Programs for the socio-economic development of problem areas

The key point determining the possibilities of sustainable and stable economic development of territories is the possibility of planning current and future activities on them. Consider the problem of planning on the example of a municipality.

Plans and programs for the development of the municipality should be based on the following principles:

Basing on own capabilities and resources available at the disposal of the municipality;

assistance in the formation of a market infrastructure that ensures orientation towards the self-development of the territory, towards the mobilization of the development of market relations in the economy;

priority solution of the most acute problems of life support for the population of the municipality;

orientation towards the development of real local self-government with the creation of an adequate material and financial base;

development of vertical and horizontal interaction (financial-economic, socio-cultural and other ties) of urban, district, rural municipalities.

Plans for the economic and social development of municipalities should be formed on the basis of a grouping of the main problems characteristic of the life of the population of municipalities and requiring their resolution. Such problematic and substantive areas (sections) of plans for socio-economic development can include the following:

financial and economic;

socio-cultural;

public utilities, trade and other services to the population;

transport and communications;

natural and economic;

construction, etc.

Firstly, the allocation of problematic and meaningful areas in the structure of plans for the socio-economic development of municipalities is carried out taking into account issues of local importance that are within the jurisdiction of municipalities. Secondly, one should take into account the problems most acutely facing the municipality and its residents. Thirdly, it is also necessary to take into account programs and plans adopted at higher levels of government, and information about draft plans and development programs received from enterprises and organizations located on the territory of the municipality.

The current legislation does not determine the period for which comprehensive plans for the socio-economic development of municipalities, targeted programs should be calculated. This period is determined by the municipalities themselves. This is largely due to the economic situation in society: long-term planning implies the presence of a steadily developing economy, since only in this case it is possible to plan with a high degree of certainty the use of certain financial sources, plans and programs of municipalities.

The development of draft plans and programs for the development of the municipality is carried out by the executive body of local self-government (local administration). The structure of the local administration (with the exception of small rural, township municipalities) has the necessary services, departments that carry out work on the preparation of draft plans and programs for the development of the municipality. Previously, the planning commissions of the executive committees were the bodies organizing work on planning the development of the city, district economy, the development of draft plans for socio-economic development. Today, the bodies involved in planning the development of municipalities are called differently: departments of planning, forecasting, etc. However, all departments, departments and services of the local administration are involved in the planning process, because the development of draft plans and programs for the development of municipalities involves a comprehensive feasibility study of the goals and objectives of plans, programs, as well as the preparation of balances: financial, monetary, income of the population, labor resources, land and others, necessary for managing the economic and social development of the territory.

The planning method is used by local governments in solving many issues of local importance. Local governments adopt local privatization programs; plans for the land-economic structure of settlements; master plans, planning and development projects for settlements, etc. In addition, the planning method is used by local governments to organize their own work. They adopt organizational plans; work plans of the representative body; work plans of standing committees; local government plans.

The existing planning system in municipalities is largely based on the experience gained in this area during the Soviet period of the development of our state, taking into account its critical assessment. Not all of this experience is acceptable to local self-government bodies, which differ fundamentally in their status from local Soviet authorities.

The management system that took shape during the Soviet period in the development of Russian statehood was characterized by strict centralization in the sphere of planning. The economy left a single national economic complex, covering all links of social production, distribution and exchange throughout the country.

The constitutional duty of the local Soviets was to ensure, within the limits of their authority, the integrated economic and social development on their territory (Article 139 of the 1978 Constitution of the RSFSR). The effective implementation of this task was hampered by the weakness of the material and financial base of the local Soviets, as well as by the fact that enterprises, institutions, and organizations of higher subordination were located on the territory of the local Soviets: their development was associated primarily with sectoral planning carried out by ministries and departments in whose subordination the data enterprises and organizations were located. The territory of the local Soviets, therefore, was an object of centralized state administration and sectoral planning, and was also an object of local (territorial) planning carried out by local Soviets. The problem of the optimal combination of sectoral and territorial planning at the local level has not been resolved.

The law of the RSFSR on local self-government retained the function of socio-economic planning for local self-government bodies. He referred to the issues to be decided exclusively at the session of the Council, the approval of plans and programs for the economic, social and environmental development of the territories and reports on their implementation. The development of draft plans and programs for socio-economic development was entrusted to the relevant local administration, which also organized the implementation of the plans and programs approved by the Council.

At the same time, the beginning of the reform of the economy, the transition to market relations complicated the task of local governments in the field of planning: under these conditions, new approaches were required to solve the problem of integrated socio-economic development of territories, new forms and methods of managing socio-economic processes. The material and financial base of local self-government bodies still remained weak.

Under the management of the integrated socio-economic development of the municipality is understood the management of mutually agreed programs (projects) for the development of all spheres of life of the municipality, agreed on resources, terms in accordance with the priorities accepted by the population, as well as accepted for execution on the basis of contracts or by law by federal and regional development programs.

In the issue of managing the development of a municipality, two approaches (or two strategies) can be considered.

First approach . The whole cycle of management of integrated socio-economic development can be conditionally divided into the period of development of the program of integrated socio-economic development and the period of implementation of this program.

This approach is quite convenient, as it allows you to establish effective management and control over results. Its advantage is that it is relatively simple and visually possible to present the results of management. This approach can be recommended for relatively small municipalities or for solving individual problems, as well as when developing programs in certain areas of the life of the municipality.

Second approach. In large municipalities, the program of integrated socio-economic development can be so complex that it will be necessary to consider the entire process of development management as a combination of two relatively independent management processes: program development and its implementation. It is obvious that these two processes, developing relatively independently, must be strictly coordinated in time.

These two processes can develop in parallel, i.e. two development programs can exist simultaneously: a program of integrated socio-economic development, designed for implementation in the nearest budget period, and a program for the development of a municipality for a longer term (for example, for a term of office or a longer term). Such a long-term development program is constantly being finalized, and at certain periods of time associated with the cycle of the budget process in the municipality, fragments of the development program ready for this moment are submitted for consideration to form a comprehensive socio-economic development program for the municipality for a certain period (for example, for a year ). Thus, the management process in the latter case is much more complicated, requires a higher level of management and, above all, the use of modern means of working with information.

The management process can be divided into separate, specific, short-term projects, in the management of which the main stages (cycles) of managing the integrated socio-economic development of the municipality can be distinguished:

During the development program development period:

– collection and processing of information;

– goal setting (goal setting);

– development of strategic guidelines and development criteria;

– assessment of the development potential and resource;

– development of the concept of integrated socio-economic development of the municipality;

– development and adoption of a program for the integrated socio-economic development of the municipality;

During the implementation of the development program:

– development and adoption of the development budget;

– implementation of the development budget in accordance with the program of integrated socio-economic development;

– control, collection and processing of information and development of proposals for adjusting the budget (programs, concepts).

All programs of socio-economic development of municipalities of the Republic of Buryatia are developed according to a single standard layout, including the program of socio-economic development of Ulan-Ude. This layout is recommended by the Ministry of Economy and Foreign Relations of the Republic of Buryatia for local governments in order to bring the administrations of districts and cities of the republic into a certain system of actions to ensure sustainable economic growth and improve the living standards of the population in the territories.

The approaches to development currently existing in the Russian territories are based on the program-target method of developing programs for socio-economic development (SED). In the absence of other planning methods, for example, strategic planning, brought to the possibility of practical implementation, SED programs will remain the main methodological approach to planning the development of territories for a long time to come. However, the practical experience of participating in the development of sectoral and territorial development programs allows us to identify several shortcomings in this methodology that need to be addressed.

One of the main methodological issues that need to be addressed is the clarification of the approach to the formation of development goals. Currently, there are contradictions between the system of goals of economic entities and the goals of the economic system of the territory as a whole. The difference in goals at the levels of the macro-, meso- and microeconomics of the territory is manifested in the contradictions of the SER programs at the stages of their design, coordination and financing. At the same time, in most territories (for example, in the Republic of Buryatia), priorities are given to the level of macroeconomics of the territory. These contradictions today find their solution in the division of funding sources, i.e. in the possibility of attracting investment resources. In practice, this means that the republic sets its own priorities, municipalities – their own, industries and enterprises in them also have their own priorities. Naturally, in their development programs, their own priority objects are primarily financed from their own sources. But since the SER programs should be of a complex nature, their coordination is carried out by simply superimposing parts of the programs on top of each other and, as a result, forming a certain unified vision of systemic development. Such an approach is ineffective when regulating the system even in the absence of restrictions, and given the current restrictions on investment resources in the Russian territories, it leads to destabilization of the economic system or, at best, simply to inefficient use of investment potential (resources). A number of projects that are of great importance for the economy of the territory as an economic system do not find their support from other subjects of the economic system, and on the other hand, there is a dispersion of investment resources on inefficient projects in general.

Among the possible methods of coordinating the system of goals, for example, such as ranking priorities, forming a weighted average goal, segmenting goals, the most effective method seems to be the method of forming a single complex system of goals based on an iterative mutual procedure for coordinating the interests of subjects with the general goal of the economic system, subject to its clarification.

The method of forming an iterative procedure is as follows:

at the first stage , the goals for the development of subjects of the economic system at all levels are formed, while the goals should be of a complex nature, i.e. be compatible with each other, at least in terms of economic indicators and their structure;

at the second stage , a generalized (redundant) system of goals is formed for all subjects of the territory;

at the third stage , possible options for using the resource base (strategies for achieving goals) are formed as restrictions on the generation of the basic version of the system of goals;

at the fourth stage , all possible combinations of goals and strategies for achieving them (combinations of the use of investment resources) are generated for the economic system as a whole on the basis of a generalized set of goals for the subjects of the territory;

at the fifth stage , the system of optimality indicators is set;

and at the last, sixth stage, the choice of the optimal system of goals takes place.

At each of the stages, iterative retreat back to the previous stages is possible in order to optimize the solution. When applying such a methodology for coordinating goals, the interests of all subjects of the economic system of the territory (both internal and external), as well as the system as a whole, will be taken into account, state and municipal investment resources will be more optimally distributed, and the interests of the parties will be coordinated. To some extent, this procedure is a combination of the “boiler” and distribution methods of forming investment budgets at the stage of goal setting.

To implement the obtained optimal system of goals, it is necessary to stimulate the readiness of the subjects of the economic system to abandon part of their projects (due to the lack of investment resources or the inappropriate use of them in these projects) and to invest funds as investors in other projects, as well as ensuring investment attractiveness for the subjects having an interest only in the placement of investment resources. In practice, this methodology can be implemented only through the creation of a territorial system for the formation of development programs, while the sequence of development will be exactly according to the principle of combining programs from the micro level through the meso level to the macro level (or even to a territorial comprehensive program for the development of the economic system).

The main goal of the program for the socio-economic development of the territory is to create conditions for stabilizing and boosting the economy and ensuring sustainable growth in the level and quality of life of the population.

To achieve this goal, the development program of the problem area can be divided into three stages.

The first stage provides for the stabilization of the economy in the medium term and the creation of an economic basis for growth, as well as the provision of a social minimum for the population. At this stage, the foundation for growth is being laid – industrial enterprises and other economic entities of the settlements are being reformed, and the development of competitive industries is being supported. Investments at this stage are aimed at supporting the leading backbone enterprises that can positively affect the economy.

The second stage considers the possibility of creating conditions for sustainable growth. The activities of this stage ensure the consolidation of the economic growth trend and the necessary recovery rates. Investments at this stage are invested in all economic entities in order to give the necessary dynamics to development.

The third stage considers the tasks of the strategic development of settlements, ensuring the development of the social sphere and other sectors of the economy.

To achieve this goal, the program provides for the following main areas and tasks in them:

1. Improvement and development of the economic base , which includes:

– development of a complex of backbone enterprises, ensuring their profitability;

– access to the financial balance of income and expenses of the territory;

– ensuring full employment of the population by attracting labor resources to other microdistricts of the territorial-branch system;

– ensuring the reinvestment of funds of enterprises and the population in the social sphere.

2. Social development of the territory , which includes:

– ensuring a mandatory social minimum of services for the population, guaranteed support for socially unprotected segments of the population;

– development of social infrastructure and social sectors of the settlement;

– improving the quality of life standards, including the level of improvement;

– ensuring public safety and law and order, development of cultural values and national traditions.

The program of socio-economic development of the territories is a document that, on the one hand, is formalized according to the requirements of higher authorities, but, on the other hand, is a creative document that implies different approaches to the formation of its content and the methods used in its development.

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.