Improving public governance quality in regional state programs

Abstract

High quality of public governance is an important factor for ensuring sustainable social and economic development, improving public well-being, minimizing losses in economic crisis time. Despite the lack of the systemic program for raising governance quality at the federal level in Russia, state programs in this area are being implemented in several Russian regions. Therefore, the review of regional practices in developing state programs aimed at improving the quality of public administration seems relevant for both subnational and federal levels of governance. The objective of this paper is to provide a systematic review of the approaches to improving governance quality implemented in the regional programs. The paper substantiates a novel approach to the key criteria of governance quality based on the core public administration paradigms, presents a systematic analysis of the regional approaches to implementing regional state programs aimed at enhancing the quality of public administration, and proposes recommendations for further development of these programs. The methods used in the paper include general scientific methods, literature review, and comparative analysis of 24 approved regional state programs aimed at improving governance quality. The results of the review of international and domestic literature on defining and evaluating quality of public governance presented in the paper formulate three core criteria measuring public governance quality: justification of public interference, effectiveness and efficiency of public administration. The analysis of regional state programs presented suggests that currently these criteria are only partially accounted for at the subnational level. The article demonstrates that none of the programs analyzed includes efficiency indicators measuring value for money in the public administration. For some areas of public administration, outcome-level indicators are lacking; for some areas, state programs do not include any indicators characterizing whether public administration interference is justified and impartial. The prospects of this paper are related to further improvement of regional programs and better orientation at the key criteria of public governance quality. The prospective areas for further research include the analysis of implementation of governance quality criteria in strategic and program documents at the federal level and comparative international research of approaches to the evaluation of the governance quality.

Keywords

state program, public governance, justified state interference, quality evaluation, indicator, region, efficiency, implementation risks, effectiveness, objective

For citation

Dobrolyubova E.I., Starostina A.N. Improving public governance quality in regional state programs. Perm University Herald. Economy, 2020, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 231–252. DOI 10.17072/1994-9960-2020-2-231-252

Acknowledgements

The research was carried out under the Russian government assignment of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.

References

1. Acemoglu D., Johnson S., Robinson J. Institutions as the fundamental cause of long-run growth. Handbook of Economic Growth. N. Y.: Elsevier, 2005, vol. 1A, pp. 386–472. doi: 10.l016/Sl574-W84(05)OloW.
2. Åslund A. Pochemu mogut snizit'sya tempy rosta v stranakh s razvivayushcheisya rynochnoi ekonomikoi? [Why growth in emerging economies is likely to fall?]. Ekonomicheskaya politika [Economic Policy], 2014, no. 1, pp. 7–34. (In Russian).
3. Medvedev D.A. Rossiya-2024: Strategiya sotsial'no-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya [Russia-2024: The strategy of social and economic development]. Voprosy ekonomiki [Economy Issues], 2018, no. 10, pp. 5–28. (In Russian).
4. Erlingsson G.O., Lundasen S.W. When state-level institutions cannot tell the whole story: An inquiry into municipal variations in quality of government. Governance (online scientific journal), 2019. doi: 10.1111/gove.12463.
5. Baldini M., Peragine V., Silvestri L. Quality of government and subjective poverty in Europe. CESifo Economic Studies, 2018, no. 64 (3), pp. 371–395. doi: 10.1093/cesifo/ifx023.
6. Hauner D. Explaining differences in public sector efficiency: Evidence from Russia's regions. World Development, 2008, no. 36 (10), pp. 1745–1765. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.09.011.
7. Klimenko A.V. Desyatiletie administrativnoi reformy: rezul'taty i novye vyzovy [The decade of administrative reform: Results and new challenges]. Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsipal'nogo upravleniya [Public Administration Issues], 2014, no. 1, pp. 8–51. (In Russian).
8. Barabashev A.G., Klimenko A.V. Retrospektivnyi analiz osnovnykh napravlenii modernizatsii sistemy gosudarstvennogo upravleniya i gosudarstvennoi sluzhby [Retrospective analysis of the core improved areas of the public governance and public service system]. Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsipal'nogo upravleniya [Public Administration Issues], 2010, no. 3, pp. 36–72. (In Russian).
9. Yuzhakov V.N., Talapina E.V., Dobrolyubova E.I., Tikhomirov Yu.A. Initsiativnyi proekt zakona ob obespechenii kachestva gosudarstvennogo upravleniya [Pilot project of a law on the quality of the public governance]. Moscow, Delo Publ., 2020. 149 p. (In Russian).
10. Evans P., Rauch J.E. Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects of “Weberian” state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review, 1999, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 748–765. doi: 10.2307/2657374.
11. Rothstein B., Teorell J. What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance, 2008, no. 21 (2), pp. 165–190. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00391.x.
12. Fukuyama F. What is governance? Governance, 2013, no. 26 (3), pp. 347–368. doi: 10.1111/gove.12035.
13. Kalashnikov K.N. Kachestvo gosudarstvennogo upravleniya: kriterii otsenok v sravnitel'no-territorial'nykh freimakh [Public administration quality: Assessment criteria in comparative territorial frames]. Ekonomicheskie i sotsial'nye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz [Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast], 2017, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 51–65. (In Russian). doi: 10.15838/esc.2017.5.53.4.
14. Agnafors M. Quality of government: Toward a more complex definition. American Political Science Review, 2013, vol. 107, iss. 3, pp. 433–445. doi: 10.1017/S0003055413000191.
15. Pollitt С., Dan S. The impacts of the new public management in Europe – A meta-analysis. 2011. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321027230_The_Impacts_of_
the_New_ Public_Маnagement_in_Europe_-_A_Meta-Analysis (accessed 15.03.2020).
16. Cappelli L., Guglielmetti R., Mattia G., Merli R., Renzi M.F. Peer evaluation To develop benchmarking in the public sector. Benchmarking, 2011, no. 18 (4), pp. 490–509. doi: 10.1108/14635771111147605.
17. Kaufmann D., Kraay A., Mastruzzi M. The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 2011, no. 3 (2), pp. 220–246. doi: 10.1017/S1876404511200046.
18. Rotberg R.I. Good governance means performance and results. Governance, 2014, no. 27 (3), pp. 511–518. doi: 10.1111/gove.12084.
19. Osborne S.P. The new public governance? Public Management Review, 2006, no. 8 (3), pp. 377–387. doi: 10.1080/14719030600853022.
20. Yuzhakov V.N., Dobrolyubova E.I., Aleksandrov O.V. Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie po rezul'tatam: starye retsepty ili novaya model'? [Performance management in public administration: Old recipes or a new model?] Ekonomicheskaya politika [Economic Policy], 2014, no. 5, pp. 191–207. (In Russian).
21. Zinchenko I.Yu. Otsenka effektivnosti deyatel'nosti organov ispolnitel'noi vlasti sub"ektov RF [Performance evaluation of the executive bodies in the RF constituents]. Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskie yavleniya i protsessy [Social-economic Phenomena and Processes], 2014, no. 1 (59), pp. 14–18. (In Russian).
22. Eremina S.L., Petrov A.V. Kachestvo gosudarstvennogo upravleniya. Izmerenie i usloviya dostizheniya [Quality of public administration: The measurement and conditions for achieving it]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomika [Tomsk State University Journal of Economics], 2015, no. 4 (32), pp. 41–63. (In Russian). doi: 10.17223/19988648/32/3.
23. Vorob'ev A.A. Kachestvo zhizni kak pokazatel' effektivnosti gosudarstvennogo upravleniya [Quality of life as an indicator of governance effectiveness]. Mezhdunarodnyi nauchno-issledovatel'skii zhurnal [International research journal], 2016, no. 6-1 (48), pp. 18–21. (In Russian). doi: 10.18454/IRJ.2016.48.056.
24. Denisenko V.A., Kataeva A.N. Pokazateli smertnosti kak chastnye kriterii effektivnosti regional'nogo upravleniya [Mortality figures as specific criteria for regional governance performance]. Trendy i upravlenie [Trends and Governance], 2017, no. 1, pp. 53–60. (In Russian).
25. Borisov D.A. Kakova effektivnost' gosudarstvennogo upravleniya na regional'nom urovne? [What is the effectiveness of public administration at the regional level?]. EKO [ECO], 2018, no. 2 (524), pp. 117–130. (In Russian).
26. Chicherin A.E. Metodicheskii podkhod k otsenke effektivnosti gosudarstvennogo upravleniya ekonomikoi regiona [Methodological approach to efficiency evaluation public administration of region economy]. Sovremennaya ekonomika: problemy i resheniya [Modern Economics: Problems and Solutions], 2019, no. 5 (113), pp. 48–54. (In Russian). doi: 10.17308/meps.2019.5/2106.
27. Zagarskikh V.V. Otsenka razvitiya gosudarstvennogo risk-menedzhmenta v regione [Assessment of the development of risk management of the state in the region]. Regional'naya ekonomika: teoriya i praktika [Regional Economics: Theory and Practice], 2016, no. 12 (435), pp. 46–62. (In Russian).
28. Babich I.V. Neobkhodimost' effektivnoi regional'noi dolgovoi politiki kak osnova kachestva sistemy upravleniya [The need for an effective regional debt policy as a basis for quality management system]. Vestnik Saratovskogo gosudarstvennogo sotsial'no-ekonomicheskogo universiteta [Vestnik of Saratov State Socio-Economic University], 2012, no. 3(42), pp. 86–89. (In Russian).
29. Dobrolyubova E.I., Klochkova E.N., Yuzhakov V.N. Gosudarstvennye programmy v regionakh: analiz praktiki i rekomendatsii [State programs in the regions: Practices analysis and recommendations]. Moscow, Delo Publ., 2016, 172 p. (In Russian).
30. Kuznetsova E.G., Gorin I.A. Praktika primeneniya proektnogo podkhoda k realizatsii gosudarstvennykh programm razvitiya regiona [Practices of project approach application to the state programs of the region development]. Fundamental'nye i prikladnye issledovaniya kooperativnogo sektora ekonomiki [Fundamental and Applied Researches of the Cooperative Sector of the Economy], 2017, no. 2, pp. 31–37. (In Russian).
31. Kozhevnikov S.A. Proektnoe upravlenie kak instrument povysheniya effektivnosti deyatel'nosti organov gosudarstvennoi ispolnitel'noi vlasti [Project management as a tool for enhancing the performance of government executive bodies]. Voprosy territorial'nogo razvitiya [Territorial Development Issues], 2016, no. 5 (35). Available at: http://vtr.isert-ran.ru/article/2037 (accessed 15.03.2020).
32. Plotnikov V.A., Fedotova G.V. Otsenka rezul'tatov regional'nogo razvitiya metodami gosudarstvennogo kontrolya [Evaluation of the impact of state control on regional development]. Ekonomika i upravlenie [Economics and Management], 2014, no. 12 (110), pp. 23–30. (In Russian).
33. Kaminskii V.S. Obshchestvennoe mnenie kak indikator effektivnosti gosudarstvennogo upravleniya [Public opinion as an indicator of the state management efficiency]. Problemy razvitiya territorii [Problems of Territory’s Development], 2015, no. 5 (79), pp. 97–110. (In Russian).
34. Bol'shakova Yu.M. Effektivnost' gosudarstvennogo upravleniya i regional'nykh institutov vlasti v otsenkakh naseleniya [Effectiveness of public administration and regional power institutions in population estimates]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 18. Sotsiologiya i politologiya [Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science], 2018, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 150–168. (In Russian). doi: 10.24290/1029-3736-2018-24-3-150-168.
35. Zagainova E.A. Kachestvo vzaimodeistviya grazhdan i vlasti: regional'noe izmerenie [Quality of interaction between citizens and authorities: Regional context]. Vestnik Altaiskoi akademii ekonomiki i prava [Bulletin of Altay Academy of Economics and Law], 2019, no. 11-2, pp. 92–102. (In Russian). doi: 10.17513/vaael.825.
36. Pazdnikova N.P. Voprosy otsenki sotsial'noi effektivnosti programmno-tselevogo razvitiya regiona [Assessment of social efficiency of the region’s program-and-target development]. Vestnik Permskogo natsional'nogo issledovatel'skogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta. Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskie nauki [PNRPU Sociology and Economics Bulletin], 2019, no. 1, pp. 219–232. (In Russian). doi: 10.15593/2224-9354/2019.1.19.
37. Andrews R., Boyne G.A., Walker R.M. Strategy content and organizational performance: An empirical analysis. Public Administration Review, 2006, no. 66 (1), pp. 52–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00555.x.
38. Erzhenin R.V. Tseli v upravlenii regional'nymi finansami: logiko-soderzhatel'nyi analiz gosudarstvennykh programm [Goals in the management of regional finances: A logical-content analysis of state programs]. Upravlencheskie nauki [Management Sciences in Russia], 2019, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 50–61. (In Russian). doi:10.26794/2304-022X-2019-9-2-50-61.
39. Chun Y.H., Rainey H.G. Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in U.S. federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2005, no. 15 (4), pp. 529–557. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mui030.
40. Dobrolyubova E.I. Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie po rezul'tatam v epokhu tsifrovoi transformatsii: obzor zarubezhnogo opyta i perspektivy dlya Rossii [Performance management in public administration in the digital era: Review of international practices and prospects for Russia]. Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsipal'nogo upravleniya [Public Administration Issues], 2018, no. 4, pp. 70–93. (In Russian).

Show full text