MAIN TRENDS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION DEVELOPMENT IN THE DYNAMICS OF MODERN INFORMATION-TECHNOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL-POLITICAL CHANGES

DOI: 10.31673/2786-7412.2023.011468

Abstract

The article is devoted to the definition of the main trends in the development of public administration in the dynamics of those informationtechnological and socio-political changes that took place at the turn of the 20th–21st centuries in the vast majority of European countries, as well as in Ukraine. Based on the methodology of public administration, the results of the reassessment of the principles and theoretical concepts characteristic of the last century are summarized, which led to the search for a new universal approach to reform in the field of public administration in an interdisciplinary discourse. Ambiguous positions of researchers regarding the capacity of the modern state as a guarantor of security, productivity and sustainability of society are emphasized. It is proven that, thanks to the involvement of the public in the development and implementation of policies, the improvement of the efficiency of public administration, the optimization of the terms and quality of making qualified management decisions demonstrate an important positive trend in the development of public administration both in Ukraine and in many European countries. At the same time, the formation of a tendency towards populism, the erosion of the foundations of democracy and trust in the authorities was emphasized. The ability of management systems to self-regulate and change their internal structure in conditions of aggressive external influences or a critical state is considered in close connection with the practices of social interaction and social partnership. The support of the people and the involvement of citizens in the activities of political institutions ensures a higher level of social legitimation of the authorities and a higher level of the ability of democratic processes to influence the effectiveness of governing bodies. Determining the strengths and weaknesses of deliberative democracy should be considered as a further search for opportunities for decision-making based on the consensus of individual positions in political and management processes. In the context of deliberative democracy approaches, social partnership is defined as a process that strengthens the democratic legitimacy of the political system in general, and the public administration system in particular. Mastering modern communication technologies, professional training of public servants and social interaction can level negative trends and strengthen positive ones in favor of improving the quality of management activities and society's life in general.

Keywords: mechanisms of public administration, deliberative democracy, information and technological changes, government efficiency, public interaction, social partnership.

REFERENCES
1. Bakumenko, V. (2003), Teoreticheskiye i organizatsionnyye osnovy gosudarstvennogo upravleniya [Theoretical and organizational foundations of public administration], Millennium, Moscow, Russia.
2. Barnes, R.A. (2000), “Democratic Governance and International Law“, edited by Gregory H. Fox and Brad R. Roth, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 8 : Iss. 1, р. 15.
3. Bauman, Z. (2001), The Individualized Society Polity, Cambridge.
4. Bessette, J. (1994), The Mild Voi ce of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
5. Crouch, C. (2006), “Neo-Corporatism and Democracy“, The Diversity of Democracy / edited by Edward E., Crouch C. and Streeck W. (ed.), рр. 46–70.
6. Elster, J. (1998), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
7. Farmer, D. (2001), Mapping Anti-Administration: Introduction to the Symposium, Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 23, № 4, рр. 475–492.
8. Fung, A and Wright, O. (2001), “Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance“, Politics and Society, Vol. 29 (1), рр. 5–42.
9. Habermas, J. (1992), Citizenship and National Identity: Some Reflections on the Future of Europe, Р. 19.
10. Hooghe, L., Marks, G. (2022), “Types of multi-level governance“, Cahiers européens de Sciences, 3 June.
11. Hooghe, M. (1999), “The Rebuke of Thersites. Deliberative democracy under conditions of inequality”, Acta Politica, Vol. 34(4), pp. 287–301.
12. Novak-Kalyayeva, L., Kuczabski, A., Yasnyska, N., Andreyeva, S., Shapovalova, I. (2018), “Changing the paradigm of public governance in the context of the challenges of sustainable development 2018“, Vision 2020 : Sustainable Economic Development and Application of Innovation. Management from Regional expansion to Global Growth, рр. 2023–2031.
13. Novak-Kalyayeva, L., Dubych, K., Вienkowska, D., Dziana, H., Oliinyk, S. (2019), “Universal motives and factors of functioning of the modern system of public administration“, Education Excellence and Innovation Management through Vision 2020, рр. 4447–4455.
14. O’Donnell, R. (2000), “Public Policy and Social Partnership” in Dunne, Ingram and Litton Questioning Ireland Dublin, IPA.
15. Support to political parties: a missing piece of the governance puzzle (2010), London, Foresti and Wild.
16. Teague, P. and Donaghey, J. (2009), “Social Partnership and Democratic Legitimacy in Ireland“, New Political Economy, Vol. 14 (1), рр. 49–69.
17. Teague, P. (2006), “Social Partnership and Local Development in Ireland: The Limits to Deliberation”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 44 (3), рр. 421–443.
18. The IMF's Approach to Promoting Good Governance and Combating Corruption – A Guide, International Monetary Fund, 20 June 2005.
19. What is Good Governance, UNESCAP (2009), Accessed July 10, 2009.