The ratio of the adoption and implementation of government decisions. Development and implementation of government management decisions

The most difficult situation for a manager is the one that concerns the fate of people, associated with solving problems of an extraordinary nature, with the presence of many possible, usually contradictory alternatives. Scientists call such problems "unique choice problems." Most often, such situations arise in a difficult (often crisis) situation. Making a managerial decision in such a situation requires a good knowledge of the business, a deep understanding of the goals, objectives and methods of management, the availability of resources and funds that will be required to implement future decisions.

This problem requires the study of a significant amount of classroom time.

The lesson is proposed to be carried out in the form of a lecture, a seminar and a practical lesson. The presentation of the material can be structured in the following sequence:

1 Management decision and its social essence.

2. Types and structure of management decisions.

3. State management decision: concept, properties, distinctive features.

4. Development of a management decision, its adoption and communication to the performers.

5. Organization of execution of state and administrative decisions.

KEY CONCEPTS

MANAGEMENT DECISION - in one way or another, a fixed choice of a goal and ways to achieve it, an establishment that is binding. This is a deliberately developed and adopted in the established order a program of actions aimed at achieving the set goal.

QUALITY OF MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS - the degree of compliance of the goals formulated in the solution and the ways of achieving them with the realities that are the result of the implementation of this solution

STATE MANAGEMENT DECISION - an ideal model of the future state of a particular social system, through which the state formulates its idea of the content, form, desirability and obligation of a particular change

LAW - an administrative decision in the form of a normative act adopted in a special order by the highest representative legislative body of state power or by the direct expression of the will of the people, which has the highest legal force and regulating the most important, complex and stable social relations

UKAZ is a generally binding management decision in the form of a regulatory legal act of the President of the country or the President of the Republic as part of Russian Federation on the most important issues of public life not regulated by law

RESOLUTION - a legal act adopted by a state body (government, collegium of a ministry, court, etc.) on issues of its competence

ORDER is a management act issued by the heads of ministries, services and agencies, departments and departments of executive authorities, as well as by the heads of joint-stock companies, concerns, enterprises, institutions and organizations

REGULATIONS - a set of rules and procedures in accordance with which management decisions are developed, adopted and implemented

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

3. Practical implementation of government management decisions

3.1 Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus as a form of state administrative decision

3.2 Implementation of state administrative decisions in the form of a decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

The development and implementation of management decisions is one of the most important management processes. The success of the entire business undertaken by the manager largely depends on ensuring its effectiveness. When making many management decisions, one may encounter unpredictability, the probabilistic nature of the result, which is influenced by many different factors: both internal and external. The lower the level of professionalism of the manager, the higher the unpredictability of the results. In addition, effective decision-making is essential for the performance of government management functions. Improving the process of making informed objective decisions in situations of exceptional complexity is achieved by using a scientific approach to this process, models and quantitative methods of decision making. Decision making is the main part of the work of a manager at any level. Therefore, understanding all the subtleties of the decision-making process in different conditions, knowledge and application of various methods and models of decision-making plays a significant role in increasing the efficiency of public administration. In this regard, the purpose of my work is to study the main stages of development and implementation of state management decisions.

Object of research: the process of making and implementing state management decisions.

The subject of the research is the successful implementation of state management decisions. This process will be illustrated by example in Chapter 3.

1. State management decision as the basis of state management activities

1.1 The concept and essence of state management decisions

In order to manage any social communities or processes, social norms are necessary, the requirements of which are recognized and followed by both subjects and objects. social management... The need for this kind of norms is most significant in public administration, which is the most important type of social administration. It is the development of a specific social and administrative norm that underlies any government decision, the adoption of which is always the choice of a norm capable of resolving issues on a priority social problem. Social and managerial norms are requirements expressed in rules of conduct that regulate social relations according to the chosen goals human activity... With their help, the requirements of the subjects of control are translated into models, standards for the proper behavior of control objects. Incarnation in real life they receive in the process of developing and implementing management decisions that can be considered the core of management activities.

At its core, a managerial decision is a developed and adopted, formally fixed project of social changes. Therefore, any managerial decision is an act of exercising managerial influence, a means of expression and a method of regulating managerial relations in specific historical conditions and social environment.

A public administration decision is a choice of purposeful impact on social reality, consciously made by the subject of public administration, expressed in an official form. Meanwhile, there is a broader concept of a state decision - it is the power will of the state, which takes on an officially expressed form, being enshrined in existing state acts issued by a state body or an official in accordance with its competence and within the limits of the powers granted. The adoption of a state decision is traditionally considered as a stage of a volitional act performed by a subject endowed with state and power powers, when choosing one of the existing opportunities to achieve the intended result of planned actions. Thus, a government decision is, as a rule, an ideal model of the future, which contains information given by a subject of power about the desirability and necessity of what must be fulfilled.

The social nature of management decisions government agencies in that they do not affect the natural or technical environment, but people. The purpose of their stimulating influence is to mobilize people for the practical (material) transformation of social reality. The main content of this management process is the volitional influence of managers on the managed. If the activity on the preparation and adoption of managerial decisions is always spiritual, then the activity on the implementation of these decisions is mainly material, in whatever social sphere it is carried out. The implementation of managerial decisions is a practical and, therefore, the material side of managerial activity, since it is in the process of organizational and as a result practical activities there is a "materialization" of the social norms contained in managerial decisions, their translation into real physical actions (relations, processes, results) under the influence of the control subsystem on the controlled one in order to transform it into a new qualitative state. However, managerial decisions can be of a twofold nature, since they can be directed both outside - to the controlled subsystem, and inward - to the control subsystem. But at the same time, the qualitative specificity of managerial decisions lies in the transformation and stabilization of a controlled social object.

1.2 Types of government management decisions

The variety of social relations requiring government intervention gives rise to many types of government decisions and, accordingly, actions of an imperious nature. In management activities, as a rule, tasks of two types are solved: original (non-trivial) and similar, repetitive ones. Hence the decisions that have to be found and take responsibility for their adoption and direct implementation can also be original or typical. Original tasks do not lend themselves to unification and standardization in full. But for them can be applied general principles solving management problems. In most cases, it is advisable to standardize both the technology for solving repetitive tasks of the same type and the forms of providing information.

State decisions are, to a certain extent, political and administrative. The first are accepted on the most important public significant issues political leadership, i.e. the highest bodies of state power, or leaders directly performing the powers of state bodies (president, chairman of the government, chairmen of the chambers of parliament, heads of legislative and executive regional authorities, ministers and some others). Political decisions are primary level government decisions, while administrative decisions are secondary, having subordinate-subsidiary significance. Administrative decisions are derived from political decisions in the sense that they are aimed at providing conditions for the preparation, adoption and implementation of decisions of the political leadership. A distinctive feature of government decisions at the administrative level is that they are, as a rule, impersonal in nature. A large number of specialists of different profiles are involved in their preparation, acceptance and implementation, and therefore their authorship is not associated with the name of a particular civil servant.

The multifaceted manifestations of social life and the situations arising in it explain the wide variety of relevant decisions that are required by the state. The classification of government decisions allows them to be systematized on various grounds, for example, by subjects of management, time and scope, content and form, etc. So, government decisions can be classified as follows.

1. By subjects of management: a) nationwide (elections, referendum); b) republican, regional, local; c) legislative power, executive power, judicial power; d) individual, collegial.

2. By goals and time of action - strategic (long-term); tactical (medium-term); operational (short-term).

3. By the scale of the action - nationwide; local; intradepartmental; interdepartmental.

4. By the normative nature - general (normative), private (non-normative).

5. By legal force - the highest (constitutional), legislative; bylaws.

6. By types of government - civil, military.

7. According to the forms of legal acts - laws (constitutional, codes); decrees (presidential); decisions (parliament, chamber of parliament, government, court, prosecutor's office); orders (president, government, heads of legislative and executive authorities); orders (heads of government agencies and their structural divisions; military); sentences (courts); sanctions (investigative, prosecutorial authorities); decrees; indications, prescriptions, instructions, etc .; programs, declarations, regulations, statutes; interstate treaties and agreements.

8. According to the order of acceptance - the method of registration and legalization: primary, i.e. directly purchasing legal force(laws, decrees, regulations, etc.); secondary, i.e. enacted and approved by other decisions (for example, an instruction approved by an order of the minister; a regulation approved by a decree of the head of administration, etc.).

9. By development methods - typical (similar), atypical (original).

11. In the form of presentation - written, oral.

12. According to the mechanism of action - direct (immediate) action, framework (reference nature).

13. In terms of importance for execution - mandatory, recommendatory.

14. By the nature of the impact - stimulating, protectionist, motivational, restrictive, prohibitive, etc.

15. By the degree of publicity (openness) - general use, official use, secret, top secret.

This classification expresses the systematic characteristics of the entire complex of government decisions. It covers the most common, but at the same time characteristic of such solutions, characteristic features.

1.3 Forms of state management decisions

If we bear in mind the activities of all subjects of public administration, the forms of state-administrative decisions are understood as the forms of external expression of specific legally or organizationally significant institutions in which they are clothed. Distinguish between legal and non-legal forms of government decisions.

Legal are considered to be those in which decisions are clothed, entailing certain legal consequences. Among them stand out: 1) legal acts (decisions); 2) legal contracts; 3) other acts securing the execution of legally significant decisions. Regulatory legal acts contain decisions that establish new legal norms, change or cancel old ones, i.e. formalize the lawmaking activities of government agencies. The legal acts of management contain decisions with the help of which new legal relationships are formed, previously existing ones are changed, terminated, legally significant actions are carried out and recorded, i.e. the law enforcement activity of government agencies is being formalized. For example, a legal fact is the issuance of an order (instruction) on the appointment of a civil servant to a position, since this event is associated with the emergence of a certain amount of powers. The significance of a legal fact is the decree of the relevant body (official) on the imposition of an administrative penalty on the person guilty of committing an offense. Regulatory and individual law-making and law enforcement acts are the main and most significant forms of government decisions. There are others, for example, those that draw up different kinds activities of state bodies in connection with decisions on registration, licensing, issuance of documents confirming the presence or deprivation of any special rights (for example, to drive a car, hunting, entrepreneurship), on reports on control and supervision, inspection, auditing and other activities. In all such cases, the legal expression of the will of a state body (official) is expressed, which is typical in most of them for decisions made in the order of executive and administrative activities. Decisions developed in the course of contractual practice are also widespread - forms of labor contracts, administrative contracts-agreements between different subjects of management, contracts for service in public authorities, state-legal contracts between entities, interstate and other agreements.

Illegal forms - registration organizational arrangements and material and technical operations performed in the process of public administration, which do not directly entail legal consequences. Organizational forms- decisions of meetings, discussions, checks, dissemination of best practices, development of forecasts, programs, guidelines, accounting and statistical reporting, etc. Material and technical forms - solutions related to the management of office work, paperwork, financial accounting and reporting, information and communication, reference and analytical and similar supporting activities. Illegal forms of government decisions are not associated with the issuance of legal acts and the commission of legally significant actions. They do not create, change or terminate legal relations. Such decisions and actions cannot be considered as forms legal regulation... But they can have a different meaning (for example, the issuance of some kind of certificate) or be overbearing physical actions of a body (representative) of power (for example, a policeman's suppression of an offense). Illegal forms of state and administrative decisions can precede legal ones or follow them. At the same time, unlike legal forms, they do not require full and strictly defined by law legal consolidation; are of an auxiliary nature in management activities. The division of all forms of management decisions on any grounds is conditional, since they are closely interrelated, superimposed on one another. But still they are different in their legal meaning. The effectiveness of management activities to a large extent depends on their skillful combination.

Work on the unification and standardization of state management decisions and their documentary registration is carried out in many countries of the world. This work has been carried out for a long time by standardization organizations in England, Belgium, Germany, Norway, Sweden and other countries. The role and significance of the unification and standardization of documents has especially increased in connection with the possibilities of using computer technologies in management.

All government decisions are drawn up in accordance with the existing standards, which set out the basic requirements for their compilation and publication (publication). So, a court decision usually consists of an introductory (descriptive), motivational and operative parts. The textual content of a document adopted by an executive authority in the form of a resolution, order or order, most often consists of two parts: a statement and a resolution (directive, administrative). The ascertaining part sets out the grounds (motives) for the publication of the document, and the directive specifies specific measures (measures) that should be taken in pursuance of the planned actions. All measures are signed separately for each item, indicating the responsible executors, deadlines, and at the end those who are assigned control over the execution of this act as a whole or its individual items.

State administrative acts are subject to the general rules for the preparation of official documents in accordance with the requirements for their texts, sample forms, the procedure for drawing up and processing them, registering them, recording, transferring, receiving and storing. A nomenclature of cases is drawn up, systematization and unification of official documents is carried out. All this is determined by a unified state system of office work, standard and individual instructions for office work in state bodies. For government decisions contained in regulatory legal acts, the procedural order (procedural rules) is especially important, which determines the entire cycle of their development and implementation: preparation, adoption, registration, publication, application, etc. At the same time, all normative legal acts constitute a single system built on the principle of mandatory compliance of acts of lower-level bodies with acts of higher-level ones.

Along with this, each prepared solution must be sustained in a certain style from the point of view of language, consistency and form of presentation, as well as the convenience of perception of special terminology and its adequate understanding by all who are intended for this solution. It must clearly and accurately convey the meaning and essence of the actions required to be performed, contain mandatory information and indicate specific methods of execution. Directive documents (orders, orders, resolutions, etc.) should not contain vague phrases and unaddressed formulations that make it difficult to unambiguously understand the tasks set and violate the procedure for implementing the planned measures or allowing contradictory, mutually exclusive measures. The decision will be properly executed only when it is completely clear to its executors.

In public administration, it is necessary to express as accurately and correctly the meaning of the expedient forms in which the power requirements are contained, i.e. the decisions themselves. Therefore, in legal practice, the requirements for legal documents of various kinds, their structure, the ratio of parts broken down into articles, clauses and subclauses, the formulation of provisions, the terminology used, etc. Among the rules of legal technique, we will single out: a) the correct formulation of legal norms and regulations; b) a clear definition of the semantic meanings of the concepts and terms used; c) clear legal language; d) capacious and accurate titles of chapters and articles; e) references to other articles; f) correct designations of government agencies, officials and other actors; g) details. The details of state decisions, as a rule, are as follows: coat of arms (state, city), name of a state body, name of an act (decree, order, resolution, order, etc.), title (about what), number, date of adoption (signing) , signature of the official, visa approval, contractor, etc.

In an effort to streamline the process of developing management decisions, government bodies standardize General requirements to them in departmental instructions, memos, recommendations for office work. True, attempts by various departments to simplify the development of solutions by unifying them in internal office work ultimately lead only to excessive paperwork. Therefore, a general regulatory act on unified requirements for the development of uniform decisions of state bodies is highly desirable.

1.4 Legal basis of government management decisions

In public administration, decisions are developed, adopted and implemented in accordance with the established procedure by the relevant authorized entities: government bodies and officials. The legal expression of the will of the administrative subject of state power presupposes the occurrence of certain consequences. The adoption and implementation of government decisions also give rise to legal consequences or conditions necessary for the occurrence of such consequences. Therefore, it should be emphasized that decision-making is not only a right, but also an obligation of authorized entities (state bodies and officials), and at the same time provides for responsibility not only for their adoption and implementation, but also for the resulting consequences. And on the same grounds, government decisions should be clothed in the proper forms of their official expression.

In everyday life, there are many government decisions related to management in various spheres of public relations, the differences between which are very significant for law enforcement practice. The main thing in them is the state decree with the aim of regulating (streamlining, resolving, etc.) social relations affecting various manifestations of the life and activities of a person-citizen in a society-state. The need for legal regulation of the adoption and implementation of government decisions causes the need for their documentation, proper fixation of facts, events and conditions. Adoption (publication, promulgation) of state decisions in documentary form is a way of written communication (transmission) of information necessary for management and other types of activities. Documentation assumes compliance with the established rules for recording and formalizing management decisions. Proper observance of such rules is imperative, as it gives them formal expression and legal force. Legal force is the property of the obligatory execution of decisions contained in an official document (in the theory of state and law - a legal act), communicated to it by the current legislation, the competence of the body that issued it and the established procedure for registration. Giving a document legal force, confirming the fact of its publication is the main purpose of the registration procedure. It is provided with a set of requisites established for each type of documents - mandatory elements of paperwork (including the name of the document, its number, date of adoption, stamp of approval, information about the signer: job title and surname, seal, etc.). So, while any document, for example, a minister's order, is not registered, it does not legally exist; if the received document is not registered, none of the officials will take responsibility for it, since the fact of its receipt has not been confirmed. Registration details also allow keeping records, search and identification of all documents, as well as control over the execution of managerial decisions.

Along with many functions (social, communicative, historical, etc.), documents also contain legal and informational ones. The legal function is performed by documents containing decisions of public authorities, since they are a means of consolidating and changing legally significant states associated with management decisions and legal relations. Performing an information function, the document is the main carrier of management information about the decisions made.

Government decisions taken by public authorities are formalized by the publication of legal acts, which can be normative and non-normative. Depending on the degree of legal significance, government decisions can be in writing (regulatory or non-regulatory legal acts) or orally (instruction, order, order, assignment, job assignment).

State decisions, adopted in the form of normative legal acts, are issued by the authorized body and establish, change or abolish the norms of law. The rule of law is the generally binding rules of due conduct established by the state. They, like all law in general, are aimed at the regulation and development of certain social relations. They indicate the conditions under which this rule (hypothesis) should be guided, the subjects of regulated relations, their rights and obligations arising under the circumstances provided for in the hypothesis (disposition), and also determine the consequences that should occur for persons who violate this prescription ( sanction). Usually, the prescriptions of the norms of law are more or less general in nature, regulating a certain type of social relations. The generally binding nature of the rule of law is ensured by the state through the education of the legal consciousness of citizens and the application of measures of state coercion to violators. The totality of the rules of law in a given society constitutes its law.

The basis of the foundations of all the rule-making activities of state bodies is the preparation and adoption of laws, which are acts of state administration that have the greatest legal force. The highest in terms of legal significance among them is the country's constitution. Therefore, it is natural that the main procedures for the adoption of legislative acts are fixed in constitutions, the change of the norms of which has a procedure of particular complexity. An example of this is the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus.

The most characteristic properties of public administration decisions are as follows. Decisions made by public authorities and formalized as legal acts characterize the legal significance of the actions prescribed by them. Along with this, the measures specified in them are usually binding. Hence, such a feature of a state decision as its directivity and commitment stands out. As an act of power, a government decision generally obliges, prescribes, prohibits, authorizes, deprives, terminates, permits, encourages, punishes, etc. Power is manifested in the unilateral adoption of such a decision, which therefore cannot be the result of an agreement between the parties. State administrative decisions are also distinguished by an active organizing, creative role. Public administration and decisions taken in the process of its implementation are usually characterized not by one, but by several goals that are interconnected. For example, the strategic, main, constant and always relevant goal can be considered the satisfaction of social needs in the priority areas of development of society and the state. This is served by a series of supporting, often changing and therefore not distinguished by the constancy of goals, the achievement of which is carried out through subsequent government decisions. There is also such an important property of state decisions as the importance of a system of rules that determines the order of their development, discussion, adoption, entry into force, amendments and cancellation. Regulation in this case serves as a solid guarantee of the leading role of decisions of state bodies in real management processes. Thus, we can note the parameters inherent in all types of management decisions that are made by the state. These include: 1) the presence of subject-object relations; 2) meaningfulness of decisions - information about what should be done and for what (for what purposes), etc .; 3) the procedure for making a decision; 4) the form of the decision; 5) the time of the decision.

Among the numerous forms (external expressions of internal connections and methods of organization, interaction of elements and processes both among themselves and with external conditions), an important place is occupied by administrative acts of state bodies and officials. Such acts are decisions of the competent state authorities expressed in writing, which contain management provisions. A special group is made up of state decisions, which always contain an indication of responsibility for their violation. These primarily include codes: on administrative offenses, criminal, customs, tax, etc. Another group is made up of court decisions, which, according to Russian law, are passed in the form of sentences in criminal, arbitration and administrative cases or in the form of decisions of a judicial authority (court) , which ends the consideration and resolution of civil cases on the merits, as well as on cases considered in the process of constitutional proceedings.

2. Technologies for making and implementing state management decisions

2.1 The essence of the process of making state management decisions

Although the decision-making process is a complex process, and the problems themselves are extremely diverse in their semantics (content), it is possible to identify the main general stages of this process, to find out how exactly the act of choosing one alternative from the existing or constructed set of alternatives is carried out, to choose a course of action that provides obtaining the required results.

The process of making and implementing decisions, according to the figurative metaphor of J. Labordet, is like a journey: “First, you decide what your destination is. Then you think about how to move and who to invite with you. You can fly, drive, bike, or walk. Suppose you decide to drive a car. Then you need to find the route that is most attractive to you. As you move, you must remember or see control points on the map and in the terrain that show you are on the right track. If your fellow travelers have a different destination than you, you need to find out at what point they want to separate from you. Later, when you reach your destination, you need special ways to check if this is where you want to be, and if you really achieved everything you wanted. " The decision-making process is influenced by many internal and external factors: knowledge and experience of the decision maker; availability of timely information; time allotted for decision making; the level of his authority; system of beliefs and beliefs, as well as the ability to apply special decision-making techniques and defend decision.

In the process of making a decision, it can be important whether a decision is made by one person or a group (team), is the decision being made regulated by the rules in force in the organization, how important is the decision made for the executors, how new the problem being solved, are there the necessary resources to implement the decision, is it necessary observe confidentiality, what are the requirements for the quality of the decision, etc. Some of these factors are complementary, but each of them influences the decision-making process in its own way.

A distinction is made between programmed and non-programmed solutions. Most of the problems that we have to meet are those that have been repeatedly encountered before and for which there is ready-made recipe solutions. We have a “program” for solving the problem: we know what to do. This is a programmed decision. It is convenient to have a ready-made solution, but there is always the danger that, due to the changing situation since a similar problem was solved, the ready-made answer will turn out to be wrong.

Decision making is often perceived as a single act, although the decision making process is complex and can be represented as a sequence of several stages. Consider the simplest basic model of decision making by G. Simon, which consists of three stages:

* reflections;

* design of solution options;

At the thinking stage, you should analyze the problem, collect necessary information, clearly formulate the criteria that the solution must satisfy. At the design stage, the search and construction of possible solutions to the problem is carried out in accordance with a specific system for finding these solutions. At the stage of selection, among the possible solution options, the best of all the proposed options is selected, which meets all the considered criteria at once. As a rule, in the decision-making process, this scheme is adhered to intuitively, without paying the necessary attention to each of the stages, unconsciously trying to use the programmed decisions.

The stage of thinking about the problem can be presented in more detail, breaking it down into three sub-stages: 1) feeling that there is a problem; 2) formulating and clarifying it; 3) determination of the criteria that the solution must satisfy. And the selection stage is divided into two sub-stages: 1) evaluation of options; 2) choosing the best option. The application of a structured approach in accordance with the considered linear scheme does not always give a satisfactory answer the first time, and it may be necessary to repeat all the steps or some of them again. Thus, the linear scheme is modified into a cyclical one, which can be supplemented with the stages of monitoring, implementation and summing up.

According to this model, they are prompted to make decisions: firstly, the problems that have arisen and, secondly, the need to change the situation. In both cases, you first need to understand what the desired result is, then proceed to collecting and analyzing information and developing solutions. The information contains both objective quantitative data and opinions and judgments of various people. The review process and its results are influenced by the policy and culture of the organization, which limits the number of options. The choice of the option completes the three-stage scheme of G. Simon. It is necessary to inform subordinates about the chosen decision, and those who implement the adopted decision - about the developed criteria. The process ends with the stages of monitoring, control and assessment of how the situation has improved.

Planning is necessary to foresee decision-making moments in the management process along with indicating what needs to be done. Consider a planning concept that is applicable to such complex tasks as the development of republican targeted programs, and to planning an individual current activities... Planning varies in scale and complexity, in timescales, in the number of people involved, etc., which significantly complicates the development of a common approach to this process.

Planning is a process of gradually clarifying and detailing what needs to be done, and it ends with drawing up a plan. In its simplest form, a plan has three main components: goals, descriptions of actions, resources. Objectives should be formulated in detail and accurately so that implementers can understand whether they have achieved them within the specified timeframe and whether they have met the standards set in the plan, as well as whether the results meet the criteria. Since goals, actions and resources are interrelated, the development of a plan can begin by considering any of the components, organizing the integration process. The planning process has its own internal logic, although it is far from always obvious due to the complexity of the planned process itself. Consider planning as an eight-step process, which is more a kind of rational idealized scheme, rather than a rigid structure that must be followed rigorously. This scheme makes it possible to realize the existence of a system of certain planning stages connected by a single logic, regardless of whether a large-scale project is being developed or daily routine work is planned. The stages of the planning process are:

one . Defining goals (what exactly are you and your team planning to achieve?).

2. Generation and evaluation of options (what are the possible courses of action? Which of them, after evaluating all the options, seems to be the best way to achieve the goals?).

3. Determination of actions (what needs to be done to implement the selected option?).

4. Prioritization of actions (in what order is it best to carry out these actions "?).

5. Determination of the required resources (what resources will be required to implement the plan?).

6. Revision of the plan (will the plan work? If the answer is no, you should return to item 3., item 2 or item 1).

7. Preparation of an action plan and work schedule (who should do what and when?).

8. Monitoring and control, correction of the plan if necessary.

Let's take a closer look at each of the eight planning stages. It is recommended that you pay sufficient attention to the first stage, taking into account the planning context, and do not rush to solve the issues of the next stages, so that later you do not get bogged down in details. Goal setting should be accompanied by the development of criteria for assessing the degree of their achievement. Goals must meet SMART principles (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timed). It is recommended that the goal be formulated in such a way that it is the goal setting (preferably with quantitative criteria), and not a general declaration of intent. Having figured out with the greatest possible accuracy what needs to be achieved, it is necessary to consider how exactly to achieve the set goals. As a result of the generation and subsequent assessment of possible options for action, the preferred option of actions appears. At this stage, it is possible to conduct various consultations, including with subordinates. Evaluation of options on a systematic and rational basis is carried out as a comparison of options at once according to several (possibly heterogeneous) criteria. At this stage, the form of information presentation in the form of a matrix of assessments "options - criteria" is important, where the matrix element located at the intersection of any row and any column is the assessment of the option corresponding to the row according to the criterion corresponding to the column of the matrix. Such a representation does not reveal " the best way”, But allows to immediately discard some obviously unsatisfactory options; dissimilar criteria can be ranked according to their relative importance. Often, such a presentation of information allows you to detect the need for a specific additional information... At the third and fourth stages, a list of all possible actions necessary to achieve the goals is drawn up, and their ordering is carried out. It is found out which actions cannot be started before the completion of others, which are performed in parallel, for which the time of their execution is indifferent. The work begins with drawing up a list of actions and ends with an indication of the order in which they should be performed.

Drawing up any plan requires an estimate of the timing of any action in question. The method of "triple estimation" of time is often used, according to which the performer first asks the maximum time required to complete the work, then the minimum required time and, finally, taking into account all known factors, the most probable time. Finding out from the performer how often the maximum time is required to complete the work, how often - the minimum and most probable, we find the time that can be spent to carry out the action in question. By this time, as a rule, there are already rough estimates of the necessary resources, the refinement of which is advisable to carry out as follows:

* compose full list the required resources with an indication of the cost of each;

* determine when and for how long these resources will be required, which of them are available or can be easily obtained when required;

* determine the deficits and estimate the cost of acquiring additional resources;

* explore the possibility of uniform consumption of resources;

* adjust the plan based on the availability of resources or purchase missing resources.

In the process of revising the plan, it is necessary to find out whether any important actions have been forgotten, whether the implementation of the plan will lead to the initially set goals, whether the costs will go beyond the budget, what is the probability of the plan being implemented. At the stage of preparation of the action plan and work schedule, it is specified in detail what, how, in what time frame and who should be done. It is necessary to discuss the plan, involving stakeholders and providing them with the necessary information.

government decision

2.2 Problems of monitoring and control in the process of implementing government management decisions

Consider the problems of monitoring and control over the implementation of actions and the provision of resources. In the process of control, four stages can be distinguished: setting norms, observing the values of actual indicators, comparing actual indicators with norms, corrective actions (from minor interventions to switching to a "reserve" plan). One of the current trends in the development of managerial control is that control is increasingly replaced by self-control.

The multi-stage monitoring and control process can be represented by the following stages. Stage 1 - higher-level goals - moved outside the control loop if it is outside the area of competence of the organization or department. At stage 2, measurable goals are defined. At stage 3, quantitative parameters are selected that determine the degree of achievement of goals. Stage 4 sets standards or criteria for the required quality of performance. Stages 1-4 sequentially define the controlling activity or reorient the current activity. Stages 5-8 are stages of direct monitoring, during which they obtain information about current activities (stage 5), measure the results of performance (stage 6), compare the measured results with the norms (criteria) (stage 7), decide whether corrective actions are needed (stage 8). At step 8, the process is branched: continue unchanged if no correction is required (step 8a), take corrective action to improve performance (step 86); revise and change goals, parameters or norms (criteria) (step 8c). After steps 8a and 86, monitoring is carried out again (go to step 5), and after step 8c, you can go to step 4, step 3, or even to step 1.

Control as a managerial process is mainly about encouraging people to do one thing and not do another. When setting standards, monitoring and adjusting activities, it is important that the participants agree on the issues under consideration and take into account the factors that determine their opinions. The effectiveness of management control depends to a large extent on norms, which, as well as goals, must satisfy the principles of SMART. The norms should be perceived by the performers as significant (essential for achieving goals), clear (there should be no doubt about the expected result), fair (all should be subject to the same requirements), adjustable (it is possible to reduce the norms if necessary), honest (compliance with the norms is not leads to their automatic increase). The rules for setting norms depend on many factors. The following sources of norm setting are identified: past experience, calculations, reconciliation, best practices, flair.

To ensure measurement and monitoring of results, the following monitoring tools are used: observation and personal participation, polls and discussions, current statistics, own statistics, reports and reports (regular reporting and reporting in exceptional cases). In monitoring, it is helpful to keep in mind that gathering information takes time and that too much information is probably just as harmful in analysis as not enough information.

The information used for control must meet the following requirements: correspond to the level at which the control is carried out; be presented in a visual (visual) form; notify whether the data represent objective measurement results or estimated estimates that have an author; must be consistent (all contradictions must be eliminated); must have an addressee authorized to exercise control; cover only the actions of the reporting period (if included in the reports).

The use of information technology allows you to create your own databases and funds of methods for solving management problems, use other databases, and also significantly speed up the preparation of current reports by collecting information from many sources. Information Technology must be well-designed relevant systems. Otherwise, the huge amounts of information generated by poorly designed systems can only make it difficult to find important relationships. It must be remembered that the planning and control system cannot be better than the information on which it is built.

State target programs, seven main sections of which reflect the stages highlighted in the methodology, can serve as examples of plans built in accordance with the above methodology:

* targets and goals;

* system of events;

* resource provision;

* organizational and economic mechanism of implementation;

* organization of program management and control over the course of its implementation;

* assessment of the expected efficiency.

Thus, by classifying the identified problems as structured, a structured approach can be applied both to their solution and to their planning. If the problems do not lend themselves well to structuring, if their solution relies more on the experience and intuition of the decision-maker than on built or used ready-made rational structures, then it is necessary, in accordance with the principle of environmental friendliness of management and decision-making, to move to structures, technologies and models , based precisely on the properties of the situation that are “inconvenient” for a structured approach, using these uncertainties, “softness” in the description of the situation as a positive resource to solve problems.

2.3 Management of changes in the process of implementation of government management decisions

The complexity, operational closure of social systems can lead to changes generated by the ability of such systems to self-organization and associated with the emergence of the system to new own states (or other own behavior). In this case, problems of management and decision-making also arise in conditions of unpredictable change of situations, increased uncertainty - the task of change management. Hence, there is an intrinsic link between change management and problem solving.

Many changes and problems are local and discrete. Obviously, in everyday practice, a civil servant regularly deals with a stream of "small" problems, which in their content are changes in routine tasks and are solved, as a rule, rather quickly, without causing any particular difficulties in the process of their solution, since it is known that what to do in situations of this kind. In these cases, the management task is reduced to obtaining the necessary resources and, using the usual (routine) methods, to solve the problem. However, even such changes, not to mention more radical ones, can give rise to other changes, other problems that are much more difficult to classify than the original ones, and their solution does not lie on the surface, far from being obvious. They require different approaches, both in terms of identifying what needs to be done and in terms of ways to achieve goals.

In the process of public administration, it is often necessary to deal with social changes that go beyond the scope of daily routine activities, for which the type of change is not clear, it is not clear what the change entails, who will be affected and who will be affected. And it's not even clear what needs to be achieved in the end. For such changes, the methods require both for each of the stages of change and for the entire process as a whole, the desire, skills, skills and concentration of efforts of all participants in the changes for correct organization process. Situations of change of this kind are called situations of unlimited change. An unrestricted situation is characterized by a long, indefinite time scale, the priorities in it are far from obvious and questionable; not sure what the problem is; the impression is that the solution simply does not exist; it is not known what should be known; the number of people involved in change is large; the situation cannot be extracted from the context; the change has vague but serious implications for participants to worry about. In such a situation, the boundaries of change are vague, changes interfere with the usual life and it is impossible to isolate them; there is a constant "growth" of the problem: the problem is growing like a snowball.

In contrast to the situation of unlimited change, situations in which it is not so difficult to understand what is at stake, how to handle them and where the problem boundaries are, which are similar in their possible formulation to mathematical problems, are called situations of limited change. In other words, the situation of limited change is a well-defined problem. A limited situation (difficulty) is characterized by clarity in priorities, limited time scale; know what the solution should be and what the essence of the problem is; the situation can be viewed as autonomous and can be posed as a local problem; the impact of change is limited; the number of people involved in change is also limited; it is known what should be known (which is important for the problem statement).

Problems (or situations) associated with change can be classified using the values of two parameters: "the level of emotional involvement of people" in the problem and the "degree of computational complexity." Then each situation of changes can be depicted as a simply connected area on a plane with a horizontal axis - "technical complexity" and vertical - "emotional involvement" (see Fig. 1).

The horizontal axis is directed from left to right: from low computational complexity near zero and to the right of it - to high. Vertical - from bottom to top: from low emotional involvement near and above zero to high. Then the situations located in the positive quadrant near the origin are limited situations with "hard" methods for their solution. Situations along the diagonal of the positive quadrant represent situations in which Emotional Engagement and Technical (Computational) Complexity are balanced. As situations move away from the origin, moving along the diagonal of the quadrant, which is the bisector of the coordinate angle, we increasingly approach situations that are situations of unlimited changes, first going through situations of relatively limited changes, then situations that, although they are trying to control, but they are not amenable to control , we will then find ourselves in the so-called "damned" situations.

...

§3. MECHANISM FOR DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING STATE POLICY. STATE DECISION MAKING PROCESS

Strategy and hierarchical levels in the mechanism of public administration
The process of making state decisions: models, methods and main stages Public administration, associated with the development of state strategy and the conduct of daily public policy, occupies a key place in the structure of the political process. It has already been noted that in public administration, on the one hand, through the channels of making official decisions, the "collective will" of society is accumulated and expressed, and on the other hand, through certain institutional mechanisms and with the help of tools, it is implemented in public policy related to the management of public affairs ... By its structure, management includes two processes: firstly, the regulation of the collective resources of society and, secondly, the purposeful leadership of people, maintaining a certain institutional order of communication between them.

The implementation of public policy, coupled with the regulation of society's resources, is a kind of product of one or another cycle of the political process, being its final phase, the resulting stage.

Strategy and hierarchical levels in the mechanism of public administration

Since the writing of the classic works of A. Bontley "The Management Process" (1908) and D. Truman "The Management Process" (1951), public administration and public policy have been associated mainly with the conscious regulation of public affairs and collective resources by the groups that control the main levers of power. interests "with the help of official state institutions. Political management of society, noted the American political scientist Charles Lindblom, can be presented as a mechanism with the highest bureaucrats "at the top", ordinary citizens "at the bottom" and the rest of its links, subordinated according to their intermediate ranks. This very voluminous and complex mechanism is a multilevel system of functional phases and rank links that are in the relationship of coordination and subordination. Here, each higher level and rank, on the one hand, is more informed, resourcefully and functionally provided than the lower level, and on the other hand, it is also endowed with great responsibility for maintaining the regime of optimal functioning of the hierarchical levels subordinate to it.

In a broad sense, the category "management" is often defined as a function of organic systems of various nature and complexity, ensuring the preservation of their structure, maintenance of the internal mode of functioning and implementation of the program10. Social control stands out from other controlled systems by the fact that not only spontaneous mechanisms operate within its framework, but two interrelated determinants at once: both conscious and spontaneous methods of regulation. What, in turn, distinguishes public administration as a type of social administration, for example, from its other varieties, such as, say, the management of a transnational corporation or a financial and industrial group, sometimes even exceeding the population of some small states in terms of the total number of its personnel?

The difference from the management of a private company lies primarily in the universal nature of public administration, due to the comprehensive coverage of power powers and functions, the need to regulate almost all types of public resources and spheres of public life. "A corporation must find the kind of activity for which it is most suitable, and do it," the British political scientists A. Lawton and E. Rose note. orders and so on "11.

In the analysis of the specifics of public administration, one should also take into account the universal role of constitutional, state rights as systems of basic norms, on behalf of the people regulating (to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the type of political regime) all the main spheres of people's activity and determining the fundamental principles of relations between citizens and public institutions. In addition, all individual links and elements of the state administration mechanism have legitimate powers and power functions; a universal form with very strict regulations and sanctions; administrative means and tools; and finally, a set of collective resources used on behalf and in the interests of all people. So, if we formulate a working definition of the category of public administration, then the latter is a special type of social administration, in which state organization, as a hierarchical political subject, firstly, it has a universal complex of public authority powers; second, it formally applies administrative methods of leadership and coercive sanctions; thirdly, it uses legitimate forms of social communication and legal methods of interaction with groups and individuals and, finally, fourthly, it is engaged in the purposeful regulation of the collective resources of society.

Within the Anglo-American tradition, the category "public management" is the broadest in scope, including both "public policy" associated with the development of public strategy and tactics, and "public administration. "(public administration), aimed at efficient organization, optimization of the functioning of the links of the state apparatus and the technology of work of management personnel.

So, state policy in this sense is associated with the development of a strategic course of society, the main directions of development of the state and ways to implement its goals and objectives. In the structure of the mechanism of modern state policy, the following blocks can be distinguished: 1) the formation of a legitimate subject and an institutional hierarchy of state policy; 2) developing a strategic course and making government decisions; 3) administrative and other means of implementing managerial decisions and 4) a block of state control and arbitration, ensuring self-correction of the political regime and " feedback"with objects of state leadership.

Let's start with the ways of representation and models of the formation of the subjects of public policy themselves. They can be summarized in four main types: elitist, carporativist, pluralistic and participatory, which cover almost the entire system-forming spectrum of political governance, starting with the hyperconcentration of state will in the hands of one or several people (the eastern ancient despotisms of Egypt of the pharaohs or imperial China) and up to plebiscite mechanisms or participatory methods of forming the subjects of public expression.

Supporters of the concept of elitism believe that the state is governed by an elected or appointed "few professionals" who are well trained, informed and therefore quite competent, and the excessive expansion of social representation and the boundaries of political participation leads to a crisis and a decrease in the effectiveness of the entire system of public administration. The subject of state policy is the elite, which is delegated the main powers of making strategic decisions for the country and which accumulates the collective will of the nation. The corporatists proceed from other prerequisites, namely from the model of reconciliation within the framework of state policy of heterogeneous group, corporate interests, both through parliamentary mechanisms and through special functional structures such as "tripartite commissions" that include employers and trade unions, and where government bodies carry out the role of the arbiter. Within the pluralistic model, the bodies that govern the state and formulate the state strategy are formed on the basis of free, equal and proportional representation.

Supporters of the so-called participatory12 management system advocate a radical expansion of the sphere of influence of the masses on the process of forming a state strategy, and also advocate a significant decentralization of the powers of government of state entities, a shift in the center of gravity towards the regional level of decision-making and the order of self-government of local communities of citizens.

The method of forming the bearers of public will, the procedure for the representation and participation of the masses in public administration connects the latter with the macro-political process through the electoral process that constitutes it. In the event of elections and a change of top officials or ruling parties, a completely new state strategy may change or emerge (replacement of liberals or conservatives by socialists). In democratic countries, elections of high officials and representative bodies of power (from the president and parliament to municipalities) are, in fact, the very legitimate way to form integral will, to express public interests. In referendums and plebiscites, all voters for a short moment directly become, in a sense, a "collective subject" of state policy. Even in a number of modern monarchies of the Third World countries, the mechanism of electing the head of state is increasingly used. In Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates, the monarch is elected from among the sultans or emirs who are the hereditary rulers of the structural units of these federations. Replacement of the throne in Saudi Arabia also characterized by elements of the election of the monarch from among the "noble" royal family, and this post is often received not by the sons, but by the brothers of the king. In Swaziland, the Lycoco Tribal Council elects an heir to the throne from among the sons of the late king.

The next, second in a row, link in the mechanism of state policy is development of government strategy and government decision-making related to the legislative process and operational management from the side of executive administration bodies. In this block, both legislative (parliament) and executive (government) institutions take an active part in the development of state policy. Depending on the balance of power and authority between them, there are two main models for the development of state strategy and decision-making: "active" and "representative".

In the first case, the legislative institutions formulate the basic principles and constitutional norms, develop a strategy for national policy, while the jurisdiction of the executive bodies secures the practical implementation of strategic decisions and the technology of operational management itself. According to the second, representative, management model, which exists, for example, in a number of European countries, legislative and parliamentary bodies are limited only to formulating the most general guidelines and rules of the game, and the adoption of many important operational and strategic decisions is transferred to the executive branch.

The third node of the mechanism for the implementation of public policy includes the process of applying technological techniques and methods of operational management, due to the need to implement strategic goals and decisions and focused primarily on practical management impact. This stage of the management cycle is most directly related to political regimes, reflecting the features of the institutional interaction of state bodies with ordinary citizens, as well as the very methods of political and legal governance with a particular country (the ratio of coercion and persuasion, violence and law, etc.).

Finally, the last block in the public policy mechanism is responsible for ensuring control of the management process and self-correction of its regime. Conflict resolution, the work of the supervision and arbitration system, which ensures the action of "feedback", is primarily associated with the judicial-constitutional process and the functioning of control and supervisory institutions (prosecutor's office, ombudsman).

In connection with the analysis of the hierarchy of functional blocks for the formation and implementation of state policy, the question arises of the subordination between the carriers of state powers themselves, coordination between the subjects and objects of state administration. It has already been mentioned that the state is a system of subinstitutions, subdivided by their powers and functions into "horizontal" (branches of power) and "vertical" (levels of power) ranks. At one time, A. Bentley noted that the process of public administration is divided into the group activity of people acting within the three branches of government, that is, relatively speaking, into three "horizontal" sub-processes: legislative, administrative and judicial processes. This "horizontal" hierarchy of government entities, their functions and powers, becomes much more complicated in federal countries, where there are three or even more "vertical" levels of government and their respective carriers.

The object of state policy and management influence itself, that is, society, has a no less hierarchical structure. The structuring of civil society as a sphere of state influence is considered in the specialized literature on various grounds. First, there is an approach according to which as an object state regulation the spheres of public life are distinguished, separate. the types of resources existing in society and the directions of state policy corresponding to them: economic, social, cultural, environmental, educational, informational and others. Secondly, the division into different socio-demographic, professional-qualification or ethnic groups of people can serve as the basis for the classification of objects of state administration. To change the social status of these groups, one or another managerial influence is directed, in accordance with which a specific female, youth or ethno-national policy is implemented, or, for example, a policy of income and employment in differentiated terms for individual social and professional strata of the population. As an illustration, here we can cite the state's social policy in conditions when the post-industrial restructuring of the economy requires a policy of state subsidies for retraining and keeping "old" workers "afloat", that is, specialties and professions leaving circulation.

State policy, therefore, is, firstly, a set of subordinate actions of many people, secondly, the interaction of management links and blocks of the institutional mechanism aimed at developing and implementing strategic goals and decisions and, thirdly, a certain management cycle, in which there is no rigid sequence of functional phases, since they often run in parallel, and in this cycle there is no clearly distinguished beginning and end. "Any public policy is a complex phenomenon, consisting of the actions of many elected, appointed or hired officials," notes Ch. Lindblom in his book "The Policy Development Process." ... The central link in the general mechanism of state policy is the phase of making strategic and operational-tactical decisions.

Government Decision Making Process: Models, Methods and Main Stages

The importance of government decision-making processes and for political theory, and for practical politics is so great that the very interpretation of political power and administration in Western political science comes down to real control over decision-making, while decision-makers (DM), especially strategic decisions, are attributed to the ruling elite (A. Higgley ). One of the first to include this problem in political science was G. Simon, whose work "Administrative Behavior: A Study of the Decision-Making Process in Administrative Bodies" (1945) laid the foundations for a special theory of government decision-making.

V social theory there are many definitions of the categories of political and managerial decisions. Here are just two of the most common and typical definitions of this scientific concept... First, in accordance with the postulates of the theory of "rational choice" (rational choice), the state decision is associated with the choice of a model of behavior from a number of alternative options. A political decision is a choice of one of at least two possible political actions. Secondly, within the framework of the activity approach, "the state decision is defined as the ideal result of activity and the optimal means of achieving it in the work of public authorities, a goal that has an imperative meaning within its competence.

There are two common viewpoints that define the boundaries of the political decision-making process: narrow and expansive. According to the first version, the decision-making process is limited only by theoretical and analytical procedures and mental operations, culminating in the choice of the optimal decision model and its rather rigid formalization. The second position pushes the boundaries of this process, including in it practical, technological measures for the implementation of solutions. In fact, the latter position equates the entire process of political governance and the mechanism of state policy with the conscious adoption and implementation of state decisions. To a certain extent, this excludes spontaneous factors and spontaneous regulators of political life from the management process.

In modern political science, special concepts, within the boundaries of which the process of making state decisions is interpreted, are often divided into two main types: 1) descriptive (descriptive) and 2) normative (prescriptive). What is the difference between these approaches to the analysis of government decisions? The descriptive direction proceeds primarily from the principle of empirical research and descriptive analysis of the political behavior of decision-makers (DM), as well as from the interactions of political actors in a particular situation. Within the framework of a descriptive approach, the activity of an individual political leader, associated with the motives and reasons for making one or another individual decision, can also be described. For example, the analysis of the psychological factors of decision-making by the President of the United States in stressful situations, such as the Cuban missile crisis, when he takes personal initiative and all responsibility for the consequences. Possible option It also serves to study the attitudes and motives of group behavior when making collegial decisions, when, for example, a group of 5-10 professional politicians makes a state decision concerning the fate of millions of citizens, as was the case with the well-known decisions on the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan or the Russian army to Chechnya.

Regarding the specifics of normative decision-making theories, one can note their concentrated attention to the development of optimal rules and procedures, algorithms and formalized models, in accordance with which an integral process of government decision-making should be built. This concept is focused on the rationalization of political decisions, since the standard algorithms developed within its boundaries are designed to increase the efficiency of the choice of goals and the means of achieving them, focused in the normative formula of the optimal solution for a given political situation. At the same time, the weakness of the normative approach lies in the well-known exaggeration of the role of "ideal types", rational decision models, distracted from the subjects of management themselves, their interests, values and attitudes of decision-makers (DM), as well as the existing hierarchical relations between them.

One of the first historical precedents for the emergence of a hierarchy of subjects of government (DM) is Ancient Egypt of the era of the pharaohs, namely, formed already in the Old Kingdom, " egyptian pyramid"the so-called" obedient to the call. "" Obedient to the call "are those who had to directly listen and unquestioningly execute the order of their superior or their master. One and the same person (decision maker) could have a double status: have their own" obedient to the call. " and be simultaneously in a group of "obedient to the call" of a superior of a higher rank, thereby forming a hierarchy of administrative strata. One of these groups could include only large dignitaries, courtiers of the pharaoh, the other, together with free ones, were slaves, and the third could only be slaves. ...

Above it was possible to notice that there are certain principles of relationships between subjects and objects of government, namely, the correspondence of the subject to the object; feedback of the object with the subject, and the correlation and reciprocity of subjects and objects in the process of making political decisions. The first rule is related to the fact that the zone of legitimate powers and power competence, say, of the parliamentary committee on social policy, should cover the area of preparation and implementation of bills in the social sphere, without specifically extending to the functional field of the defense policy committee or directly to the area of operational management. regional labor exchanges. In other words, the scope of the authority and responsibility of the decision-making state subject should ideally correspond to the nature of the interests and priorities of the controlled social object. The principle of feedback and self-correction of decisions determines the order in which decision-making leaders or collegial bodies must constantly interact with their object of management (young people, the unemployed, representatives of small businesses, and so on), periodically adjust individual political decisions, and if the need arises, then the entire state strategy, depending on the success or failure of the government in the implementation of social or economic policies.

As for the last principle, it is directly related to the already considered hierarchy of subject-object levels in public policy, as well as with the problem of classification of political decisions, the criteria of which are determined by the role of the subject of decision-making, as well as the object of leadership, about which this decision is made, and finally, by the very nature of their interaction. One of the interesting attempts to typologize political decisions was made by the Polish political scientist T. Klementievich14. He subdivides political decisions on two grounds: the range of subjects involved in the choice of political action, and the level of integration of the sphere of social interests of the object of leadership or the addressee of the decision (Table 3). We also add that political decisions can be collegial and individual.

It should be noted that formal and informal links, official and unofficial channels for its development and preparation are distinguished in the mechanism of political decision-making. As an illustration, we can cite the scheme of political decision-making at the national level in modern Japan, which has several official-institutional levels and "shadow" (in this sense, "non-institutional") links. For the preparation and adoption of the necessary legislative acts in the Japanese parliament, an interested corporate organization needs to go a long way. Initially, an entrepreneurial structure, industrial or banking association goes to the administrative and executive apparatus, state bureaucrats, while passing through the levels of the sector, department and leadership of the corresponding sectoral ministry. The draft decision during the rule of the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan was coordinated with party officials in special Councils for General and Political Affairs, the Parliamentary Policy Committee and with the top leadership of the LDP, its parliamentary faction and internal parliamentary caucuses (the so-called dzoku clans). And only after that, a legislative decision is submitted for discussion in parliament, falling under criticism and analysis of opposition political parties and the media, and after observing a certain procedure for discussion and voting, it is adopted as a law, a normative act.

It is possible that the decision-making process at the highest level in modern Russia... The rules of the game and social factors in the process of signing presidential decrees have already been roughly determined: here is the lobbying pressure, and the psychological mood of the President, and the procedure of lengthy approvals, which can freeze the signing of the document for six months or a year, or even simply, figuratively speaking, " off the rails ". The heads of the administration, the prime minister, his deputies, as well as other top state leaders, whose agreement is considered necessary for the approval of the draft decree, have a decisive opportunity to slow down, or even stop the decision-making process on one or another important issue. In some cases, visas require multiple pages. Thus, even at first glance, purely personal solutions statesmen also bear a collective-group imprint (for example, the interests and orientations of the presidential entourage) and sometimes imply more than one level of elaboration and coordination.

To make the best decision in public policy, there are two main ways of choosing an alternative and determining an agreed decision: consensus and voting. The first of them - the way of consensus (from the Latin "consensus omnium" - the consent of all) is very effective in cases where the interests of the decision-making participants overlap and only slightly diverge, so the decision is made as a compromise between various alternatives, supported by all parties. It is the principle of "consent of all" that is used to make key decisions in the UN Security Council. But at the same time, the practice of using the voting method for making strategic decisions in public policy is even more widespread. This method of choosing solutions is not limited only to the formal procedure and voting technique, but includes clarifying the strengths and weaknesses of different solutions, clarifying the positions of the LIR, and determining specific gravity and the proportions between the majority, minority and intermediate forces participating in the voting process.

The process of making government decisions is divided into separate stages and functional phases. There are different points of view on the definition of the boundaries and the number of the main stages of making managerial decisions. In a generalized plan, the following main stages in the holistic process of government decision-making could be identified:

1. Determination of priority problems and formation of the political "agenda". At this initial stage, preliminary information necessary for making a political decision is collected, selected and analyzed. The interests, requests and requirements of individual individuals are studied, social groups and public associations, priority problems are selected that require their solution and a socio-political "agenda" is created for the actions expected from the government or other state bodies.

2. Development and consideration of alternative options for political solutions to social problems. The development of solution invariants is associated with both an objective need for optimization of choice best solution from several alternatives, and with subjective aspirations and pressure on the decision-making process of various social forces, often competing with each other and trying to "push" their project of one or another political decision.

3. The final choice, formulation and legitimization of the state decision. This, in fact, is the main stage in the decision-making process, technologically carried out by the subjects of government in democratic countries using the methods of voting or consensus as explained above. Here the decision takes on a generally binding form for all citizens falling into the sphere of its competence.

4. Implementation and implementation of government decisions in political practice. The management solution is practically being implemented and implemented at this stage. The state administration, depending on the political regime of a given country, uses a combination of methods (coercion and persuasion) and individual socio-technical means (manipulation, maneuvering, and so on) to implement the adopted strategic decisions.

5. Monitoring the implementation of the decision and "feedback" with its results. This is the final stage of the entire decision-making cycle. Lack of control and "feedback" leads to the fact that the state decision is either distorted, or simply ceases to be implemented, or even brings results that are opposite to its original intention. The very meaning of monitoring the implementation of certain government decisions lies in the constant comparison of practical measures, technological operations with the initial model of a political decision, plans and programs. Control is subject to both the implementation of legislative decisions defining various norms and procedures for maintaining institutional order in society (combating corruption, other forms of crime), and decisions of executive authorities involved in the operational distribution of financial and other material resources in accordance with the general proportions laid down in the state budget. ... At the last stages, there is a progress from the development of a reflexive model of a generally binding solution to its practical implementation.

The practice of implementing government decisions is closely related to two already outlined aspects of public policy: regulation of public resources and institutional methods, tools for guiding people, that is, with the functioning of the country's political regime.