Философия - К-02.15.22
Социология - К-02.05.22
Искусствоведение - К-02.16.22
История - К-02.16.22
Культурология - К-02.16.22
Медицина - К-02.15.22
Педагогика - К-02.10.22
Политология - К-02.05.22
Право - К-02.05.22
Психология - К-02.10.22
Техника - К-02.25.22
Филология - К-02.16.22
Экономика - К-02.05.22
Информатика - К-04.15.22
Экология - К-02.25.22
Религиоведение - К-03.03.22
Научно-методический и теоретический журнал
Идёт приём материалов
Искусствоведение История Культурология Педагогика Политология Право Психология Религиоведение Социология Филология Философия Экономика
Т. Moiseeva, Candidate of Economical Sciences, senior researcher,
Yu. Myatishkin, engineer,
Institute for the Control of Complex Systems
of Russian Academy of Sciences,
Intersubjective management of the problem situations solution in a group way implies the complete independence of the group members, their interests in solving the problem and high level of involvement of participants in this process . In modern Russian society we may find such examples of collective interaction, however, paternalistic methods for solving problems dominate due to the historically established format of social relations (citizens prefer to approach authorities with their difficulties and not to solve problems together, coordinating their actions with responsible persons [1, 8]). Authoritarian management, which has such shortcomings as poor-quality statement of the task of economic activity, low level of work performance, corruption, theft public funds, also takes place. Therefore, giving citizens greater autonomy is especially important task of the modern development of the social economy.
1. Disadvantages of paternalism
Management of common property can be carried out only in three ways: violent, commercial and cooperative . It is obvious that a harmonious society combines all three methods of managing the commons. However, today there is a strong roll towards the first method. The third one, being associated with paternalistic stereotypes that dominate in modern Russian and post-Soviet society, is almost completely absent.
If people avoid non-state methods of investing in the commons, this means that they must be reconciled with the forceful seizure of their economic resources (money, time), because solving social problems always requires investment. This, in turn, leads to dissatisfaction increase with power in society. In addition to financial citizens reducing and freedom limiting, discontent is caused by poor-quality economic decisions of administrators. This is due to the fact that being close to the problem situation, and not inside it, the authorities cannot fully understand the essence of the problem.
2. Intersubjective management of common property
Cooperation is a voluntary organization in which participants take responsibility for solving their own problem situations and act together . For real self-organization derivation in the community, a serious joint problem, that should be more significant than the usual everyday difficulties, is needed. Since the society is not ready to manage the solution of problem situations independently, state support for decision-making is necessary, which looks like a kind of controlled self-governing.
A typical structure in which the need to manage common property arises is an apartment building. The adoption of a decision by the joint meeting involves the adoption of responsibility by each of the participants. Therefore, co-owners are opposed to this method of management, wanting to make the government responsible for their common property [2–4]. To overcome this resistance of citizens, it is advisable for the city (state) administration to participate in the preparation of draft decisions for adoption by the co-owners of the property (for example, the owners of the flats in big houses). It will be equal to the division of responsibility between the local administration and citizens. Responsibility for the houses state will be shared between administration and cooperation of citizens. Local power would be able to manage the economy of houses using this approach, accepting responsibility for solving social problems and keeping the economy under control at the local level. This method has gained wide international fame under the name of the “push” management approach described by R. Taller in his book on behavioral economics . Understanding that the budget is limited, and that the authorities can only help to a certain extent, will force citizens to solve their joint problems more active and independently, increasing the investment of time, money and material resources spent on common property.
Thus, it is possible to form an environment for intersubjective management of problem situations solving in the sphere of common property. Creation of an appropriate cultural environment, consisting of independent people, will make it possible to significantly improve the quality of service and development of property through targeted fund-raising and fund-spending and improving the quality of decisions.
These principles of common property management are supported by many citizens. However, it is necessary to overcome conservative resistance both from ordinary owners and administrative functioners in the houses. The need to accept responsibility for common property, dishonesty of both confidants and ordinary users of common property are a stumbling block on the road to mastering the principles of self-government. State assistance in overcoming paternalism could significantly facilitate the transition to self-government.
The development of the collective technologies of the economy intersubjective management would increase its effectiveness due to more perfect understanding of the problems to be solved and the optimal use of available resources.
1. Moiseeva T. V. Problems of Intersubjective Management of Innovative Development of Socio-technical Objects // Bulletin of Samara State Technical University. "Engineering" Series. – 2017. – No. 3 (55). – P. 16–31.
2. Moiseeva T. V., Myatishkin Yu. V. Separation of Responsibility in Intersubjective Communities // Innovations in Life. – 2017. – No1.
3. Moiseeva T. V., Myatishkin Yu. V. Acception of Responsibility in Intersubjective Communities // XXVI Russian Scientific and Technical Conference of Teachers, Researchers and Graduate Students of PSUTI, 2019.
4. Moiseeva T. V., Myatishkin Yu. V. The Interaction of Participants Involved in the Problem Situation. // Ekonomické trendy. – 2017. – No 3. – P. 38–42.
5. New Philosophical Encyclopedia: In 4 vols. Edited by V. S. Styopin. // Moscow: Thought. 2001.
6. Ostrom E. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action // Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2015.
7. Thaler R. H. Misbehaving. The Making of Behavioral Economics // Wiley, 2015.
8. Ustinov A. V., Tinus N. N. Theoretical and Practical Difficulties of Territorial Public Self-government in Russia // City Management: Theory and Practice. Institute of Municipal Development and Social Technologies (Belgorod). – 2018. – No. 4(31). – P. 27–36.
9. Vittikh V. A. Introduction to the Theory of Intersubjective Management. // Group Decision and Negotiation. – 2015. – Vol. 24. – No. 1. – P. 67–95.