Отдельные аспекты развития механизма государственного субсидирования НКО в разрезе субъектов Российской Федерации
Subject. Key tasks for nonprofit organizations are abilities to provide social services and to compete with governmental organizations for budgetary grants. Such abilities might improve effectiveness of governmental socio-cultural programs, and barriers lifting for budgetary grants for nonprofit organizations look very actual. Purpose. The article reflects the research results of the grants value, provided from consolidated public budget over 2015-16. Methodology. One of the article hypothesis is the stability of the grants, which is conformed by the analysis of the grants total value and structure by regions. Also the article analysis includes the comparison of the grants for nonprofit organizations and governmental units in socio-cultural programs over 2015-16. Result. The research results confirm the hypothesis of the stability of the grants value for nonprofit organizations, but not those increase according to governmental policy declarations, probably as the result of the grants cuts by half of the regional authorities. Conclusions. The article also pointed key reasons of the searched results, such as legislation of the nonprofit organizations granting, general mistrust towards nonprofit organizations by authorities and citizens. Elimination of the reasons relies mainly on the legislative improvements.
The theoretical basis of work is the notion of legitimation as a complex mechanism of social approval of a new phenomenon taking place with the active participation of different social groups and structures, able to influence its final form. In the focus of the empirical analysis the representations of social entrepreneurship that main actors of its legitimacy in Russia have. Among them are: the state, foundations, NPOs and business. We assess the (in)consistency between their representations as well as the reflection of these representations in the characteristics of existing organizations of social entrepreneurship (social enterprises).
Business, government and NPOs are understood as external actors of social enterprise legitimation, as without their recognition the legitimation will not take place. In turn, social enterprises, regardless of whether they come from for-profit or non-profit sector, are seen as objects of legitimation, or as a new actor, not identical to any of the above. It is shown that the contradictions in the positions of key actors can lead to mutually exclusive projects of legitimation of a new phenomenon, so that they will undermine the cognitive and moral legitimacy of each other. The empirical data include the results of the authors survey of 202 social enterprises.
The article reveals the legal nature of expenses of budget and provides a definition of the concept as a legal category.
Действия на принципах открытости являются одной из основ функционирования НКО и одним из направлений формирования имиджа НКО. Положительный имидж НКО позволяет сформировать индивидуальное, личностное отношение к организации, создает основу для эмоционального доверия к организации. Бренд НКО выступает репутационной страховкой для некоммерческой деятельности и может способствовать исправлению ситуации при краткосрочных финансовых или организационных трудностях. Даже при снижении социальной активности, бренд некоммерческой организации будет поддерживать ее репутацию. Однако, как показали результаты наших исследований, такое направление формирования имиджа российских НКО, как действия на принципах открытости, недостаточно развито. В этих условиях создание стимулов открытости и прозрачности НКО видится как одна из задач органов власти различных уровней в рамках формирования и реализации государственных / муниципальных политик в области содействия развитию институтов гражданского общества.
Social innovation is acknowledged as one of the most promising tools of civic engagement and cross-sector partnerships to address social problems. It benefits society by improving its ability to organize and act and represents a new model of interaction between the state and civil society in addressing social problems. The article assesses the capacities and actual input of the Russian third sector (non-government not-for-profit organizations, or NGOs) in developing social innovation. It considers the essence of social innovation, discusses the critical role of the third sector as a favorable environment for the production of such innovation, and describes structural characteristics of third sector organizations which allow them to play a subjective role in developing and promoting innovative solutions in the social sphere. Based on empirical data on the state of Russia’s third sector and civic participation in NGOs, certain conclusions are made about the potential of the sector as a driver of innovation. We argue that the domestic third sector cannot be regarded as institutionally mature and ready for the production and dissemination of social innovation. In this respect, it is much inferior to European and American counterparts. Innovative initiatives developed by individual citizens as well as by NGOs are rather fragmented. Additional efforts are required to enhance their viability and replicability. Nevertheless, in spite of some inconsistencies, the dynamics of the third sector development and supportive public policies are in general going in the right direction. Policies in this field aim to create favorable conditions for NGOs and thereby strengthen their capacities in facilitating innovative changes in the social sphere.
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.