Distributed Management as a Solution of the “Goal-Tool” Principle of Economic Policy

The study subject is the process of substantiation and implementation of measures of the state economic policy aimed at achieving the established priority goals of economic development from the standpoint of the “goal-tool” principle and its possible expansion. The purpose of the research is to substantiate the doctrine of so-called distributed management, which expands the use of the principle of “goal-tool” in relation to the developed and implemented economic policy, as well as to identify the main advantages, disadvantages, opportunities for its use for the public administration methods development. The content of the named doctrine comes down to identifying the structure of tools that affect the management object with a different and changing force, according to which the introduction of these tools is planned. The methodological basis was formed by the theory of management of large-scale systems, the economic policy of Tinbergen, the method of comparative analysis, and the formalization of the management process. The result boils down to identifying a significant advantage of distributed management for the formation of economic policy, since it allows to identify their correlation with the development factors, including an assessment of the strength of the applied instruments. This expands on the classic “goal-tool” principle of economic policy. Distributed management allows you to give a qualitative assessment of the institutional coordination of economic activities by the government. The use of distributed control will be most appropriate when deploying indicative planning procedures and constituting the content of the project management method, which involves the selection of a set of tools from alternative options. In the future, distributed management makes it possible to identify errors in copying managerial and organizational experience in terms of the applied development institutions, borrowed technologies, and the use of project management. A quantitative assessment of the strength of tools and its sensitivity of various goals, the application of this assessment to specific controllable systems of different levels of complexity constitutes the prospect of this theoretical study.

1. Krugman P.R. Depressions are different. In: Solow R.M., Murray J., eds. Economy for the curious: Inside the minds of 12 Nobel laureates. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014:7–18. (Russ. ed.: Krugman P. Depressii — eto nechto inoe. In: Ekonomika dlya lyuboznatel’nykh. O chem razmyshlyayut Nobelevskie laureaty. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Press; 2017:24–35).

2. Smith V. L. Rethinking economics: A classical perspective. In: Solow R. M., Murray J., eds. Economy for the curious: Inside the minds of 12 Nobel laureates. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014:19–32. (Russ. ed.: Smith V. Pereosmyslenie ekonomiki: klassicheskoe ponimanie. In: Ekonomika dlya lyuboznatel’nykh. O chem razmyshlyayut Nobelevskie laureaty. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Press; 2017:40–53).

3. Stiglitz J. E. People, power, and profits: Progressive capitalism for an age of discontent. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.; 2019. 366 p. (Russ. ed.: Stiglitz J. Lyudi, vlast’ i pribyl’: Progressivnyi kapitalizm v epokhu massovogo nedovol’stva. Moscow: Alpina Publisher; 2020. 430 p.).

4. Stigler G.J. The citizen and the state: Essays on regulation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1975. 224 p. (Russ. ed.: Stigler G.J. Grazhdanin i gosudarstvo. Esse o regulirovanii. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Press; 2017. 336 p.).

5. Simon H.A. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1996. 192 p. (Russ. ed.: Simon H. Nauki ob iskusstvennom. Moscow: Editorial URSS; 2009. 144 p.).

6. Pontryagin L.S. The maximum principle in optimal control. Moscow: Editorial URSS; 2004. 64 p. (In Russ.).

7. Beer S. Management science. London: Aldus Books Ltd.; 1968. 192 p. (Russ. ed.: Beer S. Nauka upravleniya. Moscow: LKI; 2007. 120 p.).

8. Beer S. Cybernetics and management. London: English University Press; 1959. 240 p. (Russ. ed.: Beer S. Kibernetika i menedzhment. Moscow: KomKniga; 2010. 280 p.).

9. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux; 2013. 499 p. (Russ. ed.: Kahneman D. Dumai medlenno… reshai bystro. Moscow: AST; 2014. 653 p.).

10. Tinbergen J. Economic policy: Principles and design. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publ. Co.; 1956. 276 p.

11. Lucas R.E., Jr. Econometric policy evaluation: A critique. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy. 1976;1:19–46. DOI: 10.1016/S 0167–2231(76)80003–6

12. Mundell R.A. The appropriate use of monetary and fiscal policy for internal and external stability. IMF Staff Papers. 1962;9(1):70–79. (Russ. ed.: Mundell R. Vybor ekonomicheskoi politiki dlya dostizheniya vnutrennego i vneshnego ravnovesiya. In: Etot izmenchivyi valyutnyi kurs: Sb. statei. Moscow: Delo; 2001:155–164).

13. Welsch H., Kühling J. Macroeconomic performance and institutional change: Evidence from subjective well-being data. Journal of Applied Economics. 2016;19(2):193–217. DOI: 10.1016/S 1514–0326(16)30008–3

14. Ostrom E. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: CUP Publ.; 1990. 298 p. (Russ. ed.: Ostrom E. Upravlyaya obshchimi. Evolyutsiya institutov kollektivnoi deyatel’nosti. Moscow: IRISEN; Mysl’; 2011. 447 p.).

15. Sukharev O.S. The theory of economic restructuring: Principles, criteria and development models. Moscow: Lenand; 2016; 256 p. (In Russ.).

16. Hirman M, Benesova A., Steiner F., Tupa J. Project management during the Industry 4.0 implementation with risk factor analysis. Procedia Manufacturing. 2019;38:1181–1188. DOI: 10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.208

17. Vrchota J., Řehoř P. Project management and innovation in the manufacturing industry in Czech Republic. Procedia Computer Science. 2019;164:457–462. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.12.206

18. Momeni M.A., Yaghoubi S., Aliha M.R.M. An optimal control model for analyzing quality investment in the project management. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 2019;129:529–544. DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2019.02.007

19. Souza M. L.H., da Costa C.A., Ramos G. O., Righi R.R. A survey on decision-making based on system reliability in the context of Industry 4.0. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 2020;56:133–156. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmsy.2020.05.016

20. Meidell A., Kaarbøe K. How the enterprise risk management function influences decision-making in the organization — A field study of a large, global oil and gas company. The British Accounting Review. 2017;49(1):39–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.bar.2016.10.005

21. Biesenthal C., Clegg S., Mahalingam A., Sankaran S. Applying institutional theories to managing megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management. 2018;36(1):43–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.06.006

22. Lawrence F. The role of local economic development agencies in the South African local economic development landscape. Urban Forum. 2013;24(4):523–541. DOI: 10.1007/s12132–013–9195-z

23. Eren E., Koşan N.İ. The importance of the cooperation of regional development agencies with universities founded in the provinces in terms of entrepreneurship and innovation projects. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;41:363–366. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.042

24. Gibbs D. Ecological modernisation, regional economic development and regional development agencies. Geoforum. 2000;31(1):9–19. DOI: 10.1016/S 0016–7185(99)00040–8

25. Mcmaster I. Czech regional development agencies in a shifting institutional landscape. Europe-Asia Studies. 2006;58(3):347–370. DOI: 10.1080/09668130600601727