Институт сити-менеджмента: причины низкой эффективности в муниципальном управлении Юга России

Abstract

Introduction. Relevance of the study, substantiated by the implementation of the municipal reform, is determined. The problem is posed, according to which the new procedure for legitimizing the assumption of office of head of a municipal formation did not lead to increase of effectiveness of municipal management. The hypothesis is put forward, according to which absence of the expected results from the reform is explained by mismatch of the conditions for managing municipalities in the United States of America, from where the institution of city management was borrowed, in Russia also. The aim is to identify the reasons for failure of the municipal reform. Methods. The empirical research was carried out using the methods of in-depth interviews, expert survey, mass survey and focus groups. The object is city managers, their assistants, deputies of local parliaments, entrepreneurs as subjects of public-private contracts, consumers of municipal services. Venue – municipalities of the Republic of Crimea, the Republic of Adygea and the Rostov region. Results and its discussion. The analysis showed that the reason of low effectiveness in municipal management is consequence of the unjustified transfer of the American model of city management to Russian social reality. Solution of the problem is seen in creation of an optimal model, consistent with the current social conditions. More specifically, we propose the following: 1) to provide the institute of city management with necessary personnel reserve, for which we should promote the widespread introduction of the master's program "City management" in specialized universities; 2) to select city managers exclusively from among local natives who were born in a particular area and received education in it; 3) to amend the regulations on the election of heads of administrations on the secret ballot procedure in order to exclude pressure on deputies and members of competition committees; 4) to cancel the planned indicators when assessing the effectiveness of city managers as a source that gives rise to emergence of imitation practices; 5) to remove target indicators from the work of law-enforcement agencies.