Ilarionova Tatyana

The article examines the history of the development of the management system for the planning and implementation of the USSR’s space program, exploring its evolution and the factors that contributed to its success. The author believes that this project resulted in significant changes to the USSR’s domestic and foreign policies. In fact, the management structure took its final form in the early years of its existence. The main governing body was the Special Committee on Jet Technology under the Council of Ministers of the USSR. This was not merely an advisory body, but a directive one. It was from this headquarters that instructions were issued to determine which ministry or design bureau was to carry out a particular task. An informal Council of Chief Designers operated alongside this organizational structure. At times, this council was more important in terms of generating ideas and setting objectives. Over time, the Council of Ministers was relegated to an exclusively administrative and supporting role, while the Central Committee and its First Secretary, N. S. Khrushchev, assumed responsibility for making all decisions, both major and minor, regarding the implementation of the project. This kind of quick - or, to use modern terminology, «hands-on» - management contributed to a re-evaluation of the notions established in the 1930s regarding the immutability of the planned economy. It prompted a search for new paths of development for the national economy as a whole, as exemplified by the attempt to introduce the regional economic councils («sovnarkhozy»), and it also fostered the idea that the Party and the Soviet system were the principal architects of such a global achievement as the conquest of space.

Referring to the documents of the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History,the article examines the experience of the Academy of Social Sciences under the Central Committee of CPSU in pursuing a personnel policyto form and develop a collective of professors and teachers.The studyshows that this policy was not consistent; it depended on the changes in the state’s policy, the relations of the Academy’s leadership with the CPSU Central Committee,and the general ideas of expediency in the work with scientific and pedagogical staff. Analytical materials, particularly the review «On Work with Personnel at the Academy of Social Sciences under the Central Committee of CPSU»,written by Vice-Rector G.Glezerman and forwarded to the CPSU Central Committee’s Department of Science and Educational Institutions on January 12, 1974, were a valuable source for studying the history of the Academy of Social Sciences of the Central Committee of CPSU.This document,as well as other historical records,gives us insight into the Soviet era’s personnel management practices, which included conducting attestations, building a solid staff, offering material and moral benefits,and countering biased criticism and denunciations.Due to the Academy’s central role in national politics and strict standards for its employees, the microhistory of the Academy of Social Sciences provides insight into the circumstances of the postwar USSR as a whole.

The article is devoted to the Gaidar Forum, which was held on January 15 and 16, 2020 at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. The author identified three key topics that were actively discussed at the Forum - the attitude of the authorities to history; economic development in modern conditions; improvement of public administration. It is noted that the modern interest in history is not accidental, today, when a variety of crisis phenomena are observed, the governing bodies are looking in the past for that experience that can help comprehend the present. During the Gaidar forum, several expert discussions were devoted to this topic, and the well-known foreign historians, who had books published, also in Russian, spoke. The economic problems of the country and the world were also studied in the course of discussions at the Forum from various sides - there were discussions on the financial sector, the development of small and medium-sized businesses, and the focus was on the problems of managing in compliance with the requirements of environmental protection. Finally, discussions related to management, public service, and personnel policy were of great interest at the Forum. These events were attended by top officials of federal ministries and departments, governors. Discussions showed that public service structures are looking for new, more effective methods of working with personnel, and personnel policy of departments has become more open. However, the system remains not perfect. There are still many problems that need to be solved. The author concludes that the Gaidar Forum once again showed the interdependence and complexity of governance structures, their resistance to ongoing changes.

The article discusses three issues that became central to the discussions at the Gaidar Forum-2019, these are regionaldevelopment and the relationship between the Center and the subjects of the Federation after the start of a new political cycle inRussia (after the election of the President of the Russian Federation); fulfillment of the state's social obligations; improvement ofpublic administration. The author presents the opinions of leading experts, and also shows collisions of opinions, inconsistency of theses andproposed plans, makes a generalization about the fact that a new (for the Russian Federation) model of government is currentlybeing formed - a distribution model, when decisions are made at the Center and there is no much space for independence neitherfor the regions, nor for the citizens for making their own decisions, choosing their own strategies of action. The key problem for Russia's progress, as in previous years, and the participants of the Gaidar forum, and after them, theauthor sees in the improvement of administrative power, the state civil service. However, as the speeches of the largest expertsin this area have shown, there are no significant and sharp reforms planned, and therefore, there is a painstaking work toreconfigure the existing management system.

The article gives an overview of several events of the Gaidar forum, in which the problems of state and municipal governance were discussed: the ‘open dialogue' on January 16, ‘Efficiency of budget expenditures as a mirror of effective public administration', expert discussion ‘Year of implementation of project management in government: first results and lessons learned', expert discussion ‘Human Capital in the State and Municipal Service: Values and Development' and ‘Open Dialogue' ‘Modern Challenges of the State Governance' on January 17. The author took in-depth interviews with domestic and foreign experts of the forum, who supplemented and developed the topic of improving the administrative apparatus and personnel policy. During the forum, government experts shared their experiences, told about what they managed to do during 2017. However, the general mood was critical: despite the measures taken and the positive results achieved, in general, state and municipal government in Russia are far from ideal, there are still many problems that need to be worked on. The speakers, including members of the Government of the Russian Federation, heads of ministries and authorities, regions of the Federation and major universities, agreed that it was necessary to continue reforming the system of administrative power in the country. The plans of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation for further steps in this direction were presented.

In the review of new publications devoted to the study of the revolution in Russia in 1917, the author identifies the main themes that were in the center of attention of historians, philosophers and sociologists: the definition of the concept of ‘revolution' and its philosophical comprehension; restoration of the chronicle of revolutionary events; the analysis of the reaction of different social strata to the uprising of the masses; the activity of the ‘leaders' of the revolution. The author also dwells on the in-depth analysis of such problems as the periodization of revolutionary events, theoretical approaches to the evaluation of mass demonstrations, and the role of leaders of the uprising. It is emphasized that there is no single understanding of the events of the past in Russian society today, and this is shown in the published books. Many of them attempt to connect the origins of the revolution with earlier events in the Russian Empire: the tragedy of Khodynka, the expectations of the society for changes in 1900, the First Russian Revolution of 1905, the First World War. Similarly, historians and philosophers see and evaluate the end of the revolutionary process in different ways. In contrast to the classics of Marxism-Leninism, some modern researchers see the main driving force of the revolution in the peasantry - its fundamental interests were determined by the protest, but the peasantry, as a result, less than all other strata, benefited from the revolution. The author also identified the problems that were not reflected in the modern publications. In author's opinion, the problems of construction of the social structure of the population of the established elites using various, mostly violent, methods to suppress the dissenters, have not been studied yet.

This Review article is devoted to the recent Gaidar forum held in the Russian Academy for Public Service under the auspices of the President of the Russian Federation. the article presents a chronicle of the events of the forum as well as reflecting the key issues of discussion by the participants and the conclusions that were made during the plenary sessions and round table discussions.

We consider the difference between simple and complex, it is proved that the existing boundary between these two concepts are not so insurmountable. Analyzes of complex boundaries, beyond which further complication is uneconomical or technically risky. Drawing parallels cognition and application of simple and complex with the functioning of the state, the author comes to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion about the need to implement the simple philosophy in public administration.

Aspects of European administrative reform are analyzed with regard to government service provision. It is stated that the philosophy of public management is assuming a universal character for all countries; the concept of 'competitive law' is introduced and instruments to measure the quality of services provided are explored.

Доктор философских наук, профессор Тать- яна Семеновна Иларионова - известный специалист в сфере взаимоотношений Гер- мании и России. Она член правления Меж- дународной ассоциации исследователей истории и культуры российских немцев, член Правления Московского гумбольдтов- ского клуба. В этой связи ее интерес к ма- лоизученной стороне нашей истории не удивителен.

Швейцарский химик, постоянно работающий в Высшей технической школе Цюриха, профессор Рихард Эрнст - человек мира. Его выступления, лекции, интервью пользуются большой популярностью в самых разных странах, и не только в профессиональном кругу. Впрочем, все, кто получил высочайшую научную премию, какой общепризнанно является Нобелевская, а он уже много лет ее лауреат, в значительной степени философы, которым есть что сказать своим современникам. С профессором Эрнстом шел разговор о роли государства в обществе, о его ответственности перед гражданином.