In the theory of public administration, the term «bureaucracy» (from French. bureau – bureau, office and Greek. kratos – power, domination, lit. – the power of the office, the dominance of the management apparatus) is most often used to refer to the administrative and technical aspects of the organization that ensure the implementation of decisions made. In modern society, with the increasing size of organizations, both public and private, and the increasing complexity of the mechanism for implementing managerial decisions, bureaucracy has become the main, and sometimes even the determining role in many areas of public policy^[31].

There are four main approaches to defining bureaucracy, each of which reflects different assessments of its role in society. Depending on the research perspective, bureaucracy can be considered as:

- a specific form of power organization characterized by hierarchy, regularity and regulatory regulation of management processes;

- a complex, structured management system based on a clear division of responsibilities and competencies, which contributes to improving the efficiency of administrative activities both in public administration and in the private sector;

- an integral part of the state apparatus, functioning outside of political and electoral institutions, responsible for the implementation of day-to-day management and ensuring the sustainability of the state mechanism;

- a phenomenon with a predominantly negative connotation associated with excessive regulation, bureaucratic delays, formalism and low adaptability, which leads to a decrease in management efficiency and an increase in public discontent.

According to many researchers, bureaucracy has two sides: rational and irrational, which correspond to its positive and negative characteristics.

A rational bureaucracy is based on the principles of consistency, order, and efficiency. Its key feature is rationalism, which includes the following elements:

- subordination of officials exclusively to the established official duties and rules, independent of their personal preferences;

- a clear hierarchical structure that ensures order in management;

- competence of civil servants who meet professional requirements;

- appointment to a position based on qualifications and professional background, rather than personal connections;

- a well-regulated system of labor remuneration and social guarantees, including pension provision;

- acceptance of public service as the main type of professional activity with the possibility of career growth;

- a decree on the use of official position for personal purposes, the exclusion of private appropriation of resources and managerial powers;

- control and strict discipline, ensuring transparency and responsibility of officials.

At the same time, irrational bureaucracy is characterized by dysfunctions that can be divided into two groups:

- subjective-irrational manifestations, the meaning of which is to shift the goals and objectives of the bureaucratic system towards its self-preservation and expansion, instead of serving public interests; with trembling and concentration of power and usurpation of distribution functions; politization of the bureaucratic apparatus, leading to a decrease in its effectiveness; consolidation and a culture of excessive control, suppressing an initiative.

- subjective-irrational manifestations, which are characterized by extreme slowness in decision-making, often deliberate; formalism and  following outdated procedures without taking into account the actual need; ineffective regulatory regulation, which hinders the adaptability of the system; centralization of powers, as a result of which the lower levels of the bureaucracy perform only executive functions which reduces the quality of management decisions; lack of initiative among performers, which leads to stagnation and a decrease in the quality of public administration.

It is the subjective irrationality of bureaucracy, which manifests itself in its self-purpose and inflexibility, that is called bureaucracy.

The ratio of rational and irrational elements determines the type of bureaucracy. If rationalism dominates, then such a bureaucracy fulfills its main purpose-effective management. Otherwise, when irrational traits prevail, the bureaucracy becomes destructive, hindering the development of society and reducing the quality of governance.

The founder of the theory of administrative bureaucratic organizations in the early twentieth century was the outstanding German sociologist Max Weber. He identified the characteristic features of the bureaucracy as an «ideal type».

The first is the division of labor in accordance with the regulations.

The second is the hierarchical order of subordination for many employees of the organization.

The third is the presence of a public office, where written regulatory documents of organizations are collected.

The fourth is the official procedure for preparing officials for work in organizations.

The fifth is the availability of full-time employees, for whom work in the organization is the main occupation.

The sixth is the rules governing the job responsibilities and behavior of the organization's employees.

The seventh is employee loyalty to the established rules. According to M. Weber, bureaucracy is the most rational way to organize the activities of a large number of people, ideally the most effective management machine in society. At the same time, M. Weber also distinguished the shortcomings of the bureaucratic management system. First of all, it is the lack of flexibility necessary to adequately respond to non-standard situations, stereotyped thinking and actions, and the inability to anticipate future actions^[32].

The modern bureaucracy is undergoing significant changes, which are reflected in a number of key areas of reform. These changes relate to increasing openness, transparency, competition in the provision of services, as well as improving the mechanisms for protecting civil rights. Among the most significant trends are the following:

- оopenness and accessibility of public authorities. In a number of countries, civil control over the activities of State structures at the local level is being expanded. Citizens can freely attend meetings of committees and commissions dealing with issues of improvement, housing and communal services, healthcare and other areas. Some countries, such as the UK, also provide public access to parliamentary commission meetings on a wide range of issues, which makes decision – making processes more transparent.

- competition between public and private entities in the provision of services. In countries such as the United States, citizens can choose between public and private providers of various services, including conducting examinations, receiving social benefits, participating in tenders and receiving grants. This helps to improve the quality of services and the efficiency of spending budget funds;

- guaranteed right of access to information and open governance. In a number of countries (for example, in the United States), the principle applies that allows citizens to request any government documents without having to explain the reasons for the request. It also provides for the wide publication of documents, the opportunity to attend public hearings and meetings, which strengthens civil control over management processes;

- reform of the civil service system and personnel procedures. The United States has established clear standards of behavior for civil servants, while salaries are tied not to ranks, but to positions held, which reduces the influence of the bureaucratic hierarchy. Codes of ethics for civil servants regulate their behavior, increasing the standards of transparency and professionalism;

- protection of state employees and standardization of procedures. France demonstrates a high degree of protection of ordinary officials from the administrative arbitrariness of their superiors. Personnel procedures are regulated very clearly, and the mechanisms of interaction between officials and citizens are standardized. An important element is the presumption of state responsibility for mistakes and shortcomings of its employees, which contributes to improving the quality of management;

- effective mechanism of administrative justice. In Germany, the administrative court system plays a key role in protecting citizens from abuse by officials. These courts not only ensure fair treatment of complaints, but also create a culture of respect for citizens ' rights among civil servants, which contributes to strengthening social justice.

Thus, current trends in the development of the bureaucracy are aimed at increasing openness, ensuring civil control, competitiveness of public services, protecting the rights of citizens and civil servants, as well as improving administrative justice.

Administrative mechanisms are a set of methods, procedures and tools used by public authorities to implement political decisions. The main elements of administrative mechanisms include:

- normative legal regulation implies the development of laws, regulations and orders that define the legal framework for policy implementation. This process includes legislative initiatives, preparation of draft regulations, their discussion in representative authorities and subsequent adoption;

- state administration is the activity of executive authorities to plan, coordinate and monitor the implementation of state decisions. Includes development of development strategies, budget planning, management of state programs and evaluation of their effectiveness.

- control and oversight are mechanisms for verifying the implementation of political decisions, including audits, anti-corruption measures, and a reporting system. State control bodies (for example, the Supreme Audit Office, the Prosecutor's Office) monitor compliance with laws, the use of budget funds, and the achievement of planned results.

- regional and local governance – coordination of activities at the local level for the effective implementation of state programs. Akimats, maslikhats and territorial subdivisions of executive bodies play an important role;

- mechanisms of public participation involve the involvement of civil society, public councils and experts in the process of developing and implementing public policies. It includes public discussions, consultations, and initiative groups.

Bureaucratic mechanisms are based on the activities of the professional apparatus of civil servants, ensuring the implementation of political decisions in accordance with established procedures. The main characteristics of a bureaucratic system include:

- and a hierarchical management structure, which implies a clear subordination of lower-level bodies to higher ones, which ensures uniformity in the execution of decisions. For example, ministries develop policies, and their subordinate agencies and territorial departments are responsible for implementing them.

- formalization of processes, i.e. the use of regulations, standard procedures and instructions to minimize subjectivity in decision-making. This ensures transparency and predictability of administrative procedures.

- separation of functions and powers, i.e. specialization of civil servants in certain aspects of management. For example, tax authorities are responsible for collecting taxes, while social services are responsible for distributing benefits.

- the meritocracy principle, which means the selection and promotion of personnel based on their professional qualities and competencies. The competitive system for selecting civil servants and advanced training programs play a key role here.

Despite the importance of administrative and bureaucratic mechanisms, they face a number of challenges, including:

- an excessive bureaucratization, which consists in excessively complicated procedures, which leads to delays in making and implementing decisions. This is reflected in the need to coordinate a lot of documents, lengthy reviews of applications and requests;

- anti-corruption risks, i.e. the possibility of abuse of power and the use of administrative resources for personal gain. Lack of transparency in government procedures and lack of strict controls can contribute to corruption;

- low level of interaction between different government structures, i.e. lack of coordination between departments can lead to duplication of functions, inefficient use of resources and slowing down of decision-making processes;

- limited participation of civil society, i.e. insufficient involvement of the population and public organizations in the process of developing and monitoring the implementation of state policies. Many decisions are made without taking into account the opinion of the public, which reduces the level of trust in the authorities.

To improve the efficiency of administrative and bureaucratic mechanisms of state policy, it is necessary to:

- digitalization of public services and automation of management processes, introduction of e-government, reduction of paper document flow, development of online services for citizens and businesses;

- development of feedback mechanisms with citizens, i.e. the use of electronic platforms for filing complaints and suggestions, conducting public consultations, and increasing transparency in the work of state bodies;

- improvement of the system for evaluating the performance of civil servants, namely, the introduction of KPIs (key performance indicators), regular attestations, increasing the responsibility of civil servants for the results of their work;

- decentralization of power, transfer of some powers to the local level, increase the independence of regional government bodies, which will allow them to respond more quickly to local problems and needs of the population.

Thus, administrative and bureaucratic mechanisms play a key role in the implementation of public policy. Their development and modernization are necessary conditions for improving the efficiency of public administration, improving the quality of services provided and strengthening citizens ' confidence in the authorities. The introduction of modern technologies, increased control and development of public participation will help to minimize existing problems and increase the effectiveness of public policy.

---

^[31] Enterprise Economics / Edited by Volkov O. I. – Moscow: Infra-M, 2008. – p. 105.

^[32] Weber M. Selected Works / M. Weber. – Moscow: Progress, 1990.