Abstract
The purpose of the article is to characterize current status of state control (supervision) in higher education in accordance with the implementation of the regulatory guillotine measures. The results of the research led the authors to the following conclusions. First of all, foreign expertise results in understanding the necessity of lobbying by non-governmental organizations. Otherwise, state regulators will operate precisely in their interests. Secondly, current administrative regulation of higher education is based on an inefficient monitoring system with redundant permissions of the Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science (Rosobrnadzor). Thirdly, there is no reason to believe that the implementation the regulatory guillotine model can change the situation efficiently. It is more probable that the reduction of the intensity of control will lead to a net rise of latent offenses for educational institutions’ management. To eliminate these problems, the authors suggest implementing of monitoring system for the activities of higher educational establishment as well as for regulator’s actions with a monetization of these relations.
Highlights
State control has been and is a public administration component of great importance
The search for the balance has been the goal of reform of state control system since 2019, which designates by the colorful term the “regulatory guillotine”
What about foreign countries? The development and the beginning of the implementation of the “regulatory guillotine” mechanism in foreign countries are attributed to the eighties of the last century and are associated with Sweden (Aleksandrov, 2019)
Summary
State control (supervision) has been and is a public administration component of great importance. The search for the balance has been the goal of reform of state control (supervision) system since 2019, which designates by the colorful term the “regulatory guillotine”. This term proposed by The Jacobs, Cordova & Associates consulting company was firmly integrated into the media space of Russian public administration. It didn’t end with the speeches of persons holding senior public positions (Intrefaks, 2019; Sovremennyy predprinimatel', 2019). Given the fact that some countries (for instance, Ukraine) have entirely opted out of the use of the regulatory guillotine, explaining their refusal by the appearance of a regulatory vacuum, which inevitably affects the quality of public administration, the feasibility of implementation of such measures is questionable
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
