Architectic component of institutional networks development strategy in the context of national security providing Текст научной статьи по специальности «Экономика и бизнес»

UDC: 330.341.1:159.9

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32689/2617-2224-2019-18-3-321-335

Omelyanenko Vitalii Anatoliyovych,

PhD, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of Business Economics and Administration Department, Sumy State Pedagogical University named after A. S. Makarenko, 40002, Sumy, Romenskaia str, 87, tel.: +38 (095) 167 5952, e-mail: [email protected]

ORCID: 0000-0003-0713-1444

Омельяненко Вталш Анатолшович,

кандидат eKOHOMiuHux наук, доцент, доцент кафедри бiзнeс-eкономiки та адмi-тстрування, Сумський державний педа-гогiчний утверситет iM. А. С. Макаренка, 40002, м. Суми, вул. Роменська, 87, тел.: +38 (095) 167 5952, е-mail: omvitaliy@ gmail.com

ORCID: 0000-0003-0713-1444

Омельяненко Виталий Анатольевич,

кандидат экономических наук, доцент, доцент кафедры бизнес-экономики и администрирования, Сумской государственный педагогический университет им. А. С. Макаренко, 40002, г. Сумы, ул. Роменская, 87, тел.: +38(095) 167 5952, е-тай: отокаИу@ gmail.com

ORCID: 0000-0003-0713-1444

architects component of institutional

networks development strategy in the

context of national security providing

Abstract. The relevance of the study of the security aspects of the present processes and the prospects for development within the framework of the archetype methodology is determined by the fact that the systemic transformation of society requires a more precise determination of the factors of a number of processes. This issue is also actualized in the context of the course on forming an effective dialogue with the society, research of mechanisms and ways to improve the quality of interaction between the state, business and society. Therefore, it becomes necessary to develop the theoretical and methodological foundations of an integrated model for organizing the interaction of the processes of individual self-regulation, corporate development and public administration based on an archetype approach. The aim of the study is to analyze the archetypal component

of the formation of institutional networks in the context of security strategies. Institutional-network approach to security strategies involves consideration of a set of institutions and the laws of their interaction within the framework of active networks that ensure the transformation of resources into real results by effective methods in accordance with the national context and the needs of society. The source of the answers to the question of security is proposed to consider from the point of view of archetypes. The approaches outlined in the study are based on the understanding that in modern conditions of government and responding to threats to national security cannot be limited to traditional methods. The role of sociocultural institutions has been determined, which rises in modern conditions in solving problems in the security-development system, on the one hand, and the objective need to use their potential, on the other. This makes it possible to include archetypes in the processes of ensuring security not only on the basis of the complementarity principle, but also on an equal footing due to the development of their interaction with formal institutions. Using an archetypal approach will help to develop innovative approaches to the development of security strategies through solutions based on comprehensive research and public policy agendas.

Keywords: national security, archetype, institution, institutional network, strategy.

АРХЕТИПНА СКЛАДОВА СТРАТЕГИ РОЗВИТКУ ШСТИТУЦШНИХ МЕРЕЖ В КОНТЕКСТ ЗАБЕЗПЕЧЕННЯ НАЩОНАЛЬНО! БЕЗПЕКИ

Анотащя. Актуальшсть дослщження безпекового аспекту процеав сього-дення та перспектив розвитку в рамках архетипно! методологи визначаеть-ся тим, що системна трансформащя сустльства вимагае точшше визначати чинники ряду процеав. Ця проблематика також актуалiзуеться в контекст курсу на формування ефективного дiалогу i3 сустльством, дослщження ме-ханiзмiв i способiв полшшення якост взаемоди держави, бiзнесу та сусшльства. Тому виникае необхщшсть розроблення теоретико-методолопчних основ комплексно! моделi оргашзаци взаемоди процеав шдивщуального са-морегулювання, корпоративного розвитку та державного управлшня на ос-новi архетипного шдходу. Метою дослщження е аналiз архетипно! складово! формування iнституцiйних мереж у контексл безпекових стратегiй. 1нститу-цiонально-мережевий пiдхiд до безпекових стратегш припускае розгляд су-купностi шститупв та закономiрностей !х взаемодi'i в рамках активних мереж, що забезпечують перетворення ресурав в реaльнi результати ефективними методами вщповщно до нащонального контексту та зaпитiв соцiуму. Джере-ло вiдповiдей на питання забезпечення безпеки запропоновано розглядати з точки зору архетитв. Шдходи, виклaденi в дослщженш, Грунтуються на розумiннi того, що в сучасних умовах не може обмежуватися традицшними методами управлшня та реагування на загрози нащональнш безпещ. Визна-чено роль сощокультурних iнститутiв, що пiдвищуеться в сучасних умовах у виршенш проблем в системi "безпека - розвиток", з одного боку, i об'ектив-

на необхщшсть використання 1х потенцiалу, з шшого. Це зумовлюе можли-вють включення архетипiв у процеси забезпечення безпеки не лише на осно-вi принципу додатковостi, а й на паритетних засадах за рахунок розвитку 1х взаемоди з формальними шститутами. Використання архетипного пiдходу сприятиме виробленню iнновацiйних пiдходiв до розвитку безпекових стратеги за допомогою рiшень, заснованих на комплексних дослщженнях i порядку денному в сферi публiчноl полiтики.

Ключовi слова: нащональна безпека, архетип, iнститут, мережа шститу-тiв, стратегiя.

АРХЕТИПНАЯ СОСТАВЛЯЮЩАЯ СТРАТЕГИИ РАЗВИТИЯ ИНСТИТУЦИОННЫХ СЕТЕЙ В КОНТЕКСТЕ ОБЕСПЕЧЕНИЯ НАЦИОНАЛЬНОЙ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ

Аннотация. Актуальность исследования аспекта безопасности процессов настоящего и перспектив развития в рамках архетипной методологии определяется тем, что системная трансформация общества требует более точно определять факторы ряда процессов. Эта проблематика также актуализируется в контексте курса на формирование эффективного диалога с обществом, исследование механизмов и способов улучшения качества взаимодействия государства, бизнеса и общества. Поэтому возникает необходимость разработки теоретико-методологических основ комплексной модели организации взаимодействия процессов индивидуального саморегулирования, корпоративного развития и государственного управления на основе архетипного подхода. Целью исследования является анализ архетипной составляющей формирования институционных сетей в контексте стратегий обеспечения безопасности. Институционально-сетевой подход к стратегиям обеспечения безопасности предполагает рассмотрение совокупности институтов и закономерностей их взаимодействия в рамках активных сетей, которые обеспечивают превращение ресурсов в реальные результаты эффективными методами согласно национальному контексту и запросам социума. Источник ответов на вопрос обеспечения безопасности предложено рассматривать с точки зрения архетипов. Подходы, изложенные в исследовании, основываются на понимании того, что в современных условиях управления и реагирование на угрозы национальной безопасности не может ограничиваться традиционными методами. Определена роль социокультурных институтов, которая повышается в современных условиях в решении проблем в системе "безопасность - развитие", с одной стороны, и объективная необходимость использования их потенциала, с другой. Это обусловливает возможность включения архетипов в процессы обеспечения безопасности не только на основе принципа дополнительности, но и на паритетных началах за счет развития их взаимодействия с формальными институтами. Использование архетипного подхода будет содействовать выработке инновационных подходов к развитию стратегий обеспечения безопасности с помощью решений, основанных на комплексных исследованиях и повестке дня в сфере публичной политики.

Ключевые слова: национальная безопасность, архетип, институт, сеть институтов, стратегия.

Formulation of the problem. The

urgency of the study of the security aspect of current processes and development perspectives within the archetype methodology is determined by the fact that the systemic transformation of society, the construction of its own statehood, and the correction of the vectors of foreign policy activity requires more precisely to determine the factors of a number of processes. This problem is also actualized in the context of the course on the formation of an effective dialogue with the society, the study of mechanisms and ways to improve the quality of interaction between the state, business and society and is an actual scientific and practical problem.

The worldwide experience of "leaps" in development convincingly suggests that they can only be achieved by attracting and concentrating a significant amount of resources and their focus on priority areas identified on the basis of public dialogue under the coordination of the state. In domestic practice, predominantly as a resource, consider economic (financial), neglecting the factors of human nature (factors of formation and use of social and human capital), which are most important in modern conditions.

Consequently, the current political and economic situation sharply raises the question of finding the best forms and strategies for organizing the security of both the individual and the state as a whole, taking into account national peculiarities. Despite the fact that the

issues of the mentality are well understood, but as a safety factor, it is an important and relevant research object. Therefore, there is a need to develop theoretical and methodological foundations of a complex model for organizing the interaction of processes of individual self-regulation, corporate development and public administration on the basis of an archetypal approach.

Analysis of research and publications. The active interaction of socio-cultural institutions and their archetypal basis in solving security problems causes changes both in the management of this interaction, and in the system for managing the development of security spheres at the expense of a significant expansion of their spectrum [1-3].

The study [4] rightly notes that in the context of the development of systemic development strategies, there are problems of scientific synthesis, in particular the synthesis of the spectrum of social sciences with emphasis on the socialization and humanization of economic theory. The history of economic exercises demonstrates a clear tendency for transition from simple two-dimensional models of interaction and behavior on the market to more complex, systematic, to attempts to take into account social aspects of behavior, including ethics (Adam Smith also paid attention to it).

The basis for such synthesis can be the evolution of understanding of the processes of social development. Already since the XVIII century the

peoples begin to be treated as collective individuals, endowed with individual "characters" (Montesquieu, Herder) with the corresponding consequences. A little later, romance develops the doctrine of the "spirit of the people" as a given form of attitude towards the world and the corresponding program of its historical self-realization [5].

The co-founder of Deepmind Mustafa Suleiman expressed the need to develop new models of socio-economic processes. Recognizing the success of the existing system (capitalism and modernity), he notes that the system has strategically ceased to serve the benefit of mankind. Need new "forms of mind" and tools that will help solve current problems.

From this point of view, the archetypal component forms a new plane of analysis, bringing into circulation new resources of non-material nature. At one time Adam Smith cited the evidence that human behavior leads to the birth of a new order.

According to the well-known Ukrainian economist M. Tugan-Baranovsky, the psychological feelings of a person, in particular religion, patriotism, morality, national character and self-awareness, and other factors of non-material nature, are capable of being the most powerful forces in the development of economic activity, and intangible values — even a greater motive than material needs [6].

Separate elements of archetypical methodology are found in V. Verna-dsky's doctrine of the noosphere, within which the survival of civilization is possible only on condition of harmonization of the relations of man, society and nature as a whole on the basis of the

global thinking and responsibility of human for life (understanding himself in the world). The research [7] notes that solving problems of noosphere social reproduction should proceed from the understanding that a person is included not only in the socio-economic, sociocultural, innovative, socio-histo-rical, but also in the evolutionary (genetic) global process.

In the framework of this we propose to consider the possibility of obtaining resources as a result of taking into account archetypes within the security aspect. As part of modern approaches, culture and, above all, mentality and social institutions can both promote and prevent the realization of opportunities embodied in market relations and democracy [8].

The model of group behavior of Houmanse shows that informal organizations dynamically interact with the formal, affect the adoption of various solutions. In modern conditions, this interaction takes place within the system of network structures.

As part of the strategic analysis, we note Myrdal [9], who is a representative of the direction of institutionalism, which pays heed to moral, ethical and social factors. The role of these issues often dominates its own political and economic problems. One of the most important ideas of Myrdal is the principle of general causality, according to which patterns of interaction between economic and non-economic (social) variables are constructed. According to these models, we can trace the close relationship between the level of health care, education, social assistance and productivity. Inclusion in the analysis of non-economic variables opens up the

possibility of studying numerous interdependent processes, for which the generally accepted economic analysis is not suitable.

The conducted analysis of the studies showed that the security component is almost not considered within the framework of the archetypal approach, which leads to a loss of potential to counter threats to national security.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the archetypal component of the formation of institutional networks in the context of security strategies.

The research methodology includes general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, historical and logical, system and structural-functional analysis, simulation institutional and evolutionary modeling with the aim of maximizing synergy effects in public management space and a systematic approach to its construction.

To solve a wide range of optimization tasks, adapted decision-making methods will be used based on optimization of performance indicators, methods for finding innovative ways of development, methods of complex analysis of policy development and methods of project management. At the same time, the necessity of attracting archetype methodology is conditioned by the fact that the tasks of complex reformation of public administration should be decided taking into account national features of each country.

The institutional and network approach to security strategies involves consideration of the totality of institutions and the patterns of their interaction within the framework of active networks, which ensure the conversion of resources into real results by effec-

tive methods in accordance with the national context and the needs of society. In the study, some aspects of this approach will be studied in case studies as examples of leading experience.

The methodology of the research is also based on the ideas of the researchers at the Copenhagen School, which fundamentally influenced the development of modern security research [10]:

• a broader understanding of the concept of "security", which is no longer confined to military discourse. Instead, the five main sectors in which security issues are emerging as the most significant are considered: military; political; ecological; economic and societal;

• security research comes from the sphere of international relations, adding to them the maximum interdisciplinary character;

• developed the analytical concept of "securitization", which helps in the study of how one or another case can be attributed or not referred to security.

In the context of these ideas, the archetypal component is a new aspect of the analysis of institutional interactions.

Presenting main material. In modern conditions, interaction strategies play a special role in organizing socio-systems and allow you to identify new aspects of a number of processes through the synthesis of interdisciplinary knowledge. At the expert level, even the characteristic feature of the industry 4.0 solutions — "the effectiveness of interaction" — was formed. This phrase is often the starting point for assessing the readiness of societies for the new conditions of development. Ability to interact with others — quickly integrate into network communications or

adapt to new conditions, openness to such interactions becomes essential factors of competitiveness, which in turn becomes a mechanism for ensuring security.

The paper [11] describes the trends of the modern model of innovation development. The authors state that in recent times the requirements for state policy have increased significantly, as global competition changes the usual state of affairs. National and regional innovation systems need to be strengthened on the basis of institutional coordination.

For example, in the US, politics is a coordinated, state-funded initiative to mobilize national resources to accelerate innovation and technological change and maintain leadership in global competition. In these circumstances, the question arises of developing national strategies, since for Ukraine a new technological revolution represents a chance to change the role of global economic competition, but the state does not yet fully exploit the existing innovative potential.

At the end of the last century, the security systems of the United States and Western Europe have undergone transformation aimed at implementing the principle of "active social partnership", which implies the integration of social activity into the security system. Widespread use has been made of communicative policies such as community policing, problem-oriented services, municipal and community-based prevention services, and so on.

In Ukraine, we can mention the "mentality of silence", since numerous polls show that an absolute majority of Ukrainians do not report corruption,

considering that this will not change anything. For comparison, one can cite the fact that on average 90 % of the inhabitants of Norway, Denmark and the United Kingdom are ready to inform the authorities of the facts of corruption.

In accordance with the spatial and geographical interaction of social institutions, we can identify such interconnected levels of security — global, international, national, social and personal in a single network structure, where they are of equal value [12]. Thus, the national security system is a functional system with interdependent components, among which, for the purposes of our study, we distinguish the following:

• national interests;

• threats to national security;

• national values and archetypes;

• an institutional system for ensuring national security.

It is within the framework of the last component that it is worth considering the network aspect. Accordingly, the system of ensuring national security can be considered as structurally organized activities of the authorities (a network of formal institutions), various organizations, citizens (networks of informal institutions), combined goals and objectives for preventing, eliminating and eliminating external and internal threats.

In the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy [13], a social (social) institution is defined as "historically formed or purposeful effort to form a common life of people whose existence is dictated by the need to meet the social, economic, political, cultural or other needs of society as a whole or a part of it".

Institutes represent the structure that people impose on their relationships, thus defining the incentives for development. In the case of an institutional network, total opportunities are also growing [14].

The security aspect of the influence of archetypes should be viewed from the point of view of the capital formed in the institutional networks and at the same time influencing their evolution.

In fig. 1 shows the scheme of formation of institutional networks in the context of a security approach that takes into account the generation of capital of interaction, as well as the task and outcome of security management.

In accordance with the classical approach outlined in the study [15], structural capital includes client and organizational capital.

Client capital represents the value of customer relationships. Organizational capital includes innovative capital (mainly capital of innovation) and process capital, which is an infrastructure (information technology, work processes, etc.), that is capital, materialized in effective internal processes.

The complexity of constructing empirical models of the influence of intellectual capital on the results of activity is primarily due to its special properties, which must be taken into account when developing hypotheses, the choice of analytical methods, as well as the interpretation of the results.

The following characteristics of the intellectual capital can be classified as follows [16]:

• the properties of the public good — not exclusivity and noncompetitive-ness, leading to the emergence of multi-

Fig. 1. Scheme of formation of institutional networks in the context of a security

approach

directional results in the use of intellectual capital;

• ability to reproduce when the components of intellectual capital do not lose their value in distribution on a part, and increase it in distribution and exchange;

• inseparability from the carrier (in the case of human capital);

• subjectivity, which means that the value of knowledge strongly depends on the context of their use.

Considering the structure of society and the development of resources (capital), it should be noted three basic institutional levels: political, economic, and socio-cultural (mental). The upper part of the structure is formed by political institutions, through which the chosen political model is realized. The basic component on which political and economic institutions rely, organize socio-cultural (mental) structures that provide the internal integrity of society along with economic interests and political preferences. In turn, they are largely determined by socio-cultural norms, traditions, and customs that have been formed at the mental level.

The national security system is based on the concept of ensuring national security, whose historical change is closely linked to the development and establishment of democratic regimes [12]. Accordingly, the key questions in analyzing the concepts of ensuring national security are the following questions: which of the interest groups have the greatest influence in building the hierarchy of goals; how they affect the state of national security; is there a partnership between the state and society in this matter; is society permissible in the process of making decisions on

security issues; are the goals and objectives of ensuring national security a result of social dialogue.

The institutional network combines various processes at micro and macro levels. Berneys [17], one of the first PR professionals in the United States, identifies PR as an area of activity designee to engage in relationships between a person, group, idea or other unit of the public on which it depends.

Network interaction of institutions that are essentially based on a socio-cultural (archetypal) basis, acts as a factor in the development of these components of national security, and they respectively affect the nature and content of the interaction of institutes. In this context, the problem is often confronted with formal and informal institutions based on archetypes.

Formal institutions consist mainly of existing informal rules and mechanisms. The structure of formal institutes is formed by economic, political institutions, as well as the system of treaties.

Informal institutions are an integral part of the modern structure of society. Informal institutes functioned long before the transformation into legally and organizationally formulated rules of interaction. Moreover, the multidirectional nature of these institutions has necessitated the emergence of institutes and civil society organizations that provide for the realization of these interests. The most important functions of non-formal institutes are the maintenance of a relationship between the state, on the one hand, and business, on the other.

It is in the underestimation of institutional problems and their nature that

the main reason for the failures of reforming the public space lies. According to D. North's concept [18], institutions limit and define the range of alternatives available to economic agents and influence their decisions. In our opinion, the archetypal approach allows us to specify the reasons for the development of alternatives and success or failure in their practical implementation.

Using an institutional approach can overcome the barriers that can not overcome neoclassical theories. In countries with a low level of development of social institutions, where there is no trust between government, business and society, economic institutions can not obtain and rationally use market information that reduces the rate of development even at high investment rates.

The study [19] shows that developed countries with strong economies (in particular, the United Kingdom, Argentina, and the People's Republic of China) place on the development institutions the task of transforming depressed or underdeveloped areas into spaces for people and business. In this case, specially created development institutes are an effective tool, as they accumulate human capital (expertise and competencies) needed to develop grounded in the system (organic) content of development plans and their implementation into reality.

The archetypal basis of the evolution of development institutes is the criticality that promotes progress through the discovery of omission and disadvantages to overcome them. For example, Confucianism has developed an ideal that needs to be achieved and the presence of which inevitably leads

to a critical relation to the existing reality. On the basis of this, the study [8], for example, concluded that Confucianism forms critical thinking and thus contributes to social progress.

An example of interdisciplinary use of synergetics can serve as a model of migration. This issue is quite painful for a number of developing countries. It distinguishes between the microlevel of individual decisions and the macro level of dynamic collective processes in society. Macroprocesses are described at the level of socio-configurations, each of which is characterized by its vector of behavior. Migration in society is also well illustrated by computer models with changing centers, due to non-linear interactions of social groups.

The relevant network strategy considers the sustainability of economic growth as the result of systematically coordinated the use of modern competitive advantages (innovative, informational and intellectual) at all stages of the chain of value creation with the participation of a number of agents and institutions.

The security strategy focuses on the coordinated work of development institutions on the basis of market mechanisms, information exchange and coordination of actions, which should involve government structures at different levels, public associations and business.

The Network of Institutes Coordination is a multilateral institutional platform for continuous exchange, modeling and building up of experience and knowledge through the creation of an expert network in the field of public administration development.

In the context of security issues, we note the readiness of institutional networks to counteract threats. The interaction of institutes that have a network character and takes into account the archetypal structure can lead to the creation of a network socio-cultural organization, based on the implementation of interaction models that promote the pooling of resources and the development of agreed solutions (fig. 2).

Networks provide the formulation of proposals for joint actions with other institutions, in search of interested institutions and for the establishment of interaction. If there is an event in a certain institute, they are immediately informed about others.

The factor of active networks based on archetypes should be taken into account in the context of the gradual decrease in the effectiveness of the traditional force-based approaches to security strategies. The soft-power mechanisms, in particular, network

technologies for advancing priorities, the formation of an information environment, cultural and educational programs, image design, and so on began to emerge from the outset in politics.

The formation of development networks can be considered from the theoretical component of the evolution of community communities and the security of their development. Today, cities are drivers for the development of the world economy and they account for up to 80 % of the gross domestic product, which is shaped by the concentration of human capital and lower transaction costs.

Cities (communities) undergo the following stages of evolution:

• City 1.0 — an industrial city with a developed industry; large enterprises are located;

• City 2.0 — the city moves more to the sphere of services, development of small and medium business;

Field of interest

Socio-cultural basis

Fig. 2. Scheme for the formation of an active institutional network

• City 3.0 — the post-industrial city, which is the center of education, the center of technology, the center of knowledge. City 3.0 is also a well-developed public initiative that develops global education, multicultural-ism, international communication and becomes a center of knowledge and technology. For example, in London only 2 % of the gross product is formed by industry. At the forefront are financial markets and the knowledge economy.

The presented evolution illustrates changes in the basis of development and growth of the role of the socio-cultural factor of the development of new industries.

We can also consider cooperation between universities, business and society as networks of development institutes. Within this framework, it is advisable to consider the peculiarities of the strategic role of academic institutions, in particular in the context of three main missions: educational, research (scientific) and social. Analyzing the state of implementation of these missions, we can note the practical absence of system processes in the latter two, which leads to the loss of development potential and impairs the realization of an educational component that is not related to practice.

Formation of networks of institutions not only facilitates the efficient transfer of knowledge, but also allows scientists to formulate topical research tasks, conduct high-quality research and obtain a clearer idea of how to apply the results of research in the disciplines (ie, to increase their value and potential for other institutions). In this example, we see an increase in the value of all of the above types of capital. This

aspect can be successfully used in other areas of public administration.

Conclusions and perspectives of further research. The source of the answers to the questions of security is proposed to consider from the point of view of archetypes. The approaches outlined in the study are based on the understanding that under current conditions of management and response to threats to national security can not be limited to traditional methods, but should take into account the resource potential of an archetypal component.

The role of socio-cultural institutions is determined, which is rising in the current conditions in solving problems in the system "security — development" on the one hand, and the objective need to use their potential, on the other. This leads to the possibility of incorporating socio-cultural institutions in security assurance processes not only on the basis of the principle of additionality, but also on a parity basis through the development of their interaction with formal institutions. It can stimulate the transformation of public administration through the strengthening and utilization of human potential and cooperation mechanisms.

The use of an archetypal approach will foster the development of innovative approaches to the development of security strategies through scientifically sound decisions based on integrated research and agenda in the field of public policy.

Further research should be focused on the analysis of specific institutional networks that are emerging (to be formed) to address certain security issues.

references -

1. Bloksberg L, Mogulof D, Stern M., Walter F. (1964). Homans' Theory Of The Human Group: Applications To Problems of Administration, Policy, and Staff Training In Group Service Agencies. Journal of Jewish Communal Service: National Conference of Jewish Communal Service, 379-395.

2. Prokopenko O, Omelyanenko V., Os-sik Yu. (2018). National Security & Innovation Activities: Methodology, Policy and Practice. Ruda Sl^ska: Dru-karnia i Studio Graficzne Omnidium.

3. Omelyanenko V. A. (2018). Archetypical analysis of the innovation development resources of European public administrative space (comparative approach). Public management, 4 (14), 198-212.

4. Yarovyi A. M. (2013). Metodolohichni innovatsii ekonomichnoi nauky v kon-teksti perekhodu do novoi paradyhmy postmodernizmu [Methodological innovations in economic science in the context of the transition to a new paradigm of postmodernism]. Rehional-na biznes-ekonomika ta upravlinnia — Regional Business Economics and Management, 4, 77-85 [in Ukrainian].

5. Andreyev A. L. (2002). Politicheskaya psikhologiya [Political psychology]. Moscow: Ves Mir. [in Russian].

6. Gulevich O. Yu. (2015). Trudovyi men-talitet yak instytutsionalnyi indykator sotsialno-ekonomichnoho rozvytku suspilstva [Labor mentality as an institutional indicator of socio-economic development of society]. Nauko-vyi visnyk NASOA - NASOA Scientific Bulletin, 1, 35-42 [in Ukrainian].

7. Nikitenko P. G. (2010). Noosfernaya ekonomika kak planetarnaya zhizne-deyatelnostnaya khozyaystvennaya sfera tsivilizatsionnogo razvitiya [Noosphere economy as a planetary vital activity economic sphere of civi-

lizational development]. Ekonomi-cheskiye i sotsialnyye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz — Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast, 3 (11). Retrieved from http://esc.vol-nc.ru/article/157 [in Russian].

8. Yakupov S. F. (2013). Mentalitet i sotsialnyye instituty kak faktory progressa: na primere indiyskoy tsivilizat-sii [Mentality and social institutions as factors of progress: the example of Indian civilization]. Vestnik Chely-abinskogo gosudarstvennogo univer-siteta - Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, 13 (304). Filosofiya. Sotsio-logiya. Kulturologiya, 29, 33-40. [in Russian].

9. Myurdal G. (1970). Aziatskaya drama: Issledovaniye nishchety narodov [Asian drama: A study of the poverty of nations]. Moscow [in Russian].

10. Yurin A. N. (2016). K ponyatiyu bezo-pasnost: kto i kak opredelyayet ugrozu segodnya? [On the concept of security: who and how determines the threat today?]. Regional Dialogue, 14.06.2016. Retrieved from http://regional-dia-logue.com/ru/security/ [in Russian].

11. Cervantes M., Meissner D. (2014). Commercialising Public Research under the Open Innovation Model: New Trends. Foresight, Vol. 8, № 3, 70-81.

12. Yashina A. V. (2013). Kontseptsii obe-specheniya natsionalnoy bezopasnosti v demokraticheskikh gosudarstvakh [Concepts of ensuring national security in democratic states]. Sankt-Peter-burg: S.-Peterb. gos. un-t. [in Russian].

13. Social Institutions. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. plato.stan-ford.edu. Retrieved from https:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-in-stitutions/

14. Dupont B. (2004). Security in the age of networks. Policing & Society, 14(1), 76-91.

15. Edvinson L. (2005). Korporativnaya dolgota: Navigatsiya v ekonomike.

osnovannoy na znaniyakh [Corporate Longitude: Navigation in a Knowledge-Based Economy]. Moscow. INFRA-M [in Russian].

16. Tseng C.-Y, Goo Y.-J. J. (2005). Intellectual Capital and Corporate Value in an Emerging Economy: Empirical Study of Taiwanese Manufacturers. R&D Management, Vol. 35. № 2, 187199.

17. Berneys E. М. (2010). Propaganda [Propaganda]. Hippo Publishing LTD. Retrieved from https://propaganda-history.ru/books/Edvard-Berneys_ Propaganda/ [in Russian].

18. North D. (1989). Institutions and Economic Growth: An Historical Introduction. World Development, vol. 17, № 9, 1319-1332.

19. Instituty razvitiya gorodov: uspesh-nyye keysy [Urban Development Institutions: Successful Case Studies]. habr.com. Retrieved from https:// habr.com/ru/post/405343/ [in Russian].

список використаних джерел -

1. Bloksberg L, Mogulof D, Stern M., Walter F. Homans' Theory Of The Human Group: Applications To Problems of Administration, Policy, and Staff Training In Group Service Agencies // Journal of Jewish Communal Service: National Conference of Jewish Communal Service. 1964, p. 379-395.

2. National Security & Innovation Activities: Methodology, Policy and Practice. edited by Dr. of Economics, Prof. O. Prokopenko, Ph.D in Economics V. Omelyanenko, Ph.D in Technical Sciences, Assoc. Prof. Yu. Ossik. — Ruda Sl^ska: Drukarnia i Studio Gra-ficzne Omnidium. 2018. 416 p.

3. Omelyanenko V. A. Archetypical analysis of the innovation development resources of European public admi-

nistrative space (comparative approach) // Public management. — 2018. — № 4 (14). — Р. 198-212.

4. Яровий А. М. Методолопчш шно-ващ1 eK0H0Mi4H0Ï науки в контекст переходу до ново! парадигми пост-модершзму // Репональна 6i3Hec-економша та управлшня. — 2013. — № 4. — С. 77-85.

5. Андреев А. Л. Политическая психология. — М.: Весь мир, 2002.

6. Гулевич О. Ю. Трудовий менталггет як шститущональний шдикатор со-цiально-економiчного розвитку су-сшльства // Наук. вюн. НАСОА. -2015. — № 1. — С. 35-42.

7. Никитенко П. Г. Ноосферная экономика как планетарная жизнедея-тельностная хозяйственная сфера щивилизащионного развития // Экономические и социальные перемены: факты, тенденщии, прогноз. — 2010. — № 3 (11). — URL: http://esc. volnc.ru/article/157

8. Якупов С. Ф. Менталитет и социальные институты как факторы прогресса: на примере индийской цивилизации // Вестн. Челябинского гос. ун-та. — 2013. — № 13 (304). Философия. Социология. Культурология. — Вып. 29. — С. 33-40.

9. Мюрдаль Г. Азиатская драма: Исследование нищеты народов. — М., 1970. — 204 с.

10. Юрин А. Н. К понятию безопасность: кто и как определяет угрозу сегодня? // Regional Dialogue. 14.06.2016. URL: http://regional-dialogue.com/ ru/security/

11. Cervantes M., Meissner D. Commercialising Public Research under the Open Innovation Model: New Trends // Foresight. — 2014. — Vol. 8. — № 3. — Р. 70-81.

12. Яшина А. В. Концепции обеспечения национальной безопасности в демократических государствах. — С.-Пе-терб. гос. ун-т. — СПб., 2013. — 237 с.

13. Social Institutions. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. URL: https:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-in-stitutions/

14. Dupont B. Security in the age of networks // Policing & Society. —

2004. — № 14 (1). — Р. 76-91.

15. Эдвинсон Л. Корпоративная долгота: Навигация в экономике, основанной на знаниях. — М.: ИНФРА-М,

2005.

16. Tseng C.-Y, Goo Y.-J. J. Intellectual Capital and Corporate Value in an Emerging Economy: Empirical Study

of Taiwanese Manufacturers // R&D Management. — 2005. — Vol. 35. -№ 2. — P. 187-199.

17. Бернейс Э. М. Пропаганда. Hippo Publishing LTD, 2010. URL: https:// propagandahistory.ru/books/Edvard-Berneys_Propaganda/

18. North D. Institutions and Economic Growth: An Historical Introduction // World Development. — 1989. — Vol. 17. — № 9. — Р. 1319-1332.

19. Институты развития городов: успешные кейсы. URL: https://habr. com/ru/post/405343/