<<
>>

2.3. Management of public sector and an estimation egoeffektivnosti.

Now the current condition of management of public sector testifies to absence of any specific controlling mechanism the state enterprises and a state ownership share in joint-stock company as a state sector as the specific object of management in economy is not allocated.
So, real position of the unitary enterprises differs nothing from position of managing units of a private sector.
Their relations with the state are limited to transfer of tax payments in the budget (and for the state enterprises and additional payments from profit). The Control system of joint-stock companies with a prevailing share of the state in cumulative quantity of voting shares does not allow to reveal significant distinctions between position of the state-shareholder and private shareholders as proprietary interests of the state - of the shareholder are regulated in the general order by norms of the legislation on joint-stock companies.
Such state of affairs is in many respects caused by that, as in the theoretical plan a question on features of management of economy public sector, and also managements of a state ownership still up to the end is not decided.
In the economic literature various definitions, that such «management of a state ownership» are presented many.
So, E.V.Veshnjakov defines management of a state ownership «as performance of functions on possession, use and the order property the proprietor». Thus he does not see basic distinctions in management of a private property and management of a state ownership. It actually identifies them.
Priests of ML. Defines a property management as «politiko - the economic relations arising in the course of the order and use for the purpose of preservation, perfection and development of objects
Assignments and for the purpose of efficiency of their realisation ». Such approach is very important as he tries to define the property management purpose. However at the indicated author from administrative relations the relations connected with possession have disappeared.
Gutman G. V and Lapygin J.N. as a property management understand «basically unity of two processes: effect of the property on motivation of its holders, users and managers, and also management of motivation through the organisation and self-organising of economic systems». In the given definition the functional approach is maintained. But, unfortunately, here one is allocated only, though also very important function of a property management.
E.V.Tchernikov considers management of a state ownership «as process of realisation of set of competences: vested interests, the rights of management, the right of use, the right of decision-making on, how by whom and on what conditions the object of the property, the responsibility for use of objects of the property can be used, for their effective functioning assuming compensation of a damage».
In essence in this definition the basic components of management of a state ownership are named. But, first, these components are expressed through realisation of fundamental laws of the proprietor. In - the second, the contents of the realisation is not opened. The property the author considers economic essence of managerial process not in itself, and through legal forms.
In approved by the Government of the Russian Federation on September, 9th, 1999 management Concepts the state property and privatisations in the Russian Federation under control of a federal state ownership
«Set of the economic relations connected with use of the state property, fixed to the federal state enterprises based on the right of economic management or an operational administration is understood...
Official bodies... The state treasury of the Russian Federation, and also the proprietary interests of the Russian Federation following from ev of sharing in the commercial organisations».
In our opinion, the economic essence of management of a state ownership most precisely is expressed by following definition: management of a state ownership is a system of organizational-economic relations between its various subjects, subjects and managers concerning the organisation of reproduction and use of objects of a state ownership by means of organizational-economic functions, forms and methods for the purpose of maintenance of realisation of basic social and economic interests of company and the state.
Features of definition of management offered by us a state ownership are:
vosproizvodstvennyj the approach: management of a state ownership-it system of the organisation of its reproduction;
The system approach: management of a state ownership is a system of relations between subjects of management of it;
Management of a state ownership is in essence the economic mechanism of its reproduction including system of functions as its elements (forecasting, planning, the organisation, motivation, coordination, the control, etc.), methods (administrative, economic) etc.;
The target approach: management of a state ownership as system in many respects is defined by a general purposes of all its elements - material
Maintenance of realisation of basic social and economic interests of company and the state.
To open the economic contents of managerial process of a state ownership, it is necessary to start with features of management of a state ownership and economy public sector. In our opinion, allocation of such features is represented to us very important.
The first and, probably, one of the most important features of management of a state ownership is defined by that in these relations the state, on the one hand, is always presented, through a certain circle of the subjects who are carrying out from his name of competence of the proprietor.
According to item 125 item, 214 GK the Russian Federations, on behalf of the Russian Federation and subjects of the Russian Federation can acquire and carry out the actions the property and personal non-property rights and responsibilities, to act in court public authorities within the limits of their competence established by certificates, defining the status of these bodies. On behalf of municipal unions the actions can acquire and carry out the rights and responsibilities local governments within the limits of their competence established by certificates, defining the status of these bodies. In a case and in an order, provided by federal laws, decrees of the President of the Russian Federation and the governmental orders of the Russian Federation, normative statements of subjects of the Russian Federation and municipal unions, under their special commission from their name the state bodies, local governments, and also legal bodies and citizens can act.
As the indicated bodies are a part of machinery of state, being in power relations - submission with other state bodies, the state has possibility of administrative effect on the given participants of relations of a state ownership of the subject of the Russian Federation as by an establishment in normative statements (having is administrative-legal character)
The competence of corresponding bodies, and direct management of their activity.
Thus the subject of management of a state ownership and the subject (participant) of the relation of a state ownership can coincide, when the same state body makes administrative decisions and realises them in concrete relations of a state ownership. At the same time often given subjects do not coincide, and then one public authorities allocated with corresponding authorities, operate activity of other bodies directly participating in realisation of the right of a state ownership.
However at both cases there are two basic circumstances:
(I.e. occurrence of the concrete relation of a state ownership) directly precede the moment of realisation of the right of a state ownership the administrative relations arising in the course of development, acceptance and performance of the administrative decisions defining the bases for occurrence of concrete relations of a state ownership of the subject of the Russian Federation and character of behaviour in them corresponding state bodies.
The state is direct, through realisation is state - imperious authorities corresponding public authorities, defines activity of subjects of relations of a state ownership of the subject of the Russian Federations acting on the party of the proprietor.
At the same time, on the party of the proprietor in the indicated relations can participate and the subjects who are not the state bodies. So, according to item Z item 214, item Z item 125 GK the Russian Federations in cases and an order, the Russian Federations provided by normative statements and its subjects, under their commission and from their name of the right of the proprietor can carry out local governments, and also citizens. Besides, vested interests,
Uses and orders the state property on its own behalf carry out the enterprises created by the state and establishments.
The transferred subjects are not a part of machinery of state, are not in the relation of submission with public authorities and, hence, their mutual relations with the state on behalf of which they carry out the rights of the proprietor, have not administrative, but a civil-law basis.
However from the told does not follow, that the state in this case does not operate a state ownership. It is a question only of a little bit other controlling mechanism. The subjects representing the state in relations of the property, in any case always are in legal communication with the state bodies, and their mutual relations with the given bodies, including by direct definition of character of activity of the given subjects concerning a state ownership, are object of the government.
As an example it is possible to result realisation of the rights of the proprietor of the state property by confidential managing directors which is based on the agreement of confidential management concluded between operating and the representative on those by the state body. The relations arising between them in the course of the conclusion, performance and a termination of the contract are direct object of the government. Actions of corresponding state body are defined, in particular, by the confirmed forms of standard contracts of the confidential management, the established bases of transfer of the state property in confidential management, orders of this or higher state body about transfer of the concrete property, the confirmed order of selection of confidential managing directors and other administrative certificates which in significant a Mercedes predetermine character of use of the state property in the course of confidential management.
The controlling mechanism a state ownership in this case is more difficult, mediated, than in relations in which public authorities directly participate.
Now in Russia most large powers on management and the order objects of the federal property the Government of the Russian Federation possesses, the Government of the Russian Federation has the right to delegate the authorities on management and the order objects of the federal property to federal enforcement authorities, and also enforcement authorities of subjects of the Russian Federation. Thus the order of transfer of these authorities is defined by the Federal agreement and laws of the Russian Federation.
The basic bodies engaging authorities on management and the order by objects of a state ownership of subjects of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to consider governors (mayors, heads of administration), the government, committee on management of property and fund of property of the subject of the Russian Federation.
Now pravoprimenitelnye functions, functions on rendering of the state services and in management of the state property are transmitted the formed Federal agency on management of federal property. The government of the Russian Federation has established, that the Federal agency on management of federal property is the federal enforcement authority which is carrying out functions on management by federal property, including in the field of ground relations, function on rendering of the state services and pravoprimenitelnye functions in sphere of property relations, it is in management the Ministry of economic development and trade of the Russian Federation.
For today the basic functions of Federal agency on management of federal property is the following:
Realisation of a uniform state policy in the field of property and ground relations;
Realisation of authorities of the proprietor in limits and in an order, defined by the federal legislation, concerning property of the federal state unitary enterprises and official bodies (except for authorities of the proprietor which according to the legislation of the Russian Federation carry out other federal agencies), shares (shares) of joint-stock (economic) companies and other property making treasury of the Russian Federation, and also authorities on withdrawal at establishments and the state enterprises of federal real estate excessive, not used or used not for the designated purpose, transfer of federal property to natural and legal persons, privatisations (alienation) of federal property;
State ownership differentiation, including on the property of the Russian Federation, the property of subjects of the Russian Federation and the property of municipal unions;
Realisation of authorities of the proprietor of property of the debtor - the federal state unitary enterprise at realisation of procedures of bankruptcy;
Protection of property and other rights and legitimate interests of the Russian Federation at management of federal property and its privatisations in territory of the Russian Federation and abroad;
Realisation of the account of federal property and management the register of federal property.
Thus, the limited circle of the subjects having a special legal status, connected including in executive power realisation (the state bodies, them can be participants of relations in sphere of management of a state ownership only
Chiefs and other subjects allocated with authorities or functions on realisation of the competence of the state bodies, authorised to operate the state property).
Relations on management of a state ownership function exclusively in sphere of the government and are vlasteotnoshenijami, i.e. their subjects are in power and submission relations, and the will of one subject always dominates over will of other or will be co-ordinated with will of other on the basis of norms of administrative law. Thus the basis of occurrence of relations in sphere of management of a state ownership are, as a rule, odnostoronne-imperious actions of subjects of management. Relations in sphere of management of a state ownership are not a direct legal basis of occurrence, change or the termination of the rights to the state property.
The second feature of management is connected by a state ownership with specific evaluation procedures of efficiency of functioning of the state enterprises. The state enterprises is a special type of the enterprises which efficiency of activity cannot be evaluated the same criteria as private sector activity.
For a private sector main motive of activity is profit reception. To the private businessman it is not indifferent, how many people are ready to purchase offered production. Therefore utility of the blessings represented by a private sector is defined by that quantity of citizens which are ready to pay the price requested for them. For example, buyers consider useful services which render bakeries. They are ready to pay the price requested for bread. At this price bread production usually extends until there will come saturation i.e. until the further expansion not begins to distract factors
Productions from industries on which production there is more intensive demand of consumers.
Thus, having taken as a reference point the motive of reception of profit, free business adapts the activity for wishes of people. The motive of reception of profit forces each businessman to render those services, which consumers consider as the most necessary. The price structure of the market prompts to businessmen, in what volume and where they could invest the capitals.
Private business is doomed, if its activity yields one losses, and there are no methods to correct a situation. Its unprofitability is the uselessness proof. Therefore the private enterprise cannot neglect it. It will be compelled to be closed. Business with the state enterprises otherwise is.
Functioning of the state enterprises essentially differs from functioning of private enterprises. On the one hand it is possible to speak about some competitive advantages of the state enterprises in comparison with the private. This results from the fact that, first, the state enterprises lean against specific possibilities of the state - concentration of resources as in the country, and abroad, their "dot" use; direct application by the state of measures of compulsion to unfair suppliers, consumers; use of achievements NTP thanks to financing of fundamental science, research and development sphere; high definiteness of behaviour of the state enterprises thanks to economic policy developed and realised by the state; the state warranties.
Secondly, for the state enterprises the choice quality and scales of application of modern progressive subjects and means of labour, technologies (including information) are characteristic more,
The qualified labour, the organisation of work, production and management.
Lower, thirdly, are inherent in the state enterprises transaktsionnye costs in mutual relations of the state enterprises with one another, with private enterprises, with governing bodies. Fourthly, the state enterprises, as a rule, function in spheres, the branches which are on an edge of the advanced world science (especially it concerns military production branches).
At the same time, motives of behaviour of the state enterprises very often differ from motives of behaviour of private enterprises. So, on the interrogations conducted in the mid-nineties, 35 % of private enterprises named profit as the basic motive of activity in comparison with 25 % of the state enterprises (table 8 see).
Table 8.
The purposes of the Russian business in 1994г., in % to the general number of the interrogated enterprises. Type of the enterprise Profit Issue Employment State 25 55 36 Private 35 50 35 From the table it is visible, that though the state enterprises do not consider profit as the basic motive of activity, however 55 % from them evaluate issue as a reference point of the activity. It can be considered as the positive factor, for according to some western economic theories, the enterprises focused on
Issue, make more goods and services and sell them under lower prices, than firms maximising profit.
At the same time, at the state enterprises there is so-called effect Avercha-Dzhonsona. This effect arises at the enterprises regulated by the state at an establishment the state of rate of return or adjustable wages on purpose to affect enterprise expenses. Its essence consists in the following. If the price of the factor of production which is regulated by the state, exceeds its market price this factor of production will be used in is disproportionate bolshem volume as the resource market price is the tool of optimum resource allocation on branches. At state regulation of rate of return on the production factor, are deformed vosproizvodstvennye proportions: to the given branch there are too many resources which price is regulated.
For private enterprises the competitiveness high level, than for the state enterprises is characteristic more. They are more mobile, in bolshej degrees are inclined to market methods of behaviour. At the same time, for private concerns a difference between a commodity price and by a resource considerably above, than for the state enterprises. Therefore and average prices of private concerns appear above, than at the state enterprises as at the state enterprises of the price are regulated more often. Degree of freedom at the state enterprises to nominate the prices much more low, than at private concerns.
In comparison with private, the state enterprises appear large enough. So, according to data of inspection which has been conducted in the mid-nineties, the average volume of employment at the state enterprises makes 400 persons, while on private - 34 persons. Output total amount can at all
To differ, but as to output on one taken, it above on private enterprises (table 9 see).
Table 9.
Efficiency Russian private and state
The enterprises in 1996 40 Type of the enterprise Average volume of issue on one enterprise, million rbl. in a year Average chislen-nost taken on one pre-acceptance, the people Production ia one taken in year, million rbl. of All on the industry 7644 88 86,86 State enterprises 2181 405 5,39 Private enterprises 2072 34 60,94 On this basis it is possible to draw a conclusion, that the private enterprise in the conditions of market economy functions more effectively, than the state enterprise.
One of main features of the state enterprises consists that they, unlike private enterprises, are not interested to enter an innovation or to increase labour productivity for the sake of a victory in competition. More often their behaviour reminds behaviour of "noncontrollable monopolies» with all following negative consequences from such behaviour.
In public sector also constantly there is a conflict between efficiency and other purposes in which the first, as a rule, loses. It is considered, that for the state enterprises unprofitableness yet is not the inconsistency proof if, for example, the state has set the task to sell the goods under lower price losses are inevitable.
Instructions and the rules developed for struggle against protectionism and discrimination in personnel selection of public sector, often prevent to use optimum to management potential of workers and on merits to encourage worthy work. The availability of set of every possible requests and procedures have actually led to that labour qualities of people have appeared on last place.
In public sector as well as in private, to win, it is necessary to enclose at first significant means which pay off only in due course. Therefore and in public sector go on start of new programs, development of the new labour processes demanding capital investments in the new equipment. When there is a question on resources which always there is no, a reason about large expenses and gradual partial return, undermine initiatives on productivity increase. Though in long-term prospect such investment of capital is favourable, frequently prefer to put present means in the decision of carrying costs.
In a private sector the hope to receive essential profit on the invested capital forces to go on reasonable (and even serious) risk. To risk, though and a little in other sort, it is necessary and in attempts to make opening, or at purchase of new business, and for a victory over competitors and to use suddenly opened possibility, before it was noticed by others and to direct poor resources there where anybody puts nothing. In a private sector it is possible to hope for the award if the risk is justified and will bring the companies benefit, and to wait for punishment if the risky decision appears short-sighted, incorrect or impracticable.
In public sector enterprising chiefs practically do not meet. The risk for them is connected not with material interests, and with official position, professional reputation, promotion prospects. The justified risk here any
Notable awards does not bring, but the fear to make a mistake is very strong, especially at the top management. Some scientists notice, that the high probability to receive a severe public rating for failure and absence of probability to receive the notable award essentially reduces «a risk threshold» many officers and chiefs.
Thus, we see, that the behaviour of the private and state enterprises essentially differs. The state enterprises are to a lesser degree adapted for the market environment. But it and is clear. As it was marked above, the purpose of the state enterprises is not simply the satisfaction of requirements of company, and satisfaction of such requirements with which private business hardly would began to satisfy owing to low yield. Therefore it is quite clear, that microeconomic evaluation procedures of activity of the state enterprises are not always comprehensible.
As the prime purpose of the enterprises of public sector is the decision of macroeconomic problems, maintenance of acceptable conditions of reproduction of the cumulative public capital, therefore and the criterion according to which they function, cannot be limited only to microeconomic indicators (profitability, fondovooruzhennost, capital productivity, etc.). Activity of the state enterprises should be evaluated from the point of view of economic efficiency in the broad sense of the word.
For the state enterprises the estimation of that should be main criterion of an overall performance, how much successfully it is possible to them to realise macroeconomic and / or the social purposes. From this point of view (in uzkorynochnom, microeconomic understanding) it is necessary to recognise a possible inefficiency of the state enterprises admissible if they cope with functions of the built in stabilizer of macroeconomic and social proportions.
The main question which thus arises, concerns methods of measurement of this efficiency, and also definition of actions of the proprietor interested in that its property was used in its interests.
As to quantitative measurements of macroeconomic productivity of a state ownership they practically are absent. At the best, speaking about productivity of a state ownership, analyze those incomes which act in the budget as a result of state ownership use.
In our opinion, it is obviously not enough these indicators. After all in itself return from use of the state property still speaks nothing about in what degree the social and economic purposes of the state through programs of development of company developed by the government are realised. Therefore as quantity indicators of use of a state ownership in bolshej degrees should be used such macroeconomic indicators as growth rates of gross national product; rates of inflation; growth of real incomes of the population, etc.
If profits and losses do not serve as criterion of success or failure in public sector in the basic image mutual relations between proprietors and managers in public sector should vary.
In our opinion, with unique method to force operating to answer before such proprietor as the state is to limit freedom of its actions to rules and instructions. Certainly, the good managing director should aspire to the maximum improvement of quality of the services represented by its enterprise. But as it is not connected by reasons of the financial success, expenses carried out by it can lay down heavy burden on the state treasury, and he will turn to the irresponsible embezzler of money of tax bearers.
Therefore the state should not suppose it. It, as the proprietor, should take care of a detailed regulation of management. It should define precisely quality and range of services and the sold goods, it should develop detailed instructions concerning what methods should be used at purchase of material factors of production, at hiring and labour compensation.
If the managing director counts expedient to spend more than the instruction he should make an application on additional assignment from the budget allows. In this case the decision right remains for the proprietor - the state. Therefore and criterion of good management there will be not the approval of buyers expressed of a lot of gain over expenses, and strict observance of a certain set of rules.
The government will aspire to develop, of course, such rules which would make granting of services as much as possible useful, and deficiency - not above as much as possible admissible, from their point of view of size. But it, nevertheless, does not cancel bureaucratic character of a management of public sector when managing directors are obliged to be subject to a certain set of instructions. Efficiency as that cannot be a main objective of the managing director, it is efficiency within the limits of observance of certain instructions. Therefore its position is not similar to position of the manager of the enterprise aspiring to reception of profit. It reminds the civil servant who should act strictly according to the state purposes without delay.
However, it is thus important, that the behaviour of managing directors in public sector has not turned in opportunistic and was not reduced only to formal fulfilment of instructions. That it it was not received, in public sector special methods of stimulation of work should be produced.
<< | >>
A source: SAVCHENKO ANDREY VIKTOROVICH. THE MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY THE STATE OWNERSHIP IN MARKET ECONOMY. 2005

More on topic 2.3. Management of public sector and an estimation egoeffektivnosti.:

  1. methodical approaches to an efficiency estimation «managements by results» in public management
  2. an estimation and perfection of public management on the basis of the programmno-target approach
  3. an estimation of efficiency of performance of purpose-oriented programmes at regional level of public management
  4. 2.1. Public sector as the form of state regulation of economy of Russia.
  5. 1.3. Public sector as the factor stable and company safe development.
  6. programs of development of public sector of economy of regions
  7. Perfection of methodical base of financial circumstances of the enterprises of public sector
  8. Key characteristics of public sector in a national economy and regions
  9. 2.3. Tendencies, schemes and the mechanism of transformation of the public property in state ownership sector
  10. MANAGEMENT OF SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT OF AGRARIAN SECTOR OF ECONOMY OF REGION
  11. 3.1. The comparative analysis of a management efficiency by results in public management at regional level
  12. CHAPTER 1. The STATE OWNERSHIP And PUBLIC SECTOR AS TOOLS of REGULATION of MARKET ECONOMY.
  13. CHAPTER 4 the BASIC KOMPANEITY CONCEPTS of MANAGEMENT gosuyodarstvennoj the PROPERTY In REAL SECTOR of ECONOMY of REGION
  14. recommendations about perfection of public management at regional level on the basis of information of procedures of management by results (on an example of Kursk area)
  15. ways of management of highways as objects of a public (public) infrastructure
  16. PERFECTION OF PUBLIC MANAGEMENT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OF PROCEDURES OF MANAGEMENT BY RESULTS
  17. the Appendix 77 Accounts of the standardised indicators of an estimation of culture of professional management of the co-operative organisations of the Belgorod area for 2002,2003 and their rating estimation
  18. § 4. Problems of interaction of the state, economic sector, political institutes and public associations in maintenance and protection of social rights of citizens of Republic Kazakhstan. Questions of social partnership
  19. a management efficiency Estimation.