facebook
twitter
vk
instagram
linkedin
google+
tumblr
akademia
youtube
skype
mendeley
Wiki
Page translation
 

TO THE ISSUE OF EFFICIENCY OF IMPLEMENTATION THE STATE YOUTH POLICY IN MODERN RUSSIA / К вопросу об эффективности реализации государственной молодёжной политики в современной России

TO THE ISSUE OF EFFICIENCY OF IMPLEMENTATION THE STATE YOUTH POLICY IN MODERN RUSSIA / К вопросу об эффективности реализации  государственной молодёжной политики в современной России
Sergey Chirun, associate professor, candidate of sociology, doctor of political science, associate professor

Kemerovo State University, Russia

Championship participant: the National Research Analytics Championship - "Russia";

the Open European-Asian Research Analytics Championship;

The article reveals the situation according to which an effective state youth policy in new conditions is impossible without realizing the potential of networked youth structures.

According to the author, the definition of the GMP effectiveness criteria is a discussion problem, the resolution of which is possible only on the basis of broad discussions, pluralism of opinions, consideration of the positions of all interested parties. The effectiveness of the state youth policy is a complex indicator of the state's activity as an actor in the sphere of the MP, demonstrating the correlation between the results achieved by the state in specific spheres, directions, programs, projects, state youth policy activities and resource costs (financial, cultural, symbolic, administrative); And also showing the urgency of the priorities chosen by the state in the existing problem field.

In the author's opinion, the lack of a holistic approach to determining the effectiveness of state youth policy leads to subjectivization of priorities and contributes to the erosion of the responsibility of its actors. At the same time, the lack of a holistic approach to determining the effectiveness of the GMF leads to subjectivization of the priorities of the GMF and helps to erode the responsibility of its actors.

Keywords: Efficiency, optimality, implementation problems, state youth policy.

 

It should be noted that a unified approach to the determination of the effectiveness of the State Youth Policy in the Russian Federation did not exist for a long time. This allowed us to evaluate the effectiveness of youth policy through the prism of the subjective understanding of the appropriateness of a particular activity as at the municipal level and at the level of the RF subjects of their heads and bodies responsible for work in this area. The formulations, fixed in relation to the youth sector in no.184-FL[1] and no.131-FL[2] allows to define the goals and objectives, to evaluate the effectiveness of work with youth at the discretion of the official.

Meanwhile, scientific predictions suggest future problems of reducing the number of (chronological) Russian youth by 2025 from 33.2 (in 2014) to 25.6 million, that is 27%. Thus, a significant reduction in the number of young people of the most reproductive age is projected in the Russian Federation by 2025, which updates the perspective of resource capabilities of the Russian Federation after 2050.[3]

Note that an unbiased assessment of the effectiveness of the State Youth Policy by the professional experts contains many criticisms.

Thus, according to political scientist D.A. Mayatsky, the main problem of the state youth policy is the absence in the Russian Constitution, the definition of "youth policy".

This "first of all, gives rise to a wide variety of interpretations of this category, and, secondly, of course, it is difficult to form a clear and distinct concept of the state youth policy ..."[4]

Mayatsky D.A. believes that the current national strategy for the State youth policy resembles the early stage of Russian reforms, when it was assumed that the education of the civil democratic Russia will take place among the free market. And in his opinion, in dealing with youth issues, we're back to the formula: "Those who are sinking should rely on their own devices."[5]

Researcher V.N. Afonina said that the construction in the area of youth policy in Russia has a situation-manipulative nature. "This is reflected in the fact that the structures for youth affairs in the state and municipal authorities don’t have a lasting status of their submission and preference is carried out under the influence of external circumstances, and very often its subjective reasons."[6]

Shcherbina O.S   conducts the structural and functional analysis of the state youth policy of the Russian Federation, revealing in its composition "... three functional subsystems: institutional, communicative and normative-regulatory. They are interrelated and interdependent, and therefore cannot be established and operate in isolation. "…each of these subsystems perform immanent, state-significant and socially useful function. The loss or attenuation of even one of them creates a "weak link in the chain", due to which the entire mechanism loses its strength, efficiency and effectiveness.[7] According Shcherbina, "... In modern conditions, the mechanism of the state youth policy has an unstable structure, elements of which are created and abolished, changed quantitatively and qualitatively, transformed into new forms. The absence of a single national state youth policy mechanism in the presence of its disparate elements in the Russian Federation and the municipalities led to the decentralization and regionalization of the state policy in relation to young people. "[8]

Today, the Russian state youth policy, according Koryakovtseva O.A. is aimed more at building the vertical of power, than to create conditions for the development of the youth.[9] It provides criteria for assessing the effectiveness of government action on the implementation of youth policy: regulatory support realization of the state youth policy at the regional level; documentary ensuring the implementation of state youth policy at all levels; that the content of the goals and activities of the main directions of the state youth policy; the level of logistical support institutions implementing state youth policy; the effectiveness of the activities of the authorities for the implementation of youth policy; business and personal qualities of managers and specialists in the sphere of state youth policy.[10]

Analysis of the "Strategy of the state youth policy in the Russian Federation", allowed Chekmarev E.V. conclude that "... with all its positive aspects, it is too declarative in nature."[11]

According to D.A. Kuzmicheva, since 2006 Russia has begun the stage of "... the stagnation in the implementation of the state youth policy".[12]

On significant issues in the Russian state youth policy indicates sociologist A.E. Stradze, now he is the director of Department of state policy in the sphere of education of children and youth of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. According to him, in our view, a controversial opinion, the essence of the Russian state youth policy is a paternalism that "... stimulates the formation of unequal social contact between the state and youth, in which the youth is a disadvantage."[13] On the other hand, it seems quite realistic statement of the author about the "chaotic connection" in the model of the state youth policy of the Russian Federation the opposite approach - "liberal, conservative, socialist,"[14] which in itself makes this "arheomodern" model ineffective. Stradze also writes about the formation in state youth policy «practice of youth charges" policies and the lack of youth subjectivity in the Russian youth policy.

Researcher Boyarinova I.V. indicates the number of serious problems in staffing of the national youth policy of the state, which "are chronic": lack of competence of the personnel who work in the field of the state youth policy, the lack of clear criteria for evaluating the staff of the state youth policy, red tape and formalism, low enforcement authority experts on youth affairs among the youth.[15]

According to O.V. Degtyareva, "... the greatest concern is the fact that the social efficiency in the field of the state youth policy remains low ..."[16] And "the result of the activities of the Youth of the RF subjects and local authorities is often higher than the federal body.[17]

Deficiencies in the current system of state youth policy notes and T. Cherkasova, encouraging public authorities to correct them "... to carry out its activities on the implementation of the main directions of youth policy in a wide publicity and awareness of young people, taking into account public opinion ...".[18]

According to Professor L.V. Karnaushenko in modern Russia "Federal youth policy seems contradictory and ambiguous. In this state of uncertainty and risk is only compounded for young people, it is determined as the objective conditions of the environment, and social and age-specific nature of young people on the background of a specific legislative "vacuum".[19]

Kostrova A.A. notes the lack of completeness of the implementation of youth programs in the Russian Federation. In her opinion, the actions themselves for the implementation of the state youth policy are inconsistent and diverse. Among the reasons that it points to the wrong setting goals, not resourced as well as the lack of an effective youth program management mechanism.[20]

Among other shortcomings of the state youth policy AA Kostrova notes its "extra ideologized", seeing it as a legacy of the Soviet era. Another problem - it is a permanent reform of state structures, preventing their effective work, and here we share the view of the cited author.[21]

So we can see the social aspects of the state youth policy and political challenges of its implementation are the target of criticism. It was "the lack of a coherent and systematic state youth policy in the Russian Federation" becomes, according to I.P. Yakusheva, one of the reasons for the radicalization of the activity of various political forces seeking to exploit the potential of young people in the interests of destabilization in the country, delegitimation existing political regime and the subsequent mastery of the political power.[22] Experience in the implementation of the national youth policy of the state is often successfully correlated with the simulacrum category.

The simulacrum of youth policy is an imitation of "non-existent".[23] Consequently, the "pretend" - is to pretend that you have with what is actually there. For example, it often comes to simulating the efficiency / effectiveness of the state youth policy.

The effectiveness of the state youth policy can be defined as the ratio of the expected, impact in politics, economics, management, social processes with the resources expended on its development, and implementation, as well as unforeseen, latent dysfunction, manifested itself in the aftermath of its implementation.

Under performance in science refers to general characteristic of human activity, measuring the ratio between its results (effect) and the costs (resources).[24]

Considering the structure of the "efficiency of youth policy" of the concept, we can define it as "... the relationship between the goal and the result of the means by which the goal is achieved by specific areas of youth policy."[25]

The effectiveness of youth policy depends on the institutions that organize and guide this policy.

As we have previously noted, the modern Russian state is a difficult subject structured youth policy, in which the individual units (ministries, departments, and so on) is not always possible to achieve the necessary coordination in the implementation of specific directions of the state youth policy.[26]

It specifies that if on the ideological level, which is expressed in the policy principles of the state youth policy, the government appears unified subject of youth policy, the analysis of the actual situation of management processes and may appear somewhat different.

The state in this case should be viewed as a system consisting of different levels of structural units (subsystems), which is higher emergence than the whole system. Thus, the objectives and activities of the individual subsystems cannot be the same, and even to some extent contradictory. It is obvious are certain contradictions that arise in the interaction of the subjects of the state youth policy, ministries: defense, health, labor and social development, education, internal affairs, and so on. For example, the interests of the Ministry of Defense related to the number of conscripts software may conflict with the interests of the state in the field of educational policy.

For example, to solve the problem of providing military draft, the former chairman of the State Duma Committee on Defense V.M. Zavarzin proposed amendment to Article 25 of the Federal Law of Russia "On Military Duty and Military Service", namely, the bill № 486668-5, which dealt with the restrictions on the flow of young people in high schools of the country, which before the army finished school for the full program (secondary) education. Also illegal recruitment cases in the army of graduate students increased.[27]

Departmental nature of the Russian state youth policy is manifested in the fact that from the point of view of institutional subjects of the state youth policy, young people do not constitute a category having a set of universal youth roles and status characteristics, but are divided into groups of c different status positions and roles.

The result is the diversification of the state's attitude to various youth groups.

Almost all kinds of internal policy of the state and a number of directions of Russia's foreign policy have their own youth component, most clearly expressed in the social, economic, educational, demographic, national policies, which have a pronounced ethnic and regional specificity in terms of the Russian Federation. For example, studies show that currently 31% (i.e. 11.8 million.) of Young people do not identify themselves with the status of citizen of the Russian Federation. Moreover, with age, the proportion of young people who feel themselves Russian citizens are not growing, and among ethnic groups - it drops significantly.[28] A clear indicator of inefficiency and even "failure" of the state youth policy of the Russian Federation in its national aspect was the events at the Manege Square in Moscow 11.12.2010 was, however, one of the leaders of the ownership structure of the State Youth Policy has not suffered for that personal responsibility. In addition, it would be not appropriate and not even quite logical to put all the blame for the Manege Square on V. Mutko and employees of the Ministry headed by him, because they are not engaged in their functional matters or the national migration policy, and therefore cannot be held responsibility for it. Although there may be other arguments, because the fans were as one of the parties to the conflict in the clashes, then there are people who at least are not indifferent to the sport, and, moreover, it was the youth, young fans, and the Ministry of reaction to these events was insufficient.[29]

Therefore, speaking about the effectiveness of the state youth policy, it is appropriate to distinguish between, on the one hand, the state youth policy - is the activity of state structures, the title of which there is called "youth policy", they may be committees, management, departments and even ministries - is State youth policy in the narrow sense of the word.

According to research,[30] about 100 thousand people working in the infrastructure of the state youth policy of the Russian Federation. Of these, one in three Head and Deputy Head does not meet the educational criteria, and in the group of experts - it is every second. Studies have shown a lack of competent specialists in the field of the state youth policy. Analysis of the qualitative status of personnel shows that the necessary professional qualifications and practical experience are missing in a large part of employees of youth structures. To solve staffing problems certain steps are taken, as in 2009, based on Moscow State Mining University for the state youth policy created the federal employment agency and inter-personnel centers in each federal district.[31]

On the other hand, the state youth policy - it is the youth component of all public policy. Naturally, the criteria and performance indicators, ways and means to optimize the state youth policy may be different in both cases. For example, according to research, the heads of several Russian regions perceived state youth policy as the state youth policy in the narrow sense, and they were surprised that the performance indicators for state youth policy should include the level of youth unemployment, drug addiction and crime.[32] Objectively evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency and effectiveness of the measures, actions and steps in the sphere of youth policy of different Russian regions is possible only in the presence of uniform criteria, indicators and state youth policy indicators. Therefore, one of the difficult problems that arise in the implementation of the diagnosis of the state youth policy is to define the criteria for its effectiveness.[33]

Determination of criteria of efficiency of state youth policy - is largely akseology task, the path to the solution of which is in correlation criteria with the objectives of social development in our opinion.[34] Therefore, recognizing the usefulness and even the necessity of development of international relations, contacts in the sphere of state youth policy, many Russian politicians, religious and community leaders (A. Wasserman, M. Leontiev and others), condemned the mechanical copying of foreign experience. In their view, it is not only not lead to optimization of the national youth policy, but, on the contrary, can aggravate existing in youth policy issues, and even to bring the country to a political crisis. Special criticism subjected to attempts to spread in the Russian Federation of the European standards in the field of juvenile court and family planning.

However, "family planning" - is the only element in the juvenile justice system. Currently, the Russian regulatory framework for the introduction of the national juvenile justice system is not available. The main discussion in the field of juvenile justice bill - Draft Federal Constitutional Law № 38948-3 «On Amendments to the Federal Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation" On the Judicial System in the Russian Federation." Also indirectly affect issues of juvenile court project of the Federal Law № 198484-5 «On Amendments to the Federal Law" On Basic Guarantees of Child Rights in the Russian Federation ", the draft Federal Law № 408759-4« On Amendments to Article 9 of the Federal Law "On Principles of prevention of neglect and juvenile delinquency ", the draft Federal law №143212-4« On amendments to the Family Code of the Russian Federation."

Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2013 at a rally "All-Russian People's Front" in Rostov-on-Don in a critical aspect touched upon the prospects of the introduction in Russia of juvenile technologies. Former Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs Mikhail Margelov has repeatedly stated that the Russian Federation is time to forget about the juvenile justice system.[35]

The idea of juvenile court in the Russian Federation has its supporters, including State Duma deputies from the United Russia party, public policy Lakhova E.F.[36] and Yarovaya I.A. They are advocating the need for the introduction in Russia juvenile court, appealing to the norms of the European Social Charter, as well as the Convention on the Rights of the child ratified by the Russian Federation and in particular its provisions relating to minors.

Indicators relating to young people, indirectly allow to characterize one or another side of the implementation of youth policy. The system indicators and the indicators describing the state youth policy, is its operating model and allows you to record its condition and development trend.

As an indicator  of the state youth policy today proposed to use a comprehensive, but rather a complex system of indicators. In our view, this can help to create the most complete picture of the effectiveness of the state youth policy, as well as opportunities for additions and administrative irregularities. In addition, this will lead to a substantial diversion of staff resources from the immediate work to address the problems of the state youth policy.

The effectiveness of the overall state youth policy is an integrated performance indicator of the state as an actor in the field of youth policy. This figure shows the relationship between the results achieved by the government in specific areas, directions, programs, projects, activities of state youth policy and resource costs (financial, cultural and symbolic, administrative), and also shows the relevance of the state youth policy in the existing problem field of the priorities selected by the state.

We formulated these signs of an effective youth policy earlier[37]:

• openness (to public scrutiny and interaction);

• Effectiveness;

• productivity;

• pragmatism;

• understanding and support (both youth and other sociodemographic groups in society);

• a sufficient level of scientific information support.

Later, they received clarification in scientific works[38], in particular, have been named[39]:

effectiveness;

openness to public scrutiny and interaction;

productivity; pragmatism;

understanding and support of the public youth policy;

a sufficient level of scientific and information support;

preventive, permanent nature of the system of measures in youth policy.

The effectiveness of implementation of the state youth policy (SYP) depends on many factors. Among them we called:

• the adequacy of the social realities of the chosen model of youth policy (YP);

• quantitative and qualitative indicators of the social base of SYP;

• social interests and imperious will SYP entities;

• the efficiency of interaction of the SYP structures with all stakeholders, including YPs and other entities;

• the effectiveness of interaction between different branches and levels of government together;

• the quality of management personnel SYP;

• SYP compliance structure solved problems;

• SYP level of openness to public control and adjustments;

• the effect of random (intra) and external (to the system) factors on the implementation of SYP.

In the context of globalization there is a desire to unify the evaluation of the effectiveness of the state youth policy of Russia in accordance with international criteria[40], a system in which the integral parameter serves youth development index (YDI) - a composite indicator assesses the level of development of the young generation of human potential (young people aged 16 to 24) in three main areas: life expectancy, health, education, standard of living. The basis of the methodology of calculation of the index calculation method of youth, developed by the Department of UNESCO for Latin America, used in the preparation of the analytical report on Brazil[41], was taken. Thus, the index of young people was calculated based on three groups of indicators: health index, education index, the income index.[42] However, the use of this model in the youth age boundaries other than established in regional legislation of the Russian Federation, makes use of comparative analysis on the basis of the YDI is not quite relevant to assess the effectiveness of the Russian state youth policy.

It should be noted that the problems of youth policy can testify not only to the ineffectiveness of the state policy in relation to young people, but they can also be related to the search for innovative youth, post-modern, network alternatives. Under these conditions, an effective model of state youth policy requires priority analysis and implementation capacity of networks.

Network structures, in developing the political and institutional space of postmodern societies, without exaggeration can be described as the trend of the most promising organizational form of the XXI century, when "individuals interacting in network structures" insistently put forward as policy actors.[43]

It is no accident there is a set of concepts related to the process of "network management"[44], and network organization is one of the main research directions. It offers new ways to commit a political reality, it is vitally relevant to the postmodern technology adoption and implementation of management decisions, forms a new facet of the study of political and administrative processes.

Note that in scientific discourse understanding of the specific role and place of networks in the political process emerged quite similar.[45] However, the situation analysis, showing the features of a network approach, its specificity and contradictoriness, allows us to raise the question of the need for re-analysis of some of its postulates, mitigation "anarchist" values, leveling, in particular, the function of vertical coordination structures intranet.

In fact, the innovative network approach is the ability to investigate not only the institutional, normative certain formal organizational structure of public administration, but also, first of all, horizontal, informal interactions and relationships between political actors.[46]

Simplifying  an approach Bomberg T. and T. Peterson[47], say that modern political network is a mechanism of decentralized, non-hierarchical interactions, integrating the interests and approaches of political actors involved in a particular segment of the political administration and to share resources in the implementation of certain political goals .

Note that the concept of the network has not been synchronized yet with the postmodern situation. Networks have traditionally accompanied the process of political interaction. Therefore, a coalition group formed earlier and will be formed inevitably on in the political class.

Incorporation of network structures in the management of the state system is the daily practice of most post-modern states in which by virtue of the rapid development of information technology and the acceleration of globalization there is a rapid leveling of the boundaries that exist between the government and civil society. As a result of the application of interest is formed by a horizontal network structures, it is connected with changes in the general paradigm shift in political science, modern research in the field of communication studies, global studies, as well as new technologies of youth policy.

The need for the institutionalization of networks as an effective youth policy management model shown recently. This process is determined by the weakening of the state and resource flows against the backdrop of universal controllability deficit caused by system overload, increased status, the importance of non-governmental, public and international structures of youth policy, increasing their role in the adoption and implementation of international agreements. This inevitably requires the State as the development of fundamentally new practice areas, and finding non-practiced management technologies to monitor the innovative power and resources have a decisive influence on the political processes in the post-modern society.[48]

Networks are open to interaction, transforming the institutional landscape of the modern state youth policy with the necessary level of trust participants in the dialogue.[49] Foreign experience shows that the traditional vertical model of interactions between actors institutional actors of youth policy and the main contractors restricts the resource introduction of new technologies in the post-modern management practices. This can cause slow and unpredictable dynamic development areas, which undeniably refers sphere of youth policy.

Search out of this situation can be found in a combination of administrative coordination with horizontal decentralization, weakening hierarchical formal institutional contacts and horizontal expansion of contacts, establishing informal links with non-state actors of youth policy. In other words, we offer a fundamentally different approach to the understanding and management of the processes of formulation and implementation of state youth policy related to the development, in the first place, network structures, forming in their totality with administrative forms and market a new model of state youth policy.

Network domination inevitably lead to irreversible changes in the structure and technology governance practices, the model of vocational training of professionals working with young people in the state and municipal service system.

In the postmodern era network management structure of the youth policy is already characterized by heterarchy representing the system formed by overlapping, multiple and simultaneously coexisting governance structures. This model differs from the traditional hierarchy of the ability of actors acting on the primary organizational levels, to cooperate actively with the actors of higher management levels, avoiding institutional and formal vertical channels.

On the other hand, due to the unprofitability of high transaction costs the government has to purposefully reduce the number of executable functions, moving along the path of privatization, outsourcing of translation and enhancing cooperation with external partners in order to reduce public expenditure.[50]

Distribution networks in postmodern societies significantly narrows the scope of the administrative burden on contracting strategy. Postmodernist format ongoing interactions between institutionally autonomous entities demonstrates the effectiveness of youth policies: indirectly, motivational management activities of networks of actors; the role of effective communication, carried out at virtually any distance; the value of the key value characteristics that define semantic space communication (managerial reputation, political image).

The items listed above does not mean that the state as a key actor in the youth of modern politics is losing its influence on the basis in the management of youth policy at the network structure and using the resource potential of the third sector. In fact, the state is only adapted to environmental conditions of the postmodern, attempting to optimize the risks caused by increasing uncertainty and improve qualitative parameters of realization of functions, finding the most optimal, tactically justified the logic of interaction. Such logic is driven by the dual status of the state associated, on the one hand, with the vast resource potential, and on the other - limiting options.[51]

The government has a choice, and it may, if it is necessary to use the "network-centric"[52] and alienate a considerable distance of its partners, and even reformat the rules of networking.

Therefore, we can conclude that the need for targeted design of youth networks with the direct participation of social actors - the phenomenon of post-modernity, caused by the need for optimization of the state youth policy in a dispersal of resources of political power between the many existing actors union is possible in the postmodern situation is not so much forced to, but primarily on a partnership basis.

Identification of networks, network analysis allows us to examine and analyze the relationship between the relevant actors and other participants in the political process, revealing shadow: non-public, non-formal, gray and illegal contacts, explaining the choice of strategy of their behavior, their choice of existing solutions alternatives, as well as their actual status space multi-sectoral youth policy.

The approach to the study of the state and municipal youth policy through targeted identification and comparative analysis of networked coalitions will help us to adjust the pattern of unconditional dominance of the state, will provide an opportunity to clarify its status as one of the most effective interdependent actors of youth policy, has a decisive influence on the political process.

Some time ago, the network approach integrates predominantly anti-state intentions, seeking out alternatives to existing political hierarchy and the state administration.[53] In this aspect of management at the "network-based" seen as, legitimate in some cases, replacement of public administration as an effective technology solutions semi structured problems and testing for Political Innovation.

In the postmodern situation all the space of youth policy can not entirely controlled by the state, but this does not mean that the state suffered a final defeat, having lost strategic heights, and the characteristic model and control technologies are completely ineffective for him. On the contrary, today, all the attention should be focused on the use of potential networks aimed at improving the effectiveness of the functioning of state institutions and testing relevant management techniques, through which you can not only optimize the flexible horizontal links between actors of youth policy, but also to render them effective control action. In other words, the desire of state structures implemented in the network alliances subjects of youth policy, as well as purposefully simulate means to a certain extent the rejection of hard coercive instruments of soft power in favor of conciliation hierarchy change procedures heterarchy.

In a situation of postmodern political systems of many countries actively implement in daily practice of the state youth policy of the elements of the network model of youth policy, increasing the adaptability of this state youth policy and its resilience to threats, both internal and external.

Formed by state, youth networks typically include a significant number of the subjects of youth policy, interacting based on partially formalized arrangements. However, expanding the range of actors, solving the problem of sufficient flexibility and legitimacy of the process of political decision can both complicate the political process as a whole, since the network structure can improve the efficiency and quality of implementation of functional only subject to the basic principles of the networking. That is, the subjects form the existing network, only realizing the real benefits of joint action, and thus force them to unite authoritative guidelines and directives in the postmodern situation is simply impossible.

Attempting to use the modernist techniques and technologies will lead only to the fact that the state will form simulacra of network structure. Today it is frequently observed in actual practice hybrid political regimes.[54]

In the postmodern situation a huge amount of network alliances are often formed  against the will of the state, but this does not mean lack of attention paid to them by the public authorities, because the network can create considerable difficulties for the government in the implementation of its own youth policy. The problem of identification of political networks in the administrative area of ​​the state, followed by the search for effective mechanisms of influence on the network in order to optimize, transform, and in exceptional situations - elimination associated with it.[55]

It is necessary to agree that it is difficult to achieve representation of the different interest groups without participation in the networking of state representatives, as well as to counteract the isolation and closed networks, and finally, to ensure compliance with the law. This meta-level control allows government agencies to implement its management powers in the horizontal environment where real power resources are distributed among the participants kontemporarnyh political networks.[56]

Specificity of the meta-management lies in the need not just a choice of effective management techniques, but in resolving the key dilemmas akseological involving the search for answers to questions about how to achieve acceptable legitimacy of political networks, metering regulatory intervention in the network and search of suitable proportions between the efficiency and independence of the network.

Formation of the network, heterarchical architecture[57] of public administration - is a challenge to the modernist state and its political institutions. The answer to this requires a deep analysis of specific youth policy networks as a promising model that, on the one hand, allows you to effectively solve the dynamic problems under uncertainty, but on the other - requires state employees upgrade professional competencies, changes in the structure of motivation, failure by the most odious persistent management culture.

In Russian society, I. V. Miroshnichenko distinguishes four types of current networks, classifying them as "pre-modern, modern, antimodern and postmodern "[58], linking to the latest "new public request for citizenship."[59]

In a situation of postmodern political networks operate in a hybrid, innovative institutional and network space, which opens up attractive prospects for the implementation of the state their goals, but at the same time and creates a real threat to the state of loss of institutional control.[60]

Of course, taking the network architecture of youth policy, the state may experience adaptation complexity to new management conditions required of him, on the one hand, the leveling of the dominant position in the institutional network space, the other - to maintain control over the youth self-organizing networks with the necessary administrative intervention at the highest meta-level. And the power of the state resources can be deployed at any time to prevent acts that would contrary to the national interests or undermine the foundations of the dominant position of the ruling elite when activated firewall competition that goes beyond not only political, but also legal control.[61]

Network political structures form a new area of youth communication with building infrastructure technologies, modifying the practice of political and communicative interaction between state and non-state actors, actively involving the latter in the implementation of youth policy.

Thanks to information technology, forming a unique segment of the political communication, -sphere of blogs, the presence of young people in the network becomes part of everyday reality. Thus, the youth network communication carried out according to specific rules and gives rise to a significant increase in the number of participants, helping to attract more political resources, but can also create and conflicts related to the scarcity of vertical coordination.[62]

Using of a network approach allows us to represent the management of youth policies as a symbiosis of the administrative hierarchy and horizontal networking practices, based not so much on regulatory and enforcement, but also on the consensual procedures, demonstrating the openness and closeness of this process (the necessity and inevitability of the restriction of civil parties ). This is due to the actions of elite groups and hidden tools to harmonize their interests and positions.

The processes that accompany the implementation of the youth policy appear through the prism of a network approach as a system of co-operative action, the main participants of which are elitist coalition, formed in a specific political situation that enhances the characteristic of postmodern uncertainty in the public space. Because, as rightly pointed O. Shabrov, "political elites partially immersed in her world of illusion is generated, losing all sense of reality."[63]

In the paradigm of the network approach, state participation in matters of setting and achieving of youth policy objectives is presented as a permanent formation of the system of administrative and management procedures and the spontaneous actions of actors, forming a plurality of limited areas of unstable interactions, each of which generates a unique model of communication and exchange, it contains a variety of motivation and incentives , determines the policy of state institutions.[64]

The presence of network structures in the political-administrative area of youth policy is partly indicates the imperfection of its institutions, which is compensated by the flexibility of the network. Through network analysis of real processes of ruling and processes of management can assess their place and role in the political system, to determine their functionality and efficiency.

Networks of youth policy form heterarchy system, opening the participants acting on the lower organizational levels, the ability to freely interact with the actors of the higher organizational levels. At the same time, the more often a hierarchical configuration is broken in the real youth policy, the more reason to talk about the right to exist as a network of independent organizational form of activity of youth actors. In the context of postmodernity network - is not only a union of diverse subjects, but sometimes the collision of opposing radical akseological models, generating new combinations of political resources, using the new technology, inaccessible to vertically organized formations.[65]

The development of a network methodology that involves the different ways in terminology analysis model of processes the implementation of youth policy is facing serious difficulties. This is due to the peculiarities of the research object - network structures. In its ontological nature of the network are unstable compound organizational entities, which is located in the area of latent political interaction.

In our opinion, the youth policy network is a hybrid organizational model that combines the attributes of hierarchy, market and partner systems. Also, the priority elements determined by the conditions of realization of youth policy, the nature of achievable goals, especially the motivation of participants.

Therefore, the high flexibility of networks is not a guarantee of high efficiency management in the absence of a stable working state institutions and the availability of sufficient resources.

Network base of youth policy is a model of a high level of complexity and it provides a solution to the complex problems of youth. However, it is not without certain limitations that do not allow the state to give up entirely on hierarchical coordination and market instruments and the behavior of political actors to translate fully the youth policy at the network platform. Therefore, the modern Russian state is committed to the diversification of election management models, based on actual profiles of their own activity. At the same time, the network model demonstrates high efficiency in the directions of youth policy, for which the inherent unpredictability and extremity tasks.

In the postmodern situation, the government severely restricted the possibility of using compulsory resources. Therefore, it has to develop new practice of horizontal interaction, while maintaining the required level of democratic political legitimacy and publicity.

Institutional and network space today develops youth policy as a symbiosis of public and sacral areas of policy, concealing the real resource flows and communication exchanges in the public institutions, as well as between the state and civil society. The scale and extent of the positioning network and institutional accountability model determined by the type of political regime and the adequacy of the institutional and organizational structure of the youth policy.

Species diversity of youth policy requires special attention of the state youth policy to the problem of optimizing the processes of interaction youth with subjects of youth policy, strengthen the amateur beginnings and stimulate youth activity. Optimal - a characteristic of "the largest - the smallest" in the space of possibilities, that is, to achieve the desired state and the purpose for certain resources, power, media, spending time with marginal utility.[66]

Optimization of mechanisms and methods of implementation of youth policy - is the process of bringing it to the state in the best interest of the youth and the entire population of the region and regional government entities. It aims to change the adjustment of individual items or entire youth policy as a whole, the process and the nature of its implementation.

Optimality includes purposefulness, solving all tasks, definition a set of conditions and resources for a given state, the comparison of alternatives and values, meanings, selection the most suitable option.

Group optimization youth policy implementation mechanisms of the principles has been proved by us earlier:

• the principle of partnership;

• principle of feedback (provides for the implementation of bilateral cooperation between the subject of youth policy and broad layers of youth);

• the adequacy of (compliance, implementation matches the parameters of the interests of the youth policy of society, the state and youth);

• political realism;

• the principle of adaptability;

• compensation-investment.[67]

Add to them the principles of the group, which are of particular importance for the state youth policy:

• principle of national sovereignty;

• The principle of national security;

• the principle of geopolitical expertise.

Another way to optimize the youth policy is associated with a rational approach to the search for, and the concentration of resources, including social, cultural, information and analytical, political.

It is believed that optimization is possible with four preconditions, conditions: a variety of options for its implementation (at least two); optimality criterion (the purpose for which the search); freedom of choice (the lack of restrictions on the choice of options); comparable (preferably quantitative) selection parameters.[68]

The optimality criterion can be an indicator of expressing the limiting value, a measure of the social impact of the chosen embodiment of a youth policy, when comparing the options - and the best alternative is chosen.

As a rule, determination the effectiveness of youth policy is preceded by its optimization.

It should be noted that the use of high-quality impact on the process of optimization of state youth policy is only possible on the basis of objective, complete and reliable information about the current effectiveness of the state youth policy. Such information may be obtained by the methods of political analysis and forecasting.[69] For example, these indicators can be used for monitoring measurements:

1. Youth welfare;

2. The political culture of youth;

3. The political participation of young people;

4. Evaluation of the youth activities of the subjects of the state youth policy, as well as their structural units;

5. The number of young people at different levels and branches of government, local self-government;

6. The ratio of young people in the institutions of the political system;

7. The political, social and legal protection of youth;

8. Manifestations of extremism among young people;

9. The young political mood.

Summarize:

Uniform regulatory and legal formulation of youth policy at the federal level has not been completed in particular there is no legislative consolidation of the category "youth" and a single, unified criteria for inclusion in this category. There is no federal law on youth policy. Meanwhile, the practice of realization of the state youth policy has shown that the unresolved issues at the federal level seriously hamper the activities of the Federation and local self-government in the field of the state youth policy. Regular transformation of the federal body of state youth policy, its functions, structural subordination, and the degree of responsibility for the implementation of youth policy prevented the optimization of state youth policy, introducing additional elements of risk and uncertainty. Significantly behind scientific and conceptual provision of youth policy.

Concept of youth policy, existing today in Russia, characterized by an uncertain legal status, eclectic, not a fragmented and sometimes even contradictory. Apparently, one of the reasons for this lies in the contradictions within the ruling elite do not allow to formulate a civic ideology in the sphere of state youth policy adequate to the situation. A network domination leads to irreversible changes in the methods, structure and technology governance of the state youth policy, causing the need to update the model of vocational training of professionals working with young people in the state and municipal service system.

Networks, opening for broad cooperation, transform the institutional landscape of the modern state youth policy. Therefore, the adaptability of the state youth policy to the changes must be combined with a high sensitivity to the current political situation and the readiness to respond effectively to unforeseen events and processes of any degree of complexity.

 


References:

  • [1]The Federal Law from 06.10.1999 no. 184-FL. On general principles of organization of legislative (representative) and executive bodies of state power of subjects of the Russian Federation. (Adopted by the RF State Duma on 22.09.1999).

  • [2]The Federal Law from 06.10.2003 N 131-FL (ed. By 02.02.2006). On general principles of organization of local government in the Russian Federation (adopted by the RF State Duma on 16.09.2003).

  • [3]Russian Youth 2000-2025: development of human capital: report of the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs [electronic resource]. URL: http://vmo.rgub.ru/files/report-937-2.pdf (reference date: 01/05/15).

  • [4]Mayatsky D.A. Political socialization of the Russian youth in the context of the state youth policy: the dissertation of the candidate of political sciences. M., 2007. p.121.

  • [5]Mayatsky D.A. Political socialization of the Russian youth. P.129.

  • [6]Afonina V.N. The state youth policy in modern Russia: Interaction of the state institutions and civil society: the dissertation of the candidate of political sciences. Rostov-on-Don, 2002. P. 14.

  • [7]Shcherbina O.S. The mechanism of state youth policy in the Russian Federation: the modern states-set and development trends: the dissertation of the candidate of political sciences. Cherkessk, 2006. P. 20.

  • [8]Shcherbina O.S. The mechanism of state youth policy in the Russian Federation: the modern states-set and development trends: the dissertation of the candidate of political sciences. Cherkessk, 2006. P. 150.

  • [9]Koryakovtseva O.A. Transformation of state youth policy in modern Russia: the dissertation thesis of the doctor of political sciences. Yaroslavl, 2010. P.15.

  • [10]Koryakovtseva O.A. Transformation of state youth policy in modern Russia: the dissertation thesis of the doctor of political sciences. Yaroslavl, 2010. P.27.

  • [11]Chekmarev EV The role of youth in the political modernization of post-Soviet Russia: the dissertation thesis of the doctor of political sciences.. Saratov, 2009. P. 36.

  • [12]Kuzmicheva D.A. Youth policy of modern Russia in the conditions of reforming the political system: the dissertation of the candidate of political sciences Kostroma, 2007. P. 26.

  • [13]Stradze A.E. Transformation of state youth policy in modern Russia: the dissertation of the candidate of sociological sciences. Saratov, 2008. P. 12.

  • [14]Stradze A.E. Transformation of state youth policy in modern Russia: the dissertation of the candidate of sociological sciences. Saratov, 2008. P. 13.

  • [15]Boyarinova I.V. Management staffing of state youth policy in the region:  the dissertation of the candidate of sociological sciences. Belgorod, 2008. P. 149.

  • [16]Degtyarev O.V. Youth Policy: regional aspect: the dissertation of the candidate of sociological sciences. Novosibirsk, 2008 P. 20.

  • [17]Degtyarev O.V. Youth Policy: regional aspect: the dissertation of the candidate of sociological sciences. Novosibirsk, 2008 P. 21.

  • [18]Cherkasova T. Conflict Management Youth as a social problem: the dissertation of the doctor of sociological sciences.., M., 2004, p 249.

  • [19]Karnaushenko LV state youth policy as a tool to counter the trend of deformation of legal consciousness of the Russian youth / LV Karnaushenko // Society and Law. - 2015. - № 1 (51). S. 20-24. S. 23.

  • [20]Kostrova A.A. Public youth policy: the process of formation and realization in modern Russia: : the dissertation of the candidate of sociological sciences: 23.00.02. M., 2008, pp 205-206.

  • [21]Kostrova A.A. Public youth policy: the process of formation and realization in modern Russia: : the dissertation of the candidate of sociological sciences: 23.00.02. M., 2008, p. 14.

  • [22]Yakusheva I.P. Modern youth movements as a factor intensifying the political consciousness in Russian society: the dissertation of the candidate of political sciences. M., 2007. P. 139.

  • [23]Jean Baudrillard. Simulacra and Simulation. Tula, 2013. P. 204

  • [24]Sociological Encyclopedic Dictionary. M .: INFRA-rate. 1998.P. 430

  • [25]Zelenin A.A. Youth Policy of the Russian Federation: the innovative technologies and mechanisms of realization-tion. Kemerovo, 2009. P. 81.

  • [26]Chyrun S.N. youth policy in the modern Russian society: the dissertation of the candidate of sociological sciences. Kemerovo, 2001. P. 96.

  • [27]President handed over 832 signatures against their graduate recruitment // Russian United Democratic Party "Yabloko" - Access: http://www.yabloko.ru/regnews/Moscow/2011/05/18.

  • [28]Youth Policy of Russia at the present stage / Report of the Working Group of the State Council of the Russian Federation. M., 2009. P. 137.

  • [29]Public Council of Ministry of Sports of Russia took part in the solution of problems in connection with the events at the Manege Square // Ministry of Sport Tourism and Youth Policy. - Access: http://minstm.gov.ru/press-centre/news/xPages/entry.4521.html.

  • [30]Youth Policy of Russia at the present stage / Report of the Working Group of the State Council of the Russian Federation. M., 2009. P. 118-119.

  • [31]Rozhnov O.A. report on the outcome of the Ministry of Sport, Tourism and Youth Policy of the Russian Federation in 2010 and tasks for 2011 in the sphere of youth policy // Ministry of Sport Tourism and Youth Policy - Mode of access: http://www.minstm.gov.ru/press-centre/speech/xPages/entry.4472.html.

  • [32]Youth Policy of Russia at the present stage / Report of the Working Group of the State Council of the Russian Federation. M., 2009. P. 130.

  • [33]Sociological Encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 1998. S. 150. In this case, the criterion - it is a means of assessing the dynamics of processes in the field of youth policy, a comparison of existing systems of state youth policy, or their models and select them based on the most appropriate (optimal) model.

  • [34]Chyrun S.N. youth policy in the modern Russian society: the dissertation of the candidate of sociological sciences. Kemerovo, 2001. P. 73.

  • [35]M. Margelov Russia should forget about the juvenile court RG (2014.02.16). - Access: http://www.rg.ru/2014/02/16/semya-anons.html.

  • [36]Lakhova E.F. is the chairman of the editorial board of the journal "Questions of Juvenile Justice" - Access: http://juvenjust.org/index.php?showforum=270.

  • [37]Chyrun S.N. youth policy in the modern Russian society: the dissertation of the candidate of sociological sciences. Kemerovo, 2001. P. 12.

  • [38]Zelenin A.A. Youth Policy of the Russian Federation: the innovative technologies and mechanisms to ensure implementation. M., 2008. P. 84.

  • [39]Chyrun S.N. youth policy in the modern Russian society: the dissertation of the candidate of sociological sciences. Kemerovo, 2001. P. 139.

  • [40]Zelenin A.A. Mechanisms for implementation of the youth policy of the Russian Federation at the regional level: the dissertation thesis of the doctor of political sciences. N. Novgorod, 2009. P. 23.

  • [41]Youth Development Report 2003, UNESCO – Edition published by the UNESCO Office in Brazil

  • [42]The situation of young people in Russia. Analytical report. M., 2005. P. 116.

  • [43]Irkhin Y.V. Postmodern methodology of analysis and design of policies // Journal of Russian State Humanitarian University. Number 1 (123) A series of "Political Science. Social and communication science. " M., 2014. S. 20.

  • [44]Jones C., Hesterly W., Borgatti S. A General Theory of Network Governance: Exchange Conditions and Social Mecha-nisms // Academy of Management Review, 1997, Vol. 22, No. 4, 911-945. 

  • [45]Chyrun S.N. youth policy in the postmodern condition: models, mechanisms, risks. M .: Direct Media, 2014. pp 113-115.

  • [46]Irkhin V. "Electronic government" as an interactive communication between authorities and citizens // the Bulletin of the Russian State Humanitarian University. 2009. №6. S. 85-92.

  • [47]Bomberg T., Peterson T. Decision-Making in the European Union. NY, 1999. 

  • [48]Chyrun S.N. youth policy in the postmodern condition: models, mechanisms, risks. M .: Direct Media, 2014. pp 234-300.

  • [49]Morozova E.V., Miroshnichenko I.V. Network community in emergency situations, opportunities possible for citizens and for the authorities // Polis, 2011. № 1. S. 140-152..

  • [50]Miller J. and Stuart R. Network-Centric Thinking: The Internet's Challenge to Ego-Centric Institutions, 2005.

  • [51]Miroshnichenko I.V. Network Russian public policy landscape. Krasnodar: Prosveshchenie-South, 2013 p. 43.

  • [52]Jones C., Hesterly, W. S., & Borgatti, S. P. A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 1997. 22(4): P. 911-945. 

  • [53]Chyrun S.N. youth policy in the postmodern condition: models, mechanisms, risks.

  • [54]Gelman V.Ya. Cracks in the wall // Pro et Contra. 2012. № 1-2. p. 94-115.

  • [55]Savorskaya E.V. Political network in multi-level governance of the EU // Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University. Lobachevskii. 2012. № 4. P. 368-370.

  • [56]Patrushev S.V. Civil Activity as a modernizing factor // Modernization and politics in the XXI century. M .: ROSSPEN 2011.

  • [57]Mitchell W. J. City of Bits, MIT Press, 1997. P. 131. 

  • [58]Miroshnichenko I.V. Network landscape of the Russian public policy. Krasnodar: Prosveshchenie-South, 2013 p. 93.

  • [59]Miroshnichenko I.V. Network landscape of the Russian public policy. Krasnodar: Prosveshchenie-South, 2013 p. 96.

  • [60]Usacheva O.A. Network civil mobilization // Social studies and the present. 2012. № 6. P. 40-42.

  • [61]Savorskaya E.V. Political network in multi-level governance of the EU // Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University. N.I. Lobachevsky. 2012. № 4.

  • [62]Irkhin V. "Electronic government" as an interactive communication between authorities and citizens. Pp 160-175.

  • [63]Shabrov O.F. Public administration efficiency in terms of postmodernism // Power. ¬ 2010. ¬№ 5. p. 9.

  • [64]Smorgunov LV Looking handling: the transformation of public administration theory in the XX century // Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University. 2011. Ser. 6, Vol. 4. P. 85-90.

  • [65]Chyrun S.N. extremism problems in postmodern youth policy. M., 2014. P.234.

  • [66]Razumovsky O.S. Optimization Laws of science and practice. Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1990, p 18.

  • [67]Chyrun S.N. youth policy in the modern Russian society: the dissertation of the candidate of sociological sciences. Kemerovo, 2001. P. 79.

  • [68]Razumovsky O.S. Optimization thinking, optimization approach, optimology. Challenges // Problems of efficiency, rationalization and optimization of human activity. Part 1. Novosibirsk, 1991, p 10.

  • [69]Zheltov V.V., Chyrun S.N. Political analysis and forecasting. Kemerovo, 2009. p.276 

0
Your rating: None Average: 6.5 (6 votes)
Comments: 4

Shapovalova Inna Sergeevna

Автор представляет обзорную статью, которая в различных ракурсах позволяет увидеть процесс поиска показателей и индикаторов эффективности ГМП. Это действительно сложнейший вопрос, в силу, как отмечает и автор, высокого уровня декларируемости ряда элементов государственной молодежной политики. А если мы вспомним еще про механизм регионализации, который адаптирует федеральную модель ГМП к условиям конкретного региона, станет очвидным нелинейный характер алгоритма такой оценки, которая становится все более и более актуальной. Предлагаемые автором ориентиры позволяют перейти к серьезной научно-практической дискуссии.

Korolev Evgenie Sergeevich

Довольно актуальная и злободневная проблематика для исследования данных институтов. Молодёжная политика большинства субъектов РФ строится на общероссийском представлении данного института, где главенствующим вектором выступает возможность молодых граждан высказывать свою позицию, иметь представителей на муниципальном и региональном уровнях. Некоторые субъекты РФ создали представительные органы молодёжи (на общественных началах) в рамках различных молодёжных советов, молодежных парламентов, районных общественных молодежных организаций, и прочих форм осуществляющих свою деятельность в рамках консультативного экспертного органа при представительной или исполнительной ветвях власти. Подобная система общественных молодёжных советов начиная от сельских советов сёл Тамбовского района, до города Тамбова и Тамбовской области существует не в каждом субъекте РФ. И то что автором исследовательской работы затрагивается с научной точки зрения проблематика молодёжной политики, заслуживает отдельного внимания и только положительной оценки!

Konoplytska Oksana

Интересная статья. Автором затронута чрезвычайно актуальная тема. С наилучшими пожеланиями автору!

Aleksey Konovalov

Предметом анализа является одно из самых сложных и противоречивых явлений - эффективность гос. молод. политики. Автор предлагает собственную интерпретацию идеологии вопроса - она интересная, но нуждается в дискуссии по следующим причинам. Первая причина. Не существует идеальной модели ГМП. Вторая. В основе ГМП в обязательном плане должны находиться социальные молодежные ценности. Которые сами на себя создают развивающий прецедент: здоровье, образование, доходы, потребление. Третья. Отсюда следует строить структуру ГМП. Таким образом, чтобы ее реализация происходила на основе развивающихся ценностей. Пожелаем автору успехов в поиске заинтересованных лиц. Только совместная творческая и конструктивная работа приведет авторов ближе к истине - а за ней и определит более существенные критерии эффективности ГМП.
Comments: 4

Shapovalova Inna Sergeevna

Автор представляет обзорную статью, которая в различных ракурсах позволяет увидеть процесс поиска показателей и индикаторов эффективности ГМП. Это действительно сложнейший вопрос, в силу, как отмечает и автор, высокого уровня декларируемости ряда элементов государственной молодежной политики. А если мы вспомним еще про механизм регионализации, который адаптирует федеральную модель ГМП к условиям конкретного региона, станет очвидным нелинейный характер алгоритма такой оценки, которая становится все более и более актуальной. Предлагаемые автором ориентиры позволяют перейти к серьезной научно-практической дискуссии.

Korolev Evgenie Sergeevich

Довольно актуальная и злободневная проблематика для исследования данных институтов. Молодёжная политика большинства субъектов РФ строится на общероссийском представлении данного института, где главенствующим вектором выступает возможность молодых граждан высказывать свою позицию, иметь представителей на муниципальном и региональном уровнях. Некоторые субъекты РФ создали представительные органы молодёжи (на общественных началах) в рамках различных молодёжных советов, молодежных парламентов, районных общественных молодежных организаций, и прочих форм осуществляющих свою деятельность в рамках консультативного экспертного органа при представительной или исполнительной ветвях власти. Подобная система общественных молодёжных советов начиная от сельских советов сёл Тамбовского района, до города Тамбова и Тамбовской области существует не в каждом субъекте РФ. И то что автором исследовательской работы затрагивается с научной точки зрения проблематика молодёжной политики, заслуживает отдельного внимания и только положительной оценки!

Konoplytska Oksana

Интересная статья. Автором затронута чрезвычайно актуальная тема. С наилучшими пожеланиями автору!

Aleksey Konovalov

Предметом анализа является одно из самых сложных и противоречивых явлений - эффективность гос. молод. политики. Автор предлагает собственную интерпретацию идеологии вопроса - она интересная, но нуждается в дискуссии по следующим причинам. Первая причина. Не существует идеальной модели ГМП. Вторая. В основе ГМП в обязательном плане должны находиться социальные молодежные ценности. Которые сами на себя создают развивающий прецедент: здоровье, образование, доходы, потребление. Третья. Отсюда следует строить структуру ГМП. Таким образом, чтобы ее реализация происходила на основе развивающихся ценностей. Пожелаем автору успехов в поиске заинтересованных лиц. Только совместная творческая и конструктивная работа приведет авторов ближе к истине - а за ней и определит более существенные критерии эффективности ГМП.
PARTNERS
 
 
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
Would you like to know all the news about GISAP project and be up to date of all news from GISAP? Register for free news right now and you will be receiving them on your e-mail right away as soon as they are published on GISAP portal.