was involved, in particular non-legal social norms.

Despite the widespread recognition of the theory of institutions, within the framework of the French school of administrative-public administration, the discussion on the content of the concept of “institution” continued for quite a long time. Here the positions of M. Prelot and M. Duverger were quite sharply opposed.

M. Prelo distinguishes between “institutions-organisms” and “institutions-things”. In his opinion, an institution-organism is “a human collective, united by an ideology or a common need and subject to authority and fixed rules.” As for the institution-thing, it is “not a human collective, legally unified and structured, but a simple system of legal norms.”

Institutional connection, the political scientist argues, can be based on a common idea. However, more often the basis of this connection is need. The latter cannot be satisfied through individual resources; in any case, it can be better satisfied through a collective enterprise. The idea or the need for its permanence gives the institution properties that distinguish it from a simple center of interweaving interests. Institutional connection gives rise to a feeling of exclusivity or even hostility towards outsiders among those who formed the institution. Concluding this reasoning, M. Prelo concludes that either a clearly expressed or hidden will of the institution is formed, carried out by its organs. Due to the presence of such a will, the institution exists not only in the minds of its members; in front of outsiders, it acquires personality traits. The Institute can enter into actual and legal relations. Its connections with other institutions may also be institutionalized.

Similar views on institutions were held by J. Burdeau, J. Wedel, A. Oriu and other political scientists. It was in this form that the theory of institutions became widespread until the early 70s. The peculiarity of institutionalism was that, while rejecting the legal “extremes” of normativism and thereby allowing the use of political concepts, it at the same time sought to give a legal interpretation of issues of public administration.

In the early 70s, M. Duverger developed a new concept of institution. Formed under the influence of the ideas of structuralism, it differs significantly both in nature and in scope from the traditional concept of institution. According to Duverger, “institutions are known models of human relations from which specific relationships are copied, thus acquiring the character of stable, enduring and cohesive. They differ from relationships that arise outside the framework of institutional models; the latter are random, ephemeral, precarious.” He identifies two elements in the concept of institution: structure and beliefs, collective ideas.

The French political scientist also distinguishes between two types of institutions. Some are a simple system of relations copied from the structure of the model. Others have an additional technical and material organization: legal texts, premises, furniture, machines, emblems, personnel, administrative hierarchy. These are parliament, ministries, trade unions, associations. He also considered the status of the individual, his social roles, and social groups as institutions. All these phenomena previously remained outside the framework of the traditional theory of institutions.

Based on the theory of institutions, the French school of administrative public administration formulated an institutional concept of the state, which replaced the interpretation of the state as a legal entity developed within the framework of constitutional law. The state began to be viewed as institutionalized power, in the broad sense of the word - an institution as such in which power is embodied.

The institutionalization of power means that power moves from the rulers to the institution, which henceforth becomes its sole owner. Of course, the rulers as such do not disappear, but their place in government changes significantly. If previously they exercised power as their own prerogative, now they are only agents of the highest power. The end of personal power means that the actions of those in power are placed within a legal framework. In fact, power turns into legal power. Thus, the institutional concept of the state is an important step in the development of modern state theory.

In general, the theory of administrative and public administration in France developed from abstract theoretical developments to the development of specific recommendations for the development of public administration in the country.

One of the most important problems in the theory of administrative and public administration in France is the problem of finding an optimal system of relationship between the state apparatus and citizens. This is not accidental, since, according to many scientists and government officials in the country, the absence of such a relationship is painfully felt at all levels of development of French society.

Dispersal of state power between different levels, be it communes or departments, interested ministries or trade unions, vesting the opposition with certain rights and powers, subject to the inviolability of state institutions of the Fifth Republic - these are the generalized recommendations of the majority of French scientists in response to requests from government officials.

The search for ways to overcome the crisis of state power marks the work of many French political scientists. F. Gogel and A. Grossier in their book “Politics in France” emphasize the anti-stateness of the French, note a deep distrust of the state, an involuntary desire to weaken it. However, both authors are convinced that “the French are ready to give to the Motherland what they traditionally deny to the state.” In this regard, the French say, France has much in common with Russia, unlike England and Germany.

F. Gogel and A. Grossier are convinced that it is subjective factors that especially destabilize state institutions in France. The authors warn of a possible return to the days of the Third Republic, when the task of heads of government was not to manage the affairs of the country, but to strive to stay in power. “It is not surprising that the administration is beginning to play an increasingly large role in the management of public affairs, while ministers, instead of setting the main directions for the activities of the services subordinate to them, act as intermediaries or ambassadors of the bureaucracy before parliament and public opinion.” .

The number of studies devoted to the phenomenon of state power and its bearers: the president, the government, the bureaucracy, increased noticeably in the 70s after the conclusion of the Joint Government Program of the Left Parties, when the issue of power became of paramount importance. One of the French versions of the reformist theory of “participation” was the concept of a new social contract, put forward by an influential political figure, Chairman of the National Assembly E. Faure. He revived the idea of ​​​​the “social contract” of J.-J. Rousseau, inviting all social and political forces in France to unite to stabilize state power and prosperity of the economy.

E. Faure's concept is quite radical. The author himself put it on a par with socialist teachings: “In reality, we are talking about socialism through participation.” E. Faure proposed to significantly expand the powers of local authorities, especially at the level of municipalities and communes, and to involve workers more widely in managing public affairs. In 1970, the “Research Committee for a New Social Contract” was created, promoting “participatory socialism.” However, this concept did not receive widespread support and was soon forgotten.

Another radical theory of administrative and public administration of a new type was developed by M. Poniatowski. In his book “The Choice of Hope,” he writes that humanity will soon enter a new era - the era of scientific civilization. Therefore, it is necessary that “the political apparatus of modern states develop methods and institutions capable of solving the problem of the future,” and not be content with ready-made recipes borrowed from the past.

In the extensive chapter “The Nature of Power,” M. Poniatowski tries to prove that the scientific and technological revolution can have a huge impact on politics and public administration: “Power, which traditionally rested on the right of inheritance or election, is associated in a scientific society with knowledge, which is potentially universal and generalized." This results in a constant challenge to the hierarchy, since its power is based on fickle, fragile and necessarily updated knowledge." The author does not dispute, however, the need to organize government in the state according to a hierarchical principle: "Hierarchy is necessary to provide new means of positive freedom for individuals and the development of their personal activities . This makes sense at all levels: state, local authorities, associations, etc. Citizen participation in governance at all levels of the hierarchy will ensure stability and prosperity for this society.”

According to M. Poniatowski, the state must cede part of its prerogatives to competent authorities or organizations. For example, energy or transportation issues may be regulated by a chamber (council) consisting partly of elected representatives and partly of government appointees. The author proposes to give this chamber the status of the third chamber of parliament. M. Poniatowski also believes that a large number of decisions now taken by the central government could be made at the departmental level.

The concept of the famous French philosopher Alain looks much more realistic. In his work "Elements of the Doctrine of the Radicals" he provides an analysis of the system of administrative and public administration in France. Alain emphasizes that in a modern state, true power is not exercised by politicians, but by high-ranking officials from the administrative apparatus. The heads of the main departments of the Ministry of Finance, members of the Supreme Defense Council and ambassadors are the real powers that be in France. Alain, like many other scientists, condemns the apparatus for inertia, inefficiency and waste of funds. Alain pays special attention to the abuse of power by the top of the bureaucratic apparatus. Officials strive to expand the scope of their powers and use their professional competence to increase influence and protect their own interests. Responsible officials form a privileged elite, whose absolute power condemns democratic principles to inaction. Thus, Alain believes that the only effective remedy against abuse of power by the bureaucracy is the creation of an effective system of control by voters, parliament, and ministers.

Among the behavioral concepts of administrative-public management, it is worth noting the work of Michel Crozier “The Phenomenon of Bureaucracy: A Study of Bureaucratic Tendencies in Modern Organizational Systems and Their Relationship with the Social Cultural System in France.” M. Crozier considers the patterns of functioning of an organization as a projection of psychological patterns. He interprets the structure of an organization as a network of interpersonal relationships, and the functional dependencies between its members as something derived from the system of their mutual psychological disposition.

An analysis of the French school of public administration would be incomplete without mentioning the book of former French President Giscard d'Estaing "French Democracy". He proposes his own concept of a "welfare state", emphasizing that modern society "must provide all its members with a concrete opportunity to achieve a minimum income, their a kind of social wealth." Relying on individualism, private initiative, the inviolability of private property and pluralism in political life, Giscard d'Estaing considers them the main guarantee of the success of state and social development.

The revival of political reform in the ruling circles of France in recent decades reflects the deep concern of French society. A protracted crisis of the political and government system, which has long-term negative consequences for the country, political instability - these are the factors that explain why political leaders are looking for new theoretical concepts.

4. The theory of administrative and public administration in Germany

The most influential among European schools of administrative and public administration is German. A distinctive feature of the theory of administrative and public administration in Germany is fundamental theoretical research of a philosophical nature. German classical idealism gave its speculative interpretation to state and administrative government. It was philosophy that created the institutional framework in which the theory of politics and the theory of administrative and public administration began to develop in Germany.

From the very beginning of its emergence in the German school of public administration, a dualism emerged in the philosophical understanding of the problems of administrative public administration and the sociology of administrative public activity. At the same time, the philosophical and sociological aspects were considered as modes of statehood. Most West German political scientists see in public administration the embodiment of “transcendental reason”, “eternal” values ​​and the sphere of realization of freedom. This is most clearly illustrated by the concepts of H. Kuhn, E. Forsthoff, E. Hippel.

A philosophical and anthropological approach to public administration is characteristic of A. Gehlen. In his opinion, administrative public administration and law are “fundamental anthropological institutions.” The desire for stability in the internal and external world, which, according to Gehlen, permeates all human existence, becomes the basis of administrative and public administration. Administrative institutions developed in the process of human coexistence “by stabilizing order and rules.” They are not a reflection of the economic and socio-political structure of society, but “a certain system that consolidates historically established relations between people in a rational and organized manner.” A similar idea is put forward by F. Jonas, emphasizing that administrative institutions “as such do not represent anyone’s special interests and do not need any worldview for their justification, but are a principle of emancipation.”

The ideas of the “new Leviathan” are being developed by political scientists in Germany not only in philosophical and anthropological, but also in sociological aspects. The most typical for the sociological approach to administrative and public management is the concept of W. Weber. He believes that the system of administrative and public administration needs to be given greater authority, but at the same time the functions of the bureaucratic apparatus should not be expanded. V. Weber writes: “A quantitative increase in the state apparatus and the expansion of its social functions can do a disservice. To demand mechanical growth of the state means to worsen the situation even more.”

Particular attention should be paid to the concept of administrative-public management of Ludwig Erhard, who was first Minister of Economics and then Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor of Germany. This prominent scientist and politician consistently combined research work in leading scientific centers with the organization of public service in the country. Erhard's concept is associated with increasing the social role of public administration. He sought to overcome the conservative social structure through major measures to disperse property and democratize capital, to alleviate economic crises and class contradictions. All this included strengthening measures for state regulation of the economy. The Council of Experts for the Assessment of the General Economic Development of Germany was established by state law. In accordance with the law, the Council of Experts, which included prominent scientists, was supposed to prepare the necessary starting points for the government to make political decisions.

Erhard emphasized putting the state budget in order through systematic reductions, cutting expenses, easing the tax burden, prohibiting the recruitment of new employees and increasing salaries, and minimizing official travel. This is how the concept of a formed society arose, which proclaimed the subordination of all groups of the population to the common good, the strengthening of the role of the government, the reconciliation of all classes with the existing social system, the establishment of a “pluralistic society of unions”, built on the voluntary joint actions of all social groups of society. The new concept consolidated the decisive role of administrative and public administration in the development of society. The state and its institutions were proclaimed the guardian of the common good. In such a state, all positions in the civil service should be occupied by specialists in general interests who determine the country's policy. This, according to L. Erhard, is the essence of the new technique of public administration.

A monistic approach to administrative and public management is proposed by supporters of the structural-functional approach in Germany. This point of view found its most consistent expression in the works of N. Luhmann. He criticizes the leading "functionalist" of the West, T. Parsons, for the fact that in his system theory the concept of structure is subordinated to the concept of function. In other words, any structure of public administration, no matter how absurd, essentially fulfills its function for Parsons. According to Luhmann, Parsons' position, despite its apparent rationality, is highly speculative. Every action, according to Parsons, should be considered as the performance of some hypothetical, unknown function. This position actually makes any moral and political assessment of the structure of administrative and public administration impossible. Luhmann sees the advantage of his structural-functional theory in the fact that he proposes to constantly study the specific functions of management structures, and does not consider the structure of administrative-public management itself as something comprehensive and complete. Luhmann proposes to analyze the function of public administration using a specific simplification of reality. In his opinion, only at a certain level of abstraction does it become possible to “functionally” analyze and compare all management structures and processes.

Leading German political scientist R. Dahrendorf offers an interesting approach to public administration within the framework of his theory of social development. Analyzing social reality in developed countries of Western Europe, he argues that the distribution of power in modern society has become quite amorphous. Today, the balance of competing interest groups has replaced the political violence carried out in the recent past by some ruling class. The bureaucracy, according to Dahrendorf, is one of the most influential interest groups. Being the “last” and actual bearer of power in all organizations of society, including the state, the bureaucracy does not have any social program. The goals in the name of which the bureaucracy exercises its power are not its goals and are not born in the depths of its hierarchy. The bureaucracy cannot influence the adoption and implementation of political decisions; it can resist them, but cannot make them independently. However, in a modern state no one is able to rule without bypassing the bureaucracy, and especially against its will. At the same time, the bureaucracy cannot rule without a “brains trust”. As the ruling class, it is the "reserve army of power" or the "army without a commander." According to Dahrendorf, when there are no groups capable of exercising political dominance, and instead they are dominated by a faceless bureaucracy, the existing political system faces an extremely great danger of losing legitimacy. There is a real opportunity for groups of radical reformers to seize political power. Often such a group is totalitarian both in theory and in practice.

The theory of social conflict developed by R. Dahrendorf is widely used in the theory of administrative and public administration. He proposed ways to regulate and “channelize” conflicts at various levels of administrative and public administration, developing a program for a liberal, highly mobile society that recognizes conflicts and formalizes their course. Dahrendorf believes that modern social conflict has lost its “absolute” character, has become more “mobile” and “soft”, and has turned into a “tamed” driving force of change. The essence of social conflict is that it can simultaneously activate the processes of expanding and ensuring the rights of people, thereby increasing their life chances. The system of administrative and public administration uses methods and techniques for the prevention of conflict situations, “formalization” of the stages of conflict, and “management” of conflict processes. These are, in general, the main achievements of the German school of public administration.

Conclusion

Public administration is designed to regulate social relations that ensure the protection and reproduction of the integrity of the state and its main institutions. The predominant direction of the vector of public administration is the “top-down” direction, in connection with which the state assumes the right to realize public interest in the development of its constituent territorial entities.

Public administration is the process of regulating relations within the state through the distribution of spheres of influence between the main territorial levels and branches of government. Public administration is based on state interest aimed at protecting the integrity of the state, its key institutions, and supporting the level and quality of life of its citizens. Among the priority areas in the implementation of public (state) interest is the need to perform several functions: protective, defense, social, legal, economic, political and arbitration.

Public administration is made possible by the existence of state power. State power is a body of legitimate coercion in the interests of the majority of the population, subject to the observance of state interests. The main feature of state power is its integrity, indivisibility and sovereignty.

The American school of "public administration" has a general empirical orientation to its research, since the political science tradition in this country has had an empirical orientation from the very beginning.

In the English school of administrative and public administration, behavioral methods of studying public administration are beginning to dominate. From the very beginning, within the framework of behavioral methodology, two main trends emerged - sociological and economic, the sources of which were two different understandings of the nature of human behavior.

List of sources used

1. Averyanov V.B. Public administration apparatus: content of activities and organizational structures. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 2006
2. Ageev E.A. Legal responsibility in public administration (social legal aspect). L.: Nauka, 2009
3. Ataev A.A. Management activities. M.: Legal literature, 2008
4. Atamanchuk G.V. Ensuring the rationality of public administration. M.: Nauka, 2007
5. Bachilo I.L. Organization of public administration: legal problems. M.: Nauka, 2004
6. Vasilenko I.A. The civil service system in the USA: current state / Public Service Bulletin. 2010. No. 4
7. Vasilenko I.A. Institute of Civil Service in Great Britain / Problems of theory and practice of management. 2007. No. 6
8. Vasilenko I.A. Germany: Public service as a sphere of management / Problems of theory and practice of management. 2006. No. 1
9. Vasilenko I.A. Public administration system in France / Problems of theory and practice of management. 2007. No. 1
10. Vasilenko I.A. Comparative analysis of public administration structures in Western countries / Public Service Bulletin. 2014. No. 8