METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36004/nier.es.2023.2-04

JEL Classification: A11, E61, H11, O11, P21, P25, P27, P30, P35, R11, R58

UDC: 338.242.4

Tatyana BUKHOVETS,

Doctor in Economics, Assistant Professor, Belarusian State Economic University, Associate Professor at the Department of National Economy and Public Administration

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6200-9439

SUMMARY

The need for theoretical, methodological and scientific substantiation of new ways to improve the effectiveness of public administration as well as for the development of a single comprehensive methodological approach to its assessment increases every year in the context of increasing demands of society to the quantity and quality of services provided by the state and the effectiveness of decisions taken by state bodies at the national and local levels.

Key-words: effectiveness, Government, local authorities, methodological problems, national and local levels, public administration

INTRODUCTION

Many scientists are involved in the study of various methodological issues and aspects of assessing the effectiveness of public administration, as well as in the search for new ways to improve it and build an optimal model of public administration, taking into account current trends in the development of the world community, as well as key challenges and threats faced by individual states, their national characteristics. At the same time, assessing the effectiveness of public administration is a very complex task that requires the development of a comprehensive methodology taking into account various aspects and activities of public authorities, the complexity and social significance of the tasks being solved, the need to reconcile the conflicting interests of different social groups, the search for rational ways to use available resources, compliance with the principles of efficiency and cost-effectiveness of its activities while ensuring the maximum degree of achievement of its goals and solving the tasks facing the state and society.

• disclosure of the essence of "effectiveness of public administration", taking into account the complexity and multifaceted nature of public administration, covering various aspects of society and aimed at solving a large number of multidirectional tasks at different levels of governance hierarchy;

• identification of the main problems and justification on this basis of the key principles for assessing the effectiveness of public administration;

• substantiation of the need to apply an comprehensive methodological approach to assess the effectiveness of public administration, taking into account the highlighted problems and principles;

• determination of criteria for classification and differentiation of various types of public administration efficiency, as well as the identification of these types according to established criteria, which underlies the identification of the assessed object;

• construction of the algorithm for applying the comprehensive methodological approach to assess the effectiveness of public administration and presenting it in the form of a structural and methodological flowchart.

Thus, the key scientific hypothesis of this study is that the use of the comprehensive methodological approach to assessing the effectiveness of public administration allows us to take into account the complexity and multifaceted nature of the phenomenon under study, to level out the main problems arising in the assessment and to obtain objective reliable results for the development of effective recommendations to improve the effectiveness of decisions taken by public authorities.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Such scientists as Abakumov I. (2014), Alizhanova Z. (2010), Borshevsky G. (2012), Hurmuz N. (2018), Ilyin V. & Shabunova A. (2014), Kjurchiski N. (2014), Klishch N. (2007), Longley R. (2022), Vasilieva E., Zerchaninova, T. & Ruchkin A. (2016), Vetitnev A. & Voloshchuk P. (2016), Ziebicki B. (2013), Znamensky D. & Gusarov A. (2020) and others are engaged in the study of the theoretical and methodological foundations of assessment, as well as the search for possible ways and directions to improve the efficiency of public administration and public service. The study of the role of state regulation of global market failures in achieving optimal long-term social economic growth is presented in the works of the 2018 Nobel Prize laureates in Macroeconomic Research Paul Romer and William Nordhaus (Vorobyov & Mayboroda, 2018; Nordhaus, 1996, 2006, 2018; Romer, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1993, 2015).

Before talking about methodological aspects and problems of assessing the effectiveness of public administration, it is necessary to reveal the essence of the concepts of "public administration" and "effectiveness of public administration".

When developing a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of public administration, it is important to understand what kind of public administration we are going to assess: in its broad or narrow sense. In modern scientific literature these concepts are distinguished, and the history of this distinction begins at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries, when the future 28th President of the United States Woodrow Wilson in his scientific works advocated the separation of administrative management from the sphere of politics. Following Wilson, this idea was supported by his American follower, political scientist and teacher Goodnough F., as well as by German political scientist and sociologist Weber M.

This concept was positively received by the scientific community, political leaders and statesmen, and today it is also reflected in modern scientific and educational literature (Atamanchuk & Vasilevich, 2013; Orlov, 2013). Thus, in a broad sense, public administration is understood as the activity of all branches of government, including legislative, executive and judicial. Or, in other words, it is "the realization of state power in all forms" (Orlov, 2013).

Longley R. defines public administration as “a field of governance in which leaders serve communities to advance the common good and effect positive change” (Longley, 2022). According to Longley R. public administration is performed by local, state, and federal government as well as nonprofit organizations, which are responsible for determining the policies and programs of governments (Longley, 2022).

Public administration in a narrow sense is understood as an activity of executive-administrative nature, aimed primarily at implementing the decisions of political leaders, reflected in the legislative acts of the state. In other words, it is "the activity of the executive-administrative body to influence the object of management for its transfer to the state necessary to achieve the goal of the relevant territorial entity, through the adoption of legal acts, organization and control of the execution of these acts and acts of legislative (representative) authorities" (Radchenko, 2007). Vasilenko I. interprets public administration as "a system of political and administrative decision-making, which are carried out with the help of the administrative-state apparatus" (Vasilenko, 2015).

In the narrow sense the term public administration is used in the research report “Rule of Law in Public Administration: Problems and Ways Ahead in Peace Building and Development”, published by the Folke Bernadotte Academy (Per Berling et. al., 2008). In the report “the term public administration is used to describe the laws, norms, agencies and actions of the executive branch of the state, for example municipalities and tax authorities” (Per Berling et.al., 2008).

• "policy", which is understood as managerial decision-making, and which is implemented in the institutional sense by the executive branch;

• and "politics" as a sphere of interaction of political actors about power, which is connected with the exercise of legislative power.

At the same time, in the Russian language, the concept of "politics" is inseparable (Orlov, 2013).

In this study, when developing methodological foundations and provisions for assessing the effectiveness of public administration, first of all, this category will be understood in the narrow sense, bearing in mind that the actions of the executive branch are limited by the decisions of political leaders and are largely determined by them. That is, when assessing the effectiveness of the executive and administrative bodies, it is necessary to remember about the impact on it of the functioning of the entire political system in the country, as well as the quality of the institutional and legal environment, which is formed directly by the legislature.

It should be noted that the concept of efficiency in relation to the activities of public administration, whether national, regional or local level, is quite complex and multifaceted. It is impossible to identify one or several fundamental specific criteria and indicators of effectiveness, as it can be done for a commercial organization or enterprise. In the case of assessing the effectiveness of public administration, a comprehensive approach is necessary, due to the complexity and multidimensionality of the managed object and taking into account the various spheres and areas of management impact, as well as clearly defined goals and tasks facing public authorities in a particular period of time, sometimes controversial and contradictory, but always having state importance and/or social and public significance (Bukhovets, 2022).

Moreover, it must be remembered that the main purpose of the functioning of the public administration system is not to extract profit or other financial result. Public administration is focused primarily on achieving a social effect, which is also mentioned by Okhotsky E. (2014) in his research, arguing that "public administration is not a business, it contains a powerful moral and conscious principle based on legitimate state power, for which the only criterion of effectiveness is law and social effect".

In her research, Alizhanova Z. (2010) also points out the impossibility of applying a purely economic approach to assessing the effectiveness of public administration based on a comparison of the costs incurred and the result obtained, arguing that in the field of public administration, efficiency assessment should primarily reflect the social role of the state and its representatives. In addition, the result of public administration can be not only economic, but also social, political, socio-psychological, etc., as well as direct (issuing a passport, preparing reports or conducting inspections, etc.) and indirect, which in turn can be external (improving the level and quality of life of citizens, influencing the managed object, etc.) and internal (professional development, retraining, equipment repair, etc.) (Alizhanova, 2010).

It is also necessary to distinguish between the concepts of "quality of public administration" and "efficiency of public administration". Thus, Orlov I. (2013) considers efficiency as one of the criteria for the quality of public administration along with innovation, productivity, responsiveness, complexity and public confidence in the government.

DATA AND METHODS

General scientific and special research methods were used in the study, including induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis, generalization, a systematic approach, comparison, etc.

The research is also based on an interdisciplinary approach, relying on the provisions of the history and theory of public administration, economic science, political science, sociology, statistical theory, theory of regional studies, etc.

Thus, the disclosure of the essence of the effectiveness of public administration, local government and self-government, as well as the proposal of various classification criteria for identifying types of public administration effectiveness is based on the study of the history and theory of public administration and political science, including the study of different scientists' views on the categories of "efficiency", "efficiency of public administration", "efficiency of public service", "quality of public administration", etc.

The study of the key provisions of political and economic science, as well as regional economics and management has determined the author's vision and understanding of the fundamental methodological principles to be followed in the assessment of public administration effectiveness.

The proposed methods for assessing the effectiveness of public administration are formulated based on the study of various research methods offered by economic science, statistical theory, econometrics (including the basics of economic and mathematical modeling and regression analysis), regional economics and others. Thus, this study proposes a consistent combination of various research methods, including statistical, economic-mathematical, index methods, methods of correlation and regression analysis, program-target method and methods of factor analysis to assess the effectiveness of public administration.

The study substantiates the need to select appropriate criteria and indicators for assessing the effectiveness of public administration and possible methods of conducting such an assessment depending on the assessed sphere of state impact (the object of assessment).

The considered aspects formed the basis of the comprehensive methodological approach proposed in the study to assess the effectiveness of public administration at various levels of the governance hierarchy, which is a step-by-step process of identifying key evaluation principles, determining the object of evaluation and the type of effectiveness, establishing a specific goal and objectives of evaluation, substantiating relevant criteria and indicators, selecting appropriate methods for evaluation, direct implementation of the evaluation, correct and proper interpretation of the results obtained and the development of recommendations to eliminate the identified bottlenecks and improve the efficiency of public administration.

MAIN RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For the purposes of this study, we propose to understand the effectiveness of public administration as a set of indicators that characterize the degree of achievement of key objectives and solution of the main tasks of socio-economic development, facing the state in a given period of time and contributing to improving the welfare of the nation and the quality of life of citizens.

The effectiveness of local government and self-government should be understood as a set of indicators characterizing the degree to which local authorities achieve the goals of ensuring the necessary level of socio-economic development of administrative-territorial units, organizing solutions to issues of local importance, meeting the needs of citizens in basic consumer goods and services, improving their standard of living and well-being.

Based on the proposed definitions, the general goal of public administration both at the national and local levels is to ensure the welfare of citizens and to improve their living standards. All other goals and specific tasks should be subordinated to this general goal, derive from it and contribute to its ultimate achievement.

Thus, given the specific features of the functioning of public administration system, including the complexity and multifaceted nature of the managed object, as well as the public and social significance of the goals and objectives facing the state, the methodology for assessing the effectiveness of public administration should be based on the application of a comprehensive approach (Bukhovets, 2022) (figures 1-3).

In addition, when developing methodological provisions and methodological tools for assessing the effectiveness of public administration, it is important to understand that the purpose of such an assessment is not to obtain any unambiguous categorical judgment about whether public administration is effective or ineffective in this particular period of time. What is important is not just a comprehensive approach to assessment, but the correct interpretation of its results depending on the assessed sphere or area of influence of the governing subject, as well as the methods and indicators used.

Figure 1: Structural and methodological flowchart of the comprehensive approach to assessing the effectiveness of public administration: step 1 “principles identification”

Source: author's development.

Figure 2: Structural and methodological flowchart of the comprehensive approach to assessing the effectiveness of public administration: step 2 “determination of the object of the assessment on the basis of the type of effectiveness”

Source: author's development.

Figure 3: Structural and methodological flowchart of the comprehensive approach to assessing the effectiveness of public administration: steps 3-8 from setting specific goals and objectives of the assessment to the development of recommendations

Source: author's development.

In turn, the methods and indicators will depend on the tasks to be solved in the course of assessment, and the criteria used in the assessment should be formed based on the purpose of functioning of the assessed sphere. Thus, if the main goal of the economy is economic growth and increase in production, then GDP growth rates, as well as increase in production will be among the main criteria for assessing the effectiveness of public administration in the economic sphere. The main criterion of the effectiveness of public administration of the social sphere will be the standard of living of citizens, thus methods and indicators characterizing it will be used for evaluation.

For example, assessing the rates of GDP growth in various countries in the post-Covid period, and comparing them with data from the previous period, we can talk about the effectiveness of measures taken by governments to restore national economies. So, based on the data in Figures 4-6, we can talk that almost all countries of the world have demonstrated economic recovery in 2021. In 2022, GDP growth slowed in all countries, but most countries managed to reach or even exceed the level of GDP growth before the covid crisis (2019), which indicates the effectiveness of their economic policies. The acceleration of GDP growth in 2022 compared to the pre-crisis period was demonstrated by Arab countries (Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates) and most OECD member countries (except the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Slovenia, the United States). The most accelerated growth was typical for Austria (4.8% in 2022 vs. 1.5% in 2019), Spain (5.8% vs. 2.0%), Great Britain (4.3% vs. 1.6%), Greece (5.6% vs. 1.9%), Ireland (9.4% vs. 5.3%), Iceland (7.2% vs. 1.9%), Italy (3.7% vs. 0.5%), Latvia (3.4% vs. 0.6%), Mexico (3.9% vs. -0.3%), Portugal (6.8% vs. 2.7%), Turkey (5.5% vs. 0.8%).

Figure 4: GDP growth (annual %) in OECD member countries in 2018-2022.

Source: elaboration on World Bank data

Figure 5: GDP growth (annual %) in some other countries in 2018-2022.

Source: elaboration on World Bank data

Figure 6: GDP growth (annual %) by regions in 2018-2022.

Source: elaboration on World Bank data

At the same time, it should be noted that a number of countries withstood the year of the pandemic, showing not a decline in GDP, but only a slowdown in its growth rate compared to 2019 (China (2.2% vs. 6.0%) and Egypt (3.6% vs. 5.6%). In Ireland and Turkey, GDP growth rates in 2020 even accelerated compared to 2019 (6.6% vs. 5.5% and 1.9% vs. 0.8%, respectively).

Some countries failed to reach the level of 2019 in terms of GDP growth, including countries such as the Czech Republic (2.4% in 2022 vs. 3.0% in 2019), Hungary (4.6% vs. 4.9%), Lithuania (2.4% vs. 4.7%), Luxembourg (1.4% vs. 2.9%), Slovakia (1.8% vs. 2.5%), Slovenia (2.5% vs. 3.5%), USA (1.9% vs. 2.3%), Kazakhstan (3.2% vs. 4.5%), China (3.0% vs. 6.0%). In a number of countries, after recovering growth in 2021, GDP declined again in 2022: Estonia (-1.3%), Belarus (-4.7%), Moldova (-5%), the Russian Federation (-2.1%).

By regions, pre-crisis GDP growth rates were not achieved in North America, East Asia and Pacific, Europe and Central Asia (excluding high-income countries) (Figure 6). In other regions, GDP growth rates at the level of 2019 were not only restored in 2022, but also accelerated. The fastest growth was typical for the countries of the Arab region (6.0% in 2022 vs. 1.4% in 2019), Middle East and North Africa (6.0% vs. 1.2%), South Asia (6.5% vs. 3.9%).

It should also be noted that when interpreting the evaluation results, it is important to understand and take into account that the purpose of assessment activities to determine the degree of effectiveness of public administration in a particular area is not to obtain an unambiguous judgment, but to identify bottlenecks, which, above all, should be paid attention to and apply measures to eliminate them in order to achieve a high level of efficiency and ensure the achievement of goals and specific objectives facing the state at a given time. Moreover, as a result of the assessment, it is possible to revise priorities and adjust the goals and objectives of the state for the near future. The assessment of public administration efficiency should be carried out not to identify and punish the guilty, but to identify problem areas, strengths and weaknesses of public policy and to develop a single coordinated strategy to solve existing problems and adjust actions to achieve the set goals.

In methodological terms, it is important to distinguish between different types of public administration effectiveness, each of which implies its own methodological approaches to evaluation, including the establishment of specific evaluation criteria and indicators, as well as the selection of the most appropriate methods.

• efficiency of public administration in general as a system of interaction of legislative, executive and judicial power, as well as bodies of special competence;

• efficiency of public administration in the narrow sense, i.e. the activity of executive-administrative nature or bodies of executive-administrative vertical;

• efficiency of specific bodies of public administration at the national, republican, regional and local levels;

• efficiency of the civil service and administrative apparatus;

• efficiency of individual civil servants and officials (figure 2).

• supranational level – efficiency of foreign economic and foreign policy interaction, as well as participation of the state in integration associations;

• national level – efficiency of state governance as a whole;

• regional level – efficiency of regional development governance in terms of ensuring equal, comprehensive and balanced development of regions as intermediate administrative-territorial units and the main connecting elements between the national and lower levels of the governance hierarchy;

• level of local governance and self-governance – efficiency of local governance and self-governance bodies in addressing issues of local significance, ensuring the livelihood of citizens of specific administrative-territorial units, organizing and regulating production and economic activities and the development of small and medium-sized businesses locally, meeting the needs of the local population and improving their welfare (figure 2).

• goal setting and planning;

• implementation of the function of alignment of interests;

• organization of administrative activity;

• performing a coordinating function;

• regulation of socio-economic processes;

• control activities;

• etc. (figure 2).

• political sphere in terms of ensuring political stability and legitimacy of the authorities, achievement of constructive dialog and high level of trust between the state and society, development of civil society;

• economic sphere, within which we can separately assess the efficiency of:

1) achieving the goals of production and financial activities;

2) governance of investment activity of both the state as a whole and individual regions, industries and types of economic activity, enterprises and organizations;

3) governance of foreign economic activity;

4) development of entrepreneurial activity;

• social sphere in terms of improving the standard of living and quality of life of citizens;

• scientific-technical and innovation sphere;

• moral, ideological and spiritual sphere (figure 2).

• monetary;

• fiscal;

• investment;

• scientific-technical and innovation;

• social;

• structural;

• institutional;

• etc. (figure 2).

Whatever type of public administration efficiency is subject to evaluation, specific criteria and indicators of evaluation will be established depending on the goals and objectives set.

The program-target method has been widely used in the practice of building an effective model of public administration (Alizhanova, 2010), which at the same time is also a method of evaluating the effectiveness of public administration based on comparing the results achieved with the planned parameters.

Taking into account the different aspects of the activities of public administration bodies, multidirectionality of the issues addressed in various spheres of public life, it is necessary to separately consider and assess the effectiveness in the economic, social, budgetary, administrative, environmental, scientific, technical and innovation and other spheres of activity (management impact). In the economic sphere, it is possible to separately assess the effectiveness of public authorities in ensuring the appropriate level of functioning of production and financial, investment, foreign economic activities, as well as the effectiveness in the field of integration cooperation and the effectiveness of measures taken to develop small and medium-sized businesses in the country.

In modern conditions of society and state development, it is possible to offer for evaluation the efficiency of public administration bodies in terms of digital development and digital transformation, as well as efficiency in the development of a green economy, which reflects the degree of so-called "greening" of economic activity and characterizes at the same time the efficiency in the economic, environmental, social and innovative spheres in terms of the introduction of modern innovative technologies and the development of innovative activities to "green" economic development by reducing the harmful impact of economic activity on the environment, as well as solving a number of social problems, including the problems of inclusive development.

• optimality (establishment of optimal values and their possible boundaries);

• "significant" performance (focus on achieving the results that are necessary and important for society and citizens);

• flexibility and adaptability (assessment of the necessity and expediency of achieving the set parameters and all possible consequences, both positive and negative);

• rationality and common sense (assessment of the need to achieve the set parameters and all possible consequences, both positive and negative).

As for the possible methods of assessing the effectiveness of public administration, statistical and economic-mathematical methods are the most understandable and easy to use. At the same time, they only allow us to judge separately the results of the activities of public administration bodies in various areas and do not give a general comprehensive view of the overall effectiveness of public administration. A comprehensive assessment is possible through the use of index methods, which make it possible to combine the results obtained at the previous stages of the study (using statistical and economic methods) into a single consolidated aggregated index and on the basis of it to draw generalized conclusions on the whole about the effectiveness of public administration.

The effectiveness of the activities of public authorities in various areas and spheres can be assessed by applying the method of rating assessment based on comparing countries with each other and tracking the country's position in various international ratings and indicators.

The main tasks and priority areas of activity, as well as key targets for the activities of public administration bodies at all levels are laid down in planning, program and forecast documents, which implies the possibility of using a program-target method for assessing the effectiveness of public administration, the essence of which is to compare the actually achieved values of the parameters being laid with the planned ones. In recent years, more complex evaluation methods have been proposed in state programs, offering a number of stages and indicators, the essence of which in any case boils down to comparing the actual and planned values of planned indicators, bringing them to summary aggregate indicators (indices), as well as evaluating the results of program financing.

• the reliability, adequacy and validity of the evaluation results depend not only on the results achieved in the implementation of programs, but also on the quality of planning. Errors in defining targets and setting planning values that are not quite correct, insufficiently justified and not properly calculated lead to distorted evaluation results;

• the evaluation methods proposed in the programs do not allow taking into account changing conditions and circumstances, as well as the effect of various internal and external factors on achieving the established indicators, which may lead to the impossibility of fulfilling certain parameters and, as a result, reducing the feasibility of conducting an assessment. To offset this shortcoming, either a regular revision of the targets is necessary, taking into account changing circumstances and factors, or an expert approach to the application of the methodology with the adjustment of possible indicators, or their exclusion from the assessment;

• the program-targeted approach itself directs public authorities to achieve quantitative indicators without linking them to the qualitative results of activity, which can, on the contrary, lead to their deterioration in the case of excessive striving to meet the established targets.

These shortcomings make the program-target method of assessing the effectiveness of public administration rather limited, allowing to draw conclusions only about the degree of fulfillment of the established planned values of selected indicators and not contributing to the formation of a holistic comprehensive view of the effectiveness of public administration, which is achieved through the use of other methods of assessment. This circumstance requires the mandatory application of the program-target method together with other evaluation methods, rather than as an independent method of research.

Factor methods and models, including the use of correlation and regression analysis, can be used to determine the influence of factors on the main results of the activities of public administration bodies.

One of the main indicators of the quality and effectiveness of public administration is undoubtedly the degree of satisfaction of the population with the achieved results, therefore, to assess various aspects of the activities of public authorities can be used sociological methods of research by conducting surveys of citizens in order to identify their views on certain problems and results of the functioning of public administration and society as a whole.

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, the assessment of the effectiveness of public administration at all levels of the administrative hierarchy should be based on the application of an comprehensive (integrated, complex) approach, developed and proposed by the author in this study, due to the complexity and multidimensional nature of the managed object and involving the assessment of various types of efficiency using a set of methods and indicators.

The key principles that should be followed when evaluating the effectiveness of public administration were proposed. When developing specific indicators to assess the effectiveness of public administration bodies, one cannot limit oneself only to the quantitative values of individual indicators, just as it would be wrong to set the tasks of increasing individual indicators as directive and mandatory to achieve. Such actions may lead to the desire of the heads of state authorities to distort the final values of the achieved indicators in order to avoid accusations of inefficiency of their activities, or, which has even more detrimental consequences for citizens, to strive with all their might to achieve the set quantitative parameters to the detriment of the qualitative results of their activities and neglecting the principles of common sense and rationality. The latter should necessarily be the basis for the activities of any public administration bodies at all levels, as well as the principles of flexibility, optimality and focus on the necessary and significant, primarily for citizens and society, result. Thus, when setting quantitative values of certain indicators as target benchmarks, one should be guided primarily by the principles of optimality and "meaningful" performance, defining the result to be achieved in terms of its importance for society and calculating the optimal values to which one should aspire, as well as the boundaries to be adhered to in the course of subsequent activities. At the same time, the established performance parameters should be subject to regular review and adjustment in accordance with the evolving conditions and circumstances subject to change, i.e. the entire evaluation system should be sufficiently flexible and adaptive.

To determine the object of evaluating the effectiveness of public administration, on which the choice of applied indicators and assessment methods depends, the classification of various types of public administration effectiveness according to different criteria was proposed in the paper.

In addition, the author proposed a step-by-step algorithm for applying the comprehensive methodological approach to assess the effectiveness of public administration, starting from the formulation of principles and determining the object of evaluation (depending on the type of effectiveness being evaluated), the formulation of the main and specific goals and objectives of the assessment, the selection of appropriate methods and indicators, and ending with the development of effective recommendations to improve the effectiveness of decisions taken by public authorities to ensure the solution of key tasks of public policy to improve the well-being of citizens.

The application of the comprehensive methodological approach to assessing the effectiveness of public administration, taking into account various aspects of the activities of public authorities (types of efficiency) and the use of a set of methods and indicators, as well as compliance with key evaluation principles, will allow to obtain a holistic systematic view of achieving the main goals and solving key tasks of public administration, to identify factors that favor and hinder the effective work of public authorities, identify possible vectors of further activity.

REFERENCES

Abakumov, I. (2014). Methods of assessing the effectiveness of civil servants. Socio-economic phenomena and processes, 7, 5-10. (In Russ.).

Alizhanova, Z. (2010). Evaluation of management efficiency in the public service system. Sociology of Power, 2, 195-202. (In Russ.). https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/otsenka-effektivnosti-upravleniya-v-sisteme-gosudarstvennoy-sluzhby/viewer

Atamanchuk, G. & Vasilevich, G. (2013). Theory of public administration: textbook, 3rd ed., erased. М. Omega-L Publishing House, 525 p. (In Russ.). http://library.lgaki.info:404/2019/%D0%90%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%87%D1%83%D0%BA_%D0%A2%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81_%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2.pdf

Borshevskiy, G. (2012). Evaluation of the efficiency of state civil servants. Management Sciences, 2(3), 8-15. (In Russ.). https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/otsenka-effektivnosti-raboty-gosudarstvennyh-grazhdanskih-sluzhaschih/viewer

Bukhovets, T. (2022). Some aspects of assessing the effectiveness of local governance and self-governance. Geographical and economic research in the context of sustainable development of the state and region: Proceedings of the IV International Scientific and Practical Conference in 2 volumes (Donetsk, November 10-11, 2022) / edited by E. G. Kosheleva, Donetsk: Izd-vo DONNU, (2), 82-84. (In Russ.). https://istina.msu.ru/collections/546633182/

Hurmuz, N.D. (2018). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Modern System of Public Administration in Syria and the Possibility of Introducing Change Management. Public Administration Issue, Special Issue II (electronic edition), pp. 107–118. DOI: 10.17323/1999-5431-2018-0-6-107-118

Ilyin, V., & Shabunova, A. (2014). Sociological assessment of public administration efficiency. Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast. 2 (32). 14-27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280779205_Sociological_assessment_of_public_administration_efficiency

Kjurchiski, Nikola, Public Administration Efficiency in Resource Economies (May 2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2440725 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2440725

Klishch, N. (2007). Indicators of efficiency and effectiveness of professional service activity of state civil servants. Modernization of the economy and the state, ed. by Yasin E., Book 1. - Moscow: Izd. Dom GU-HSE, 316-324. (In Russ.).

Longley, Robert (2022). What Is Public Administration? ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/public-administration-6822941

Nordhaus, W. D., & Yang, Z. (1996). A Regional Dynamic General-Equilibrium Model of Alternative Climate-Change Strategies. The American Economic Review, 86(4), 741–765. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2118303

Nordhaus W. (2006). Geography and Macroeconomics: New Data and New Findings. PNAS, 103(10), 3510-3517. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509842103

Nordhaus W. (2018). Evolution of Modeling of the Economics of Global Warming: Changes in the DICE Model, 1992-2017. Climate Change, 148(4), 623-640. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-018-2218-y

Ohotskii E.V. (2014). Public administration: modernizing the current model of state management. MGIMO Review of International Relations, 3(36), 115-127. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2014-3-36-115-127

Orlov, I. (2013). Modern theoretical and methodological doctrines (models) of state policy and management. Problem analysis and state management design, 4, 95-104. (In Russ.). https://publications.hse.ru/pubs/share/folder/ij3s2np4tu/101932441.pdf

Per Bergling, Lars Bejstam, Jenny Ederlöv, Erik Wennerström, and Richard Zajac Sannerholm (2008). Rule of Law in Public Administration: Problems and Ways Ahead in Peace Building and Development: RESEARCH REPORT. Published by the Folke Bernadotte Academy, 116 p. https://fba.se/globalassets/rule_of_law_in_public_administration.pdf

Radchenko, A. (2007). Fundamentals of state and municipal management: system approach: a textbook for students of higher educational institutions, studying in the specialty "State and municipal management", Ed. 3rd, rev. and supplement, Moscow, Rostov-on-Don, 605 p. ISBN 978-5-241-00817-6. (In Russ.).

Romer P. (1986). Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth. Journal of Political Economy. 94(5), 1002-1037. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1833190

Romer P. (1987). Crazy Explanations for the Productivity Slowdown. In: Stanley Fischer, editor. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 2, 163-210. http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11101.pdf

Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71-S102. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2937632

Romer P. (1993). Two Strategies for Economic Development: Using Ideas and Producing Ideas. Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference of Development Economics 1992. Washington, DC: World Bank, 63-91. https://docenti-deps.unisi.it/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/09/Romer_1992.pdf

Romer P. (2015). Matchiness in the Theory of Economic Growth. American Economic Review, 105(5), 89-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151066

Vasilenko, I. (2015). State and municipal management : textbook for academic bachelor degree, 6th ed., rev. and add. Moscow: Yurait Publishing House, 494 с. (In Russ.). https://urait.ru/bcode/403625

Vasilyeva, E., Zerchaninova, T., & Ruchkin, A. (2016). Evaluation of the effectiveness of civil servants. Management Consulting, 4(88), 4-26. (In Russ.). https://www.acjournal.ru/jour/article/view/296/297

Vetitnev, A., & Voloshchuk, P. (2016). The system for assessing the effectiveness of public civil servants: an analysis of Russian and foreign practice. Vestnik PAGS, 6 (57). 103-110. (In Russ.). https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sistema-otsenki-effektivnosti-gosudarstvennyh-grazhdanskih-sluzhaschih-analiz-rossiyskoy-i-zarubezhnoy-praktiki.pdf

Vorobyev, V., & Maiboroda, T. (2018). Long-term economic growth: good, bad, optimal. Belarusian Economic Journal, 4, 15-34. (In Russ.). http://edoc.bseu.by:8080/handle/edoc/76730

Ziebicki, B. (2013). Relations between organizational effectiveness and efficiency in public sector units. Problems of management in the 21 century, 8, 102-110. https://www.scientiasocialis.lt/pmc/files/pdf/102-110.Ziebicki_Vol.8.pdf

Znamenskiy D.Yu., Gusarov A.V. (2020). Assessment of the effectiveness of public civil servants of the Russian Federation (theoretical and methodological foundations). Vestnik Universiteta, 2, 12-18. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2020-2-12-18