Social responsibility in public administration

Currently, the issue of social responsibility of the authorities is a topical because it is directly dependent on the effectiveness of the authorities solutions that can change the social reality for the better.

The first attempts to explain and explore this phenomenon belong to the era of Antiquity. Formation of representations about social responsibility in ancient thought was accompanied by the emergence of the ideas of the ideal state. The basis for the formation and existence of responsibility by Socrates was morality. Moreover in his understanding a person becomes moral only when he consciously, ie, freely, strives to improve not only his life but also the lives of others [5, p. 28]. The pupil of Socrates, Plato put the responsibility in direct dependence on compliance with the laws. In a perfect understanding of Aristotle responsibility is an individual activity, subordinate to the principles of ethics and morality, understood as the fulfillment of their civic duty. Moreover the debt may be in conflict with private interests and considerations of utility.

In European countries, the introduction of the term "responsibility" in the different spheres of social activity decided to attribute to the XVIII century. However, in scientific circulation this concept was first introduced by the researcher A. Bain in his book "Emotions and Will", where responsibility is regarded in the context of the definition of punishment as a measure of placing the responsibility for actions.

In modern understanding social responsibility seems nothing more than a social phenomenon, or rather, a property of social relations. This interpretation allows us to consider social responsibility as a way of interaction between different social actors, both individual and institutional, which have common objective of the activity, as well as having the mechanisms and means of mutual control [2, p. 68]. In a general view most frequently social responsibility is defined as the normative regulation of the activities of the individual in conditions of free choice. However, in the context of the problem, it should be noted that the system of choice in the state (municipal) control is not always free and most commonly limited to the specifics of the public administration system.

In the scientific and journalistic literature it decided to separate the two kinds of normative regulation of the individual. The first is the traditional regulation, the criteria of which are modern norms of society. And, secondly, it is the moral and ethical regulation, the criteria of which are ethical and moral and ethical principles of proper and valuable to the personality [1, p.63]. In the second case, the responsibility appears as a means of self-control and self-regulation in the the purposeful activity of the person.

The researchers write that the "social responsibility as a property of social relationships represents dependency person on anything perceived as a determining factor in the decision making process. At the same time, we note that the responsibility may be caused by inadvertently found or consciously accepted status, as well as the concluded agreements [3, p. 40]. If the responsibility is due to the status, then it decided as a vocation to determine, if it is due to the agreement is necessary to talk about duty. The source of this differentiation are the works of Max Weber, who proposed two concepts: "ethics of convictions" and "ethics of responsibility".

The second kind of social responsibility by M. Weber also commonly called contactor responsibility that arises as a result of an "agreement" between definite social groups, for example, between citizens and public officials. Since the social responsibility of state employees is in direct proportion to their functional duties, it means the purposeful activity of institutions of power should be based on the ethics of responsibility, contactor responsibility. However, this does not exclude the possibility of manifestation of natural social responsibility in the area of state (municipal) administration.

Social responsibility a public servant due to, first of all, his status and a place in the public administration system. Therefore, we distinguish the following elements and mechanisms of the social responsibility of the state (municipal) servant [3, p. 42]:

• •     четкое представление роли и места в структуре государства и

• общества;

• •      voluntary and conscious taking on himself responsibilities, allowing

full use of the functions of the state;

• •      understanding of the need to act in full accordance with the interests

of the state and society and accepted social requirements and standards;

• •      the ability to anticipate results of his decisions and their social

consequences;

• •      the pursuit of self-regulation, critical approach to their actions and

constant self-control;

• •      willingness to take responsibility in all its forms for all his wrongful

acts or omissions.

This list, developed by researchers at L.R. Yakovleva, is a direct proof of the need for manifestations of contactor social responsibility, but it does not exclude the presence of elements of social responsibility, which it controls internal stimuli, such as morality and ethics. The main question is in the ratio of these two kinds of social responsibility, and an advantage in one or another side depends on position, also it depends on the expectations of the society.

Bibliographic list:

• 1.    Anikeeva O.P., L.M. Simonov, E.M. Limonov The definition of social responsibility in the context of sociological knowledge // Vestnik of TSU. - 2011. - №8. - S. 62 - 66.

• 2.    Baydalova O.V., Ivanova M.B. Theoretical and methodological approaches to the definition of social responsibility of representatives of professional groups -officials // Bulletin of the VolgSU. - 2014. - №2. - S. 66 - 70.

• 3.    Yakovleva L.R. Ferreira N.D.O. Social responsibility in state and municipal management system // Belgorod Economic Bulletin. - 2015. - №1 (77). - S. 40 -50.

• 4.    Semenova R.U. Weber: Ethics of responsibility and ethics of conviction (to the question of the relationship between politics and morality) // Vestnik of TumSU. 2006. - №2. - S. 51 - 55.

• 5.    Zavyalov G.I. Formation of the categories of responsibility and freedom in ancient philosophy // Vestnik of OSU. 2013. - №1 (150). - S. 27 - 31.

"Экономика и социум" №4(23) 2016