УДК: 342: 321: 316
Б. В. Шевченко
ТРАНСФОРМАЦІЯ ВЛАСНОСТІ: РОЗДЕРЖАВЛЕННЯ ТА ПРИВАТИЗАЦІЯ МАЙНА ЯК ОБ’ЄКТ ПУБЛІЧНОГО УПРАВЛІННЯ
Анотація
Стаття присвячена розгляду питань соціально-економічних та нормативно-правових перетворень на етапі роздержавлення і приватизації в контексті публічного управління та адміністративного регулювання як механізмів впливу на трансформаційні процеси власності, виділені основні етапи української приватизації та ґрунтовно розкрита їх характеристика, показана сутнісна першооснова змісту і структури понять «державне» і «публічне» управління, проведено аналіз зарубіжних і вітчизняних наукових підходів до вивчення трансформації власності як об’єкту і предмету публічного управління в нових умовах господарювання в Україні. Однак, зважаючи на те, що проблемам роздержавлення і приватизації у вітчизняній науці присвячено чимало публікацій, питання наукового обґрунтування трансформації власності в Україні та пошук механізмів публічного управління розвитком інфраструктури державного і приватного секторів господарювання, об’єднання активів держави з інвестиційними, управлінськими, мотиваційними та іншими ресурсами приватного сектору для ефективного використання потенціалу суспільства і вирішення соціально значимих завдань, залишаються актуальними.
B. V. Shevchenko
OWNERSHIP TRANSFORMATION: PROPERTY DENATIONALIZATION AND PRIVATIZATION AS AN OBJECT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Summary
Transformation of centralized management in the context of transition from planned economy to market relations involves significant socio-economic and regulatory-legal transformations. The most important among them is the change of ownership as a systemically organized denationalization and privatization. The changes taking place at this stage require a thorough understanding of theoretical issues in the field of public administration, the relevance of which will continue to grow, and the practical implementation of research results will be a sound basis for creating conditions for the establishment of equal market competition and commercialization on the principles of public administration and balanced administrative regulation.
The article is devoted to the consideration of issues of socio-economic and normative-legal transformations at the stage of denationalization and privatization in the context of public administration and administrative regulation as mechanisms of influence on transformation processes of property, highlights the main stages of Ukrainian privatization and thoroughly reveals their characteristics, the essential essence of the content and structure of concepts "State" and "public" management, an analysis of foreign and domestic scientific approaches to the study of ownership transformation as object and subject of public administration in the new economic conditions in Ukraine.
The author has proved that despite the positive comforts of solving the problem, the essential shortcomings and contradictions of mass privatization were not avoided. The main objective of privatization, which should create conditions for increasing the efficiency of production, was not achieved. The leading motive for privatization processes was to seek economic efficiency and efficiency through streamlining the ownership structure and ensuring competition. Transformation of ownership from state to non-state should gradually decrease, and the role of the state in the regulation of economic processes should not decrease in the same rate at the same rate. The role of the state in the presence of pluralism of ownership in the economy should consist, on the one hand, in ensuring a legal mechanism for the implementation of property relations and mechanisms for the interaction of economic objects, and, on the other, in the effective use of various economic instruments such as tax rates, interest rates , state order, privileges, restrictions, which, as a rule, ensures the organization and efficient functioning of the economy. In addition, the state should leave strategically important objects in its possession and has a real impact on the process of social reproduction. According to the examples of Eastern European countries, such a management of state property and the indirect regulation of activity of enterprises of other forms of ownership gave a positive stabilizing effect. In Ukraine, often, for subjective reasons, strategically important objects were subject to privatization, and funds from its implementation were not always used to finance activities that had important socio-economic significance. As a result, as some scientists rightly point out, the negative tendency of using funds from the sale of state means of production did not address the strategic problems of the national economy, it broke the process of necessary updating of means of production. Failed to fully realize the principle of social justice in the process of redistribution of state property. The real benefit from it was a small stratum of society. The privatization processes in the minds of most Ukrainians began to be associated as antisocial, anti-Ukrainian and criminal phenomenon, opaque, corrupted, and aimed exclusively at the interests of criminal-clan structures and individuals close to power. Such a regime of privatization and privatization became the key to integrating the institution of state power with a powerful oligarchic financial and industrial group.
№ 9 2018
Кількість переглядів: 1453
