Georgiy BorshchevskiyPublished in:
Public-Private Partnership
– Volume 3, Number 2 (April-June, 2016)

JEL classification: D73, H83, K20

Keywords: corruption management, examination, open government, public authorities, public oversight, regulatory impact assessment, transparency


Share:

Abstract:

The article substantiates the claim that social processes in the modern world are significantly complicated by the presence of information technologies and new communications tools. In this regard, there is a need to improve the processes of interaction between government and business. It is shown that by implementing the principles of openness, the government itself simplifies the task of creating an effective mechanism of interaction with the business community. The more complex the society is arranged, the greater the requirements to which such an interface should satisfy. The involvement of representatives of the expert community and businesses in the search of such solutions increases the degree of their confidence in the state and its representatives at all levels of governance. Has been considered the concrete examples of the involvement of the business experts representatives to inducing and making of public decisions: the activities of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, the Civic Chambers of the Russian Federation subjects, public councils under the public authorities. A critical review of the practice of the execution of public oversight, anti-corruption expertise and regulatory impact assessment of draft legal acts has been given. The problems and prospects for improving the policy of openness of public authorities has been considered.

Highlights:

► the most interesting is the work of the Government Expert Council of the Russian Federation
►the prospect of the Expert Council’s activity is also in the fact that it plays the role of a sort of personnel reserve for management bodies
►open government today is a mechanism for the formation of the future government
►the participation of experts on a systematic basis in the activities of public authorities through the intermediary of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, the Civic Chambers of the Russian Federation subjects, public councils of certain state bodies and participation of independent experts in various committees of public bodies
►public control is not identical with state control and supervision, not replace it
► in the current presidential cycle since 2012 the activity concerning involvement of the business community in the discussion and elaboration of public decision-making, and in the monitoring of the activities of state bodies has been activated

---

References:
1. Glushnenkova L.T. Problemy povysheniya prozrachnosti deyatelnosti organov vlasti // Nauchnye trudy SWORLD. – 2015. – № 1. – S. 59-65.
2. Dmitrieva N.E., Styrin E.M. Otkrytoe gosudarstvennoe upravlenie: zadachi i perspektivy v Rossii // Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsipalnogo upravleniya. – 2014. – № 1. – S. 128.
3. Klimenko A.V., Minchenko O.S. Gosudarstvennoe regulirovanie ekonomiki: voprosy teorii i luchshaya praktika // Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsipalnogo upravleniya. – 2016. – № 3. – S. 7-30.
4. Kontrolno-nadzornaya deyatelnosty v Rossiyskoy Federatsii: Analiticheskiy doklad. – M.: RSPP, 2016.
5. Obolonskiy A.V. Krizis effektivnosti administrativno-byurokraticheskogo gosudarstva i poiski vyhoda: opyt SShA // Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsipalnogo upravleniya. – 2014. – № 2. – S. 145-170.
6. Ostrom E. Upravlyaya obschim: evolyutsiya institutov kollektivnoy deyatelnosti. – M.: Mysl, 2010.
7. Baldwin R., Cave M., Lodge M. The Oxford Handbook of Regulation. – Oxford: University Press, 2010.
8. Being an Independent Regulator. – Paris: OECD Publishing, 2016. – (The Governance of Regulators).