ЮФУ
ул. М. Горького, 88, к. 211
г.Ростов-на-Дону, Россия
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript.
Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript.

TERRA ECONOMICUS

Экономическая теория в составе научных оснований государственного управления


TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Том 20 (номер 2),
Цитирование: Тамбовцев В.Л., Рождественская И.А. (2022). Экономическая теория в составе научных оснований государственного управления. Terra Economicus 20(2), 6–20. DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2022-20-2-6-20

Наука государственного управления широко признается как междисциплинарная, интегрирующая ряд других социальных наук. Отсутствует единство относительно того, какие именно из наук следует включить в состав источников знаний для изучения государственного управления. Наиболее часто в мировой литературе предлагаются политическая, управленческая, юридическая науки, а также социология. Иногда можно встретить упоминание экономической науки, но при этом не упоминаются такие ее составляющие (теории и модели), которые могут внести значимый вклад в улучшение нынешнего состояния изучения наукой государственного управления своего предмета. Для обоснования этого положения в статье детально разбирается получившая широкое распространение концепция нового государственного менеджмента. Показано, что в конструкцию этого направления реформирования системы государственного управления «вшиты» элементы, которые порождают негативные последствия при оказании ряда публичных услуг, таких как здравоохранение и образование. Эти последствия связаны с применением стимулирующих контрактов, в которых не могут быть использованы валидные измерители качества услуг, что подталкивает работников к оппортунистическому поведению в форме работы на показатель. Эти негативные последствия многие называют «непредусмотренными», хотя они являются таковыми только вследствие незнания реформаторами ряда положений модели принципала-агента и теории контрактов, которые были получены уже в начале применения и широкого распространения нового государственного менеджмента. В мировой литературе широко распространена точка зрения, согласно которой модель принципала-агента находится среди научных оснований нового государственного менеджмента, что далеко от действительности. В статье обосновывается целесообразность включения ряда экономических теорий в состав оснований науки государственного управления, что обеспечит более высокий уровень научных оснований этой теории и обучения этой специальности.


Ключевые слова: наука государственного управления; междисциплинарность; новый государственный менеджмент; модель принципала-агента; оппортунистическое поведение

Список литературы:
  • Капогузов Е.А. (2012). Институциональная структура производства государственных услуг: от веберианской бюрократии – к современным реформам государственного управления. Омск: издво ОмГУ. [Kapoguzov, E. (2012). Institutional Structure of the Public Services Production: From Weberian Bureaucracy to Contemporary Reforms of Public Administration. Omsk: Omsk State University Publ. (in Russian).]
  • Капогузов Е.А. (2016). Дискретные институциональные альтернативы реформ государственного управления в странах с развитой и развивающейся институциональной средой. Journal of Institutional Studies 8(3), 102–115. [Kapoguzov, E. (2016). Discrete institutional alternatives of public administration reforms in countries with developed and developing institutional environment. Journal of Institutional Studies 8(3), 102–115 (in Russian).]
  • Коркунов Н.М. (1909). Русское государственное право, Т. 1. СПб.: Типография М.М. Стасюлевича.[Korkunov, N. (1909). Russian State Law, Vol. 1. Saint-Petersburg: M.M. Stasyulevich Printing House(in Russian).] http://istmat.info/node/24926
  • Охотский Е.В. (2015). Теория и механизмы современного государственного управления: В 2 т. Т. 1: Учебник и практикум для бакалавриата и магистратуры. М.: Юрайт. [Okhotski, E. (2015). Theory and mechanisms of the contemporary state administration: In 2 vols. Vol. 1: Textbook and Practicum for Baccalaureate and Master’s Programs. Moscow: Yurait Publ. (in Russian).]
  • Тамбовцев В.Л. (2020). Непродуктивность попыток методологического синтеза. Вопросы теоретической экономики (3), 7–31. [Tambovtsev, V. (2020). Unproductivity of the methodological fusion’s attempts. Voprosy teoreticheskoj economiki (Theoretical Economics) (3), 7–31 (in Russian).]
  • Тамбовцев В.Л., Рождественская И.А. (2021). Эффективность в государственном секторе: иллюзия понимания и ее последствия. Terra Economicus 19(1), 6–31. [Tambovtsev, V., Rozhdestvenskaya, I. (2021). Efficiency in public sector: Illusion of comprehension and its consequences. Terra Economicus 19(1), 6–31 (in Russian).]
  • Afonso, A., Schuknecht, L., Tanzi, V. (2020). The size of government. Econ Pol Working Paper № 46. IFO Institute – Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, Munich.
  • Ali, A., Fuenzalida, J., Gomez, M., Williams, M. (2021). Four lenses on people management in the public sector: an evidence review and synthesis. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 37(2), 335–366.
  • Allison, G. (1983). Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? In: Perry, J., Kraemer, K. (eds.) Public Management. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, pp. 72–92.
  • Bevan, G., Hood, C. (2006). What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration 84(3), 517–538.
  • Brehm, J., Gates, S. (1997). Working, Shirking and Sabotage: Bureaucratic Response to a Democratic Public. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • Cairney, P. (2013). Standing on the shoulders of giants: How do we combine the insights of multiple theories in public policy studies? Policy Studies Journal 41(1), 1–21.
  • Cavalcante, P., Lotta, G. (2021). Are governance modes alike? An analysis based on bureaucratic relationships and skills. International Journal of Public Administration, in press. DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2021.1874983
  • Christensen, R., Goerdel, H., Nicholson-Crotty, S. (2011). Management, law, and the pursuit of the public good in public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (special issue), i125–i140.
  • Churchill, S., Ugur, M., Yew, S. (2017). Does government size affect per-capita income growth? A hierarchical meta-regression analysis. Economic Record 93(300), 142–171.
  • Churchman, C. (1967). Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Management Science 14(4), 141–142.
  • Curry, D., Van de Walle, S., Gadella, S. (2014). Public administration as an academic discipline: Trends and changes in the COCOPS academic survey of European Public Administration scholars. COCOPS Report Work Package 8. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/80802443.pdf
  • Dahl, R. (1947). The science of public administration: Three problems. Public Administration Review 7(1), 1–11. de Witte, K., Moesen, W. (2010). Sizing the government. Public Choice 145(1-2), 39–55.
  • Denhardt, R. (1989). Public Administration: An Action Orientation. Dunfermline, UK: Wadsworth.
  • Diamond, J. (1989). Government expenditure and economic growth: An empirical investigation. IFM Working Paper № 89/45.
  • Dixit, A. (1997). Power of incentives in private versus public organizations. American Economic Review 87(2), 378–382.
  • Dixit, A. (2002). Incentives and organizations in the public sector: An interpretative review. Journal of Human Resources 37(4), 696–727.
  • Drucker, P. (1980). The deadly sins in public administration. Public Administration Review 40(2), 103–106.
  • Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead: Long live digitalera governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(3), 467–494.
  • Durant, B., Rosenbloom, D. (2017). The hollowing of American public administration. American Review of Public Administration 47(7), 719–736.
  • Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review 14(1), 57–74.
  • Evans, P., Rauch, J. (1999). Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects of “Weberian” state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review 64(5), 748–765.
  • Evans, P., Rueschemeyer, D., Skocpol, T. (eds.) (1985). Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Fatas, A., Mihov, I. (2013). Policy volatility, institutions, and economic growth. Review of Economics and Statistics 95(2), 362–376.
  • Fernandez-Carro, R.,Lapuente-Gine, V. (2016). The emperor’s clothes and the pied piper: Bureaucracy and scientific productivity. Science and Public Policy 43(4), 546–561.
  • Gerrish, E. (2015). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review 76(1), 48–66.
  • Ghobadian, A., Viney, H., Redwood, J. (2009). Explaining the unintended consequences of public sector reform. Management Decision 47(10), 1514–1535.
  • Ghoshal, S., Moran, P. (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review 21(1), 13–47.
  • Gibson, P., Stolcis, G. (2006). Reenacting, retracing, and rediscovering history: Making a connection in the public administration curriculum. Journal of Public Affairs Education 12(1), 63–80i.
  • Gulick, L. (1937). Science, values and public administration. In: Gulick, L., Urwick, L. (eds.) Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration, рр. 189–193.
  • Holmstrom, B., Milgrom, P. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 7 (special issue), 24–52.
  • Holzer, M., Xu, C. (2018). Introduction. In: Holzer, M., Flug, J., Meyer, S., Xu, C., McAuliffe, L. (eds.) Research Resources in Public Administration: A Companion Guide to the Public Administration Gateway. Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration, рр. 1–6. https://www.aspanet.org/ASPADocs/PAGateway/PAGatewayManual.pdf
  • Honig, D. (2021). Supportive management practice and intrinsic motivation go together in the public service. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 118(13), article e2015124118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2015124118
  • Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69(1), 3–19.
  • Howlett, M. (2014). Why are policy innovations rare and so often negative? Blame avoidance and problem denial in climate change policy-making. Global Environmental Change 29, 395–403.
  • Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., Wu, X. (2015). Understanding the persistence of policy failures: The role of politics, governance and uncertainty. Public Policy and Administration 30(3-4), 209–220.
  • Jackson, A. (2002). Gaming of performance indicators: A classification related to impact. In: Neely, A., Walters, A.(eds.) Performance Management Association 2002 conference proceedings. Boston: PMA, pp. 723–727.
  • Jones, L., Thompson, F., Zumeta, W. (2001). Public management for the new millennium: Developing relevant and integrated professional curricula? International Public Management Review 2(2), 19–38.
  • Kalimullah, N., Alam, K., Nour, A. (2012). New Public Management: Emergence and principles. Bangladesh University of Professionals Journal 1(1), 1–22.
  • Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal 18(4), 769–783.
  • Klein, J., Newell, W. (1998). Advancing interdisciplinary studies. In: Newell, W. (ed.) Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the Literature. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, pp. 3–22.
  • Klenk, T., Reiter, R. (2019). Post-New Public Management: Reform ideas and their application in the field of social services. International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(1), 3–10.
  • Knack, S., Keefer, P. (1995). Institutions and economic performance: Cross-country tests using alternative institutional measures. Economics and Politics 7(3), 207–227.
  • Landau, D. (1983). Government expenditure and economic growth: A cross-country study. Southern Economic Journal 49(3), 783–792.
  • Lane, J.-E. (2000). New Public Management. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Lapuente, V., Van de Walle, S. (2020). The effects of new public management on the quality of public services. Governance 33(3), 461–475.
  • Li, D., Maskin, E. (2021). Government and economics: An emerging field of study. Journal of Government and Economics 1, article 100005. DOI: 10.1016/j.jge.2021.100005
  • Mainzer, L. (1994). Public administration in search of a theory: The interdisciplinary delusion. Administration & Society 26(3), 359–394.
  • Mannion, R., Braithwaite, J. (2012). Unintended consequences of performance measurement in healthcare: 20 salutary lessons from the English National Health Service. Internal Medicine Journal 42(5), 569–574.
  • Metzger, G. (2015). Administrative law, public administration, and the administrative conference of the United States. George Washington Law Review 83(4/5), 1517–1539.
  • Milgrom, P. (1988). Employment contracts, influence activities, and efficient organization design. Journal of Political Economy 96(1), 42–60.
  • Milgrom, P., Roberts, J. (1988). An economic approach to influence activities in organizations. American Journal of Sociology 94(supplement), S154–S179.
  • Moe, T. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science 28(4), 739–777.
  • Moe, T. (1990). The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In: Williamson, O. (ed.) Organizational Theory from Chester Bernard to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 116–153.
  • Nistotskaya, M., Cingolani, L. (2016). Bureaucratic structure, regulatory quality, and entrepreneurship in a comparative perspective: Cross-sectional and panel data evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26(3), 519–534.
  • North, D. (1990). A transaction cost theory of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics 2(4), 355–367.
  • North, D., Wallis, J., Weingast, B. (2009). Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ongaro, E. (2019). The teaching of philosophy in public administration programmes. Teaching Public Administration 37(2), 135–146.
  • Ostrom, V., Ostrom, E. (1971). Public choice: A different approach to the study of public administration. Public Administration Review 31(2), 203–216.
  • Pearce, J., Perry, J. (1983). Federal merit pay: A longitudinal analysis. Public Administration Review 43(4), 315–325.
  • Perry, J., Wise, L. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review 50(3), 367–73.
  • Peters, B., Pierre, J. (2017). Two roads to nowhere: Appraising 30 years of public administration research. Governance 30(1), 11–16.
  • Raadschelders, J. (2009). Trends in the American study of public administration: What could they mean for Korean public administration? Korean Journal of Policy Studies 23(2), 1–24.
  • Raadschelders, J. (2010). Identity without boundaries: Public administration’s canon(s) of integration. Administration & Society 42(2), 131–159.
  • Raadschelders, J. (2011). The future of the study of public administration: Embedding research object and methodology in epistemology and ontology. Public Administration Review 71(6), 916–924.
  • Ram, R. (1986). Government size and economic growth: A new framework and some evidence from crosssection and time-series data. American Economic Review 76(1), 191–203.
  • Reiter, R., Klenk, T. (2019). The manifold meanings of ‘post-New Public Management’ – A systematic literature review. International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(1), 11–27.
  • Rittel, H., Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4(2), 155–169.
  • Rosenbloom, D. (1983). Public administrative theory and the separation of powers. Public Administration Review 43(3), 219–227.
  • Rosenbloom, D. (2017). Beyond efficiency: Value frameworks for public administration. Chinese Public Administration Review 8(1), 37–46.
  • Rutgers, M. (1994). Can the study of public administration do without a concept of the state? Reflections on the work of Lorenz von Stein. Administration & Society 26(3), 395–412.
  • Sant'Ana, T., Lopes, A., Miranda, R., Bermejo, P., Demo, G. (2020). Scientific research on the efficiency of public expenditures: How and where is it going? International Journal of Public Administration 43(11), 926–936.
  • Scaff, L., Ingram, H. (1987). Politics, policy, & public choice: A critique & a proposal. Polity 19(4), 613–636.
  • Schwartz-Shea, P. (2021). Under threat? Methodological pluralism in public administration. Public Performance & Management Review 44(5), 975–1005.
  • Scully, G. (1989). The size of the state, economic growth and the efficient utilization of national resources. Public Choice 63(2), 149–164.
  • Smith, P. (1993). Outcome-related performance indicators and organizational control in the public sector. British Journal of Management 4(3), 135–151.
  • Spekle, R., Verbeeten, F. (2014). The use of performance measurement systems in the public sector: Effects on performance. Management Accounting Research 25(2), 131–146.
  • Stiglitz, J., Rosengard, J. (2015). Economics of the Public Sector. New York: W. W. Norton.
  • Stillman, R. (1976). Public Administration: Concepts and Cases. Boston and London: Houghton Mifflin Co.
  • Suzuki, K., Demirci oglu, M. (2019). The association between administrative characteristics and national level innovative activity: Findings from a cross-national study. Public Performance & Management Review 42(4), 755–782.
  • Suzuki, K., Hur, H. (2020). Bureaucratic structures and organizational commitment: findings from a comparative study of 20 European countries. Public Management Review 22(6), 877–907.
  • Tolofari, S. (2005). New Public Management and education. Policy Futures in Education 3(1), 75–89.
  • Turk-Browne, N., Junge, J., Scholl, B. (2005). The automaticity of visual statistical learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 134(4), 552–564.
  • Van de Walle, S. (2008). Comparing the performance of national public sectors: Conceptual problems. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 57(4), 329–338.
  • Wade, L. (1979). Public administration, public choice and the pathos of reform. Review of Politics 41(3), 344–374.
  • Wamsley, G. (1998). A response to C. Kurt Zorn: Unmasking economics: a critical perspective. International Journal of Public Administration 21(6-8), 1137–1140.
  • Wang, Y. (2021). State-in-society 2.0: Toward fourth-generation theories of the state. Comparative Politics 54(1), 175–198.
  • Waterman, R., Meier, K. (1998). Principal-agent models: An expansion? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8(2),173–202.
  • Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press.
  • Williamson, O. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics 22(2), 233–261.
  • Williamson, O. (1997). Transaction cost economics and public administration. In: Boorsma, P., Aarts, K., Steenge, A. (eds.) Public Priority Setting: Rules and Costs. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 19–37.
  • Williamson, O. (1999). Public and private bureaucracies: A transaction cost economics perspective. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 15(1), 306–342.
  • Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly 2(2), 197–222.
  • Wright, B. (2011). Public administration as an interdisciplinary field: Assessing its relationship with the fields of law, management, and political science. Public Administration Review 71(1), 96–101.
  • Yang, L. (2019). Public administration as a dynamic balance and integrative science across politics,management, and law: Rosenbloom's framework and Chinese experiences. American Review of Public Administration 49(1), 79–97.
  • Zalmanovitch, Y. (2014). Don’t reinvent the wheel: The search for an identity for public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences 80(4), 808–826.
Издатель: Южный Федеральный Университет
Учредитель: Южный федеральный университет
ISSN: 2073-6606