Institutional capacity, social entrepreneurship and new public administration: a comparative analysis of public service delivery in different countries and regions

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Department of Public Administration, Educational and Scientific Institute of Public Administration and Civil Service

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Institutional capacity, social entrepreneurship and new public administration: a comparative analysis of public service delivery in different countries and regions

Zubchyk Oleh Anatoliiovych, Doctor of Science

in Public Administration, Associate Professor

Legkyi Serhii Volodymyrovych, Candidate of

Economic Sciences, Associate Professor

Tkachenko Ihor Valentinovych, Candidate of

Political Sciences, Associate Professor

Abstract

This research aims to develop and test a framework that can help the actors involved in public service delivery balance efficiency, effectiveness and equity, and create and distribute public value. Public service delivery involves the state, social entrepreneurs and public managers, who have different and sometimes conflicting goals, values and incentives. The balance of efficiency, effectiveness and equity depends on various factors, such as the institutional capacity of the state, the social entrepreneurship of the non-state actors, the new public management of the public managers, the public choice of the citizens, the transaction costs of the service provision, the public value of the service outcomes, and the context of the service delivery. The research compares public service delivery in the USA, China, the European Union and Ukraine, and addresses questions such as: What are the characteristics and challenges of public service delivery in these countries or regions? How do the actors collaborate or compete in public service delivery? How do the citizens participate or influence public service delivery? What are the costs and benefits of different modes and methods of public service delivery? The delivery of public services is a complex and multifaceted task that requires the collaboration of various actors, such as the state, social entrepreneurs and public managers. However, these actors often face different and sometimes conflicting goals, values and incentives, which pose a challenge for achieving optimal outcomes in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and equity. Efficiency refers to the optimal use of resources to produce the desired outputs; effectiveness refers to the extent to which the outputs meet the needs and expectations of the beneficiaries; and equity refers to the fair and impartial distribution of the benefits and costs of the public services among the stakeholders. This paper aims to explore how the institutional capacity of the state, social entrepreneurship and new public management can contribute to or hinder the balance of these three dimensions in the delivery of public services. It also proposes a conceptual framework that integrates the perspectives of these three actors and identifies the key factors that influence their interactions and performance. The paper concludes with some implications and recommendations for policy and practice. The research concludes that public service delivery is a complex and dynamic phenomenon that can be conceptualized, modeled, measured, tested, improved and enhanced using various frameworks, models, methods, tools, strategies and approaches.

Keywords: public service delivery, institutional capacity, social entrepreneurship, new public management, comparative analysis, public value, efficiency, effectiveness and equity.

Зубчик Олег Анатолійович доктор наук з державного управління, доцент, професор кафедри державного управління, Навчально-науковий інститут публічного управління та державної служби, Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка

Легкий Сергій Володимирович кандидат економічних наук, доцент, доцент кафедри державного управління, Навчально-науковий інститут публічного управління та державної служби, Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка

Ткаченко Ігор Валентинович кандидат політичних наук, доцент кафедри державного управління, Навчально-науковий інститут публічного управління та державної служби, Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка

Інституційна спроможність, соціальне підприємництво та новий публічний менеджмент: порівняльний аналіз надання державних послуг у різних країнах та регіонах

Анотація

Це дослідження має на меті розробити та перевірити структуру, яка може допомогти суб'єктам, залученим до надання державних послуг, збалансувати ефективність, результативність та справедливість, а також створювати та розподіляти суспільні цінності. У наданні державних послуг беруть участь держава, соціальні підприємці та державні менеджери, які мають різні, а часом і суперечливі цілі, цінності та стимули. Баланс ефективності, результативності та справедливості залежить від різних чинників, таких як інституційна спроможність держави, соціальне підприємництво недержавних суб'єктів, новий публічний менеджмент публічних менеджерів, публічний вибір громадян, витрати на надання послуг, суспільна цінність результатів послуг і контекст надання послуг.

Дослідження порівнює надання державних послуг у США, Китаї, Європейському Союзі та Україні та розглядає такі питання, як: які характеристики та проблеми надання державних послуг у цих країнах або регіонах, які актори співпрацюють або конкурують у наданні державних послуг, як громадяни беруть участь або впливають на надання державних послуг, які недоліки та переваги різних способів і методів надання державних послуг. Надання державних послуг є складним і багатогранним завданням, яке вимагає співпраці різних суб'єктів, таких як держава, соціальні підприємці та державні менеджери. Однак ці суб'єкти часто стикаються з різними, іноді суперечливими цілями, цінностями та стимулами, що створює труднощі для досягнення оптимальних результатів з точки зору ефективності, результативності та справедливості. Ефективність означає оптимальне використання ресурсів для отримання бажаних результатів; ефективність означає ступінь відповідності результатів потребам і очікуванням бенефіціарів; а справедливість означає справедливий і неупереджений розподіл вигод і витрат від державних послуг між зацікавленими сторонами. Цей документ має на меті дослідити, як інституційна спроможність держави, соціальне підприємництво та новий публічний менеджмент можуть сприяти або перешкоджати балансу цих трьох вимірів у наданні державних послуг. Він також пропонує концептуальну основу, яка об'єднує точки зору цих трьох учасників і визначає ключові чинники, які впливають на їхню взаємодію та продуктивність. Документ завершується деякими висновками та рекомендаціями щодо політики та практики. Зокрема, дослідження робить висновок, що надання державних послуг є складним і динамічним явищем, яке можна концептуалізувати, моделювати, вимірювати, перевіряти, покращувати та вдосконалювати за допомогою різних структур, моделей, методів, інструментів, стратегій і підходів.

Ключові слова: надання державних послуг, інституційна спроможність, соціальне підприємництво, нове державне управління, порівняльний аналіз, суспільна цінність, ефективність, результативність та справедливість.

Introduction

Problem statement. The delivery of public services involves the interaction of various actors, such as the state, social entrepreneurs and public managers, who have different and sometimes conflicting goals, values and incentives. These actors need to balance three key dimensions of public service delivery: efficiency, effectiveness and equity. However, there is a lack of a comprehensive and integrative framework that can help them understand and address the challenges and trade-offs that may emerge among these dimensions, and that can guide them towards creating and distributing public value in an optimal way. The hypothesis of this study is that the balance of efficiency, effectiveness and equity in public service delivery depends on the interaction of various factors, such as the institutional capacity of the state, the social entrepreneurship of the non-state actors, the new public management of the public managers, the public choice of the citizens, the transaction costs of the service provision, the public value of the service outcomes, and the context of the service delivery. We have chosen countries and regions that represent different state systems, different economic systems, and different ways of interaction between government and society. Some of the questions that we need to answer in order to achieve the goal of this study are: What are the main characteristics and challenges of public service delivery in the USA, China, the European Union and Ukraine? How do the state, social entrepreneurs and public managers collaborate or compete in the delivery of public services in these countries or regions? How do the citizens participate or influence the delivery of public services in these countries or regions? What are the costs and benefits of different modes and methods of public service delivery in these countries or regions? We are not aware of studies with such tasks.

Analysis of recent research and publications. As a result of the analysis of publications and research on the problems of Institutional Capacity, Social Entrepreneurship and New Public Administration in the context of countries and regions, it was found that the following three areas of research are important for our research.

1. Definition and scope of public service delivery [1-3]. This direction of research focuses on the conceptualization and measurement of public service delivery, its dimensions, determinants, and outcomes. It also examines the challenges and opportunities of public service delivery in different contexts and sectors.

2. Comparative analysis of public service delivery [4-6]. This direction of research aims to compare and contrast the characteristics, performance, and dynamics of public service delivery across different countries, regions, or sectors. It also seeks to identify the factors and mechanisms that explain the similarities and differences, and to draw lessons and implications for policy and practice.

3. Innovation and transformation of public service delivery [7; 8]. This direction of research explores the drivers, processes, and outcomes of innovation and transformation of public service delivery, in response to the changing needs, expectations, and challenges of the society. It also examines the role of technology, participation, collaboration, and integration in enhancing and enabling public service delivery.

The main purpose of this article. The purpose of this research is to develop and test a comprehensive and integrative framework that can help the actors involved in public service delivery understand and address the challenges and trade-offs that may emerge among the three key dimensions of public service delivery: efficiency, effectiveness and equity, and that can guide them towards creating and distributing public value in an optimal way.

Research methods. A literature review helped to investigate the research topic by providing a comprehensive overview of the existing knowledge and debates on the concepts, theories, and models of institutional capacity, social entrepreneurship, and new public administration, and how they relate to public service delivery. A case study helped to investigate a research topic by providing an in-depth and detailed examination of a specific case or phenomenon of public service delivery within its real-world context. It helped to explore the complexity, diversity, and uniqueness of the case, and to generate rich and contextualized insights and explanations. A comparative analysis helped to investigate a research topic by providing a systematic and rigorous comparison of two or more cases or phenomena of public service delivery across different dimensions or variables. It helped to identify the similarities and differences, the patterns and variations, the causes and effects, and the strengths and weaknesses of the cases or phenomena. Furthermore, it also helped to answer the research questions and objectives that guided research, and to develop and test your theoretical and conceptual framework. An evaluation helped to investigate a research topic by providing a systematic and objective assessment of the value, merit, quality, impact, or effectiveness of a program, policy, project, or intervention related to public service delivery. It helped to answer the questions of what works, how, why, for whom, under what conditions, and at what cost. It also helped to measure and evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of public service delivery, and to create and distribute public value.

Presentation of the main material

We address a common challenge in managing the delivery of public services: how to balance efficiency, effectiveness and equity. We see efficiency as the optimal use of resources, effectiveness as meeting the needs of consumers and stakeholders, and equity as honesty and fairness in public services [9]. Furthermore, we analyze how three concepts influence these goals: institutional capacity of the state, social entrepreneurship, and new public management. The institutional capacity of the state is the quality of the factors that form the system of providing public services. Social entrepreneurship is about providing innovative and sustainable solutions to social problems and engaging customers and stakeholders in the creation and delivery of social value. New public management is the introduction of reforms and innovations that improve public sector productivity, accountability and responsiveness, using private sector management principles and practices. Our research recognizes the trade-offs and contradictions between the three goals, as the three concepts may have different priorities, values, and assumptions. We seek a holistic and systemic approach to balancing the three goals and resolving conflicts and dilemmas, taking into account the multiple dimensions, perspectives and interests in the provision of public services, and seeking to optimize the creation and distribution of public values. The delivery of public services involves the interaction of various actors, such as the state, social entrepreneurs and public managers, who have different and sometimes conflicting goals, values and incentives [10]. These actors need to balance three key dimensions of public service delivery: efficiency, effectiveness and equity. However, there is a lack of a comprehensive and integrative framework that can help them understand and address the challenges and trade-offs that may emerge among these dimensions, and that can guide them towards creating and distributing public value in an optimal way. The hypothesis of this study is that the balance of efficiency, effectiveness and equity in public service delivery depends on the interaction of various factors, such as the institutional capacity of the state, the social entrepreneurship of the non-state actors, the new public management of the public managers, the public choice of the citizens, the transaction costs of the service provision, the public value of the service outcomes, and the context of the service delivery. We have chosen countries and regions that represent different state systems, different economic systems, and different ways of interaction between government and society. Some of the questions that we need to answer in order to achieve the goal of this study are: What are the main characteristics and challenges of public service delivery in the USA, China, the European Union and Ukraine? How do the state, social entrepreneurs and public managers collaborate or compete in the delivery of public services in these countries or regions? How do the citizens participate or influence the delivery of public services in these countries or regions? What are the costs and benefits of different modes and methods of public service delivery in these countries or regions?

The main characteristics and challenges of public service delivery in the USA

institutional capacity social entrepreneurship

The USA has a federal system of government, where the powers and responsibilities of public service delivery are divided among the national, state and local levels. The USA has a market-oriented approach to public service delivery, where the private sector plays a significant role in providing and financing public services, such as health care, education, transportation, etc. The government often relies on contracting, vouchers, tax incentives and regulation to influence the quality and accessibility of public services [11]. The USA faces several challenges in public service delivery, such as inequality, fragmentation, accountability, innovation and coordination. For example, there are large disparities in the availability and affordability of public services across different regions, income groups, racial and ethnic groups, etc. There are also multiple and sometimes overlapping jurisdictions and agencies involved in public service delivery, which may create confusion, duplication and inefficiency. The government also faces difficulties in ensuring the transparency, responsiveness and performance of the private providers and contractors of public services. Moreover, the government needs to foster a culture of innovation and learning to cope with the changing needs and expectations of the citizens and the society. Finally, the government needs to enhance the collaboration and communication among different levels and sectors of public service delivery to achieve coherent and integrated outcomes.

In the USA, the state, social entrepreneurs and public managers collaborate and compete in the delivery of public services in various ways. For example, the state may contract or partner with social entrepreneurs to provide public services that the state cannot or does not want to provide directly, such as homeless shelters, drug rehabilitation, et [12]. The state may also support or regulate social entrepreneurs through tax incentives, grants, loans, certifications, etc. to encourage or ensure the quality and accountability of their public service delivery. However, the state and social entrepreneurs may also compete for the same resources, markets or beneficiaries, especially when the state views social entrepreneurs as a threat to its authority or legitimacy, or when social entrepreneurs challenge the state's policies or practices. Public managers, who are the agents of the state, may facilitate or hinder the collaboration or competition between the state and social entrepreneurs, depending on their incentives, values and capacities[13].

In the USA, the citizens participate or influence the delivery of public services in various ways, such as voting, lobbying, protesting, suing, volunteering, donating, advocating, monitoring, evaluating, complaining, suggesting, etc. The citizens can express their preferences and opinions, hold the politicians and public officials accountable, demand better quality and accessibility of public services, contribute their resources and skills, and collaborate with other stakeholders in public service delivery.

The costs and benefits of different modes and methods of public service delivery in the USA

The benefits. The market-oriented approach can foster competition, innovation, choice and efficiency in public service delivery, as the private sector can offer more diverse, flexible and responsive services to the citizens. The contracting, vouchers, tax incentives and regulation mechanisms can enable the state to leverage the resources, expertise and networks of the private sector and the civil society, and to incentivize and monitor their performance and quality. The voting, lobbying, protesting, suing, volunteering, donating, advocating, monitoring, evaluating, complaining and suggesting mechanisms can enhance the participation, voice, accountability and trust of the citizens in public service delivery, and to demand and contribute to better public services.

The costs. The market-oriented approach can create inequality, fragmentation, exclusion and instability in public service delivery, as the private sector may prioritize profit over public interest, and may exclude or exploit the poor and the marginalized. The contracting, vouchers, tax incentives and regulation mechanisms can entail high transaction costs, information asymmetry, moral hazard, adverse selection and principal-agent problems in public service delivery, as the state may face difficulties in contracting, coordinating, supervising and enforcing the private providers and contractors. The voting, lobbying, protesting, suing, volunteering, donating, advocating, monitoring, evaluating, complaining and suggesting mechanisms can generate conflict, polarization, capture, distortion and dissatisfaction in public service delivery, as the citizens may have diverse and sometimes conflicting preferences and opinions, and may be influenced or manipulated by interest groups or media.

The main characteristics and challenges of public service delivery in China

China has a unitary system of government, where the central government has the ultimate authority and control over public service delivery. However, the central government delegates some powers and responsibilities to the lower levels of government, such as the provinces, municipalities, counties and townships, to implement and deliver public services according to the local conditions and needs [14].

China has a socialist market economy approach to public service delivery, where the state plays a dominant role in providing and financing public services, such as social security, health care, education, etc. However, the state also encourages and supports the participation and contribution of the non-state actors, such as the private sector, the social organizations and the citizens, to supplement and complement the public service delivery. The state uses various mechanisms, such as planning, budgeting, subsidizing, purchasing, monitoring and evaluating, to regulate and guide the public service delivery [15].

China faces several challenges in public service delivery, such as equity, quality, efficiency, innovation and participation. For example, there are significant gaps in the coverage and quality of public services between the urban and rural areas, the coastal and inland regions, the rich and poor households, etc. There are also issues of low quality, high cost and low satisfaction of public services, especially in the areas of health care, education and social security. The state also faces difficulties in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public service delivery, as there are problems of over-centralization, bureaucracy, corruption and waste. Moreover, the state needs to promote a culture of innovation and learning to adapt to the rapid social and economic changes and the increasing demands and expectations of the citizens and the society. Finally, the state needs to enhance the participation and empowerment of the non-state actors and the citizens in the public service delivery, as they are the main beneficiaries and stakeholders of the public services.

In China, the state, social entrepreneurs and public managers collaborate and compete in the delivery of public services in different ways. For example, the state may delegate or purchase public services from social entrepreneurs, such as environmental protection, elderly care, disability services, etc [16]. The state may also subsidize or monitor social entrepreneurs through funding, training, evaluation, etc. to support or control their public service delivery. However, the state and social entrepreneurs may also compete for the same resources, markets or beneficiaries, especially when the state perceives social entrepreneurs as a challenge to its power or stability, or when social entrepreneurs criticize the state's policies or practices. Public managers, who are the representatives of the state, may enable or constrain the collaboration or competition between the state and social entrepreneurs, depending on their interests, norms and capabilities.

In China, the citizens participate or influence the delivery of public services in different ways, such as consulting, petitioning, reporting, rating, commenting, sharing, learning, innovating, cooperating, organizing, etc. The citizens can provide feedback and information, seek redress and justice, voice their needs and expectations, disseminate their experiences and knowledge, create and adopt new solutions, and form and join social organizations in public service delivery.

The costs and benefits of different modes and methods of public service delivery in China

The benefits. The socialist market economy approach can achieve rapid growth, large scale, high coverage and low cost in public service delivery, as the state can mobilize and allocate massive resources and capacities to provide public services, such as social security, health care and education. The delegation or purchase mechanisms can improve the diversity, flexibility, responsiveness and innovation in public service delivery, as the state can delegate or purchase some public services from social entrepreneurs, who can offer more tailored, adaptive and creative services to the citizens, especially in the areas of environmental protection, elderly care, disability services, etc. The consulting, petitioning, reporting, rating, commenting, sharing, learning, innovating, cooperating and organizing mechanisms can increase the feedback, information, redress, voice, expectation, experience, knowledge, solution, collaboration and empowerment of the citizens in public service delivery, and to provide and inform the public services.

The costs. The socialist market economy approach can create inequity, low quality, high dissatisfaction and low sustainability in public service delivery, as the state may neglect or discriminate the rural and remote areas, the poor and the vulnerable, and may provide low quality, high cost and low satisfaction public services, especially in the areas of health care, education and social security. The delegation or purchase mechanisms can entail high risks, low accountability, low transparency and low regulation in public service delivery, as the state may face challenges in selecting, contracting, monitoring and evaluating the social entrepreneurs, and may have limited oversight and control over their activities and outcomes. The consulting, petitioning, reporting, rating, commenting, sharing, learning, innovating, cooperating and organizing mechanisms can generate tension, conflict, resistance, criticism and challenge in public service delivery, as the citizens may have higher and more diverse needs and expectations, and may question or oppose the state's policies or practices.

The main characteristics and challenges of public service delivery in the European Union

The European Union (EU) is a supranational organization of 27 member states, which cooperate and coordinate in various areas of public service delivery, such as the single market, the monetary union, the environmental policy, the social policy, etc. The EU has its own institutions, such as the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Council, the Court of Justice, etc., which have the power and responsibility to initiate, implement and enforce the EU laws and policies that affect the public service delivery in the member states [17].

The EU has a social market economy approach to public service delivery, where the public services are considered as services of general interest (SGI) that are essential for the economic and social cohesion and integration of the EU. The EU recognizes the diversity and subsidiarity of the public service delivery in the member states, and respects their autonomy and competence to define, organize and finance the public services according to their national and local preferences and traditions. However, the EU also sets some common principles and rules for the public service delivery in the member states, such as the four freedoms (free movement of goods, services, capital and people), the competition policy, the state aid control, the public procurement and the internal market. The EU also provides some financial and technical support and guidance for the public service delivery in the member states, such as the structural funds, the cohesion fund, the European social fund, the European regional development fund, etc [18].

The EU faces several challenges in public service delivery, such as diversity, convergence, quality, efficiency, innovation and legitimacy. For example, there are significant differences in the definition, organization and performance of public services among the member states, which may create barriers and distortions for the functioning and integration of the EU. There are also pressures and expectations for the convergence and harmonization of the public service delivery in the member states, especially in the areas of economic and monetary union, social policy, environmental policy, etc. The EU also faces difficulties in ensuring the quality, accessibility and affordability of public services in the member states, as there are challenges of aging population, fiscal austerity, technological change, etc. The EU also needs to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public service delivery in the member states, as there are issues of duplication, fragmentation, complexity and inconsistency of the EU laws and policies. Moreover, the EU needs to foster a culture of innovation and learning to cope with the changing needs and expectations of the citizens and the society, and to enhance the competitiveness and sustainability of the EU. Finally, the EU needs to enhance the legitimacy and accountability of the public service delivery in the member states, as there are problems of democratic deficit, transparency, participation and trust of the EU institutions and policies [19].

In the European Union, the state, social entrepreneurs and public managers collaborate and compete in the delivery of public services in diverse ways. For example, the state may recognize or promote public services provided by social entrepreneurs, such as social housing, renewable energy, fair trade, etc [20]. The state may also protect or integrate social entrepreneurs through legal frameworks, social policies, public procurement, etc. to safeguard or enhance their public service delivery. However, the state and social entrepreneurs may also compete for the same resources, markets or beneficiaries, especially when the state considers social entrepreneurs as a substitute or a competitor to its role or function, or when social entrepreneurs contest the state's policies or practices. Public managers, who are the intermediaries of the state, may encourage or discourage the collaboration or competition between the state and social entrepreneurs, depending on their motivations, cultures and competencies [21].

In the European Union, the citizens participate or influence the delivery of public services in diverse ways, such as electing, debating, deliberating, participating, co-creating, co-producing, co-financing, co-regulating, co-evaluating, co-governing, etc. The citizens can choose and influence their representatives and policies, engage in public discourse and decision-making, collaborate and co-design public services, share and co-deliver public services, contribute and co-fund public services, monitor and co-enforce public services, assess and co-improve public services, and co-lead and co-manage public services [22].

The costs and benefits of different modes and methods of public service delivery in the European Union

The benefits. The social market economy approach can ensure high quality, high accessibility, high affordability and high solidarity in public service delivery, as the public services are considered as services of general interest (SGI) that are essential for the economic and social cohesion and integration of the EU. The legal frameworks, social policies, public procurement and financial and technical support mechanisms can protect, promote, integrate and enhance the public service delivery by social entrepreneurs, who can provide more innovative, inclusive and sustainable public services, such as social housing, renewable energy, fair trade, etc. The electing, debating, deliberating, participating, co-creating, co-producing, co-financing, co-regulating, co-evaluating and co-governing mechanisms can foster the democracy, pluralism, diversity, engagement, collaboration and co-responsibility of the citizens in public service delivery, and to choose, influence, collaborate and co-lead the public services.

The costs. The social market economy approach can create high cost, low efficiency, low competitiveness and low adaptability in public service delivery, as the public services may require high public spending, taxation and regulation, and may face difficulties in coping with the changing market conditions and customer demands. The legal frameworks, social policies, public procurement and financial and technical support mechanisms can entail high complexity, low consistency, low compatibility and low compliance in public service delivery, as the public services may be subject to different and sometimes conflicting laws and policies at the national and EU levels, and may face challenges in meeting the EU standards and requirements. The electing, debating, deliberating, participating, co-creating, co-producing, co-financing, co-regulating, co-evaluating and co-governing mechanisms can generate high diversity, low convergence, low legitimacy and low trust in public service delivery, as the citizens may have different and sometimes incompatible preferences and opinions, and may lack confidence and support for the EU institutions and policies.

The main characteristics and challenges of public service delivery in Ukraine

Ukraine is a unitary state with a semi-presidential system of government, where the president, the parliament and the government share the power and responsibility of public service delivery. However, Ukraine also has some elements of decentralization and local self-government, where the regions, districts and municipalities have some autonomy and competence to provide and finance some public services, such as health care, education, social protection, etc.

Ukraine has a transition economy approach to public service delivery, where the public services are undergoing a process of reform and modernization from the legacy of the Soviet era. Ukraine aims to transform its public service delivery from a centralized, bureaucratic and paternalistic model to a decentralized, democratic and market-oriented model. Ukraine also seeks to align its public service delivery with the European standards and best practices, as it is an associate member of the EU and a signatory of the Association Agreement and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. Ukraine uses various mechanisms, such as legislation, regulation, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation, to implement and improve its public service delivery.

Ukraine faces several challenges in public service delivery, such as quality, equity, efficiency, innovation and governance. For example, there are issues of low quality, high cost and low satisfaction of public services, especially in the areas of health care, education, social protection, etc. There are also gaps and inequalities in the access and affordability of public services across different regions, income groups, gender groups, etc. The state also faces difficulties in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public service delivery, as there are problems of under-funding, under-staffing, under-investment and under-performance of the public sector. Moreover, the state needs to promote a culture of innovation and learning to adapt to the rapid social and economic changes and the increasing demands and expectations of the citizens and the society. Finally, the state needs to enhance the governance and accountability of public service delivery, as there are challenges of corruption, politicization, instability and conflict of the public institutions and policies.

In Ukraine, the state, social entrepreneurs and public managers collaborate and compete in the delivery of public services in various ways. For example, the state may consult or involve social entrepreneurs in the design and delivery of public services, such as anti-corruption, civic education, social integration, etc. The state may also empower or cooperate with social entrepreneurs through decentralization, participation, co-production, etc. to strengthen or improve their public service delivery. However, the state and social entrepreneurs may also compete for the same resources, markets or beneficiaries, especially when the state sees social entrepreneurs as a rival or a threat to its influence or reputation, or when social entrepreneurs oppose the state's policies or practices. Public managers, who are the implementers of the state, may support or resist the collaboration or competition between the state and social entrepreneurs, depending on their attitudes, beliefs and skills.

In Ukraine, the citizens participate or influence the delivery of public services in various ways, such as demanding, resisting, reforming, empowering, educating, mobilizing, networking, partnering, supporting, transforming, etc. The citizens can challenge and change the status quo, demand and defend their rights and interests, reform and modernize the public sector, empower and enable themselves and others, educate and inform the public and the officials, mobilize and activate the civil society, network and connect with other actors, partner and cooperate with the state and the market, support and assist the vulnerable and the marginalized, and transform and improve the public service delivery.

The costs and benefits of different modes and methods of public service delivery in Ukraine

The benefits. The transition economy approach can enable reform, modernization, alignment and transformation in public service delivery, as the public services can undergo a process of change and improvement from the legacy of the Soviet era, and can align with the European standards and best practices, as Ukraine is an associate member of the EU and a signatory of the Association Agreement and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. The decentralization, participation, co-production and empowerment mechanisms can improve the diversity, flexibility, responsiveness and accountability in public service delivery, as the regions, districts and municipalities can have more autonomy and competence to provide and finance some public services, such as health care, education, social protection, etc., and can involve and empower the citizens and the civil society in the design and delivery of public services.

The demanding, resisting, reforming, empowering, educating, mobilizing, networking, partnering, supporting and transforming mechanisms can increase the challenge, change, demand, defend, inform, activate, connect, cooperate, assist and improve of the citizens in public service delivery, and to challenge and change the status quo, demand and defend their rights and interests, inform and educate the public and the officials, activate and mobilize the civil society, connect and network with other.

The costs. The transition economy approach can create instability, uncertainty, inefficiency and ineffectiveness in public service delivery, as the public services may face difficulties in adapting to the new market conditions and customer demands, and may suffer from low quality, high cost and low satisfaction. The decentralization, participation, co-production and empowerment mechanisms can entail high complexity, low coordination, low capacity and low regulation in public service delivery, as the regions, districts and municipalities may have different and sometimes conflicting goals, values and incentives, and may lack the resources, skills and oversight to provide and finance public services.

The demanding, resisting, reforming, empowering, educating, mobilizing, networking, partnering, supporting and transforming mechanisms can generate high conflict, low trust, low legitimacy and low sustainability in public service delivery, as the citizens may have diverse and sometimes incompatible needs and expectations, and may distrust or oppose the state's policies or practices, and as the civil society may lack the stability and continuity to provide and support public services.

Conclusions

Public service delivery is a complex and dynamic phenomenon that involves multiple actors, dimensions, mechanisms, processes, outcomes and impacts in different contexts and situations. Public service delivery can be conceptualized and modeled using various frameworks and models that capture the key aspects and relationships of public service delivery, and that can be used for different purposes and objectives, such as analysis, comparison, prediction, evaluation, innovation, etc. Public service delivery can be measured and tested using various methods and tools that assess the validity and reliability of the conceptual models and the research findings, and that can provide empirical evidence and insights for policy and practice. Public service delivery can be improved and enhanced using various strategies and approaches that cope with or resolve the tradeoffs and challenges that may emerge among the three dimensions of public service delivery (efficiency, effectiveness and equity), and that can create and distribute public value for the citizens and the society.

The suggestions that can be made to governments are:

To adopt a customer-centric, performance-based, co-creation and co-governance, and reform and modernization approach to public service delivery, depending on the context and situation, and to balance the interests and needs of different stakeholders and users. To adapt and innovate the public service delivery in response to the changing and complex needs and expectations of the citizens, the society and the environment, and to leverage the opportunities and challenges of the digital technologies and the global trends. To support and regulate the participation and contribution of the private sector and the civil society in public service delivery, and to ensure the quality, accountability and transparency of the service providers and the service delivery. To engage and collaborate with the citizens and the civil society in public service delivery, and to respond to their feedback and complaints, and to improve their satisfaction and trust in public service delivery.

References

1. Bovaird, T., Loffler, E. Public Service and Service Delivery. In: Farazmand, A. (ed.) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance [electronic resource]. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_4005-1]

2. OECD. Good Practice Principles for Public Service Design and Delivery in the Digital Age [electronic resource]. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2020. 28 p. [https://doi.org/10.1787/2ade500b-en].

3. Paul, S. Public Services Delivery [electronic resource]. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2006. 264 p. [https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6140-6].

4. Kuhlmann, S., Wollmann, H. Introduction to Comparative Public Administration: Administrative Systems and Reforms in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. 288 p.

5. Onder, M., Nyadera, I. N., Islam, M. N. A Framework for Comparative Analysis: Public Administration Across the Globe. In: Onder, M., Nyadera, I. N., Islam, M. N. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Comparative Public Administration [electronic resource]. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. P. 19-353. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1208-5_2].

6. Thijs, N., Hammerschmid, G., Palaric, E. A Comparative Overview of Public Administration Characteristics and Performance in EU28. Brussels: European Commission, 2017. 101 p.

7. Deloitte. New models of public service delivery [electronic resource]. New York: Deloitte, 2018. [https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/public-sector/new-technology- new-model-public-service-delivery.html].

8. Howcroft, D., & Wilson, M. (2003). Paradoxes of participatory practices: The Janus role of the systems developer. Information and Organization, 13(1), 1-24.

9. Bovaird, T., Loffler, E. Public Service and Service Delivery. In: Farazmand, A. (ed.) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance [electronic resource]. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_4005-1].

10. Deloitte. New models of public service delivery [electronic resource]. New York: Deloitte, 2018. [https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/public-sector/new-technology- new-model-public-service-delivery.html].

11. Howcroft, D., & Wilson, M. (2003). Paradoxes of participatory practices: The Janus role of the systems developer. Information and Organization, 13(1), 1-24.

12. Kuhlmann, S., Wollmann, H. Introduction to Comparative Public Administration: Administrative Systems and Reforms in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014.288 p.

13. Nyadera, I. N., Islam, M. N. Link between Administration, Politics and Bureaucracy. In: Farazmand, A. (ed.) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance [electronic resource]. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020. [https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-31816-5_3903-1].

14. OECD. Good Practice Principles for Public Service Design and Delivery in the Digital Age [electronic resource]. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2020. 28 p. [https://doi.org/10.1787/2ade500b-en].

15. Onder M., Nyadera I. N., Islam M. N. A Framework for Comparative Analysis: Public Administration Across the Globe. In: The Palgrave Handbook of Comparative Public Administration. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. P. 19-353

16. Onder M., Nyadera I. N., Islam M. N. Introduction: Comparative Public Administration. In: The Palgrave Handbook of Comparative Public Administration. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. P. 1-182.

17. Onder, M., Nyadera, I. N. Comparative Administrative Cultures between Developed and Developing Countries. In: Farazmand, A. (ed.) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance [electronic resource]. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3902-1].

12. Onder, M., Nyadera, I. N., Islam, M. N. A Framework for Comparative Analysis: Public Administration Across the Globe. In: Onder, M., Nyadera, I. N., Islam, M. N. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Comparative Public Administration [electronic resource]. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. P. 19-353. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1208-5_2].

19. Onder, M., Nyadera, I. N., Islam, M. N. Introduction: Comparative Public Administration. In: Onder, M., Nyadera, I. N., Islam, M. N. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Comparative Public Administration [electronic resource]. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. P. 1-18. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1208-5_1].

20. Onder, M., Zengin, U. N. A Framework for Comparative Analysis: Public Administration Across the Globe. In: Onder, M., Nyadera, I. N., Islam, M. N. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Comparative Public Administration [electronic resource]. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. P. 355-382. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1208-5_3].

21. Paul, S. Public Services Delivery [electronic resource]. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2006. 264 p. [https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6140-6].

22. Thijs, N., Hammerschmid, G., Palaric, E. A Comparative Overview of Public Administration Characteristics and Performance in EU28. Brussels: European Commission, 2017. 101 p.

Література

1. Bovaird, T., Loffler, E. Public Service and Service Delivery. In: Farazmand, A. (ed.) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance [electronic resource]. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_4005-1]

2. OECD. Good Practice Principles for Public Service Design and Delivery in the Digital Age [electronic resource]. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2020. 28 p. [https://doi.org/10.1787/2ade500b-en].

3. Paul, S. Public Services Delivery [electronic resource]. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2006. 264 p. [https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6140-6].

4. Kuhlmann, S., Wollmann, H. Introduction to Comparative Public Administration: Administrative Systems and Reforms in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. 288 p.

5. Onder, M., Nyadera, I. N., Islam, M. N. A Framework for Comparative Analysis: Public Administration Across the Globe. In: Onder, M., Nyadera, I. N., Islam, M. N. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Comparative Public Administration [electronic resource]. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. P. 19-353. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1208-5_2].

6. Thijs, N., Hammerschmid, G., Palaric, E. A Comparative Overview of Public Administration Characteristics and Performance in EU28. Brussels: European Commission, 2017. 101 p.

7. Deloitte. New models of public service delivery [electronic resource]. New York: Deloitte, 2018. [https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/public-sector/new-technology- new-model-public-service-delivery.html].

8. Howcroft, D., & Wilson, M. (2003). Paradoxes of participatory practices: The Janus role of the systems developer. Information and Organization, 13(1), 1-24.

9. Bovaird, T., Loffler, E. Public Service and Service Delivery. In: Farazmand, A. (ed.) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance [electronic resource]. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_4005-1].