TO THE UNITY OF INTEGRITY AND INSTITUTIONALITY OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The paper states the most important problem of the development of modern management science, which is currently experiencing crisis. Difficulties arise primarily due to the fact that the methodology of socio-economic science is not fully consistent with modern requirements of social life. But the main thing consists in focusing on the development of commodity-money relations while the significance of the management system is moved to the background. It’s obvious that the efficiency of market relations depends on the quality of management. One can hardly expect positive results while there is no clear interrelationship between management and economic sciences. Unfortunately, at present one can’t observe such a close correlation. The development of management and economic sciences runs concurrently with a scarce link to each other.The importance of public administration is growing year by year. However, the priority of public administration has been«lost» in the maze of market economy reforms. The successful development of market relations is inconceivable without a strong and efficient system of public administration. The article underlines the importance of integrity and institutionality as management system properties. The need for a holistic vision of the socio-economic life of the country is noted; without this vision management loses its qualitative distinctness under complexities of social life. It should be borne in mind, however, that the impact on the economy of the institutional ideology has recently increased. Such a requirement is not included in today’s methodological support of the state management system. Institutional reforms in the country are slow and inconsistent. Obviously it is time to significantly change the whole ideology of socio-economic science. The work alternatively proposes noosphere ideology of public life, the fathers of which were RAS academicians V.I. Vernadsky and N.N. Moiseev. Brought to the forefront of public life, noosphere ideology paradigm, according to the author, will result in the opportunity of improving not only economic but also social and political life of the country.

system properties of management, management system integrity, institutionality of the management system, management hierarchy, requirements of top-down management hierarchy, noosphere ideology, unified organizational structure, macroeconomic and microeconomic interests, production efficiency, current profit, value of gross domestic product

1. Glazyev S. Y. The strategy of Russia forward-looking development under the conditions of global crisis. Moscow, 2010, 255 p. (in Russian).

2. Bir S. Cybernetics and production management. Moscow, 1963, 391 p. (in Russian).

3. Abramova N. R. Integrity and management. Moscow, 1974, 248 p. (in Russian).

4. Zarnadze A. A. About institutional nature of adjustment the dynamics’ economic effect and production development at public and corporate levels. Materiali mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii „Institutsionalnaya ekonomika: razvitiye, prepodavanie, prilozheniya”. Moscow, 2011, pp. 30–36 (in Russian).

5. Vernadsky V. I. Biosphere and noosphere. Moscow, 2004. 576 p. (in Russian).

6. Moiseyev N. N. A backstop to medievalism. Moscow, 2003. 312 p. (in Russian).

7. Zarnadze A. A. About the necessity to work out the integral development methodology of social and economic systems. Moscow, 2008, no. 2, pp 140–148 (in Russian).

8. Druker P. F. Management tasks in the 21st century. Moscow, 2000, pp 182–212. (in Russian).

9. Zarnadze A. A. The dialectics of the system „nature — society — economics”. Moscow, 2011, no 2, pp. 65–73 (in Russian).

10. Kleiner G. B. State, society, business: the interaction in the purposes of modernization. Moscow, 2007, 422 p. (in Russian).

11. Kleiner G. B. The enterprise strategy. Moscow, 2008, 568 p. (in Russian).

12. Gegel G. V. The encyclopedia of philosophical sciences. Moscow, 1974. pp. 335–336 (in Russian)