The Problem of Defining Local Self-Government as a Key Actor of a Unified System of Public Power and Admininstration (Analysis of the Problem Field)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2021-12-17-32Keywords:
public power system, public administration, local self-government, problem field, local self-government as the level of public powerAbstract
The analysis of the problem field is a serious problem from the methodological and methodical point of view. The solution of this problem becomes particularly difficult in cases when the object under study is characterized by a high level of structural and process diversity, has a dynamic character, i. e. it is constantly evolving, and exists in many variants with the presence of the invariant enshrined in international acts and legislation of most states. The end of the last century was a period of rethinking of many concepts that define the complex processes of political and social interaction of various levels and elements of the system of power and public administration in Russia. The adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in 1993 put forward fundamental problems that needed to be solved to move the country along the path of democratization, build a market economy and form an effective governing system. Article 12 of the first chapter establishes the autonomy of local self-government as an institution, guarantees its protection from excessive state influence. This provision reflects the global trend of consolidating the right to local self-government in democratic states. However, the European Charter of Local Self-Government includes a provision on the independence of local self-government in resolving issues of local significance only within the framework of state legislation, i. e. it establishes its subordinate nature. The latter provision automatically makes local self-government part of the unified system of public power and public administration, which is reflected in the corresponding amendment to Ch. 8 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation “Local self-government” in 2020. This makes t relevant he problem of the local authorities ‘ own powers, the division of functions between them and state authorities to achieve the fundamental goal of the modern state - to ensure an optimal uniform quality of life throughout the territory. The purpose of the article is to characterize the problem field in which the concepts of “public power” and “public administration” are defined and analysed in the context of considering local self-government as a key actor of both systems. The objectives of the research are to determine the boundaries of this problem field, its structure, as well as the difference in approaches to this problem in the works of Russian and foreign authors, including scientists from Central Asian countries.Downloads
References
Агаджанян А. С. Эффективность и качество в категориальном поле оценки предоставления государственных и муниципальных услуг // Государственное и муниципальное управление. Ученые записки. 2020. № 2. С. 248-254.
Брызгалова И. Г., Галич Ж. В. Местное самоуправление: опыт решения социально-экономических и общественно-политических проблем. общероссийский и региональный аспект (на материалах Дона и Северного Кавказа): исторические практики XX-XXI вв.: монография. Ростов-на-Дону, 2018.
Вульфович Р. М. Проблемы и противоречия в процессе становления местного самоуправления на постсоветском пространстве (на примере стран Центральной Азии) // Евразийская интеграция: экономика, право, политика. 2021. № 14 (2). С. 97-106.
Гаврилова Н. В. Анализ зарубежных практик парситипаторного управления // Государственное и муниципальное управление. Ученые записки. 2018. № 2. С. 27-34.
Гончаров М. В. Перераспределение полномочий между органами местного самоуправления и органами государственной власти субъекта Российской Федерации // Муниципалитет: экономика и управление. 2019. № 2 (27). С. 82-90.
Грибанова Г. И., Соотла Г., Каттаи К. Реформы местного самоуправления в Эстонии: институциональный контекст, намерения и результаты // Балтийский регион. 2020. Т. 12, № 1. С. 4-15.
Дятлов А. В., Ковалев В. В., Сериков А. В. Риски от введения института сити-менеджмента (в оценках экспертов Южного федерального округа) // Государственное и муниципальное управление. Ученые записки. 2018. № 4. С. 39-42.
Кожевников О. А. и др. Местное самоуправление в единой системе публичной власти: вектор и последствия конституционной реформы в Российской Федерации: монография. М.: ЮНИТИ, 2020.
Мальцева И. В., Уханова А. П. Проблемы осуществления народовластия через местные референдумы и местные выборы (на примере Республики Карелия) // Конституционное и муниципальное право. 2019. № 2. С. 52-59.
Никитина В. М. Местное самоуправление в системе публичной власти и публичного управления Италии: дис.... канд. юр. наук. М., 2018.
Пешин Н. Л. Конституционная реформа местного самоуправления: единство публичной власти как новый всеобщий принцип организации местного самоуправления // Конституционное и муниципальное право. 2020. № 11. С. 24-29.
Санжаревский И. А., Александров А. Р. Историческая ретроспектива местного самоуправления в системе разделения публичной власти в России // Государственное и муниципальное управление. Ученые записки. 2018. № 3. С. 166-173.
Тимофеев Н. С. Евразийские идеи местного самоуправления в российской государственности // Конституционное и муниципальное право. 2019. № 11. С. 62-67.
Шадыбеков К. Б., Бекташев К. Ж. Вопросы централизации и децентрализации в контексте реформы сферы государственных и муниципальных услуг в Кыргызской Республике // Вестник АГУПКР. 2018. № 24. С. 18-26.
Шериязданов Б. Местное самоуправление Казахстана и России (сравнительный анализ) // Казахстан. Спектр. Научный журнал. 2020. № 4 (96). С. 63-76.
Berry D. Rejecting ‘all the faces of subjugation': Daniel Guérin on direct democracy, self-management and individual autonomy // Journal of Political Ideologies. 2019. Vol. 24. Is. 3. P. 314-336.
Brasher R. (ed.) Politics of ethnicity and federalism in Pakistan: local, national, and comparative perspectives. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Calabrese T., Williams D., Gupta A. Does Participatory Budgeting Alter Public Spending? Evidence from New York City // Administration & Society. 2020. Vol. 52. Is. 9. P. 1382-1409.
Chmielewska-Szlajfer H. Reshaping Poland's Community after Communism: Ordinary Celebrations. Cham: Springer International Publishing: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.
Conteh Ch. Multilevel governance through a strategic lens: Innovation policy delivery in Ontario // Canadian Public Administration. 2020. Vol. 63. Is. 3. P. 429-449.
Fox C. A. Is All Politics Local? Determinants of Local and National Election Campaigns // Comparative Political Studies. 2018. Vol. 51. Is. 14. P. 1899-1934.
Gronow A., Wagner P., Ylä-Anttila T. Explaining collaboration in consensual and conflictual governance networks // Public Administration. 2020. Vol. 98. Is. 3, P. 730-745.
Hendrick R., Degnan R. P. In the Shadow of State Government: Changes in Municipal Spending After Two Recessions // American Review of Public Administration. 2020. Vol. 50. Is. 2.
Huff G. B., Thomas E. A., McNabb N. (eds.) Community resilience handbook. Chicago, Illinois: American Bar Association, 2020.
India VNR 2020: decade of action, taking SDGs from global to local. New Delhi: Niti Aayog, Government of India, 2020.
Jimenez B. S. Municipal Government Form and Budget Outcomes: Political Responsiveness, Bureaucratic Insulation, and the Budgetary Solvency of Cities // Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2020. Vol. 30. Is. 1. January. P. 161-177.
Mallinson D. J. Cooperation and Conflict in State and Local Innovation during COVID-19 // American Review of Public Administration. 2020. Vol. 50 (6-7). P. 543-550.
Malito D. V., Umbach G., Bhuta N. (eds.) Palgrave Handbook of Indicators in Global Governance. Cham: Springer International Publishing: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
Mlambo V. H., Zubane S. P., Mlambo D. N. Conceptualization to amendment: Kakinada as a smart city // Journal of Public Affairs. 2018. Vol. 19. Is. 1.
Molyneaux L., Head B. Why information and transparency about electricity matter: Fragmentation of governance and accountability under New Public Management // Australian Journal of Public Administration. 2020. Vol. 79. Is. 1. P. 143-164.
Piñeira Mantiñán M. J., González J.R., González Pérez L. M. New models of urban governance in Spain during the post-crisis period: the fight against vulnerability on a local scale // Territory, Politics, Governance. 2019. Vol. 7. Is. 3. P. 336-364.
Purwanto E. A., Pramusinto A. Decentralization and functional assignment in Indonesia: the case of health and education services // Policy Studies. 2018. Vol. 39. Is. 6. P. 589-606.
Smékalová L. Evaluating the cohesion policy: targeting of disadvantaged municipalities. Administratie si Management Public. 2018. Vol. 31. P. 143-154.
Shockley B. et al. Exaggerating good governance: Regime type and score inflation among executive survey informants // Governance. 2017. Vol. 31. Is. 4. P. 643-664.
Vantaggiato F. P. Regulatory relationships across levels of multilevel governance systems: From collaboration to competition // Governance. 2019. Vol. 33. Special Issue: Modes of Regulatory Governance: A Political Economy Perspective. P. 173-189.
Zaytseva T., Nezhina T. Involving Young People in State and Municipal Service: The Experience of Russian Regions // Public Administration Issues. 2019. N 1. P. 160-189.
Zhang X. (ed.) Remaking Sustainable Urbanism: Space, Scale and Governance in the New Urban Era. Singapore: Springer Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.