Course work
On the topic
Social policy and social work: the place and role of social policy in the theory of social work
Introduction
Chapter 1. Social work as a theoretical activity
Chapter 2. The concept and essence of social policy
Chapter 3. Relationship between social policy and social work
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
The relevance of research. Recently, a significant step has been taken in the country towards the institutionalization of social work as a system of ideas, values, relationships and institutions to ensure the social well-being of people with special needs and who currently have a social problem that requires social protection, assistance and social support. Particularly noteworthy is the development of the theory of social work, which for a long period, as is known, lagged behind the direct practice of social work.
In the context of rapid social changes at the macro level of the social work system, in order to optimize its activities, effective social measures and the creation of qualitatively new programs that resolve and anticipate the problems of a particular society are required. The main goal of these efforts is to promote the normal functioning of the social sphere through the implementation of social policies.
Currently, social policy is considered as a specific ideology and practice of the formation and implementation of social obligations of the state and society in general and their individual structures in particular in relation to various groups of the population.
Therefore, the study of the place and role of social policy in the theory of social work is an urgent problem today.
The degree of development of the problem. In an effort to take part in improving the system of protecting the rights of citizens in the context of radical changes in the social sphere, specialists in the field of philosophy, sociology, pedagogy, history and other sciences focused on topical issues scientific knowledge in social work, studying its foreign experience and its own, Russian traditions.
Such researchers as V.G. Bocharova, S.I. Grigoriev, L.G. Guslyakova, N.S. Danakin, V.I. Zhukov, I.G. , P.D. Pavlenok, A.M. Panov, A.S. Sorvina, M.V. Firsov, E.I. Kholostova, E.R. Yarskaya-Smirnova and others tried to comprehend the essence of the theory of social work as a science.
Studies of the theory, methodology and methodology of social work are actively developing, among which the leading place belongs to the publications of I.A. Grigorieva, L.G. Guslyakova, V.M. Kapitsina, I.K. Larionova, V.P. Moshnyaga, V.A. Nikitin, V.G. Popova, E.I. Kholostova, T.V. Shipunova and others.
Russian scientists also turn to the study of the problems of the relationship between social policy and the theory of social work (works by N.A. Volgin, V.I. Zhukov, V.V. Kolkov, I.M. Lavrinenko, E.I. Kholostova and others).
However, the place and role of social policy in the theory of social work has not been sufficiently studied. This leads to the following research problem: social policy as a science objectively comes to the fore in the theory of social work, because at present, it is an emerging social institution, the importance of which is growing both due to long-term trends in the development of a civilized society, and as a result of situational difficulties of the transforming Russian society.
Object of research: the theory of social work as a system.
Subject of research: the place and role of social policy in the theory of social work.
The purpose of the study: generalization of theoretical approaches to the problem of the relationship between social policy and the theory of social work.
Summarize the main theoretical aspects of the theory of social work;
To reveal the essence and content of social policy;
Analyze the relationship between social policy and the theory of social work.
The theory of social work is a field of knowledge about the patterns of organization and improvement of social work as a practical activity. Object and subject are the fundamental methodological indicators of the development of scientific knowledge. On the this stage development of scientific knowledge, notes S.I. Grigoriev, an independent science recognizes that area of it, which has its own subject of study, specific methods of scientific analysis.
If a theory is a scientifically valid explanation of a fact, the part of science that deals with general principles and knowledge as opposed to practical methods and skills, then the theory of social work is a system of views on explaining social processes, phenomena, relationships and the influence of social services on them.
In a broad sense, the theory of social work is a system of views and ideas on the use or explanation of phenomena and processes, social relations that arise under the influence of the activities of social services and bodies of social protection and assistance to the population.
In a narrower, special sense, the theory of social work is a form of organizing scientific knowledge about the most significant connections and relationships that arise under the influence of the activities of social services and social protection agencies.
The theory of social work is characterized by a variety of approaches to the allocation of an object and a subject. The Dictionary of Social Work notes: “The object of research in social work is the process of connections, interactions, ways and means of regulating the behavior of social groups and individuals in society. The subject of social work as an independent science is the patterns that determine the nature and direction of the development of social processes in society.
Social phenomena, processes and relations are the object of scientific attention of other sciences: philosophy, history, sociology. Each specific science does not study the entire object, but only a certain part of it, a "cut", of a certain type of relationship. The subject of the study of social work is not global social processes, but specific ones that are directly related to the life of an individual, a social group.
The object of study in the theory of social work as a science, some researchers consider clients who need outside help, and the subject - social problems. Others consider the subject through the social situation of the client as a specific state of the problem of a particular client, with all the richness of their connections and mediations related to the resolution of this problem.
Some specialists in the field of social work agree that the object of social work research is the process of connections, interactions, mutual influences of mechanisms, methods and means of regulating the behavior of social groups and individuals that contribute to the implementation of their vitality and social subjectivity, as well as the nature of the conjugation of the vital forces of the individual and the group and the means of ensuring their implementation in different social situations.
The subject of social work as an independent social science, they consider the regularities of promoting the formation and implementation of human life in the new economic conditions, as well as improving the mechanisms of conjugation of vital forces and the means to ensure their implementation, rehabilitation.
Despite the different formulations of the object and subject, they are similar in that in modern conditions social work goes beyond the boundaries of social assistance to extremely needy categories, becoming theoretical knowledge about a person and ways to improve his social well-being.
In the most general form, the laws of social work express the most significant links between the specialists of the social protection authorities of the population and various groups or individuals who consume social services.
Significant connections between the subject of social work and the object that affect the effectiveness of achieving the goals of social work can be expressed by patterns:
1. The general interest of the social worker and the client in the final results of their interaction.
2. The integrity of the impact of a social work specialist on a client.
3. Realization of the general interests of the client through private ones (I want to become necessary - sit with your grandson, I want to become famous - write an article, a book, memoirs).
4. Correspondence of the level of development of the subject and the object.
5. Patterns manifest themselves regardless of the will, desire of the social worker.
The laws of social work most fully express in an integrated form the nature and direction of the population social connections and phenomena related to the social situation.
One of the central places in the content of the mechanism of social work belongs to the principles and methods of influence of the subject on the object.
The principles of social work are the fundamental ideas and norms of behavior of social work bodies, conditioned by the requirements of objective laws of development and functioning of social processes, the requirements of best practice. Principles, on the one hand, are associated with the laws of social work, and on the other hand, with practical experience social work, giving sustainable positive results.
The complexity of the relationship between the client and society, between the object and the subject, explains the multiplicity of principles of social work. They can be grouped into three groups:
socio-political;
organizational;
psychological and pedagogical.
Socio-political principles express the requirements arising from the nature of the social policy of the state.
Plan
INTRODUCTION
1. The social role of the state in a market economy
2. Social policy of the state
3. Personal disposable income
Conclusion
Bibliography
INTRODUCTION
I chose this topic of the course work, as at the present stage it is the most relevant. We are already well aware that in any economic system society is faced with the need to solve three problems: what, how and for whom to produce. The problem "For whom to produce" is a problem of distribution of produced goods.
The purpose of the course work is to reveal the role of the social policy of the state in the development of modern society.
The objectives of the course work are as follows:
To study the social policy of the state of modern society;
Show the role of social policy in the development of society.
Speaking about the social policy of the state, we mean the actions of the government aimed at the distribution and redistribution of incomes of various members and groups of society. This is how social policy can be defined in the narrow sense of the word. In a broad sense, social policy is one of the areas of macroeconomic regulation, designed to ensure the social stability of society and create, as far as possible, the same "starting conditions" for the citizens of the country.
It is common knowledge that in recent years Russia has been going through a deep social crisis. What are its reasons? How inevitable is the decline in the living standards of the population during the period of reforms? Is it possible to separate the objective factors of a decrease in incomes and social security of the population from mistakes and miscalculations in the course of market reforms? What are the ways of social reorientation of reforms? Before attempting to answer these questions, we must consider a more general problem—the social role of the state in a modern market economy.
State social policy is a purposeful activity of the state, which aims to weaken the differentiation of incomes, mitigate contradictions between participants in a market economy and prevent social conflicts on economic grounds. Through state social policy in a market economy, the principle of social justice is implemented, which implies a certain measure of leveling the property status of citizens, the creation of a system of social guarantees and equal starting conditions for all segments of the population.
1. The social role of the state in a market economy
The nature and content of social policy depend on the degree of state intervention in the management of social processes. Depending on this, all the current developed countries types of state social policy can be divided into two groups. The first conditionally can be called residual. In this case, social policy performs functions that the market is not able to properly implement. This is a social policy that is limited in scope and the contingent it covers, mostly passive and compensatory in nature. Its conceptual foundations are formed under the influence of the ideas of conservatism. A typical representative of this option (of course, with a certain degree of conventionality) is the American model.
The second group is institutional. Here, the social policy of the state plays a crucial role in providing the population with social services and is seen as a more effective means in socio-economic and political terms than the system of private institutions. This is a more constructive and redistributive policy. From a conceptual point of view, this group is most influenced by social democratic ideology, and its typical representative (also conditionally) is the Swedish version of the welfare state.
Both groups differ not in the presence or absence of certain components, but in their ratio, as well as the degree of state intervention in the social sphere, the role of redistribution processes, and the degree of priority of social problems in the activities of the state.
The social role of the state in all other countries of the world is in the range between these two groups.
Naturally, practice is much more diverse than any typology. All European states with a social market economy developed under the influence of both liberal and social democratic impulses. In recent years, there has been a further convergence of the main characteristics of various types of state social policy, especially with regard to the ideology of its development prospects.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the social practice of countries with developed market economies.
1. The degree of social support of the population, first of all, it concerns the free or preferential provision of socially significant goods and services (education, health care, culture), is not a direct function of the level of economic development, although, of course, it depends on it.
2. There is a direct relationship between the level of many social indicators of the development of a nation and the scale of the state's redistributive activities - this, in particular, is confirmed by numerous studies of international organizations in recent years (for example, calculations of the human development index).
3. Society is always faced with a choice - the growth of personal income (low taxes and other withdrawals from personal income) or an increase in the level of satisfaction on preferential terms of the socially significant needs of the whole society (or a significant part of it).
4. The ideology of state policy in social sphere in relation to the central issue - the degree of state intervention in the social sphere - undergoes cyclical changes not only depending on the economic capabilities of society, but also in accordance with the reaction of the mass voter to a change in emphasis in politics affecting his interests.
For all countries, the "golden period" in the development of the social activities of the state was the 60-70s. During these years of the most favorable development, the share of spending on social purposes in the gross national product in the United States and the developed countries of Europe doubled and reached in the early 80s: 21% - in the United States; 24% - in England; 30%---in France; 31.5% - in Germany; more than a third - in Sweden and Denmark. In the 1980s, the pendulum swung the other way.
In all developed countries during these years there was a revision of the scale, forms of organization and financing of social programs. The reasons for the revision are usually the same - the need to increase the flexibility of providing payments, strengthening their ability to meet needs, expanding consumer choice, reducing the state's presence in the economy and society, and strengthening control over public spending.
The cyclic change of priorities in the social policy of developed countries led to a redistribution of funds between individual items of social spending, but, as a rule, did not affect the major social achievements of the previous development, the share of spending on social needs in GDP also did not undergo significant changes. In most countries, the financial crisis in the social sphere was somehow overcome thanks to some spending cuts, a number of protectionist measures, increased tax discipline, and other measures.
In the mid-1990s, we can again talk about the reverse movement of the pendulum, the public choice in most countries dictates the need for a new revision of the social role of the state in the direction of its strengthening.
Russia traditionally belongs to the type of states with a strong role of the state in the social sphere. If we do not talk about lower material and institutional levels, then the system of social guarantees and social protection of the population that has developed in Russia at the beginning economic transformation, generally consistent with the principles of the social market economy. But from the point of view of market economy criteria social role The state of the state was excessively paternalistic, although it ensured the satisfaction of a wide range of comprehensively regulated needs, but it constrained personal initiative and suppressed the desire of citizens to independently solve the problems of their own well-being.
2. Social policy of the state
The market distribution of income based on the competitive mechanism of supply and demand for factors of production leads to the fact that the reward of each factor occurs in accordance with its marginal product. Naturally, this mechanism does not guarantee equality in the distribution of income, and in reality, in countries with developed market economies, there is a significant inequality in their distribution.
As part of the positive economic theory there is simply no answer to the question of what kind of income distribution is fair.
Recall that the criterion of Pareto efficiency cannot give us a theoretical basis for solving the problem of justice. We have repeatedly noted that one of the manifestations of the fiasco of the market is the impossibility of a fair distribution of income, since the market is a socially neutral mechanism. Mathematically, one can define Pareto efficiency, but the concept of fairness is a normative judgment. That is why the issue of a fair distribution of income does not leave indifferent either politicians or ordinary citizens: it touches upon a moral, ethical problem.
It is customary to distinguish between functional and personal distribution of income. Functional distribution means the distribution of national income among the owners of various factors of production (labor, capital, land, entrepreneurship). In this case, we are interested in what proportion of the “national pie” is wages, interest, rental income, profit. Personal distribution is the distribution of national income among the citizens of the country, regardless of which factors of production they own. In this case, we analyze what share of the national income (in monetary terms) is received, for example, by 10% of the poorest and 10% of the richest families.
So, since Pareto efficiency does not give us any criterion for ranking the points that lie on the consumer opportunity curve known to us (the achievable utility curve), we cannot say that the distribution at point A is fairer than at point B (Fig.).
The figure shows the curve of achievable utility in a society consisting of two individuals - Ani and Vasya. We can argue that if there is a movement from point K to point M, then there is a Pareto improvement. There was an increase in the utility of both Anya and Vasya. But moving from A to B or vice versa, i.e. sliding along the curve of achievable utility, cannot tell us anything about the more preferable (from the point of view of justice) position of each of these points.
What does the term "justice" mean? Justice, according to the definition of the well-known dictionary of modern economic theory Macmillan - is honesty, impartiality. If we consider justice in the context of the theory of economics known to us
Achievable Utility and Pareto Efficiency Curve
welfare, then a distribution that meets two conditions could be considered fair: first, it must be equitable, i.e., none of the subjects of society prefers another person's commodity bundle to his own commodity bundle. Second, it must be Pareto efficient. At the same time, both equitable and Pareto efficient distribution can be interpreted as fair. In general, social justice in economic theory is the problem of an acceptable degree of inequality in the distribution of income. And here it must be said right away that there is no single answer to this question among theoretical economists. We will consider the most famous concepts of justice, or a fair distribution of income: egalitarian, utilitarian, Rawlsian and market.
The egalitarian concept considers the equal distribution of income to be fair. The logic of reasoning here is as follows: if it is required to divide a certain amount of goods between people equally deserving of it, then the distribution would be fair equally. The problem is what is meant by "equal merit"? Equal labor contribution to social welfare? Same starting conditions in terms of owning property? The same mental and physical abilities? Obviously, we will not get a single answer to this question, because we again turn to moral judgments. But here it seems important to emphasize that the egalitarian approach is not as primitive as it is sometimes presented in journalistic articles by brisk authors: to take and share everything equally, as suggested by Sharikov, a character in Mikhail Bulgakov’s famous story “Heart of a Dog”. After all, we are talking about an equal distribution of benefits between equally deserving people.
The utilitarian concept (it was developed in the second half of the 18th century by the English economist and jurist Jeremiah Bentham) considers such a distribution of income to be fair, in which social welfare is maximized, represented by the sum of the individual utilities of all members of society. Mathematically, this can be expressed as a formula reflecting the utilitarian social welfare function:
W(u 1 , u 1 ,….. u n) = u i ,
where W is the social welfare function and u is the individual utility function. In our conditional example, when the whole society consists of two persons, Anya and Vasya, the formula will take the form: W(u A, u B) = u A + u B
The above formula requires some explanation.
First, the utilitarian approach assumes the possibility of interpersonal comparison of the individual utility functions of various members of society. Secondly, individual utility functions, according to the utilitarian approach, can be:
a) the same for all people
b) different for different members of society. In the latter case, we mean the different ability of people to derive utility from their income (cash or in kind). It is difficult to disagree with the fact that for the rich, the marginal utility of his money income is not at all the same as for the poor. Put yourself in the place of a millionaire, and then in the place of a humble clerk: who will have the highest marginal utility of an extra monetary unit of income? Obviously, the last of these subjects. Then it is assumed that the decrease in utility, for example, for Vasya, should be compensated in the course of distribution not by exactly the same, but by a larger increment in Anya's utility. Such a conclusion should not seem strange if, we recall, we are talking about maximizing the sum of individual utilities.
In the figure, we can give a graphic explanation of this approach. To do this, we use the social indifference curve. Recall that the social indifference curve shows many combinations of utilities of different members of society, each of which means the same level of welfare of the society. The shape of the social indifference curve can have a different configuration. On the graph, the social indifference curve means the set of combinations of utilities that these entities can extract from their income, presented in cash or in kind. All combinations lying on the social indifference curve are equally satisfactory for society.
utilitarian approach
If the utilitarian social indifference curve has a linear form, and its slope is equal to -1, as in case a), then the decrease in Vasya's utility will be compensated by exactly the same increase in Anya's utility. The individual utilities of income, therefore, are exactly the same for these two members of society. If the social indifference curve is convex to the origin of the coordinate axes (option b), then we see that the decrease in utility for Vasya must be compensated by a more than equal increase in Ani's utility, since only in this way does the total utility of society as a whole remain unchanged. This means that members of society do not have the same individual utility function. Thus, according to the utilitarian approach, society can consider fair both equal and unequal distribution of income, depending on the ideas about the nature of individual utility functions of different members of society. It is easy to see that in case a) the utilitarian concept coincides with the egalitarian one: since all people have exactly the same ability to extract marginal utility from their income, then its egalitarian distribution will be fair.
The Rawlsian concept is based on the assertion that a distribution that maximizes the welfare of the least well-to-do member of society will be considered fair. To substantiate his approach, John Rawls, the American philosopher whose name gave the concept its name, uses a specific mental construct known in economic theory as the "veil of ignorance". The "veil of ignorance" means that in formulating the principles of fair distribution, one must abstract from the possible consequences for one's personal well-being. In other words, if it were possible to eliminate everything that is the result of chance or tradition, what kind of society would we choose if we were free to choose whatever we want? And what if we made our choice in interaction with other, equally free and equal people? For example, when deciding on the rules for a fair distribution of income, you personally must throw a “veil of ignorance” on yourself and not take into account who you will become as a result of adopting such rules: an oil magnate, a movie star, a postman, a teacher, a homeless person, etc. What would each member of society prefer in such a case? Rawls argues that under the "veil of ignorance" everyone would prefer to insure against a possible fall into the abyss of poverty, and therefore would approve of an income distribution in which society would be concerned with maximizing the income of the least well-off members of society.
The Rawlsian social welfare function has the following form:
W(u 1 , u 1 ,….. u n) = min( u 1 , u 1 ,….. u n )
or for our hypothetical two-person society:
W(u A, u B) = min( u A, u B )
We are talking about solving the “maximin” problem, that is, maximizing the welfare of a person with a minimum income. In other words, the approach of J. Rawls means that the fairness of income distribution depends only on the welfare of the poorest individual. The Rawlsian social indifference curve will look like this:
We see that no increase in the well-being of one individual affects the well-being of another. Public welfare, according to Rawls, improves only if the welfare of the least well-to-do individual increases.
Public indifference curve:Rawlsian approach
J. Rawls criticizes the utilitarian concept in several ways.
First, utilitarianism in its original form gives the simplest and most direct concept of law and justice, i.e., the maximization of the good, but does not particularly pay attention to how this sum of utilities is distributed among individuals (exactly how the gains of individual individuals compensate and offset the losses of others).
Second, Rawls argues, the analogy between the individual and society is debatable. It turns out that just as an individual can choose optimal combination between certain losses and gains (engaged in a complex curriculum in order to rise to a high position later; to take part in certain unattractive activities leading to future gain), so society can be tolerant of certain types losses (inconvenience for individuals) if they lead to an increase in the overall gain (greater good for more individuals).
But the problem with the utilitarian approach, according to the critical views of Rawls, is that it violates the right of individuals within society, that is, it uses some subjects as a means to achieve the goal of others. A typical example: the existence of a slave system in the US south before the Civil War, quite possibly, was in the interests of the nation as a whole (cheap labor, allowing the development of the textile industry, which ensured the US a leading position in the world market). At the same time, it is difficult to imagine how this could be reconciled with the foundations of justice.
The market concept considers the fair distribution of income based on the free play of market prices, the competitive mechanism of supply and demand for factors of production. The distribution of resources and income in market conditions is carried out by an impersonal process. This method has not been invented or created by anyone. It is in this sense that one must understand the words of Hayek in the epigraph of the chapter: "Evolution cannot be just." Therefore, according to this prominent representative of liberalism, “by suppressing the differentiation resulting from the good fortune of some and the bad luck of others, the process of discovering new possibilities would be almost completely drained of blood.”
So, the last of the considered concepts of justice again makes us think about whether the novel has reached the reader only the state to intervene in the process of redistribution of income, if the benefits in a free market economy go only to those who have "money votes"? The governments of industrialized countries did not wait for the end of the theoretical disputes about the fair distribution of income, especially since in the discussion on normative issues there is no one to make a judgment that has the status of absolute truth. Practice has shown that the existence of vast areas of poverty is fraught with many negative consequences for the stable and sustainable growth of the economy, law and order, moral health, etc. In essence, this is obvious within the framework of common sense and political pragmatism of leaders who do not want social upheavals in society.
3. Personal and disposable income
Before turning to the problem of measuring inequality in income distribution, let us recall that disposable income is the income of an economic entity received after paying transfers from the state and paying taxes from its personal income. It is disposable income that gives a more accurate idea of the standard of living of the population than personal income.
Now, remembering the categories of personal and disposable income, we can turn to the specific problems of income inequality: what is the gap between the rich and the poor? And can income inequality be measured at all?
One of the most well-known ways to measure this inequality is the construction of the Lorenz curve, named after the American economist and statistician Max Lorenz. With all this, we are talking about a personal, and not a functional, distribution of income.
If we divide the entire population of the country into 5 parts (quintiles), i.e. 20% each, and the total income of society also 20% each, we can see that the line emanating from the origin of the coordinate axes (bisector) gives us an idea of equal distribution of income.
The Lorenz curve is based on the calculation of cumulative shares (accumulated shares), and accordingly, the construction of a cumulative curve. On the x-axis we plot the first 20% of the population; then, adding the second group, we get 40% of the population, then 60%, etc. On the y-axis, we plot the cumulative income values: the first 20%, then 40%, then 60%, etc. 20% of total personal income, 40% of the population - 40% of income, etc., then we would build just a bisector called the line of absolute equality. But in reality, the distribution is not absolutely equal.
Lorenz curve
For example, the first 20% of the population receive 5% of the income, 40% of the population - 15% of the income, 60% of the population - 35% of the income, 80% of the population - 60% of the income, and finally 100% of the population - 100% of all society's income. In accordance with these values, we build the Lorenz curve, which deviates from the line of absolute equality. The Lorentz curve (OABCOE curve in our graph) will be more concave with respect to the bisector if the distribution of income is more uneven. In the figure, we can also see the line of absolute inequality, running at right angles (OPE). The solid Lorenz curve shows the distribution of personal income (before taxes and without transfers). But after paying taxes and receiving transfers, we can construct a new Lorenz curve (dashed line), that is, a curve for disposable income. It is less concave, since as a result of redistributive processes, the initial income inequality has decreased. Obviously, the more the Lorentz curve deviates from the bisector, the stronger the inequality in income distribution, and the more active the state's social policy to equalize incomes, the less this curve is concave. Depending on the specific social programs and taxation systems in a particular country, the difference between the Lorenz curves built for personal and disposable incomes will depend. Yes, in
Lorentz curves for Russia (distribution of income by their individual components)
In the United States, the decrease in inequality in the distribution of disposable income is due not so much to the deduction of taxes (the American tax system is weakly progressive) as to the payment of transfers. Government transfer payments in the US account for about 75% of the income of the lowest income group.
The figure shows various Lorenz curves for Russia in 1997, reflecting the distribution of income from property, entrepreneurial income, income from labor (wages), etc.
As noted earlier, the Lorenz curve, which reflects the distribution of income taking into account transfer payments, approaches the line of absolute equality most of all, and the curve showing the distribution of income from property is the furthest from it.
There are other ways to measure inequality in income distribution: the most famous of them is the decile coefficient: the entire population is divided into 10 groups of 10% and the income of 10% of the highest group is compared with the income of 10% of the population from the lowest group.
So, for example, in Sweden, if we take the income of the bottom 10% and the top 10% of the population before taxes and receiving transfers, then the ratio will be 1:100, and if we take the ratio of disposable income, then 1:4.
Another indicator used in economics to determine the degree of income differentiation is the Gini coefficient (G), or income concentration index. This coefficient is closely related to the Lorenz curve. In the figure, we can calculate it as the ratio of the area of \u200b\u200bthe figure located between the line of absolute equality and the Lorentz curve (we denote it by the letter T) to the area of the triangle OPE formed between the lines of absolute equality and absolute inequality:
where the value of G varies from zero to one, i.e.
According to the World Bank's From Plan to Market Report, in 1989 countries with an average level of GNP per capita had a Gini coefficient of 0.45, and countries of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) - 0.35. The dynamics of the Gini coefficient in Russia is noteworthy. Thus, in the USSR in 1991 it was 0.260, and in 1993, according to the World Bank, after one year of radical economic transformations it was already 0.496. It is obvious that the transition to a market mechanism for the distribution of resources and incomes is inevitably accompanied by a greater differentiation of the incomes of the population than under the conditions of egalitarian distribution during the period of the socialist economy. At the same time, it is necessary to make a reservation that the calculations of official statistical bodies may not take into account incomes that are not declared by the subjects of the shadow economy and simply citizens who are far from law-abiding. Consequently, in Russia's transitional economy, the Gini coefficient may turn out to be even higher than the official figures.
Note that both the Gini coefficient and the decile coefficient can be calculated for various kinds income and their subjects. You can calculate indices by value wages, by income from entrepreneurial activity, in terms of GDP (GNP) per capita, in terms of gross income household and etc.
But why does income inequality exist at all? Indeed, in democratic countries it is customary to talk about equality of opportunity, which should be provided by the relevant institutions of a market economy. Various economists name many reasons and factors for this inequality. Let us note only the most important of them.
First, from birth, people are endowed with various abilities, both mental and physical. Other things being equal (this premise must always be kept in mind), a person endowed with exceptional physical strength is more likely to become a famous and highly paid athlete.
Secondly, differences in ownership of property, especially inherited property. People cannot choose in which family they are born - hereditary millionaires or ordinary workers. Consequently, one of the varieties of the income stream, i.e. income from property, will differ significantly among the subjects we have named.
Thirdly, differences in educational level. This reason itself depends largely on the first two named. A child born in a wealthy family is more likely to receive an excellent education and, accordingly, a profession that brings a high income than a child in a poor family with many children.
Fourth, even with equal opportunities and the same starting levels of education, people who are sometimes called "workaholics" will receive more income. These people are ready to take work home, stay on duty at the workplace to resolve a particular professional problem, ignore their poor health, just to achieve high results in their work.
Fifth, there is a group of causes that are simply related to luck, chance, unexpected gain, etc. Under the conditions of uncertainty characteristic of a market economy, this group of causes can explain many cases of inequality in income distribution.
Thus, at least for the reasons mentioned, equality of economic opportunities is not always observed. The poor and the rich still exist even in the most prosperous highly developed countries.
Particularly noteworthy are the subjective assessments of the country's citizens regarding the causes of poverty and wealth. Thus, according to a survey of 11,585 respondents conducted by Interfax-AIF in Moscow and in November 1997, these reasons are as follows (table):
What are the causes of poverty and wealth, according to Russians?
The results of the survey show that 82% of respondents blame the existing economic system for their impoverishment, and failure and lack of talent as the cause of poverty are in last place in the above series. At the same time, the opinion reflected in the old saying “From the labors of the righteous you cannot make stone chambers” is stable - 88% and 76% of respondents, respectively, name connections and fraud as sources of wealth. And in this case, as well as the cause of poverty, more than two-thirds of those surveyed consider the economic system to be the cause of wealth. Thus, it is logical to assume that it is the latter, according to the Russians, that makes it possible to achieve high material well-being with the help of connections and fraud. The above data show that modern Russian society is still far from those relationships between government and society that are commonly called the "social contract". In other words, the alienation of the population from the ruling elite and social stratification remain topical problems of the Russian economy and in early XXI century.
But what is poverty? How to determine its level?
Economists-theorists, statistical services of the government, trade unions are engaged in calculating the level of poverty. This will determine the scale and direction of income redistribution, the construction of tax systems, pension systems, etc.
However, poverty is a relative concept. The Russian proverb “Who has shchi is watery, and who has pearls are too small” reflects this problem well. Indeed, what is a luxury for one family, is a matter of prime necessity for another. According to the well-known American economists P. Samuelson and V. Nodhaus, the level of poverty can be defined as follows: poverty is the level of income sufficient to maintain a living wage. Poor families usually spend 1/3 of their income on food. By increasing this value by 3 times, you can get the income necessary for existence at the subsistence level. Let us note that the living wage is not a physiological minimum, which can be defined as the level of income necessary for physical survival. The subsistence minimum, or poverty line, tells us not about the limit of survival, but about a certain minimum level of standard of living. Of course, this standard will be different for different countries and peoples, and for the same country, but in different historical stages its development.
So, if the society recognizes the fair support of the least well-off segments of the population, then the government of the country is engaged in the concrete implementation of social programs.
Since the Great Depression, Western societies have seen in practice that the spontaneous market mechanism can lead to severe recessions, chronic unemployment and huge areas of poverty. Therefore, although the theoretical disputes about the permissible levels of income differentiation and social justice were by no means completed, practical measures began to be introduced aimed at preventing and mitigating the social consequences of crises. From the late 40's - early 50's. In the 20th century, the concept of the “welfare state” became the official doctrine of the governments of many countries, which proclaimed the need for broad measures of social protection for the poor. But it can be said that the policy of social support began to be carried out in Western countries much earlier than the Welfare State events, from the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century (see table): Bismarck's social reforms in Germany, Disraeli in Great Britain, Roosevelt's New Deal in the USA. The state was proclaimed responsible for maintaining the minimum standard of living for the citizens of the country.
Years of adoption of laws in the field of social insurance (XIX- StartXXcenturies):
The programs of the "welfare state" include both social insurance programs related to all segments of the population, and a system of measures to support the incomes of the poorest families: old-age insurance, sickness insurance, unemployment benefits; additional state assistance programs for single-parent families with children, the blind, the disabled, etc., including food stamps, housing, and other social services.
A special role in the programs of the "welfare state" is assigned to transfers. A transfer is a gratuitous transfer of a part of the income or property of an individual or organization to the disposal of other persons. It should be noted that with the help of transfers, not only monetary income, but also economic opportunities can be redistributed. For example, poor families as a result get more opportunities to give a good education to their children, but let's not forget that this comes at the expense of taxing those with higher incomes, whose economic opportunities are also undergoing changes.
The functioning of the “welfare state” system in the post-war years faced, firstly, the growing social burden on the state budget and, consequently, its growing deficit, and, secondly, the problem of incentives for poor citizens to find work. The fact is that the developed system of social assistance in countries with market economies has increasingly made it unprofitable for poor citizens to find a job. Food stamps, benefits for mothers with children, etc. were of such magnitude that it turned out to be unprofitable to look for a job: the earnings received in this case turned out to be not much higher, if not lower, than the total social benefits received before. In this regard, many economists have proposed the introduction of a system of negative (negative) income tax (NIT), which would replace the numerous cash and in-kind payments unified system financial support for poor families.
The idea of the NIT (see table) is as follows: to pay a guaranteed minimum to those whose income zero. But, if a person has found a job, and his income begins to grow, then the NIT will be reduced with a certain coefficient. For example, the ratio is 50%. Then, upon receipt of earnings, we must reduce it by 50% and subtract this amount from the guaranteed income. So, if the guaranteed income is $8,000, then if we earn $4,000, we must reduce it by 50% (4,000 x 0.5) and subtract these $2,000 from $8,000. The resulting total income will be 4,000 + (8,000 - 2,000 ) = $10,000
Earnings and negative income tax (NIT)
earnings | Total earnings (earnings + NIT) | ||
As can be seen from the table, the negative income tax decreases with the growth of earnings. After earnings exceed $16,000, the negative income tax gives way to the ordinary, i.e., positive income tax. The problem is how to maintain incentives to work with this system of social support. If the benefit reduction ratio is too high, then it will be more profitable for a poor citizen to receive a guaranteed minimum and not look for a job. In general, families will react differently to a negative income tax, depending on the guaranteed minimum itself, the amount of earnings, and the benefit reduction factor, which acts as a negative marginal tax rate.
In connection with the income redistribution program, economists consider the so-called dilemma of efficiency and equity. Its essence lies in the fact that the desire for greater equality can result in losses in economic efficiency for society. After all, the growing funding of social programs requires higher taxes and their redistribution. So, if in the form of a tax part of Ivanov's income is transferred in the form of benefits to Petrov, then this will reduce the incentives for work for both. Ivanov has the right to ask: "Why work hard if a significant share of what you earn will have to be paid in the form of tax?" And Petrov will argue in his own way: “Why work hard if I already receive benefits?”
Thus, there is a danger that economic incentives will be undermined, productive activity will be reduced and the size of the “national pie” distributed will decrease. Consequently, the very way in which social wealth is distributed affects the size of the total product created. In addition, there are losses during the process of income redistribution. The American economist A. Oken called this problem the "leaky bucket" of social assistance. Leaks are associated with an expensive, often clumsy, bureaucratic system of the administrative apparatus. Consequently, part of the benefits goes into the pockets of highly paid administrators, consultants and employees of various tax and social services. According to Oken's calculations, the leakage from the "leaky bucket" is as follows: out of $350 taken from the wealthy, $250 is lost in the process of being given to the poor. Some researchers believe that this figure is too high, but even if it is reduced by half, it still speaks of a very large price for equality.
Another problem with the dilemma of efficiency and equity is a paradoxical phenomenon noted by many economists: the number of people classified as poor can increase as a result of efforts to combat poverty. The point is that income redistribution in general and transfers in particular change the economic behavior of people. The state has the power to change the rules of the game by introducing new system taxation. But who can say with certainty that as a result of these changes the real redistributable national income will flow from the rich to the poorest?
For example, if the government raises the marginal tax rate, people begin to behave in ways that legally or illegally evade paying taxes. And as a result, the state may not collect the necessary amounts for social programs at all. Quite often we see that the purpose of the transfer is the transfer itself! This happens because people often try to change their behavior in such a way as to receive a social transfer, and not in such a way as to increase their incentives to work with the help of state support.
Particular difficulties arise in determining who exactly is entitled to state assistance. So, in Russia at the beginning economic reforms(1993) the state promised to provide subsidies only to those livestock farms that are engaged in breeding livestock. In less than a year, many farms declared themselves breeding. Economists, wary of redistributive programs, are arguing in a polemical fervor that as soon as broad benefits for pregnant women are announced, for example, for the purchase of durable goods, many women will immediately bring certificates of their pregnancy. Again, we will see that the purpose of the transfer is the transfer itself. But the state, providing social assistance, hoped that producers and consumers would change their behavior so that incentives for work and investment would increase.
from generation to generation.
Thus, just as too much inequality undermines the stability of a society, income leveling undermines efficiency as well as incentives to work and entrepreneurship. Greater equality often comes at the cost of reduced efficiency. The most difficult thing in the implementation of the social policy of the state is to find an acceptable "social price", or payment, for a more even distribution of income.
Conclusion
So, the state policy of income is to redistribute them through the state budget through differentiated taxation of various groups of income recipients and social benefits. The most effective means of state regulation of wages is the establishment of a guaranteed minimum.
The cost of living is the cost of goods and services recognized by society as necessary to maintain an acceptable standard of living.
The quintile (decile) coefficient is used to assess the degree of income differentiation and expresses the ratio between the average incomes of the 20% (10%) of the highest paid segments of the population and the average incomes of the 20% (10%) of the poorest. The minimum consumer budget is the social minimum of goods and services in the amount necessary to ensure the normal functioning of a person. A rational consumer budget is a set of goods and services that ensures the satisfaction of rational human needs.
The social orientation of the economy presupposes its subordination to the tasks of personality development. social justice in the sphere of economics - the correspondence of the system of economic relations to the ideas that prevail in a given society.
Social policy is a system of state measures aimed at alleviating inequality in the distribution of income, resolving contradictions between participants in a market economy.
Poverty is such economic condition part of a society in which certain segments of the population do not have the minimum means of subsistence according to the norms of this society. Distinguish between absolute and relative poverty, deep and shallow (measured by the deficit of incomes of the poor in relation to the subsistence minimum).
Social partnership is the coordination of economic and social policies (especially income and taxes) between the government, entrepreneurs and trade unions.
Bibliography
Borisov E.F. Economic theory: Uch. - M: Lawyer, 2005
Introductory course on economic theory: Uch./Ed. G.P. Zhuravlev - M: INFRA - M, 2003
Efimova E.G. Economics for lawyers: Uch. - 2nd ed., Rev., and add. - M: Flint: Moscow Psychological and Social Institute, 2005
Kulikov L.M. Economic theory: Uch. - M: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2005
5. Course of economic theory: Uch. / Ed. M. N. Chepurina. - Kirov: ASA, 2006
6. McConnell K.R., Brew S.L. Economics: Principles, problems and politics: Per. from the 13th eng. Ed. - M: INFRA-M, 2005
7. Nureev R.M. Microeconomics course: Uch. - M: NORMA - INFRA-M, 2005
8. Modern economy: Uch.pos. - Rostov-on-Don "Phoenix", 2005
9. Theoretical economics. Political Economy: Uch./Ed. G.P. Zhuravleva - M: Banks and stock exchanges, UNITI, 2003
10. Economics: Uch. 3rd ed., revised. and add./Ed. A.S. Bulatova - M: Economist, 2003
11. Economics: Uch./Ed. A.I. Arkhipova, A.N. Nesterenko. - M: Prospect, 2005
Subject summary: Political science
The role and place of politics in the life of society. Social features politicians
Completed by: 3rd year student of the correspondence department
E&M groups -1 Antonova Sofia
Moscow, 2010
1. Politics, its role in the life of society. The structure of the political sphere. The political system of society
The word "politics" comes from the Greek word Politika, which means in translation "state affairs", "the art of government".
The political superstructure did not always exist. Among the reasons for its occurrence is the polarization of society, leading to the emergence of social contradictions and conflicts that need to be resolved, as well as the increased level of complexity and importance of managing society, which required the formation of special bodies of power separated from the people. The most important prerequisite for politics was the emergence of political and state power. Primitive societies were non-political.
Modern science offers various definitions of politics. Among them are the following:
1. Politics is the relationship between states, classes, social groups, nations arising from the capture, exercise and retention of political power in society, as well as relations between states in the international arena.
2. Politics is the activity of state bodies, political parties, public associations in the sphere of relations between social groups (classes, nations), states, aimed at integrating their efforts in order to strengthen political power or conquer it.
3. Politics is the sphere of activity of groups, parties, individuals, the state, associated with the implementation of generally significant interests with the help of political power.
The political system of society is understood as the totality of various political institutions, socio-political communities, forms of interactions and relationships between them, in which political power is exercised.
Functions political system societies are diverse.
1) determination of goals, objectives, ways of development of society;
2) organization of the company's activities to achieve the set goals;
3) distribution of material and spiritual resources;
4) coordination of various interests of the subjects of the political process;
5) development and implementation of various norms of behavior in society;
6) ensuring the stability and security of society;
7) political socialization of the individual, familiarizing people with political life;
8) control over the implementation of political and other norms of behavior, suppression of attempts to violate them.
The basis for the classification of political systems is, as a rule, the political regime, the nature and method of interaction between the authorities, the individual and society. According to this criterion, all political systems can be divided into totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic.
Political science distinguishes four main elements of the political system, also called subsystems:
1) institutional;
2) communicative;
3) regulatory;
4) cultural and ideological.
The institutional subsystem includes political organizations (institutions), among which the state occupies a special place. Of non-governmental organizations, political parties and socio-political movements play an important role in the political life of society.
All political institutions can be conditionally divided into three groups. The first group - proper political - includes organizations whose immediate purpose of existence is the exercise of power or influence on it (the state, political parties and socio-political movements).
The second group - non-properly political - includes organizations operating in the economic, social, cultural spheres of society (trade unions, religious and cooperative organizations, etc.). They do not set themselves independent political tasks, do not participate in the struggle for power. But their goals cannot be achieved outside the political system, so such organizations must participate in the political life of society, defending their corporate interests, seeking to take them into account and implement them in politics.
Finally, the third group includes organizations that have only a minor political aspect in their activities. They arise and function to realize the personal interests and inclinations of a certain stratum of people (hobby clubs, sports societies). They acquire a political connotation as objects of influence on the part of the state and other self-political institutions. They themselves are not active subjects of political relations.
The main institution of the political system of society is the state. Its special place in the political system is predetermined by the following factors:
1) the state has the broadest social basis, expresses the interests of the main part of the population;
2) the state is the only political organization that has a special apparatus of control and coercion, extending its power to all members of society;
3) the state has a wide range of means of influencing its citizens, while the possibilities of political parties and other organizations are limited;
4) the state establishes the legal basis for the functioning of the entire political system, adopts laws that determine the procedure for the creation and operation of other political organizations, establishes direct bans on the work of certain public organizations;
5) the state has huge material resources to ensure the implementation of its policy;
6) the state performs an integrating (unifying) role within the framework of the political system, being the "core" of the entire political life of society, since it is around the state power that the political struggle unfolds.
The communicative subsystem of the political system of society is a set of relations and forms of interaction that develop between classes, social groups, nations, individuals regarding their participation in the exercise of power, the development and implementation of policies. Political relations are the result of numerous and varied connections of political subjects in the process of political activity. People and political institutions are motivated to join them by their own political interests and needs.
Allocate primary and secondary (derivative) political relations. The first ones are various forms interactions between social groups (classes, nations, estates, etc.), as well as within them, to the second - relations between states, parties, other political institutions that reflect in their activities the interests of certain social strata or the whole society.
Political relations are built on the basis of certain rules (norms). Political norms and traditions that determine and regulate the political life of society constitute the normative subsystem of the political system of society. The most important role is played by legal norms (constitutions, laws, other normative legal acts). The activities of parties and other public organizations are regulated by their statutory and program norms. In many countries (especially in England and its former colonies), along with written political norms, unwritten customs and traditions are of great importance.
Another group of political norms is represented by ethical and moral norms, in which the ideas of the whole society or its individual strata about good and evil, truth, and justice are fixed. Modern society has come close to realizing the need to return such moral guidelines as honor, conscience, and nobility to politics.
The cultural and ideological subsystem of the political system is a set of political ideas, views, ideas, feelings of political life participants that are different in their content. The political consciousness of the subjects of the political process functions at two levels - theoretical (political ideology) and empirical (political psychology). The forms of manifestation of political ideology include views, slogans, ideas, concepts, theories, and political psychology - feelings, emotions, moods, prejudices, traditions. In the political life of society, they are equal.
In the ideological subsystem, a special place is occupied by political culture, understood as a complex of typical for a given society, rooted patterns (stereotypes) of behavior, value orientations, political views. Political culture is the experience of political activity passed down from generation to generation, in which knowledge, beliefs and behavior patterns of a person and social groups are combined.
Politics is a historically transient phenomenon. It begins to form only at a certain stage in the development of society. So, in primitive tribal society there were no political relations. The life of society was regulated by centuries-old habits and traditions. Politics as a theory and direction of social relations begins to take shape as more advanced forms of division emerge. social labor and private ownership of tools, since tribal relations were not able to regulate new relations between people using the old folk methods. Actually, starting from this stage in the development of mankind, that is, from the emergence of a slave-owning society, the first secular ideas and ideas about the origin and essence of power, state and politics appear. Naturally, the idea of the subject and essence of politics has changed, and we will focus on the interpretation of politics that is currently more or less generally accepted, that is, about politics as a theory of the state, politics as a science and art of management.
The first of the well-known thinkers who raised the issues of the development and organization of society, expressed ideas about the state, was Aristotle, who did this in the treatise “Politics”. Aristotle forms his ideas about the state based on an analysis of the social history and political structure of a number of Greek states-polises. At the heart of the Greek thinker's teaching about the state is his conviction that man is a "political animal", and his life in the state is the natural essence of man. The state is presented as a developed community of communities, and the community as a developed family. His family is the prototype of the state, and he transfers its structure to the state system. Aristotle's doctrine of the state has a clearly defined class character. The slave state is the natural state of the organization of society, and therefore the existence of slave owners and slaves, masters and subordinates is fully justified.
The main tasks of the state, that is, political power, should be to prevent the excessive accumulation of wealth among citizens, since this is fraught with social instability; the immeasurable growth of political power in the hands of one person and the keeping of slaves in obedience.
A significant contribution to the doctrine of the state and politics was made by N. Machiavelli (1469–1527), an Italian political thinker and public figure. The state and politics, according to Machiavelli, are not of religious origin, but are an independent party human activity, the embodiment of free human will within the framework of necessity, or fortune (fate, happiness). Politics is not determined by God or morality, but is the result of the practical activity of man, the natural laws of life and human psychology. The main motives that determine political activity, according to Machiavelli, are real interests, self-interest, the desire for enrichment. The sovereign, the ruler must be an absolute ruler and even a despot. It should not be limited by either moral or religious precepts in achieving its goals. Such rigidity is not a whim, it is dictated by the circumstances themselves. Only a strong and tough sovereign can ensure the normal existence and functioning of the state and keep in his sphere of influence the cruel world of people striving for wealth, prosperity and guided only by selfish principles.
The most complete doctrine of politics was developed by Marx, Engels and their followers. According to Marxism, politics is an area of human activity determined by relations between classes, social strata, ethnic groups. Its main goal is the problem of conquest, retention and use of state power. The most essential thing in politics is the structure of state power.
The state acts as a political superstructure over the economic basis. Through it, the economically dominant class secures its political dominance. In essence, the main function of the state in a class society is to protect the fundamental interests of the ruling class. Three factors ensure the power and strength of the state.
Firstly, it is a public authority, which includes a permanent administrative and bureaucratic apparatus, the army, the police, the court, and houses of detention. These are the most powerful and effective bodies of state power.
Secondly, the right to collect taxes from the population and institutions, which are necessary mainly for the maintenance of the state apparatus, power and numerous governing bodies.
Thirdly, this is an administrative-territorial division, which contributes to the development of economic ties and the creation of administrative and political conditions for their regulation.
Along with class interests, the state to a certain extent expresses and protects national interests, regulates mainly with the help of a system of legal norms the entire set of economic, socio-political, national and family relations, thereby contributing to the strengthening of the existing socio-economic order.
One of the most important levers by which the state carries out its activities is law. Law is a set of norms of behavior enshrined in laws and approved by the state. According to Marx and Engels, law is the will of the ruling class elevated to law. With the help of law, economic and social or socio-political relations are fixed, that is, the relationship between classes and social groups, the status of the family and the position of national minorities.
After the formation of the state and the establishment of law in society, political and legal relations that did not exist before are formed. Political parties express the interests of various classes and social groups as spokesmen for political relations. Political relations, the struggle between parties for power is nothing but a struggle of economic interests. Each class and social group is interested in establishing the priority of their interests in society with the help of constitutional laws. For example, workers are interested in an objective remuneration for their work, students in a scholarship that would provide them with at least food, owners of banks, factories and other property in the preservation of private property. We can say that the economy at a certain stage gives rise to politics and political parties because they are needed for a normal existence and development. .
Although politics is a product of the economy, nevertheless it has not only relative independence, but also has a certain influence on the economy, and in transitional and crisis periods this influence can even determine the path of economic development. The influence of politics on the economy is carried out in various ways: directly, through the economic policy pursued by government bodies(financing various projects, investments, commodity prices); establishment of customs duties on industrial products in order to protect domestic producers; pursuing a foreign policy that would favor the activities of domestic producers in other countries. The active role of politics in stimulating economic development can be carried out in three directions:
1) when political factors act in the same direction as the objective course of economic development, they accelerate it;
2) when they act contrary to economic development, then they hold it back;
3) they can slow down development in some directions and accelerate it in others.
The conduct of a correct policy is directly dependent on the extent to which the political forces in power are guided by the laws of social development and take into account in their activities the interests of classes and social groups.
So, we can say that in order to understand the socio-political processes taking place in society, it is important to know not only the role of social philosophy, ideology, politics separately, but also their interaction and mutual influence.
2. Place and role of politics in the development of modern society
2.1 The role of politics in society
Politics is an objectively determined and purposeful participation of large masses of people, organized social groups and individuals in the affairs of the state, in solving problems related to the life of society as a whole.
Characteristic features of politics :
The connection between the private and the general, the interest of the individual and the interest of social integrity (group, country, humanity): we enter the world of politics when we solve not only our private problems, but act on the basis of an understanding of their connection with tasks that go far beyond our personal interests when many other people are concerned about the same problems;
Any type of policy is associated with solving the problems of the existence and functioning of the state - such a social institution, which just serves to solve problems that are of interest to the whole society;
Connection with the actions and interests of large masses of people;
Purposeful activity, which presupposes the need for a sober analysis, taking into account the diversity of conditions and components of political actions, a purely impulsive response here has extremely low results (although it is often found in real politics);
Imperious character, the ability to coerce, volitional influence to give purposefulness to the actions of many people.
It must be taken into account that all the above qualities are not isolated, but mutually complement each other: for example, the imperious nature of politics predetermines the use of the state mechanism; the combination of private and general interests is carried out in a theoretical form, and the implementation of the theory, the program involves an appeal to the mechanisms of power.
The role of politics in public life is determined by its functions. Among them are the following:
Integration, unification of all elements of public life, mobilization of social resources for the implementation of common goals and interests of society;
Implementation of the common will in the presence of social differentiation, diversity of interests and socio-political orientations of people.
From the mid-50s of the XX century. in political science, the concept of “political life” introduced into scientific terminology by David Lane is actively used. It allows us to consider politics in the inseparable unity of the institutional and behavioral aspects of being, which is expressed in the following features:
Politics can act both as a sphere and result of the interaction of social and political institutions, organizations, structured political relations, and as actions of subjects of political relations;
Political life serves as a sphere of action of public interest and management, and their main instrument is power, coercion, authoritative influence, almost always using the power of the organization, which can be states, parties, unions, movements, and social institutions;
The active, active nature of politics allows people to influence many aspects of life with its help: the economy, culture, science, morality;
Large masses of people are always involved in political life: classes, ethnic and professional communities, on whose activity the orientation, appearance, and effectiveness of political events depend;
The center, the node of political life - the diverse relationship between the individual and the state.
Considering politics in this aspect is fundamentally important for a democratic society and the development of its institutions. After all, democracy is impossible without human participation, and in order to be useful to a democratic society, it must be qualified and active.
External factors influencing the course of political life:
Elements of the natural environment (territory, resources, climate, etc.). Influence political processes, form political problems and influence the choice of ways and possibilities for their solution;
Economic relations that dominate society, influencing political life (and it itself actively influences their formation);
The development of technology (its impact is manifested in such phenomena as war, an increase in the speed of information dissemination, etc.);
Status characteristics of the social structure of society, combining the fixation of the objective state of the participants in political relations (income, type of occupation, level of education) and their own ideas about their place in society;
The nature of ethno-national communities, because stable state systems are formed on the basis of the nation, nations strive for sovereignization, the formation of separate, independent state structures;
Religion, which often acts as the main factor in the consolidation of large masses of people;
Ideology is a means of spiritual rallying and guidance that directs the behavior of people in the sphere of political relations, forming the will, the desire for political action;
Funds mass media, the information they supply and interpret;
Public opinion, within the framework of which an active and direct reflection of vital needs, objective trends in social development is carried out;
Political psychology of society.
2.2 The international aspect of politics in modern society
At the turn of the millennium, the international climate changed, which became more favorable for interstate cooperation, however political changes removed only part of the contradictions between the Eastern and Western countries, the Middle Eastern states. Modern world politics has become the arena of an intensifying struggle between global and domestic political principles.
Under the influence of integration factors, the prerequisites are actively being formed in the world for the further rallying of nation states, the creation of a humanistic world order, the gradual formation of a global civil society, the establishment of norms and principles of a culture of peace in relations between peoples. More and more states are bringing accents of cooperation from the military sphere to the financial and economic fields. The practical results of such integration ties can already be called today: the undermining of the monopoly position of the great powers as the sole arbiters of the destinies of the world; democratization of international cooperation. Such trends lead to the formation of the logic of the development of a multipolar world, which, in turn, is subjected to a serious test.
The steady expansion of the subjects of international politics entails the growth of motivations for behavior in the non-political sphere. Strength, prestige, survival, increased control over resources become sources of constant and unprogrammed shifts in world politics. The reality of modern international relations presupposes the primary orientation of states towards legal norms and regulators of foreign policy relations. At the same time, the system of international law also needs a qualitative update, changes in the structure of the UN and other international organizations are required in accordance with the goals of humanization and democratization of world politics.
Politics is a set of relations that develop as a result of purposeful interaction of groups regarding the conquest, retention and use of power in order to realize their socially significant interests. In this sense, politics is understood as the result of the clash of divergent actions of groups competing both with each other and with the government. Among group needs, a block of irreconcilable interests emerged, the realization of which threatened with a sharp increase in social tension. Thus, a powerful public need was formed for new and effective ways of regulating human relations. This need was realized as the state became a specific social institution. Only government was the force that could not only ensure the implementation of group interests, but also preserve the integrity, ensure order and stability of social life. Thus, the activity of the state was aimed at trying on the warring parties and providing conditions for the survival of the whole society as a whole.
As a global mechanism for regulating social relations, politics is a way to rationalize intergroup conflicts. From the moment of its inception, the state has served as the center of power, which is capable of organizing the proper distribution of resources, statuses, and values by coercive methods. From this point of view, politics is a way of simplifying conflicts, when all their diverse content is brought under common denominator state will.
Politics as a special sphere of human life has the ability to organize its own orders at various levels of social space. Thus, by regulating interstate relations or ties between national states and international institutions (the UN, the European Union, NATO, etc.), politics plays the role of a kind of global planetary mechanism for regulating world conflicts and contradictions. Here, its subjects and agents are national states, various regional associations and coalitions, and international organizations. In this case, politics acts as the highest level way of regulating world and foreign policy relations, or as megapolitics.
Conflict relations within individual states form the level of macropolitics. This is the most common and typical level of organization of intergroup dialogue. Mesopolitics characterizes the connections and relations of a group nature, occurring at the level of individual regions, local structures, institutions and organizations. Micropolitics is a lower level of interpersonal or intragroup relations. At each level, political processes form specific institutions, mechanisms and technologies for resolving conflicts and settling disputes.
The political world is a complex and multi-layered complex of phenomena and functions of the most important institutions in the system of resolving international conflicts and achieving consensus between states.
An important task of political science is to study the patterns, basic norms and features of the interaction of states, regional and world organizations and other subjects of international relations in modern conditions. This problem has acquired particular relevance in our days, when it is especially important to study the decision-making mechanisms, the roles and functions of the most important institutions in the system of resolving international conflicts and achieving consensus between states.
Politics is a complex multidimensional concept. As a type of social activity in decision-making, distribution of benefits, setting goals, social leadership, seeking power, competition of interests and influence, politics is carried out within any social group. An analysis of various approaches to the theoretical interpretation of the political sphere allows us to conclude that it is multidimensional in nature. Politics appears in the unity of three interrelated aspects: as a sphere of public life; as one of the types of activity of social subjects and as a type of social relations between individuals, small groups, etc.
In the first aspect, politics appears as an element of the structure of society, which is assigned the functions of coordinating common and private interests, exercising dominance and maintaining order, implementing generally significant goals and managing people, regulating resources and managing public affairs.
The second aspect is related to the interpretation of politics as a way of the cumulative and individual activity of social subjects, the type of human activity and social behavior.
The third aspect characterizes politics as a type of conflict relations and social interactions.
So, the reason for the plight of Russia is not only the ill-conceived policy of the Russian ruling elite, but also the targeted actions of the NATO countries, and, above all, the United States. Many Western politicians in the 90s. spoke openly about the need to liquidate Russia as a sovereign independent state. Thus, the former Secretary of State in the administration of B. Clinton M. Albright stated: "The task of the United States is to manage the consequences of the collapse of the Soviet empire." The well-known American politician Z. Brzezinski called for the Russian economy to be placed under the indirect control of the world's leading powers
The NATO bloc is expanding at an accelerated pace, which has already come close to the borders of Russia, the United States is trying to quarrel Russia with its closest neighbors Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic countries, China, to draw it into international conflicts, to push it against the Muslim world. This, in particular, is evidenced by the events in Chechnya and the Balkans, in Georgia and Ukraine.
The plans of Western politicians to strangle the Russian state found support among our domestic globalist liberals. Externally imposed economic liberalization, which for the sake of purely personal gain has been persistently implemented since the early 1990s. our so-called "democrats", led the country to an economic catastrophe, the collapse of the national industry, depopulation (extinction) of the local population. According to A.S. Panarin, “the country is ruled by a global elite that has already made its parting with the nation and does not consider “this” people to be theirs” . Profitable geographical position Russia, the presence of a vast territory rich in various resources, and the prolonged general crisis that has struck the country make it an attractive target for external expansion.
At present, Russia has already become the object of various types of expansion: military-political (on the part of NATO); economic (from the US and some Western countries); ethnic (from China and Central Asia); confessional (from the side of the Islamic world) .
To avoid such a dramatic development of events, Russia must mobilize all its resources and direct them to strengthening statehood, to reviving its economic, military and other potential. For this required :
1) submit to the will of the people political power- force the ruling elite express and defend in foreign and domestic policy the national interests of Russian society and the state, not your personal ones;
2) to return to the state the property stolen from it, to restore state control over production and export natural resources in the development of large-scale industry, the main stake should be placed on state-capitalist production;
3) limit the ideological expansion of Western media;
4) strengthen the external borders of the state, establish a visa regime with the countries of Central Asia and Transcaucasia, stop the illegal migration of citizens of other states to Russian territory, and in every possible way facilitate the return to Russia of compatriots living in other countries;
5) to form military units of the army only on a contract basis, while maintaining general military service, without any deferment from conscription for all categories of citizens fit for military service, but limiting the conscription period to six months;
6) start a real, not ostentatious fight against corruption at all levels of government.
The events of recent years show that in order to preserve its sovereignty and its significance in the international arena, Russia in its foreign policy should not focus only on the West. It needs to pursue a prudent foreign policy, maintaining friendly relations with all countries of the world community, guided by the following principles of prioritizing its national interests which should meet the interests of the entire Russian people: international cooperation should be based on pragmatism, and not on personal and public emotions; international treaties should be concluded taking into account the need to solve specific problems and achieve certain goals, and any foreign policy actions should be considered as creating conditions for the development of the country.
The policy can be implemented on several levels:
At the lowest level, local problems are solved and political activity at this level is carried out mainly by individuals.
The local level requires state intervention, the most active policy is carried out by groups and associations interested in economic development your region;
The national level is central to the theory of politics, which is determined by the position of the state as the main institution for the distribution of resources;
At the international level, sovereign states are the main subjects of political activity.
The role of politics as a special sphere of public life due to its three properties: universality, all-encompassing nature, the ability to influence almost all aspects of life, elements of society, relationships, events; inclusion, or penetrating ability, the possibility of unlimited penetration and, as a result, the ability to combine with non-political social phenomena, relationships and spheres.
The meaning of politics is due functions that it performs in society, and which characterize the most important areas of its impact on society:
1. Ensuring the integrity and stability of society as a complex social system, integration of various segments of the population;
2. Management and regulation of social processes;
3. Expression of power-significant interests of all groups and strata of society;
5. Political socialization of the individual;
6. Mobilization and achievement of efficiency of the general activity.
Politics in its development received the status of the most important social mechanism, without which no complex society is able to reproduce and develop its social order. Currently, the role and significance of a policy depends on the performance of its following functions:
Expression and implementation of powerfully significant interests of groups and strata of society;
Rationalization of conflicts, giving intergroup relations a civilized character, appeasing the opposing sides;
Distribution and redistribution of public goods, taking into account group priorities for the life of society as a whole;
Management and management of social processes as the main method of coordinating group interests by putting forward the most common goals social development;
Integration of society and ensuring the integrity of the social system;
Socialization of the individual, its inclusion in the life of a complex state and society. Through politics, a person acquires the qualities he needs for a realistic perception of reality, overcoming the destructive consequences of subconscious reactions to political processes;
Ensuring communication. Politics creates special forms of communication between groups of the population conflicting over power, forming or using specific institutions (media), ways of maintaining contacts between the authorities and the population (political advertising), strategies for informing the population and combating competitors (propaganda, agitation, political public relations - special public relations techniques)
Creation of reality (projective function). Politics is able to form new relations between people and states, transform reality in accordance with the plans of various political actors, create new forms of organization of social life, create opportunities for new relations between man and nature.
Bibliography:
1) Smirnov I., Titov V. Philosophy: Textbook for students of higher educational institutions. M., 1998– 288 p.
2) http://policylect.narod.ru/index.html- Electronic lectures on the basics of political science3) A. V. Klimenko, V. V. Rumynina Social science. M., Bustard, 2003 - 480 p.
4) Handsome A.M. What is politics? (Political theses) // Social sciences and modernity. 1996. No. 5.
The market distribution of income without any state intervention means only one “justice”: the income of all owners of factors of production is formed on the basis of the laws of supply and demand, as well as the marginal productivity of factors. From this point of view, for example, the low income of people in unskilled labor, the demand for which is small, will be completely just. And the high income of a broker who managed to predict the price dynamics will also be fair. The market mechanism by no means provides a guaranteed level of welfare.
However, in the 20th century, concepts and doctrines are increasingly spreading in the industrialized countries of the West, entrusting the state with the task of ensuring such human rights as the right to a certain standard of well-being.
The theory and practice of the “social market economy”, which means broad social measures carried out by the state, is gaining particular popularity. Thus, in real life the distribution of income in countries with a market economy is carried out not only as a result of the free play of market forces, but also on the basis of state regulation of various income streams through their redistribution.
The social policy of the state is one of the directions of its activity in regulating the socio-economic conditions of society. The essence of the social policy of the society of the state in maintaining relations both between social groups and within them, providing conditions for improving the well-being and standard of living of members of society, creating social guarantees in the formation of economic incentives for participation in social production. At the same time, it should be noted that the social policy of the state, which acts as an integral part of the measures taken by the state in order to regulate the conditions of social production as a whole, is closely linked to the general economic situation in the country.
Social policy is multi-subject and multi-level. Social policy can be carried out not only by the state, but also by firms, enterprises, non-profit organizations. The presence of social policy is a sign of a social market economy, a sign of the social orientation of the state.
In terms of the functioning of the economic system, social policy plays a dual role.
First, by as economic growth, the accumulation of national wealth, the creation of favorable social conditions for citizens becomes the main goal of economic activity, and in this sense, the goals of economic growth are concentrated in social policy; all other aspects of economic development are beginning to be seen as a means of implementing social policy.
Secondly, social policy is also a factor in economic growth. If economic growth is not accompanied by an increase in wealth, then people lose incentives for efficient economic activity. At the same time, the higher the level of economic development achieved, the higher the requirements for people who ensure economic growth, their knowledge, culture, physical and moral development. In turn, this requires further development of the social sphere.
To engage in politics in the conditions of the ongoing transformations means to consider social life from the point of view of what masses of people are involved in these transformations, how they perceive them, what social initiatives they are ready for, what activity they show in them. In addition, political science explores a special sphere of public life - the political one, in which the main levers of social control are concentrated - the state, parties, trade unions and other socio-political organizations. Not only the process of radical transformations, but also their results depend on how these organizations will interact with each other, what content will be filled with their activities.
There are also obvious needs of an organizational nature, the emergence of which is due to the need to train specialists of the widest political profile, capable of solving practical and theoretical problems. In addition, there are needs of a theoretical and historical nature.
Politics is a set of relations that develop as a result of purposeful interaction of groups to gain, retain and use power in order to realize their socially significant interests.
Modern world politics has become the arena of an intensifying struggle of a global nature. As a global mechanism for regulating social relations, politics is a way to rationalize intergroup conflicts.
Under the influence of integration factors at this stage of development, the world is actively forming the prerequisites for the further rallying of nation states, the creation of a humanistic world order, the gradual formation of a global civil society, the establishment of norms and principles of a culture of peace in relations between peoples. More and more states are shifting the emphasis of cooperation from the military sphere to the financial and economic fields. This leads to the formation of a multipolar world.
Politics as a special sphere of human life has the ability to organize its own orders at various levels of social space. Thus, by regulating interstate relations or ties between national states and international institutions (UN, EU, NATO, etc.), politics plays the role of a global planetary mechanism for regulating world conflicts and contradictions. The subjects and agents are national states, various regional associations and coalitions, and international organizations. In this case, politics acts as a way to regulate world and foreign policy relations.
One of the tasks of political science is to study the patterns, basic norms and features of the interaction of states, regional and world organizations and other subjects of international relations in modern conditions. This problem has acquired particular relevance in our days, when it is especially important to study the decision-making mechanisms, the roles and functions of the most important institutions in the system of resolving international conflicts and achieving consensus between states.
Politics appears in the unity of three interrelated aspects: as a sphere of public life; as one of the types of activity of social subjects and as a type of social relations between individuals, small groups, etc.
In the first aspect, politics appears as an element of the structure of society, which is assigned the functions of coordinating common and private interests, exercising dominance and maintaining order, implementing generally significant goals and managing people, regulating resources and managing public affairs.
The second aspect is related to the interpretation of politics as a way of the cumulative and individual activity of social subjects, the type of human activity and social behavior.
The third aspect characterizes politics as a type of conflict relations and social interactions.
Policy can be implemented at several levels:
At the lowest level, local problems are solved and political activity at this level is carried out mainly by individuals;
At the local level, state intervention is required, the policy is carried out by groups and associations interested in the economic development of their region;
At the national level - the state is the main institution for the distribution of resources;
At the international level, sovereign states are the main subjects of political activity.
The role of politics as a special sphere of public life is due to its three properties: universality, all-encompassing nature, the ability to influence almost all aspects of life, elements of society, relationships, events; the ability to combine with non-political social phenomena, relations and spheres.
The significance of politics is due to the functions that it performs in society, and which characterize the most important areas of its impact on society:
1. Ensuring the integrity and stability of society as a complex social system, the integration of various segments of the population;
2. Management and regulation of social processes;
3. Expression of power-significant interests of all groups and strata of society;
5. Political socialization of the individual;
6. Mobilization and achievement of efficiency of the general activity.
Politics in its development has received the status of the most important social mechanism, without which no complex society is able to reproduce and develop its social order.
Currently, the role and significance of a policy depends on the performance of its following functions:
Expression and implementation of powerfully significant interests of groups and strata of society;
Rationalization of conflicts, giving intergroup relations a civilized character, appeasing the opposing sides;
Distribution and redistribution of public goods, taking into account group priorities for the life of society as a whole;
Management and management of social processes as the main method of coordinating group interests by putting forward the most common goals of social development;
Integration of society and ensuring the integrity of the social system;
Socialization of the individual, its inclusion in the life of a complex state and society. Through politics, a person acquires the qualities he needs for a realistic perception of reality, overcoming the destructive consequences of subconscious reactions to political processes;
Ensuring communication. Politics creates special forms of communication between groups of the population conflicting over power, forming or using specific institutions for this.
(media), ways to maintain contacts between the authorities and the population (political advertising), strategies to inform the population and fight competitors (propaganda, agitation, political public relations - special public relations techniques)
Creation of reality (projective function).