MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION
STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
FAR EASTERN ACADEMY OF PUBLIC SERVICE

Faculty of State and Municipal Administration
Specialty 080504.65 “State and municipal management”
Department of Management, State and Municipal Administration

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
in the discipline "Public Administration System"
INFORMAL ACTIVITIES OF THE STATE

Khabarovsk 2010
CONTENT

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………… ………….…3

………………………………………… ………………5
CONTENT OF INFORMAL ACTIVITIES…………...…..7
Manifestation of informal activities of the state in various spheres of society……………………….……..…10
GRADE the influence of informal activities on areas of public life……………………………………24

LIST OF SOURCES AND REFERENCES USED…29

INTRODUCTION

The point of view that the current socio-economic and political situation in Russia cannot be understood without taking into account “informal” component - among scientists and practitioners is shared by an increasing number of scientists and practitioners.
Without knowledge of content and essence informal relationships; how they are carried out informal activities; how they actually work informal "rules of the game" In our opinion, today it is impossible for any competent behavior of members of society, aimed at a realistically predictable result, to begin with the youngest - “pioneers”, ending with the elderly - pensioners, both in economics and in politics.
The main paradox of the modern history of Russian society is its socio-economic survival. The life of millions of people, the vast majority of the population, cannot be understood unless one takes into account their activities in informal economy, when using informal practices at least a tolerable modern existence is ensured.
Reasons for availability paradox of survival(T. Shanin) - are quite numerous, but its main idea is connected with common sense, many witty anecdotes and aphorisms of people concerning their socio-economic existence - such as: “this collision is certainly the last”, “if you don’t grease, you won’t go” , “you cannot fire a family worker” and many similar others, reflecting the essence of informal relations and informal practices. Informal relationships - this is “blat”, and “patronage”, and “roof”, and much more, and we are still not sure what exactly they are. Informal contexts accompany almost any human action.
Therefore, the relevance of the topic “informality” both in sociology, and in economics, and in ethics, and in politics, and culture, and in other sciences, it is connected with the fact that the importance of the approach to the relationship between the formal and informal is still not fully realized, although this problem itself is from a theoretical point of view has been researched in depth.
Thus, it is well known that informal rules perform the function of structuring social interactions and are an integral part of spontaneously emerging orders of cooperation between people.
Informal management interactions unfold within formal management structures. But at the same time, these interactions also occur outside the normative framework of these structures.
The implementation of informal management interactions regularly and on a fairly wide scale means that these interactions are an integral part of formal management structures and are necessary for their normal functioning 1 .
Thus, object This study will focus on the informal activities of the state, subject– the functioning of those structures that are included in the concept of informal activity.

BASIC DEFINITIONS OF INFORMAL POWER AND ITS CHARACTERISTICS

Based on the degree of institutionalization and type of organization, power can be divided into formal (institutional) and informal.
Informal power- the ability to influence the actions and decisions of others on the basis of prestige, affection and authority, while the person’s official status is not decisive.
Informal power does not have leadership and executive levels, strictly defined functions and prerogatives. This power manifests itself as leadership in informal institutions, movements, leadership of demonstrations, speeches at rallies, etc.
Informal power reflects the need for formal management and is its necessary complement.
Signs of informal power are reliance on human informal relationships:
- weaknesses and strengths of human nature (respect, authority, pride, psychological disposition, interest);
- a system of individual or collective values;
- leadership;
Functions of informal power:
1) implementation of common material and social interests. This may be an interest in innovation or the development and implementation of an invention, in obtaining additional income, in the joint construction of garages, in solving dacha issues, in organizing tourist trips, etc.;
2) protection from excessive pressure from the administration, excessive intensification of labor, increasing production standards, layoffs of workers, etc.;
3) receiving and transmitting necessary or interesting information;
4) facilitating communications and establishing mutual assistance in solving both organizational and personal problems;
5) preservation and cultivation of common cultural, social, national, religious and other values;
6) satisfying the needs for group belonging, recognition, respect and identification;
7) creating a favorable environment for activity and psychological comfort, overcoming alienation, fear, gaining confidence and calmness;
8) adaptation and integration into various spheres of society.
There are three sources of informal power:
- functional insufficiency of the formal power itself;
- social integration;
- separation of the phenomena of functions and personality.
Informal institutions– a spontaneously formed system of social connections, interactions and norms of interpersonal and intergroup communication. Informal institutions arise where the malfunction of a formal institution causes a violation of functions important for the life of the entire society.
An informal institution is based on a personal choice of connections and associations among themselves, suggesting personal informal service relationships. There are no rigid standards. Informal organizations create more opportunities for creative productive activity, development and implementation of innovations.
Social control in such institutions is carried out on the basis of informal sanctions, i.e. with the help of norms fixed in public opinion, traditions, and customs. Such sanctions (public opinion, customs, traditions) are often a more effective means of controlling people's behavior than legal norms or other formal sanctions.
Informal institutionalization is the displacement of formal institutions by informal rules.

2 CONTENT OF INFORMAL ACTIVITIES

Subjects of informal activity have a complex, multi-level nature. In this case, we are talking not so much about the apparatuses of power structures - which are the primary level (since the powers of the apparatuses are one way or another spelled out in the relevant regulations and job descriptions, which establish the subordinate position of the apparatuses of state bodies in relation to the bodies themselves), but about a set of specific groups and associations , as well as special structures, either not provided for by current legislation, or having limited powers to participate in political decision-making.
These are, first of all, various “interest groups” and their varieties - “pressure groups” and “influence groups”, which sometimes have a well-defined structure and hierarchy, but nevertheless are generally not formalized through the standards adopted in public policy: there is no legal status, state registration, formal membership, etc. In addition to “interest groups,” structures of this kind can also include various kinds of lobbying structures, which can be partially formalized (business clubs, various councils under the President of the Russian Federation, the government, ministries, governors or mayors), but even in this case they are formed not on a representative basis, but, as a rule, on a personal, informal basis and for narrow corporate purposes.
Shadow political subjects (oligarchs, regional leaders, etc.) do not have developed technologies for working with the state in the legal and institutional field. As for the state, it acts not as a subject of a higher level, an arbiter in relations with shadow political groups and a judge in their activities, but as a subject of these relations, whose resources changed hands and which entered into coalitions with those with other groups.
There are different types of political resources that political actors have, and there are situational perceptions of the value of different types of resources. As a rule, those entities that experience a shortage of resources of a certain kind (especially if the latter are recognized as valuable) must compensate for them. This is possible in two main ways.
Firstly, by discrediting the adopted resource assessment system and decision-making system. To do this, you must simultaneously discredit (undermine people’s trust in something or stop providing support to someone) the classical system of government (administrative state mechanism) and effectively influence the decision-making process with the help of those resources that you have in abundance (“ access to the body", personal connections, media, etc.). If this is successful, then a new generally accepted understanding of the value of types of resources and mechanisms of power is gradually formed, which is beneficial.
Another important mechanism for compensating for resource deficit is the conversion (transformation) of resources. Money, intelligence, media or power capabilities can be converted into power, including administrative and institutionalized power. Therefore, the political system must have resource conversion centers. As a rule, most shadow centers of power and influence arise and (or) function precisely as such centers. The result is an increase in the influence in politics of intermediaries who take advantage of the functions of “organizing communications” and providing services for transforming resources, various types of influence into power.
In such a system, oligarchs retain opportunities for their existence and become agents of the state to implement a regime of managed democracy. They operate under the strict control of the state, which has the sanction of public opinion and political legitimacy for a tough policy towards big capital, which can be implemented at any time through informal procedures. However, the state’s building of such a system of relations with the oligarchs is fraught with quite serious danger. At a certain point, the “economic base” of the regime may get out of control, and big capital will turn into an “agent of pressure” on the state from various kinds of protest groups in society.
Objects of informal activity too heterogeneous (political decision-making, lobbying, provision of services, preferences among communities, family clans, etc.).
Item– shadow political relations.
Public administration, not finding an environment of legality and order organically inherent in established state forms, is forced to rely primarily on informal mechanisms of power, much less predictable and often ineffective. This is how a system of governing the country takes shape, based on personal connections and corporate solidarity within the ruling elites, on hidden administrative mechanisms, the slightest inconsistency of which, especially during periods of socio-political crises, is fraught with managerial collapse.

3 Manifestation of informal activities of the state in various spheres of society

The manifestation of informal power in the spheres of life of the state and society occurs in several directions:
1. Lobbying
2. Electoral process
3. Foreign policy
4. Informal meetings of heads of state on international issues
So, the manifestation of informal power in the direction - lobbying. Before starting to analyze the lobbying activities of the state, it is necessary to consider the interests that guide the state. Thus, the interests of the state:

Economic(from the point of view of a large number of political scientists, (and not only Marxists), the protection of economic interests prevails among the goals of political activity. Despite the fact that many public campaigns are not directly related to financial interests, as long as the state is involved in direct or indirect macroeconomic management, economic conflict will determine the political process)
Non-economic (ideological). The nature of these interests is to protect not material, but values ​​that determine the way of life of the community, such as political rights, freedom, security, culture, morality, religion. This area can be called “ideological interests.”
Public Interest(Politicians, officials, and lobbyists often refer to the category “public interest” or “public good.” Therefore, it is important to understand what is meant by this category. There is an old tradition in Western political thought of referring to the concept of “public good”. In Russian criminal and constitutional law, in some norms of election legislation and, of course, in information legislation, references to public interest are often made in the absence of a definition of the concept “public interest”. A free interpretation of this concept allows, in some cases, to manipulate the behavior of many people.The most general definition of a public good is “the preservation and development of community.” You can use an understanding similar to that used by J. Berry in Lobbying for the People, where “public interest” organizations are understood as groups that implement goals that are not the private goal of individual members or a group of members)
Private interests(that area of ​​interest of the individual where he acts as a parent, businessman, owner, etc., i.e. as a member of a certain reference group, and not a member of society)

Now let's consider classification of areas of lobbying activity:
1. By object of influence: executive authorities, legislative authorities, judicial authorities.
2. By level of impact: federal departments, regional authorities, local (municipal) authorities.
3. By subject of influence: industries (business), socio-political organizations, informal associations, media.
We also denote main means (technologies) of lobbying:
1. Mobilization of public opinion (carrying out mass actions, preparing appeals to government officials, “leaking” the necessary information to the media, etc.);
2. Communication of a formal nature (examination of decisions made by authorities, participation in the work of authorities, development of draft regulations, etc.)
3. Informal communication (using personal contacts, organizing seminars and conferences, participating in the work of public associations, holding informal meetings with government officials, etc.)
4. Use of election campaigns (recruitment of “our” candidates for government bodies, personal participation in elections, financing of election funds, etc.)
Manifestation of lobbying at present:
Since the early 1990s, there have been minor changes to lobbying mechanisms. What are the reasons that the mechanisms of modern Russian lobbying differ little from their successor of the Soviet period?
First, the main lobbying channels have not changed. The place of the CPSU was taken by executive authorities. It is through them, and not through the legislative branch, that the main promotion of group interests occurs. At the legislative level, lobbying can be seen in the new norm for electing senators from the regions.
If we talk about the federal level, lobbying traditionally occurs through four main channels: the Presidential Administration, the Federation Council, the State Duma, and the Government of the Russian Federation. It is also worth mentioning the fifth channel: the offices of plenipotentiaries and federal inspectors. After all, it is from them that the President of the Russian Federation receives information about the state of affairs in the regions.
Secondly, the strongest interest groups remained the same (and only became stronger in the conditions of state support). These are monopolies, mostly export-oriented. The dominant sectors of the Russian economy continue to be the fuel and energy complex, the automotive industry, nuclear energy, the mining of non-ferrous metals and precious stones, metallurgy, and the defense industry. These industries have their own people in ministries and the government who provide the appropriate lobby.
Third, the main means of lobbying have not changed. As before, as in the Soviet era, the main way to solve the problem is bribery (bribe) of employees of the executive branch.
Fourthly, the trends of property redistribution in the interests of large financial and industrial groups have continued. Large industry and regional groupings still play a significant role.
Now let's take a look lobbying methods:

Direct methods

Direct contact(Virtually every organization ever involved in lobbying has used lobbying tactics such as direct contact with decision-makers - by telephone, by mail, and directly. The lobbyist's basic technique in this case is to demonstrate to the elected official person or dependent on him, how his implementation of this or that policy will affect the electoral mood).

Providing information, examination(Interest groups conduct analytical research or gather technical information on issues that concern their members. Typically, both legislators and executive officials have limited expert resources to conduct research on the consequences of all the decisions they make. In some cases, lobbyists are an option propose a ready-made bill for submission to parliament. With regard to this method of lobbying, personal contacts, especially informal ones, have a greater effect)
Lunches(the practice of “wining and dining” is described in American scientific literature as one of the forms of direct lobbying. In Russian practice it is no less developed, it’s just that individual forms differ in the same way as individual cultural characteristics of societies differ. In the USA it is customary to invite (usually this is done by lobbyists ) officials for various informal events such as hunting, fishing, bowling, air travel, boat trips, trips to entertainment centers, etc. However, in many states, the value of lobbying by inviting legislators to events has decreased as the need for information has increased. Russian practice also shows similar dynamics).

Indirect methods

Financing of election campaigns of candidates for elected bodies- a method of influence, which, on the one hand, is based on providing votes indirectly, and on the other hand, brings personal connections or the opportunity to access decision makers (DMs). Firstly, lobbyists have the opportunity to influence the candidate’s election program. Secondly, subsequently gaining access to decision-makers serves as motivation for supporting campaigns. That is, in this way, communication channels between the group and politicians are formed.
Information campaigns(based on the factor of indirect influence on the distribution of votes in elections. However, no less a problem than coordinating the interests of competing interests is absenteeism (ignoring politics) of the public. To overcome this apathy, all sorts of tactics for working with public opinion are used, aimed at both large audiences and and focused on a few social groups)

Methods of shadow lobbying in the State Duma of the Russian Federation

The characteristic features of shadow lobbying are that only the decision itself and the person who presents and makes the decision are visible on the surface. Behind the scenes of lobbying and in the shadows remain the real customer - the client-lobbyist, other participants in the chain, material rewards for the final result, as well as other issues and problems that are in the field of view of illegal lobbying.
Let's consider a number of classic shadow lobbying technologies.
The effect of surprise. This technology is carried out in two stages: firstly, a paid lobby is created on a particular issue. These are excellent specialists, who, as a rule, have excellent knowledge of their topic and are well armed with pathetic arguments. Their opponents are usually less prepared to conduct a discussion. Secondly, lobbyist bills are introduced spontaneously. The timing of their consideration is determined behind the scenes at the Duma Council, and the introduction of the law for consideration by the State Duma occurs instantly.
The corporate effect. This method depends on the degree of discipline in the deputy association. The regulations of deputy associations strictly stipulate provisions on solidary voting. Since the State Duma regulations do not contain grounds for expelling a deputy from a deputy association, to a certain extent this makes the deputy dependent on the association and, ultimately, on the party that supported him in the elections. There are two main possibilities of putting pressure on a deputy of a parliamentary association: the threat of expulsion and the threat of not supporting the deputy (or not being included in the electoral list) at the next election.
Parallel introduction of a convenient bill. This method is used to prevent further advancement of a bill that is not convenient for lobbyists. If an “inconvenient” bill is introduced into a State Duma committee (it can be initiated either by competitors or deputies for the purpose of profit), deputies collaborating with lobbyists introduce (if it was not possible to agree on a withdrawal) their own parallel bill. Having achieved its support in the committee, alternative bills are simply withdrawn from consideration. As a result, “their” deputies single-handedly pursue an inconvenient topic (and this can last for years and, as a rule, ends in nothing), and industry lobbyists completely control the situation.
The "overload" effect. Smooth passage of a bill can be ensured if the agenda is constantly oversaturated with issues. In this case, bills are practically not discussed and the quality of decision-making leaves much to be desired.
The effect of favorable time. The timing of when a bill is introduced is important.
1. The time before the parliamentary holidays. The best time to introduce a bill is the last days of the State Duma before the parliamentary holidays. With the favor of the leading committee and if the bill does not cause universal allergy, the passage of the necessary decision is practically guaranteed.
etc.................

Power is characterized by a set of methods and techniques of institutionalization. It is important that its institutionalization be legitimate. The most important characteristic of political power in terms of the correctness of the methods of its institutionalization is its legitimacy (from Latin lex - law > French legitim - agreeing with the laws, lawful), i.e. the general recognition of power, trust in it, in the conduct of its bodies and officials politics. It is necessary to distinguish this political and legal characteristic of the institutionalization of power from a purely legal characteristic - legality. Legality means that power is institutionalized and guaranteed strictly in accordance with the law (on succession to the throne, on the election of parliament, president, etc.). M. Weber derived from his concept of political domination three main types of legitimate institutionalization of power: 1. Traditional: institutionalization is determined by traditions (“sacred custom”), mores, habits, belief in the sacredness and inviolability of ancient norms. The traditional institutionalization of domination can be gerontocratic (the power of the elders), potestarian (the power of the tribal leader), patrimonial (the power of the monarch); It is more common in African countries and in some Arab countries, where tribal leaders still retain partial power. 2. Charismatic (from Greek - divine gift): the institutionalization of dominance is based on the belief in the unusual abilities of leaders, bestowed on them by natural forces, by God and elevating him above all; arises, as a rule, in conditions of a social crisis, when faith in established orders and rules is lost (Iran). 3. Legal (rational-bureaucratic): the institutionalization of power is based on the recognition of established legal norms governing relations of management and subordination (USA, Germany, France). M. Weber proceeded from “pure types” of legitimation, taking into account that in life such types manifest themselves in a certain mixture with each other, complementarity. The prevalence of one or another type of legitimation is influenced by the existing regime. Any power strives for legitimation - institutionalization based on procedures of broad public recognition. For this purpose, they use: a) socio-psychological mechanisms based on the psychological properties of groups and large masses and accordingly forming in them a belief in the “justice” of the existing order and the principles of distribution of values; b) political participation; c) political socialization, during which the individual is introduced to existing values, experience, and norms. An important role is also played by such means as changes in legislation and the mechanism of public administration, the use of the traditions of the population in carrying out policies, and the implementation of legal precautions against a possible “crisis of legitimacy.” Delegitimation is a loss of trust in the authorities, a loss of public credit, the reasons for which may be contradictions between the universal values ​​dominant in society and the selfish interests of the ruling elite; the contradiction between the idea of ​​democracy and sociopolitical practice; lack of mechanisms to protect the interests of the people; increasing bureaucratization and corruption; nationalism, ethnic separatism in multinational states; the ruling elite’s loss of faith in its power, the emergence of acute social contradictions within it, and the clash of different branches of government. The indicators are: the level of coercion used to implement the policy; the presence of attempts to overthrow the government or leader; the power of civil disobedience; results of elections, referendums, mass demonstrations, etc. Three political forms of legitimacy of power are distinguished: 1) ideological: when power is recognized as justified by virtue of internal conviction or faith in the correctness of the ideological values ​​that it proclaims; 2) structural: the legitimacy of power stems from confidence in the legality and value of established structures and norms governing political relations; 3) personal: approval of a specific person in power.

Lecture 7. Institutionalization of a political career

1. Political career and state bureaucracy

IN Any arbitrarily chosen career is, to a greater or lesser extent, a unique form of manifestation of the specificity of social institutions and, above all, institutions of political power. P With all the diversity of the plot side of specific cases of career growth of this or that politician, each career contains certain generally significant characteristics of a given political culture as a whole . The very existence of such “general significance” becomes possible precisely due to the fact that certain varieties, standards and social mechanisms of career growth are institutionalized.

We assessed the degree of representation of the institutional component of a career by such parameters of the sociocultural space as validity, that is, stability, the typicality of a given type of career for a particular historical culture And representativeness, which characterizes the relationship between the social-stratal and personal principles in each specific case . P This ratio is determined by the framework within which social institutions such a career develops.

It appears that most clearly and demonstratively the institutional profile reveals itself in the version of career movement that is carried out within the framework of the state bureaucratic apparatus of power . Here we should talk about identifying the universal characteristics of cross-cultures nth level . That's why the most productive methodstudying political career serves ideal-typical reconstruction .

P since exactly impersonality, typicality, stability and cross-cultural character set the parameters for the search for universal characteristics of the institutional aspect of the phenomenon under study , insofar as the appeal seems justified to the study of the nature of a political career in the state bureaucracy II. Since it is the latter that takes place in the history of various subcivilizations of the past and, in one form or another, preserves itself in the political cultures of our time.

Based on this formulation of the problem, we formulate accordingly hypothesis from research : career movement along the hierarchical levels of power, carried out within the framework of the state bureaucracy, is a special specific subtype of political career of a corporate type. He is different from all those we have previously considered unconditional dominance of the institutional principle over the procedural (including the individual and personal content of the latter).

It appears that the fundamental characteristics of the bureaucratic variety of political career are:

- total regulation of the choice of possible behavioral reactions of the subject and career development strategies;

- ritualization of all forms of communication that the subject uses in the process of career advancement;

- the “closedness” of the sociocultural space for career growth, as well as the existence of strict forms of “entry” into it according to the “applicant - recommender” principle;

- normative regulation of the range of careers and the order of movement along the hierarchical levels of power;

- normative, external to the subject of the goals and objectives of career growth, as well as the values ​​and the very cultural meaning of a career.

Here personal and group career goals are assimilated by strata-corporate ones , which appear in the public consciousness as universal. Career growth values ​​in this case also have a pseudo-objective nature and exclude their individual interpretation , They find expression in the possession of attributes of place, level in the general hierarchy of power .

Of course, the noted characteristics of the bureaucratic variety of political career are formulated in general terms and are essentially postulated by us as obvious. Nevertheless, such a heuristic technique can be considered justified if, using specific historical material, we manage to show that the specified parameters are universal and characterize the bureaucratic variety of career in all its manifestations, in the case when bureaucracy is taken as specific social institution.

2. Bureaucratic political career using the example of China

Taking into account the above considerations, it seems necessary to consider how the most representative example of a bureaucratic political career using history as an example imperial China, starting from Qin Shihuang (221-206 G . BC) - the first empire in the Middle Kingdom - and ending with the Manchu period - the Qing dynasty, whose history begins in 1644 and ends in 1911 G.

The choice of the Chinese bureaucracy as an environment that provides the most colorful examples of this type of political career is due to the fact that in other countries of the East, the bureaucratic career was not the most common, much less the dominant type of career movement. Let's say, in the largest and most bureaucratic country in the Islamic world, Ottoman Empire, state bureaucracy, constituting a military-political bureaucracy, was not a closed community aware of and defending its special corporate interests.

As noted earlier, in terms of social status, both ordinary people and senior leaders of the state, for example, viziers, qadi-askers and others, the overwhelming majority were kapikulu, that is, slaves of the state, and in this regard everyone was equal before possible arbitrariness on the part of the central (sultan) government. The social layer of the bureaucracy itself remained open - any individual who distinguished himself in military or other public service (treasury, legal or even religious) could count on advancement through the hierarchical levels if he was noticed by the Sultan or the person representing him. The meritocratic type of career growth in its timocratic or servile varieties was dominant. This is what distinguishes the situation in the Ottoman Empire from China, where the bureaucracy quite early took shape as a political bureaucracy, arrogating to itself the right of monopoly representation of the interests of state power before society as a whole. And the essence of the corporate interest of the Chinese bureaucracy lies in the desire to strengthen this kind of monopoly, to make the state interest universal and thereby consolidate its social status. And although it may not have been entirely possible to achieve this in full, since the third estate (not to mention the aristocracy) was still, to one degree or another, aware of its strata political interest as being adjacent to the bureaucratic, but unconditional the dominance of the latter was obvious.

The specificity of China, which distinguishes it from the class societies of Europe and the Muslim East, lies precisely in this claim to the totality of state political interest, the claim to assimilate in it all group and private interests of members of society, but this notorious state interest itself -teres reveals itself only in the bureaucracy as a social institution, outside of which it does not exist, at least in visible and significant manifestations for ordinary members of society. This is the situation on the one hand.

On the other hand, this state of affairs is not some exclusively Chinese specificity. There is experience in the history of Europe (at least Eastern - the Soviet Union), where a colossal bureaucratic apparatus was formed that was able to organize an unprecedented system of political domination, in which it not only monopolized the interests of the state before society as a whole, but assimilated political interests of all layers of society within the framework of their corporate interests.

That is in USSR career advancement within the state bureaucracy becomes the only type of political career . At the same time, it is precisely Soviet bureaucracy - nomenk-latura creates the most developed political-ideological doctrine that justifies this kind of status quo.

Therefore, it seems necessary to include in the field of theoretical analysis the experience of political domination of the Soviet nomenklatura. And if in it and the political culture of imperial China it is possible to identify generally significant universal characteristics and at the same time show exactly how they manifest themselves in the five qualification criteria, then judgments formulated in the form of a hypothesis about the nature of the bureaucratic variety of political career will thus be justified.

In Chinabureaucracy as independent social stratum it happened quite early. Already in the early Han period (that is, after 206 BC) it was developed system of twenty official ranks (from 32 BC their number reduced to sixteen ). In the 3rd century AD, after the collapse of the Han Dynasty, a new system was established, which included nine ranks , each of which had a first and second degree. This system existed unchanged until 1095.

During the late Han period (in I - III centuries AD) bureaucracy recognizes itself as an independent oh social stratum . His political interests, on the one hand, differ from the claims of the first estate - the hereditary aristocracy, on the other hand - from the interests of the third estate, the so-called "respectable people" - personally free independent producers ( farmers, merchants and artisans). Inferior members of society, the so-called “vile classes,” which included hired workers, state and private slaves, were not taken into account at all.

Despite the fact that initially (from the 2nd century BC) lower official ranks, but not positions, could be bought for money by representatives of the merchant class and large landowners, the bureaucracy remained closed oh social stratum, since the positions themselves, as well as the corresponding monetary and in-kind support, remained the lot of the elite.

From the point of view of the ideological doctrines of Taoist-Confucian synthesis and legalism, the purpose of the bureaucracy was to implement the will of the highest authority. The bureaucracy represents political power throughout the social pyramid , since the emperor, although he had an unlimited right to dispose of the lives of his subjects,behindWith the exception of the highest nobility, he still remained a sacred figure for the absolute majority of the country's population. For all the "respectable"AndIn the “mean” classes, it was the official who represented state power and accumulated the functions of political management in his hands.

The official received full state support for his service, including members of his family. The form of such support first became the allocation of land “for feeding”, when an employee received payment for leasing a plot of state land corresponding to his rank. Then (from the beginning of the 7th century) salaries in cash and in kind began to be added to this.

Since the Ghanaian dynasty an examination selection system is being established , which essentially “cut off” even wealthy representatives of the third estate from power, since the latter did not have the opportunity to undergo an appropriate course of training in the required disciplines.

Through examinations, about one third of all applicants became officials (as a rule, these came from the bureaucratic environment). The rest were co-opted into power through special “invitations”, which were based on the recommendations of “service” officials already occupying high positions.

Such a system, supplemented in the 17th century by the Manchu tusa system - legalized nepotism, when local officials appointed their relatives and relatives to lower positions, who, being bound by mutual responsibility, were deprived of posts and most of their property in case of disgrace or resignation of the head of Agna T ical group - existed until the beginning of the 20th century.

The above-described features of bureaucracy as a social th strata very early they allowed it to turn into a closed layer of the political bureaucracy. In this capacity The bureaucratic corps is characterized by the fact that it monopolizes the functions of political administration . Because the law in the history of China has always played a subordinate role in relation to ethics and ideology , and according to later it was the civil servant who expressed the will of the emperor , to the extent that in the localities it was often only his - the official's - will that became the will of the authorities. The official redistributed a significant share of public resources, regulated the methods of obtaining and the share of public wealth as his own th strata , and most of that which fell on the share of the social strata and groups that made up the third and, even more so, the fourth estate.

The bureaucracy, most of them widely and deeply educated, in practice established a system of regulations that regulated all relations in society, including the private life of citizens.

Thus, an individual, moving up the service hierarchical ladder, laid claim to power and concentrated it in his hands, as the right to dispose of people and resources, solely due to the fact that he held one or another government position , and this, according to experts, is the essential characteristic of bureaucracy.

For example, the first estate - the hereditary aristocracy - laid claim to power by virtue of its origin, but it never became a monolithic social layer , which would subordinate the state administrative apparatus.

In this state of affairs, for a subject who did not belong to the hereditary aristocracy, the only possible type of political career becomes consistent advancement through the hierarchical steps of the career ladder and the associated accumulation of the ability to manage public resources, which, as is known, is one of the forms of manifestation according to political power.

In such a situation, it becomes quite “natural” that circumstance noted by almost all authoritative researchers of the history of China, namely, all forms of social mobility, both vertical and horizontal, had extremely strict regulation. At the same time, the scope of such regulation became increasingly broader and stricter as one’s career progressed. All forms of manifestation of social activity for an individual are regulated by their very membership in the bureaucracy. And in order to belong to it, and even more so to advance through the ranks of power, it was necessary to strictly follow the “rules of the game” - regulations and norms that determined the entire generally narrow range of possible career development strategies.

For a Chinese official, belonging to the bureaucracy means total regulation of professional activities , although the latter could be associated with any sphere of public life, the main thing is that it was sanctioned by a given position and that various rituals were observed that determined the sequence and procedure of actions. The entire volume of social communication into which a subject enters in the process of career movement (horizontal or vertical) is not just regulated, it appears in a strictly ritualized form, that is, a set of all possible forms of contact between a career subject and his environment strictly regulated in advance by the norms of bureaucratic ethics.

It was the ritualization and, first of all, the ritualization of the official’s communication with his environment that was intended to emphasize that it was not just two individuals who came into contact with each other, but subjects who personified the state mind, power and, because of this, personified certain positions - levels of the hierarchy. Thus, adherence to ritual norms is a necessary condition for belonging to the bureaucracy .

The complete loyalty of “statesmen” in relation to ritual prescriptions was largely predetermined by the very method of entering the career. y strata and the way to promote internally is not e . Co-optation into the bureaucracy was carried out on the principle of “applicant - recommender”. Where the first, if he became the subject of a career, demonstrated personal devotion to the patron. At the same time, an important and very indicative condition for career growth is that the subject had to show personal devotion to the patron, but not as a specific person, but as a personified position. Specific individuals occupying this position can change, moving vertically or horizontally in the hierarchical ladder, but from the lower one, a priori, loyalty is required to any new person who comes to the position of the departed patron. This should happen not because this individual - the patron of the subject of a career - is a wonderful and worthy person in all respects, but because he personifies a higher level of power, and it is with it that he acquires the corresponding set “personal” advantages, along with it this set loses.

Thus, obligatory devotion to the person personifying power in a given position is essentially serving the corporate interest of the bureaucracy as a whole ; That is why, from the point of view of the norms of bureaucratic ethics, there is nothing reprehensible for a career subject to forget yesterday’s patron (whose patronage at one time constituted a resource for career movement) as soon as he finds himself in disgrace and serve the new patron just as selflessly. A bureaucratic career requires serving corporate interests given th strata s. D All things symbolize this interest, and specific individuals only personify it. Outside of this system of relations, an individual (if he does not belong to the hereditary aristocracy) is not a subject of a career and cannot be used as a resource for career growth by another subject; falling out of the bureaucratic th strata , he goes into socio-political oblivion.

The same ritual also regulates the probable number of steps in the hierarchy of power that a career subject can go through. It is known that there was a rule according to which in each subsequent generation an individual - coming from an official environment - could count on rising to the level of his father. Thus, a vertical distance of growth was tacitly determined, after overcoming which the individual began a horizontal career, that is, he changed positions and functional responsibilities, remaining at the same hierarchical level.

The political and ideological doctrine of the Chinese bureaucracy reflected its corporate interests and determined the goals and values ​​of its career. Service to the state was proclaimed the highest and final goal . In its turn, for each individual career subject, the state was personified in a hierarchical sequence of higher positions, promotion to which becomes a personal goal of career growth . The last and highest link in this sequence is the individual who was at the top of the hierarchical ladder. By virtue of his position, he, personifying political power, acquires a certain personal charisma, that is, what sets him apart, raises him above others as the best, exceptional, as someone who has gone through the entire hierarchy. In the bureaucratic system of values, such an individual symbolizes a political career as such; he is the bearer of the charisma of political power in its direct form.

A similar political and worldview construction is used to justify the idea of ​​serving an individual who personifies the highest power, since he personifies the highest of the positions, the one that assimilates all the others, and his “patron”, “recommender” are sacred forces . From here it follows that each new emperor receives the “mandate of Heaven”, the legitimation of power, even if the latter was simply usurped.

The state of affairs described by such a political and ideological construction, in addition to ethical, also acquires a certain aesthetic value, which lies in the doctrine of harmony not only in society, but also in nature as a whole.

In China, from antiquity to modern times, within the framework of a variety of political-ideological doctrines (this was most characteristic of Confucianism and Taoism), the internal harmony of the individual, attached to power, with himself , harmony in society were part of the harmony of the cosmos. In such a “system of coordinates,” political power, ensuring social stability in society, became the guarantor of stability in the ontological sense, the guarantor of the indestructible order and natural course of events in nature, of which, according to such views, society is a part (at the same time the latter was entirely identified with the state). And the official, thus, became an exponent of the superhuman natural world order; in his activities he demonstrated the “natural” course of things, cosmic harmony, that is, ultimately, natural laws.

Thus, individual, private career values ​​at each stage of advancement become the possession of certain attributes of the position . In China- this and color of clothing corresponding to a given rank , And ceremonial th departure with clearly established sizes and types of escort court , this and ceremonial roles during numerous public holidays and so on.

3. Bureaucratic political career using the example of the USSR

In another time in another culture M.Voslensky, for example, notes what did the attributes of the corresponding position have value significance? : telephone number, brand of company car, size of the apartment, availability and size of the company dacha, and if there is none, then it turned out to be significant In which health resort or holiday home does this person spend his holiday? . And in China, and in the USSR the attributes of a position do not just symbolize power, they are its reification, materialization.

In such attributes, sometimes quite exotic, a peculiar dialectic of the bureaucratic variety of political career can be traced. It (dialectics) reveals itself in the fact that in the type of career under consideration there are simultaneously two opposite principles compete . On the one side, power reveals itself as a position in a hierarchical forest, it personified in a specific indie form , holding this position. On the other side, it becomes depersonalized, because an individual, personifying a position, is deprived of any personal traits , he is non-individual, as paradoxical as it may sound, its distinctive features are attributes of a position, post, but not manifestations of personal characteristics .

The features of the bureaucratic subtype of political career of the corporate type described using the example of the history of China do not constitute any specific “oriental flavor”. Available special studies of the party and economic nomenklatura of the Soviet Union describe a very similar situation. Exactly So or a bureaucratic career in the USSR was the only possible option for making a political career . In the same way, there was a strict predetermined “plot” options for career movement and growth and, perhaps, no less achieved was the open and unspoken regulation of forms of behavior for a representative of the nomenklatura, except that the set of official attributes was less exotic than in imperial China .

A special role in career movement is played by the scheme of co-optation into power and promotion through its ranks . The “applicant-recommender” relationship is becoming a necessary condition for career advancement even horizontally, not to mention vertically . Just like in China, the Soviet nomenklatura official was a member of essentially a closed clan , belonging to the nomenklatura hierarchy seemed to “remove” him from among ordinary citizens, “raising” him above them. No matter how famous they may be (like, say, famous artists or outstanding scientists), no matter how well-off materially they are by the standards of the Soviet average person (like, say, metallurgists, miners or foreign sailors), in terms of social status any citizens not only always remained below any official, even at the lowest levels, but also absolutely unprotected from possible arbitrariness on his part .

Moreover, in the USSR not a single social stratum had a self-awareness developed enough to be aware of its group interests; not a single social stratum had even the fundamental opportunity to oppose its political claims to the corporate interests of the bureaucracy, interests that assimilate all group and in-group interests. individual interests of members of society who are not included in the nomenclature.

The “nomenklatura” personifies state power, and accordingly, the attributes of the position become the characteristics of his individuality . And career evolutions here also represent the resultant two trends : deindividuation of personality And person- fication of power. In each specific case of the political career of the Soviet period Typical extrapersonal parameters of career movement come to the fore.. And each step along the steps of a particular subject along the steps of the bureaucratic hierarchy is perceived by his environment - and this is also characteristic of the self-awareness of society as a whole - as an personification, a personification of the growing volume of political power, which is, in fact, what it really was .

However, the Soviet nomenklatura also had one serious difference from the Chinese bureaucracy, which allows us to consider it as a higher level of development of the bureaucratic variety of political career. The point is that in the conditions of the Soviet Union, the corporate interest of the bureaucracy becomes a total form of representation of political interest as such.

The state bureaucratic apparatus assimilates all possible forms of political representation, whereas in imperial China state bureaucratic interest did not absorb the interests of, say, the third estate, although it certainly dominated them. This is why it seems the institutional profile of a political career in the Soviet bureaucracy appears in its fullest and, perhaps, hypertrophied form : bureaucracy becomes the only macroinstitution for l itical power, and the essence of bureaucracy is in the power of the official .

To the above it is necessary to add the following considerations. As already noted, the bureaucratic type of career was the only possible option for a political career in general, and the advancement of any individual is inextricably linked with the implementation of the corporate interests of the bureaucracy . Of such kind interest is, as it were, “objectified” in a kind of appropriation of the state . The latter becomes the existence of the political interest of the bureaucratic corporation as a social th strata . (By the way, this is why a bureaucratic career is always a stratocratic career in type).

Naturally, this, in turn, becomes possible only to the extent and extent to which political dominance and the will of the bureaucracy finds organizational consolidation. Created bureaucracy organizations and institutions of power in their functional purpose realize a certain highest state interest. These are not the interests of certain social strata, groups or parties. The former do not have a conscious specific interest and exist at the level of “being in themselves”, the latter are simply absent.

Notorious state interest is one of the highest political and ideological values. According to the doctrine, it absorbs less and less “global”, private and collective interests of social strata and groups , and therefore cannot be adequately understood by them. Bureaucracy, according to all that and e doctrine, does not have its own social interest in general and political interest in particular (as if in Soviet times it was the workers, collective farmers or the “stratum” of the intelligentsia). It supposedly only realizes the general state interest and that is why it exclusively represents it . This is, in general terms, the scheme of political-legal and ideological legitimation of the rule of the bureaucracy.

Such legitimation determines the purpose of institutions and organizations through which political power is exercised. , which, in fact, constitutes another side of the institutionalization of a political career in its bureaucratic variety.

Conclusions. P It seems necessary to make one more remark. T the traditional content of the concept is political th institute includes two interpretations of it. In the first, the institution is understood as political parties, organizations, as well as government institutions. In the second - standards regulating the procedure for exercising power by one or another official.

Then a political career associated exclusively with belonging to an organization or institution of power and proceeding entirely within the framework of the first or second, itself, in fact, acquires institutional th character , Although wouldVdue to the fact that outside of specific individuals acting according to certain rules, that is, according to the principles of functioning of these institutions, they themselves do not exist. After all It is precisely belonging to an organization or institution of power that is the minimum necessary condition for career advancement, and such an organization (or institution) itself becomes a means of exercising political domination, a form of realizing political interest . This is the first aspect of the institutionalization of a political career.

Second aspect associated with the legitimation of the bureaucratic variety of political career . Meaning the establishment of a political-legal system of society in which the political-ideological doctrine is total in nature, when its content determines the content of legal norms and assimilates social-group and individual interests as a general political interest . Right here motivation for career advancement is unified for any subject; it is embedded in the normative and value ideas of a given society , and in this case, in any manifestations of social consciousness there is a transformed form of justification corporate interests of the state bureaucracy, serving such interests becomes the only kind of political career .

Thus, it should be noted that to the five signs of the bureaucratic variety of political career indicated at the beginning, two more should be added, which seem to have an essential characterological status, while the previously indicated (five signs) follow from them.

Two characterological (and therefore mandatory) signs are : localization of a career in an institution or organization of political power and the mandatory establishment of normative and value regulation of the order and forms of career movement, ways of using career growth resourcesand finally, establishing the very meaning of career growth . It follows from this that career advancement appears as a personification of political power, and the attributes of the position become not only symbols of the latter, but also ways of formalizing corporatism socially th strata , belonging to which th becomes a necessary condition for career advancement .

Of course, to one degree or another, the considered type of political career (it, as already noted, belongs to the stratocratic type) takes place in any society where the functions of public administration acquire a professional status. However, in imperial China and the Soviet Union, it (bureaucratic career) becomes the only possible option for pursuing a political career in general and, because of this, most fully and clearly reflects all the characterological features of this phenomenon. Political careers of the bureaucratic type are quite widely represented in countries of liberal democracy, however T but it is neither dominant, nor even more so the only possible . In imperial China and the USSR, this variety turns into a developed social institution.

In general, the existence of this phenomenon seems to be inevitable in any society, because Social mechanisms of co-optation into the ruling elite and consolidation of its political dominance are directly related to the institutionalization of a political career in general and a bureaucratic career in particular. .

Literature

Makeev V.V. Political career. M.: Social and humanitarian knowledge, 2000. P.314-341.

In political science, two interpretations of the concept of “state” can be distinguished.

IN in a broad sense A state is a political entity that meets three main characteristics:

1) the presence of a single territory with certain boundaries;

2) the population living in a given territory;

3) sovereign power.

This interpretation of the concept of state is primarily of a legal nature.

IN in the narrow sense the state is interpreted as a set of political institutions that exercise supreme power in a certain territory. The classic definition of the state in a narrow sense was formulated by M. Weber: “The modern state,” he wrote, “is a union of domination organized according to the type of institution, which, within a certain sphere, has achieved success in monopolizing legitimate physical violence as a means of domination.” Weber's position can be characterized as a political science approach. He derives the concept of the state from the relationship of domination of people over people, which is based on legitimate violence. At the same time, domination itself is organized and carried out in accordance with existing norms and procedures (“according to the type of institution”), that is, it is institutionalized in nature. The definition proposed by Weber has received wide support in modern science. The French sociologist P. Bourdieu considers the state as “X (to be defined), which has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical and symbolic violence in a certain territory and in relation to the relevant population.” In this definition, Bourdieu expands the interpretation of violence used by the state: for him it is not only physical, but also symbolic.

Historical research confirms the fact that the creation of centralized states in Europe and other regions is associated with the monopolization of one of the groups the right to use violence, an increase in tax collection and strengthening of military power. Some researchers consider the process of establishing a territorial monopoly of force, i.e., the formation of a state, to be a law of history, and the emergence of modern states dates back to the 15th century. Monopoly of force involves protecting a territory from external enemies and eliminating conflicts using violence within a certain territory.

In political science, special attention is paid to the problem of the origin of the state. Depending on its decision, the nature of the state and the methods of its legitimation are determined. This problem was in the field of vision of ancient and medieval thinkers, philosophers and lawyers of the New Age. In modern political science, representatives of neo-institutionalism have addressed this problem.

Representatives of neo-institutionalism interpret the origin of the state from the standpoint of social constructivism. D. North views the ruler as an owner who trades in protection and justice. In exchange for these benefits, the ruler acquires supreme power, which is limited on the part of his subjects both by the possible costs of leaving the subordination of the ruler and his replacement, and by the level of political competition. J. Buchanan paints a slightly different picture. From the point of view of his theory, the citizen (principal) constructs the state (agent), transferring to it functions, including the guarantor of the execution of contracts. As a result, he is forced to obey the decisions of the state, thus becoming an agent.

Adherents of neo-institutionalism consider two polar models of the state: contractual and exploitative. From point of view contract model, the state uses the right delegated to it by citizens to use violence in their interests. The goal of such a state is to redistribute property rights in a way that maximizes society's income. To do this, property is transferred into the hands of those economic entities that can use it most effectively. The contract state operates within the framework of the constitutional field and market economy. In contrast to him exploitative state uses the monopoly on violence in its own interests, i.e. to maximize its own profits. The interests of the ruler are placed above the interests of society, and the state apparatus seeks to bring all spheres of society under its control. The redistribution of property and government extortions are becoming systematic.

Social life is a multifaceted concept. However, the progress of Russian society, as we see from history, directly depends on the quality of the specific creative intellectual process carried out in it. What is institutionalization? This is an organization by a developed civil society of standardized passage. The tools are intellectual formations developed by society - institutions with a fixed functioning scheme, staffing structure, job descriptions. Any sphere of public life - political, economic, legal, informational, cultural - in order to progress society is subject to generalization and streamlining by this process.

Examples of institutionalization are, for example, parliament, created on the basis of meetings of citizens; a school crystallized from the work of an outstanding artist, painter, dancer, thinker; a religion that takes its origins from the sermons of the prophets. Thus, institutionalization is, of course, in its essence, ordering.

It is carried out as a replacement of sets of individual behavior models with one - generalized, regulated one. If we talk about the constructive elements of this process, then the social norms, rules, statuses and roles developed by sociologists are an active mechanism of institutionalization that resolves pressing social needs.

Russian institutionalization

It should be recognized that institutionalization in Russia in the new century has been provided with a truly reliable economic basis. Production growth is ensured. The political system has been stabilized: a “working” Constitution, a capable division of branches of legislative, executive and judicial power, existing freedoms provide the basis for such development.

Historically, the institutionalization of Russian power went through the following stages:

• The first (1991-1998) is transitional from the Soviet regime.
• The second (1998-2004) was a change in the model of society from oligarchic to state-capitalist.
• The third (2005-2007) is the formation of effective institutions of society.
• The fourth (starting from 2008) is a stage characterized by the effective participation of human capital.

Russia has an elitist model of democracy that limits the circle of people actively participating in the political process, which corresponds to the Russian mentality, which assumes the dominance of the interests of the state over the interests of the individual. Civil society's support for the political course of the elite is becoming of fundamental importance.

It should be recognized that the traditional part of the population, brought up in the “wild” 90s, remains a limiting factor for development. But new principles of democracy are being introduced into society. The institutionalization of power in Russia has led to the fact that political institutions are divided not only into those of power, but also into institutions of participation. Currently, the role of the latter is increasing. They have a targeted impact on certain aspects of the progress of society.

The sphere of influence of those in power is the entire population of the country. The main political institutions include the state itself and civil society. A feature of Russian institutionalization is its modeling taking into account the interests of the country's development. Blindly importing Western institutions is not always effective here, so institutionalization in Russia is a creative process.

Institutionalization and social institutions

Social institutions and institutionalization are important as universal tools for uniting the efforts of many people living in various subjects of the federation for the optimal distribution of resources and satisfaction of Russian society with them.

For example, the institution of the state exercises power to meet the needs of the maximum number of citizens. The institution of law regulates the relationship between people and the state, as well as between individuals and society as a whole. The Institute of Faith helps people find faith, the meaning of life, and truth.

These institutions serve as the foundation of civil society. They are generated by the needs of society, which are characterized by mass manifestations and the reality of existence.

From a formal point of view, a social institution can be represented as a “role system” based on the roles and statuses of various members of society. At the same time, operating in the conditions of a federal state, Russian institutions, in order to gain maximum legitimacy, are doomed to combine the maximum set of traditions, customs, and moral and ethical standards. Regulation and control are carried out through institutions that implement legal and social norms developed taking into account these traditions and customs.

For the Russian mentality, it is important to reinforce the formal organization during the functioning of this or that institution with an informal one in order to achieve maximum efficiency.

Distinctive features of institutions that help determine their presence in the diverse social life of a country are numerous constant types of interactions, regulation of both job responsibilities and the procedure for their implementation, and the presence of “narrow” specialists trained in their field on staff.

What social institutions can be called the main ones in modern society? Their list is known: family, healthcare, education, social protection, business, church, mass media. Are they institutionalized? As you know, for each of these areas in the government there is a corresponding ministry, which is the “top” of the corresponding branch of government, which covers the regions. In the regional system of executive power, appropriate departments are organized that control the direct executors, as well as the dynamics of relevant social phenomena.

Political parties and their institutionalization

The institutionalization of political parties in its current interpretation began after the Second World War. One can say about its composition that it includes political and legal institutionalization. The political streamlines and optimizes the efforts of citizens to create parties. Legal establishes the legal status and directions of activity. Important issues are also the problem of ensuring financial transparency of party activities and the rules of its interaction with business and the state.

The generalized legal status of all parties (place in government and other organizations) and the individual social status of each (reflects the resource base and role in society) are normatively established.

The activities and status of modern parties are regulated by law. In Russia, the task of institutionalizing parties is resolved by a special federal law “On Political Parties.” According to it, a party is formed in two ways: by a founding congress or by transforming a movement (social organization).

The state regulates the activities of parties, namely rights and obligations, functions, participation in elections, financial activities, relations with government agencies, international and ideological activities.

The restrictive requirements are: the all-Russian nature of the party, the number of members (more than 50 thousand), the non-ideological, non-religious, non-national nature of this organization.

Representation of parties in legislative bodies is ensured by associations of deputies (factions) elected to them.

The legislation also defines the legal personality of parties: administrative, civil law, constitutional law.

Institutionalization of conflicts

Let's turn to history. The institutionalization of conflict as a social phenomenon finds its origins in the era of the emergence of capitalist relations. The deprivation of peasants of land by large landowners, the transformation of their social status into proletarians, the conflicts of the emerging bourgeois class and the nobility who do not want to leave their positions.

In terms of conflict regulation, institutionalization is the resolution of two conflicts at once: industrial and political. The conflict between employers and workers is regulated by the institution of collective agreement, taking into account the interests of hired workers by trade unions. The conflict over the right to control society is resolved by the mechanism of suffrage.

Thus, the institutionalization of conflict is a protective instrument of social consensus and a system of balances.

Public opinion and its institutionalization

Public opinion is a product of the interaction of various segments of the population, political parties, networks, and the media. The dynamics of public opinion have increased significantly thanks to the Internet, interactivity, and flash mobs.

The institutionalization of public opinion has created specific organizations that study public opinion, compile ratings, and predict election results. These organizations collect, study existing and form new public opinion. It should be recognized that such studies are often biased and rely on biased samples.

Unfortunately, the structured shadow economy distorts the concept of “institutionalization of public opinion.” In this case, the judgments and wishes of most people are not translated into real government policy. Ideally, there should be a direct and clear connection between the will of the people and its implementation through parliament. People's representatives are obliged to serve public opinion by promptly adopting the necessary regulations.

Social work and institutionalization

At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century, in Western European society, in connection with industrialization and the involvement of a wide variety of population groups, the institution of social work arose. It was mainly about social benefits and assistance to workers' families. In our time, social work has acquired the features of reasonable altruistic assistance to people who are not sufficiently adapted to living conditions.

Social work, depending on the subject of its implementation, can be state, public or mixed. Government institutions include the Ministry of Social Policy, its regional departments, and local institutions serving socially disadvantaged people. Help is provided to certain members of society. It is regular, carried out by full-time social workers and relies on budget funds. Public social work is voluntary, performed by volunteers and most often irregular. As you understand, the institutionalization of social work gives the greatest effect in a mixed version, where its state and public forms simultaneously coexist.

Stages of institutionalization of the shadow economy

The process of institutionalization is gradual. Moreover, all stages of its passage are typical. The root cause of this process and at the same time its feeding basis is a need, the implementation of which requires organized actions of people. Let's take a paradoxical route. Let us consider the stages of institutionalization during the formation of such a negative institution as the “shadow economy”.

• Stage I - the emergence of a need. Disparate financial transactions (for example, export of capital, cashing out) of individual economic entities (since the 90s of the last century) have become widespread and systematic.
• Stage II - the formation of certain goals and an ideology serving their implementation. The goal can, for example, be formulated as follows: “Creation of an economic system “invisible” to state control. Creating a climate in society where those in power enjoy the right of permissiveness.”
• Stage III - creation of social norms and rules. These norms initially establish the rules that determine the “closedness” of power to control by the people (“Byzantine system of power”). At the same time, laws that “do not work” in society force business entities to “go under the roof” of illegitimate structures that actually carry out the regulatory function lost by the laws.
• Stage IV - the emergence of standard functions associated with norms. For example, the function of “protecting the business” of those in power by the security forces, the function of legal cover for raiding, cashing out finances under fictitious contracts, and creating a system of “kickbacks” with budget funding.
• Stage V - practical application of norms and functions. Gradually, shadow conversion centers are being created that are not advertised in the official press. They work with specific clients in a sustainable and long-term manner. Their conversion rate is minimal; they successfully compete with official converting organizations. Another direction: shadow wages, which range from 15-80%.
• Stage VI - creation of a system of sanctions that protect the criminal structure. Government positions are being privatized by capital to serve businesses. They, these officials, are developing “rules” that punish “slander” and “moral damage.” Manually controlled human rights bodies and tax authorities are turning into a private “squad” of those in power.
• Stage VII - shadow verticals of power. Officials turn their levers of power into a resource for their entrepreneurial activities. The power ministries and the prosecutor's office are virtually isolated from the function of protecting the interests of the people. Judges who ensure the policy of regional authorities and are “fed” by it for this.

The process of institutionalization, as we see, is universal in terms of its main stages. Therefore, it is fundamentally important that the creative and legitimate social interests of society are subject to it. The institution of the shadow economy, which worsens the quality of life of ordinary citizens, must be supplanted by the institution of the rule of law.

Sociology and institutionalization

Sociology studies society as a complex institutional system, taking into account its social institutions and the connections between them, relationships and communities. Sociology shows society from the point of view of its internal mechanisms and the dynamics of their development, the behavior of large groups of people and, in addition, the interaction of man and society. It provides and explains the essence of social phenomena and behavior of citizens, and also collects and analyzes primary sociological data.

The institutionalization of sociology expresses the inner essence of this science, which organizes social processes with the help of statuses and roles, and is itself aimed at ensuring the functioning of society. Therefore, a phenomenon occurs: sociology itself falls under the definition of an institution.

Stages of development of sociology

There are several stages in the development of sociology as a new world science.

• The first stage dates back to the 30s of the 19th century; it consists in highlighting the subject and method of this science by the French philosopher Auguste Comte.
• The second is the “development” of scientific terminology, acquisition of qualifications by specialists, organization of operational scientific exchange of information.
• The third is positioning oneself as part of the philosophers as “sociologists.”
• The fourth is the creation of a sociological school and the organization of the first scientific journal “Sociological Yearbook”. The greatest merit belongs to the French sociologist Emile Durkheim at the Sorbonne University. However, in addition to this, the Department of Sociology was opened in (1892)
• The fifth stage, a kind of “recognition” of the state, was the introduction of sociological specialties into state professional registers. Thus, society finally recognized sociology.

In the 1960s, American sociology received significant capitalist investments. As a result, the number of American sociologists increased to 20 thousand, and the titles of sociological periodicals increased to 30. Science took an adequate position in society.

In the USSR, sociology was revived after the October Revolution in 1968 - at Moscow State University. The Department of Sociological Research was created. The first periodical was published in 1974, and in 1980 sociological professions were added to the country's professional register.

If we talk about the development of sociology in Russia, then it is worth mentioning the Faculty of Sociology opened in 1989 at Moscow State University. He “gave a start in life” to 20 thousand sociologists.

Thus, institutionalization is a process in Russia that took place, but with a delay - relative to France and the USA - by a hundred years.

Conclusion

In modern society there are many institutions that exist not materially, but in the minds of people. Their formation, institutionalization, is a dynamic and dialectical process. Outdated institutions are replaced by new ones, generated by key social needs: communication, production, distribution, security, maintaining social inequality, establishing