DOI: 10.7256/2454-0609.2022.4.38476

Abstract: S.E. Desnitsky's views on public administration occupy a special place in the history of managerial thought in Russia of the XVIII century. This place is determined by the fact that, unlike all those who wrote on management topics in that era, he was not an official. He was an observer and an expert, which gave him the opportunity to system analyze and develop a set of proposals for improving governance in Russia. The subject of the article is the set of views of S.E. Desnitsky, designated here as the "management concept". The purpose of the study is to identify the basic elements of this concept. The reference method is a combination of systematic and semantic analysis of Desnitsky's texts, in comparison with the texts of figures of the European Enlightenment. The main conclusion of the article is the complex of semantic blocks identified by the author, the combination of which makes up Desnitsky's management concept. The author comes to the conclusion that Desnitsky saw the purpose of management in introducing organizational principles into "natural" relations and, first of all, into property relations. Desnitsky supplemented the universal principle of the "common good" with the principles of the welfare of the state and estate management. To solve management problems, he proposed to follow two organizational principles: separation of powers and multi-level management. For each of the "authorities" allocated to him, he defined tasks peculiar only to her and the tools necessary for their solution. The preservation of the unity of governance in the state, according to Desnitsky, is achieved by highlighting the law as the main instrument of governance.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-868X.2021.3.33542

Abstract: The subject of this research is the development of theoretical representations on the mechanism of public administration in Russia of the XVIII century. The goal is to determine in the texts of draft reforms prepared by Count P. I. Shuvalov the provisions on the objectives and principles of public administration, as well as to analyze his views on the process of reforming state and social institutions. In the texts of P. I. Shuvalov examines such elements of public administration theory as the administrative objectives, its subject matter, instruments, and administrative decision-making process. It allowed establishing correlation between the two concepts: “the good of the state” and “the common good”, as the goals pursued by public administration. The formulated by Shuvalov principles of public administration fully corresponded to the principles advanced by the philosophers of the European Enlightenment. The conducted analysis decision-making mechanism reveals a universal algorithm, which implies several stages of development of the reforms: a) outlining the problem that needs to be solved using the instruments of public administration ; b) determining the causes of this problem; c) proposing solution to the problem, d) discussing the proposed solution, indicating the instruments that need to be implemented by the state.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0609.2020.3.33215

Abstract: “Dedication” by P. P. Shafirov is one of the few texts of the early XVIII century that reflects goal-setting of public administration through the concept of “value”. The object of this article is the establishment of Russian administrative thought in the early XVII century. The subject of this article is the process of development of the concept of “value” as fundamental in substantiation of the goal of public administration. The author attempts to reveal the content of this concept in the text of “Dedication” in juxtaposition to the texts of Western European philosophers of the XVII century who rely on the concepts of “value” and “common good”, and to the similar in tasks texts of Russian authors – P. P. Shafirov and his contemporaries. The main conclusion consists in determination of fundamental difference between the Russian and the European concept of “value”. It implies that in Russia, the concept of “value” is primarily attributed to the state, while in Europe the basic concept was the “common good”. Shafirov deemed it possible to interpret the “state value” not only as creation of the conditions for expansion superiority and strength of the state, but also as the “value to its nationals”. It opened the door for transformation of “state value” into the “common”. Such transformation was not complete, which resulted in parallel existence of the two concepts: “value of state” and “common value”