IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nos/vgmu00/2012i2p162-173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Analysis of Public Involvement into the Formulation of National Strategies in Russia, Norway and South Korea

Author

Abstract

This article gives an analysis of the processes of public participation in the formulation of strategies in various state systems. A key focus will be given to the comparison of several countries to assess their positions on: a) the composition of actors involved in the formulation of strategies; b) the coordination of the participation of actors in the formulation of the strategy provisions; c) the instruments for promoting this participation of actors. The research hypothesis assumes that such indicators as the composition of actors, coordination and the instruments will all vary at the stage of formulating strategies in countries with different political systems.The task of the study is to contribute to the design and practical application of the principles of strategic management in the public administration in Russia.Results: the research shows that the systems of strategic management in the RF, South Korea and Norway are different for legal reasons, thrust of the decisions in the power hierarchy. Some gaps of the legal field governing the formulation of the state strategy in Russia have been fixed.Conclusions: as the research shows, countries with strong and sustainable democratic regimes (Norway, South Korea) ensure a broad public participation in making state strategy provisions. In the country with a less sustainable regime (Russia) public representation in the process of formulating a strategy at its development stage is not similarly implemented: public groups are not included in the strategic regulation at the stage of formulating.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra Shubenkova, 2012. "Comparative Analysis of Public Involvement into the Formulation of National Strategies in Russia, Norway and South Korea," Public administration issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 2, pages 162-173.
  • Handle: RePEc:nos:vgmu00:2012:i:2:p:162-173
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://vgmu.hse.ru/data/2013/01/14/1303209205/%D0%A8%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%20162-173.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nos:vgmu00:2012:i:2:p:162-173. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Irina A. Zvereva (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://vgmu.hse.ru/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.