CC BY
5DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2022-23-1-7 JEL classification: I00, C21, D61
Ekaterina S. Ogorodnikova Ural State University of Economics, Ekaterinburg, Russia Andrey E. Plakhin Ural State University of Economics, Ekaterinburg, Russia
Konstantin V. Rostovtsev Ural State University of Economics, Ekaterinburg, Russia
Hybrid model for the social services sphere: Organisational and economic aspects
Abstract. The hybrid model of the social services sphere, which has formed during the transition of the planned economies to the market, suffers from certain limitations. Specifically, the main criterion to select services providers is cost reduction, while the services output and the population sufficiency with the provision of services are not taken into account, which contradicts the principles of the social state. The article aims to substantiate a methodological approach that allows forming a hybrid model for the social services sphere based on the principle of allocative efficiency, which provides for the comparison of the output by social services providers from the public, private and non-profit sectors of the economy. The methodological basis of the study includes the club theory, theories of public goods, competition, and efficiency. The major research method is comparative analysis. The paper proposes a method for building the said model for the social services sphere, where the criterion of hybridization is allocative efficiency. The papers forecasts the volume of social services industries' output given the introduction of principle of allocative efficiency. Comparison of this data with the output of the existing hybrid model reveals that significant resources can be released to be potentially redirected to satisfy other social needs. This confirms the reliability of the formulated methodological provisions.
Keywords: social services; efficiency; allocative efficiency; hybrid model; social sphere.
For citation: Ogorodnikova E. S., Plakhin A. E., Rostovtsev K. V. (2022). Hybrid model for the social services sphere: Organisational and economic aspects. Journal of New Economy, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 131-148. DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2022-23-1-7 Received January 10, 2022
Introduction
The experience of hybridisation of the social services sphere has been gained since the 1980s, when this process began in the UK and then unfolded in the Western European states and the USA. In the countries of the former Soviet Union and the socialist camp, an appropriate hybrid model formed later, in the second half of the
1990s. Therefore, in these countries, the private and non-profit sectors are less involved in the provision of social services with their share amounting to around 50 %. Non-state social services providers are financed from the state budget and state extra-budgetary funds. The study of experience of the states with relatively recent hybridisation, for example, France [Archambault, 2015, p. 2283] and Poland [Nal^cz, Les, Pielinski, 2015, p. 2351] reveals the industry specifics in the social services provision by for-profit and non-profit organisations.
The hybrid model of the social services sector was built on outsourcing and a wide range of quasi-market mechanisms. The functions of the state are reduced to the formation and distribution of financial resources and ensuring control over the latter [Le Grand, 1991, p. 1256]. This process resulted in multiple subject network models for the social services provision. In line with them, the services are provided to consumers by organisations of the private and non-profit sectors operating within the public control systems. This approach made it possible to shift the burden of social services resource provision from the state to the population [Henry, 2002, p. 374; Moskovs-kaya, 2018, p. 88].
The hybrid ties are based on the following forms of interaction between for-profit and non-profit providers of social services and the state as a source of resources:
• grants, public budget subsidies, cooperation agreements formed and allocated on a competitive basis;
• contracts concluded during procurement procedures;
• vouchers, consumer certificates that allow consumers to pay for the supplier's services.
The implementation of these forms relies on a methodology that combines the theories of competition and economic efficiency. As a result, a more competitive social services provider is selected using a criterion of cost reduction, but the services output and the population sufficiency with the provision of services are not taken into account. The implementation of this methodology has certain limitations on the territory of the Russian Federation, since the concept of a social state, enshrined in the Constitution of Russia, guarantees equality of rights to education, health care, social services, and culture for the entire population of the country. Thus, the mechanism for the social services provision should ensure these guarantees regardless of the consumers' location and economic situation.
The purpose of the paper is to substantiate a methodological approach to building a hybrid model of the social services sphere based on allocative efficiency, which will determine the optimal organisational work forms of social services providers as well as the most efficient principles of the resources use to maximise their output.
Theoretical and methodological foundations of the study
Subsystems of the social services sphere are models of interaction depending on whether they belong to the state, corporate or public sectors. Three models are theoretically substantiated:
• infrastructural-distributive model;
• market model;
• models of socially oriented non-profit organisations' activities (SONPOs).
The infrastructural-distributive model (IDM) assumes a statistical assessment of the population's need for social services and links this need to consumption standards. The services are provided based on the centralised distribution process and spending of funds through organisations that belong to the relevant department. The volume indicators of social services directly depend on the investments in the property and operating expenses. The resource base is formed by subsidies provided to public institutions for state assignments completed and the implementation of capital investments, which, in turn, are determined on the basis of per capita consumption standard values and standards for the provision of services. The undoubted advantage of this model is the validity of standards, standardisation of service provision processes and fairly strict control of resource expenditure. At the same time, its use is hindered by the lack of interest of the service provider in continuous quality improvement, the application of innovative work methods with recipients of social services as well as the limited budget and state extra-budgetary funds allocated to the social sphere.
Over time, in academic papers we see a tendency to criticise organisational and economic mechanisms for the provision of hierarchical social services, since, according to the researchers, hierarchy cannot provide a result that the health care, education and social service functions are performed similar to other forms both in quantitative and qualitative parameters. Scientists attribute internal contradictions to the main reasons for the rejection of hierarchical models, including the lack of motivation of service providers, the dependency of consumers, a low level of interaction between the state, private and non-profit sectors in the provision of services.
These restrictions led to a change in the methodological basis for the social services model and the application of market principles and emergence of the market model (MM). Competitive relations between independent providers are ground for the provision of these services within the public sector, and process management is a combination of competition, price mechanism and contractual relationship. The introduction of market principles in the social services provision is designed to compensate for the state failures and is aimed at overcoming the limitations of the infra-structural-distributive model in terms of production efficiency and the fullest satisfaction of the citizens' needs. Within the market model, the state continues to finance
and regulate the social services provision, but at the same time eliminates its own monopoly on participation in the production process, which becomes open to organisations of all forms of ownership. Herewith, the demand for the services of private providers is formed in two ways. In the first case, consumers pay for these services at their own expense, in the second, consumers (or their representatives) receive money from budget in the form of subsidies or vouchers, which gives them the opportunity to choose a service provider.
The market principles made it possible to settle issues of the social services quality, but the issue of accessibility and equal opportunities in accordance with standard values and standards of service for all groups of the population has not been resolved. Making a profit as the central principle of business activity leads to a reduction in the resource base, to the withdrawal of resources as entrepreneur and investor's income. At the same time, the market model allows solvent groups of the population to receive social services of the required quality and reduce the resource burden on public budget. Until the mid-2000s, the methodological basis of this mechanism remained the choice between infrastructural-distributive model and market models of social services. Methodologically, both concepts do not allow implementing the principles of equal accessibility and appropriate quality for all groups of the population.
A new methodology for expanding the social services sphere is based on the model of socially oriented non-profit organisations' activities. These organisations follow the principles of flexibility and adaptability of the services provided, are able to attract extra-budgetary sources to curing social problems and continue state-initiated projects. The key difference between this model and the market model is the lack of profit in the first case and the need for profit in the second. Meanwhile, it is widely believed that a non-profit organisation, in the absence of profit, is also break-even, and generates added value in the form of employee salaries and the growth of the fixed capital value.
A hybrid, or 'mixed', model of the social services sector is a specific type of interaction between providers and sources of financing the resources that allows maximising the services output. Such interaction changes the perception of the utilitarian nature of the subjects and connections in the social services sphere. The hybridisation of this sphere is primarily aimed at ensuring state guarantees of the rights to education, health care, social services and cultural values for the entire population of the country. Therefore, hybrid mechanisms are based on infrastructural and distributive principles of construction: standardisation, rationing, cost control. At the same time, by building hybrid relationships, the infrastructural-distributive model is modified.
Thus, a set of quasi-market mechanisms modifies the IDM by creating competitive relationships between social services providers and the demand. These methods
affect the main aspects of entrepreneurial activity in the social services market and determine the very possibility of such activity taking into account public and private interests [Ishchenko, 2011, p. 50]. The concept of quasi-markets was developed within the institutional economic analysis to substantiate the competitive principles in public administration and the public sector. The quasi-market is understood as a system of relations between economic agents, where providers compete for the right to provide services to consumers, whose spending is financed by the government [Koryttsev, 2009, p. 37; Mokronosov, Mavrina, 2016, p. 72; Ogorodnikova, 2019, p. 42].
Quasi-markets are a special type of hybrid economic structures functioning according to the principles of a combination of market mechanisms and state regulation, artificially created in order to increase the efficiency of meeting the need for public sector services. The specificity of quasi-markets as institutional structures lies in the fact that they are formed on the principles of competitive interaction of its subjects, one of which is the government as a regulator of market relations.
The mechanism of public-private partnership (PPP) in the field of social services, well covered in academic and business publications, provides for the production and provision of infrastructure services using joint investments of the public and private sector [Nyukhaev, 2012, p. 116; Zaynasheva, Semkina, 2013, p. 29; Nikishina, Rad-chenko, 2015, p. 69]. PPP participants are central and local public authorities, forprofit and non-profit organisations. Performance indicators and standards for the social services provision are set by public participants. Private participants perform the functions of investing and carrying out operational activities for the provision of services [Barkov, Serova, 2016, p. 268; Yarskaya-Smirnova, Romanov, 2005, p. 489].
The advantage of the hybrid model is seen in the use of the private sector's resources to expand the social services provision [Kokovikhin, Mokronosov, Ogorodnikova, 2019, p. 74]. Concurrently, the interest of providers due to the profit generated by their activities reduces the resource base of services provision and leads to a reduction in output. Accordingly, a hybrid mechanism of public-private partnership in the social services sphere would be more effective in terms of the public goods production when creating a hybrid structure with non-profit organisations.
Grants for socially oriented non-profit organisations [Kumaritova, 2008, p. 88; Shuba, 2014, p. 126] can be called a hybrid form of the IDM and the model based on SONPOs' activities, since the first party sends funds free of charge to create a resource base for the social services provision within non-profit organisations. The rationale behind reducing the resource base within the IDM through the grants allocation is explained by the higher adaptability of the non-profit sector in the social services provision. We argue that such a hybrid form cannot be well justified from
the viewpoint of the social resources, since there are no requirements for the resource use efficiency, skill level and quality assessment of the services provided by non-profit organisations. Grant support of social services provision cannot be systematic for SONPO, since tools for professional development of activities, standardisation, external control of resource expenditure will be required in the long run [Grishchenko, 2014, p. 64; Shafikov, 2016, p. 27].
We can note a significant economic component in these types of hybrid model of the social services sphere. The public-private partnership and the grants allocation to SONPO do not allow expanding the social services provision to the population. In the first case, the profit of a participant from the private sector will reduce the possible volumes of social services, and in the second case, there will be a redistribution of limited resources without proper qualification for their use. Quasi-market forms, indeed, make it possible to expand the offer of social services and control their provision using the existing system of independent quality assessment of the social services.
The fourth form of the hybrid model - initiative projects of central and local public authorities - has become widespread in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, a certain number of scientific papers is devoted to project management of volunteer activities [Brodovskaya et al., 2017, p. 17; Khapaeva, Ershova, Ershova, 2018, p. 23; Gerlakh, 2018, p. 63]. A common feature of these projects is the leading organisational role of central and local authorities and the coordination of volunteer activities using information platforms. The restriction of this form is due to a limited number of consumers of social services provided by volunteers.
The fifth form of the hybrid model of the social services sphere, presented in theory, refers to the network theory, which changes the idea of the target orientation of the public goods production model, overcoming the contradictions between economically oriented and publicly oriented management. This approach, formulated within the general concept of sustainable development [Liu et al., 2007, p. 1513; Ostrom, 2010, p. 41; Sidenko, 2017, p. 104], replaces the competitiveness goal in consumption with the impact of the goods consumption by some individuals on the well-being of others. New connections in such a model arise from the self-organisation capabilities characteristic of small communities [Hood, 1991, p. 3; Goldsmith, Eggers, 2005, p. 211].
In our opinion, network principles of interaction, such as self-organisation, does not fully eliminate the problem of the growth of the social services output. The major reason is the market nature of the motivators of the network participants [Milner, 1998, p. 114]. Accordingly, a hybrid model based on network principles will face a lack of desire for cooperation on the part of network participants and will require another infrastructural superstructure for managing network interaction.
Despite the declared advantages of applying the network theory to the organisational and economic mechanism of the social services sphere, the papers covering this issue do not contour such a model methodologically. We conclude that the principles of self-organisation and self-adjustment of the participants' activities within the network models are borrowed from the market model provisions of the social services. This borrowing will not be successful, because, as noted above, the main incentive for the subjects' self-organisation within this mechanism is the possibility of generating profit. In the absence of such an incentive, networks of subjects will not be formed. Thus, for the social services sphere, where the primary goal is to maximise output even loosing the profit, network hybridisation is of little use.
The presented review of models points to the need to develop a theoretical and methodological basis of a hybrid model, depending on the volume and sources of the resource base of the social services sector. The specificity of this sphere implies replacing the indicator of economic efficiency with the indicator of allocative efficiency as the hybridisation criterion. Allocative efficiency characterises optimal resources allocation to obtain the result, in particular, the maximum output of social services with limited resources [Pass, Lowes, Davies, 1998, p. 50; Sukharev, 2009, p. 5].
Methodological approach to building the model of the social services sphere: organisational and economic aspects
The methodological approach to building a hybrid model of the social services sphere arises from the methodological tenet of the possibility to select the subjects of the social services sphere in a concrete location using indicators of the allocative efficiency.
This model belongs to the class of optimisation problems. In its most general form, this model should maximise the output of social services:
V(RL..72) * max; R e W, (1)
where R = (R1, R2, ... , R72); W is tolerance region for variables R1, R2, ..., R72; V(R) is the target function.
Solving the optimisation problem means finding R e W such that V (R0) > V (R) for any R e W. The limitations of this solution are the coefficients of direct and labour costs, consumption of fixed capital, profit and the possibility of covering resources consumption from certain sources, i.e. payment for services from:
• corporate sector (71);
• households (72);
• public budget and state extra-budgetary funds (73);
• non-profit organisations (74).
The general form of the problem is following:
V(A1 rL 72) = I Az fll 72 x R1...72 ^ max;
IA x R1...72 < Y, (2)
where Az R1 72 is the coefficient of total resource consumption; R1 ... 72 is consumption of a resource (1 ... 72).
This approach builds a hybrid model of the social services sphere with a parallel analysis of the results obtained and a revision of subjects and their functioning depending on the key parameters of allocative efficiency. The factor characteristics of the model are formalised within the following groups:
• standards and procedures for the provision of social services that determine the composition and quantity of services;
• resource support parameters.
The algorithm of building a hybrid model is shown in Figure.
Data on the coefficients of direct and labour costs, consumption of fixed capital and profit for social services providers, depending on the model and sources of resource provision (corporate sector, households, state budget and extra-budgetary funds, non-profit organisations) are entered into the matrix to solve the problem of maximising the output of social services within the hybrid model. The study should be carried out within the administrative boundaries of a particular territory, which will allow avoiding assessment distortions caused by the factor of territorial differences, in particular, the price of energy resources, access to gas supply, and individual institutional regulations.
When developing a hybrid model in accordance with the principle of allocative efficiency, we assume that all subjects of the social services sphere act taking into account the requirements of regulatory documents that standardise the relevant services provision and the conditions of subjects' activity. These tools prescribe the fulfillment of the regulator's (public authorities) mandatory requirements and may significantly limit the activities in the provision of relevant services. The nature of the impact presupposes standardisation and control by the relevant branch divisions of the executive power.
At the next stage of the approach implementation, we solve the optimisation problem. The complexity and large scale of this process requires the use of special computer programs and high-performance equipment. The internal logic of the solution is as follows: initially, the sufficiency of budget financing for the volume of services (Vi...) is determined in descending order of the allocative efficiency indicator, these subjects function within the an infrastructural-distributive model. Then the sufficiency of the resource provision is determined by payments from the population - such subjects operate within the market model, and the last iteration
Algorithm of building a hybrid model of the social services sphere
determines the sufficiency of funding for the services provision through donations. In case of sufficiency, the subject works within the model of SONPO. Participatory model, as a rule, is used when there are shortcomings in the coverage of resources from all sources.
Thus, methodological support for a hybrid model of the social services sphere makes it possible to consistently implement the stages of analysis and design. The novelty of this approach is the interconnection of resource consumption indicators, which differ depending on the affiliation of the provider to the model of the social services sector and the sources of resource provision. This approach, combined with increased monitoring of compliance with the standards and procedures for servicing citizens, will reveal significant reserves for the growth of this sphere, will stimulate market participants to innovative, effective activities.
Research results
To recapitulate the findings, let us paint a comprehensive picture of output within the models of the social services sphere and the sources of resources coverage (Table 1).
Table 1. The ratio between the subjects' output within models of the social services sphere and sources of resource coverage, 2018, billion rubles
Models and funding sources Sector
Education Health care Sports, recreation and entertainment
Infrastructural-distributive model 3,591.5 3,919.6 823,8
public budget 2,923.0 3,296.1 694,9
corporate sector 152.9 130.8 147,2
personal and household finances 502.2 933.0 446,5
Market model 31.0 831.0 637.0
public budget 11.6 37.8 4.4
corporate sector 12.6 18.4 6.0
personal and household finances 33.0 310.0 118.0
Model based on SONPOs' activities 2.5 2.4 16.2
public budget 3.4 6.1 2.9
corporate sector 0.0 0.8 0.0
personal and household finances 5.8 6.0 8.4
The analysis of the Table 1 allows us to conclude about two divergent trends in the formation of a modern hybrid model of the social services sphere. On the one hand, there is a small segment of for-profit and non-profit organisations that receive funding from public budget. As a rule, these are organisations participating in competitions
for state assignments, and recipients of various support measures aimed at creating competitive conditions in socially significant and priority markets. The main volume of paid social services consumption falls on providers operating within the infra-structural-distributive model.
The data obtained indicate the niche nature of the providers of the market model and the model based on the activities of SONPO, even if there is demand from the population. A number of researchers associate the dynamics of the development of hybrid forms in the field of social services with the dynamics of income of the population, explaining the expansion of the non-state providers with the opportunity to sell social services [Eferina, Lizunova, Prosyanyuk, 2014, p. 1; Vasiltsova, Nevyantseva, 2017, p. 68].
The data presented in Table 1 indicates that the population pays more than a trillion rubles to state participants in all sectors in total. Thus, if the share of non-state participants in the social services sphere does not expand, the reason lies in the participants' low allocative efficiency but not in the demand for services. An effective way of hybridisation should be aimed at a provider of social services, which, firstly, is able to respect the tariffs applicable to the subjects of the infrastructural-distribu-tive model, and, secondly, has a sufficient level of competence to ensure comparable quality.
Allocative efficiency is principally characteristic of the subjects of the IDM in the field of social services. These subjects form a larger output with the same resources, which is key to solving the problem of creating hybrid models on the principles of maximising the output of social services with allocative efficiency of using limited resources. The results of this study also explain the lack of proactive development of the subjects of the market model and the model functioning on the basis of the SONPOs' activities, and the growth of the social services output within these models.
In Table 2 we present the results of the methodological approach to building a hybrid model of the social services.
The hybrid model built on the principles of allocative efficiency demonstrates the expediency of attracting providers belonging to the MM to the social services provision, and the model functioning on the basis of SONPO, only in the field of "Creative activity, arts and entertainment" when allocating public budget funds and personal and household finances (highlighted in colour in Table 2). In other cases, providers belong to the infrastructural-distributive model. This situation is quite understandable from the standpoint of the allocative efficiency: since the subjects of the MM and the model operating on the basis of SONPO are less effective in terms of the output parameters, there are no natural levers and motivators for these models development.
Table 2. Resources of participants in the hybrid model
of social services according to the parameters of service providers' allocative efficiency, million rubles
Sector Source of resources coverage Model Material costs Labour costs Consumption of fixed capital
Education Public budget IDM 611,053.1 1,925,374.2 80,515.7
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 0.0 0.0 0.0
Corporate sector IDM 35,388.4 111,505.7 4,663.0
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 0.0 0.0 0.0
Personal and household finances IDM 116,046.1 36,651.0 15,290.9
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 0.0 0.0 0.0
Health care Public budget IDM 1,033,848.9 1,260,068.9 85,477.2
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 0.0 0.0 0.0
Corporate sector IDM 59,793.0 72,876.5 4,943.6
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 0.0 0.0 0.0
Personal and household finances IDM 426,807.5 520,198.7 35,287.8
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 0.0 0.0 0.0
Residential care Public budget IDM 47,671.4 86,111.3 1,913.6
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 0.0 0.0 0.0
Corporate sector IDM 362.8 655.3 14.6
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 0.0 0.0 0.0
Personal and household finances IDM 17,247.7 31,155.4 692.3
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 0.0 0.0 0.0
Social assistance services without accommodation Public budget IDM 99,676.6 180,051.0 4,001.1
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 0.0 0.0 0.0
Corporate sector IDM 758.5 1,370.1 30.4
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 0.0 0.0 0.0
Personal and household finances IDM 36,063.4 65,143.1 1,447.6
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 2 (concluded)
Sector Source of resources coverage Model Material costs Labour costs Consumption of fixed capital
Creative activity, arts and entertainment Public budget IDM 2,073.3 2,259.5 390.7
MM 2,964.3 975.9 113.0
SONPO 49,986.8 23,510.8 1,063.5
Corporate sector IDM 2,073.4 2,259.5 390.7
MM 2,964.2 975.9 113.0
SONPO 0.0 0.0 0.0
Personal and household finances IDM 2,073.3 2,259.5 390.7
MM 2,964.2 975.9 113.0
SONPO 29,888.5 14,057.8 635.9
Libraries, archives, museums and other cultural activities Public budget IDM 0.0 0.0 0.0
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 177,119.9 88,559.9 8,856.0
Corporate sector IDM 0.0 0.0 0.0
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 18,956.9 9,478.5 947.8
Personal and household finances IDM 0.0 0.0 0.0
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 113,526.8 56,763.4 5,676.3
Sports, recreational activities and events Public budget IDM 0,0 0,0 0,0
MM 0,0 0,0 0,0
SONPO 159,862.6 79,931.3 7,993.1
Corporate sector IDM 0.0 0.0 0.0
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 0.0 0.0 0.0
Personal and household finances IDM 0.0 0.0 0.0
MM 0.0 0.0 0.0
SONPO 0.0 0.0 0.0
Next, we consider how following the principle of allocative efficiency affects the output parameters when hybridising the model of the social services sector (Table 3).
Table 3. Changes in output parameters with the principle of allocative efficiency applied in the hybridisation of social services, million rubles
Sector Source of resources coverage Actual output Output with the principle of allocative efficiency applied
Education Public budget 2,616,943.0 2,973,799
Corporate sector 151,557.0 172,223.9
Personal and household finances 496,988.0 564,759.1
Health care Public budget 2,379,395.0 2,643,772
Corporate sector 137,613.0 152,903.3
Personal and household finances 982,294.0 1,091,438
Table 3 (concluded)
Sector Source of resources coverage Actual output Output with the principle of allocative efficiency applied
Residential care Public budget 135,696.3 135,696.3
Corporate sector 1,032.6 1,032.57
Personal and household finances 49,095.4 49,095.42
Social assistance services without accommodation Public budget 283,728.7 283,728.7
Corporate sector 2,159.0 2,159.01
Personal and household finances 102,654.1 102,654.1
Creative activity arts and entertainment Public budget 82,004.2 88,176.56
Corporate sector 8,776.8 9,437.419
Personal and household finances 52,561.4 56,517.68
Libraries, archives, museums and other cultural activities Public budget 274,535.8 295,199.8
Corporate sector 29,383.2 31,594.84
Personal and household finances 175,966.6 189,211.4
Sports, recreational activities and events Public budget 247,787.0 266,437.6
Corporate sector 87,953.0 87,953.0
Personal and household finances 243,346.0 243,346,0
Total 8,541,470.1 9,441,136
Thus, applying the principle of the allocative efficiency in the hybridisation of the social services would free up resources in the amount of 899 billion rubles, which proves the possibility of using this method to obtain significant economic and social effects for the population of Russia.
Conclusion
The implementation of the state social function through ensuring equal access to social services for the population implies an increase in the output of these services. An essential role in this process is played by the activities of their providers belonging to the state, private and non-profit sectors of the economy.
Despite the unification of social services through the introduction of standards, standard values and procedures for the provision of social services, the activities of each of these providers differ in unique characteristics that determine the possibilities of output. To account for this parameter, we suggest applying a methodological approach to building a hybrid model of the social services sector based on the principle of allocative efficiency.
The data obtained confirm the potential growth in the output when selecting providers of social services with higher allocative efficiency. The proposed approach allows taking into account the predominance of the social function of these providers and increasing the output within the hybrid model.
The problem of hybridisation of the social services sphere, in particular, increasing the share of the subjects of the market model and the model functioning on the basis of SONPOs' activities, should not be remedied by simply copying Western experience in order to reduce budget expenditures. The best way to settle it will be to achieve al-locative efficiency of the subjects' activities by introducing already known methods, such as tender systems for purchasing materials, making economies of scale, optimising stocks, etc. Without these methods, the use of institutional support tools will not produce long-term positive outcomes and will lead to the expenditure of public sector resources accompanied by even greater reduction in the total output.
References
Barkov A. V., Serova O. A. (2016). Gosudarstvenno-chastnoe partnerstvo na rynke sotsial'nykh uslug v svete razvitiya sotsial'nogo predprinimatel'stva: problemy garmonizatsii pravovogo regulirovaniya [Public-private partnership in the market of social services in terms of social entrepreneurship development: Problems of the legal regulation harmonization]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki = Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences, no. 33, pp. 268-280. DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2016-33-268-280. (In Russ.)
Brodovskaya E. V., Dombrovskaya A. Yu., Karzubov D. N., Leskonog N. Yu. (2017). Assessment of the quality of social projects implemented by educational organisations in Moscow with the participation of high school students and young teachers: the program and the results of the study. In: Brodovskaya E. V. (ed.) Sotsialnyeproekty obrazovatelnykh organizatsiyg. Moskvy: ob-zor luchshikh praktik [Social projects of educational organisations in Moscow: A review of best practices]. Moscow: Sport i Kul'tura - 2000 Publ., pp. 17-69. (In Russ.)
Vasiltsova L. I., Nevyantseva N. N. (2017). Rynok sotsial'nykh uslug: vektory razvitiya i sotsial'no-ekonomicheskie posledstviya [Social services market: Development ways and socioeconomic consequence]. Diskussiya = Discussion, no. 5, pp. 68-73. (In Russ.)
Gerlakh I. V. (2018). Sotsial'no-pedagogicheskiy proekt "volontery zdorov'ya" [Socio-ped-agogical project "health volunteers"]. Nauchno-metodicheskaya rabota v obrazovatel'noy or-ganizatsii = Scientific and Methodological Work in Educational Organisations, no. 2, pp. 63-65. (In Russ.)
Grishchenko A. V. (2014). Mekhanizmy formirovaniya finansovykh resursov nekom-mercheskikh organizatsiy [NPO financial resource formation mechanisms]. Vestnik finansovogo universiteta = Bulletin of the Financial University, no. 4, pp. 64-74. (In Russ.)
Eferina T. V., Lizunova V. O., Prosyanyuk D. V. (2014). Mekhanizmy povysheniya kachestva sotsial'nykh uslug: razgosudarstvlenie sfery sotsial'nogo obsluzhivaniya naseleniya [Mechanisms for improving the quality of social services: The denationalisation of the sphere of social services for the population]. Sotsial'noe obsluzhivanie = Social Service, no. 5, pp. 1-12. (In Russ.)
Zaynasheva Z. G., Semkina O. S. (2013). Gosudarstvenno-chastnoe partnerstvo v sfere pre-dostavleniya sotsial'no znachimykh uslug [Public-private partnership in the provision of socially significant services]. Vestnik Universiteta (Gosudarstvennyy universitet upravleniya) = University Bulletin (State University of Management), no. 3, pp. 29-37. (In Russ.)
Ishchenko M. M. (2011). O metodakh adaptivnogo administrirovaniya v regional'nykh eko-nomicheskikh sistemakh [On the methods of adaptive administration in regional economic systems]. Nauchnye trudy Volnogo ekonomicheskogo obshchestva Rossii = Scientific Works of the Free Economic Society of Russia, no. 145, pp. 50-62. (In Russ.)
Kokovikhin A. Yu., Mokronosov A. G., Ogorodnikova E. S. (2019). Institutsional'noe modeli-rovanie sistemy upravleniya regional'nymi uchastnikami dual'nogo obrazovaniya [Institutional modelling of the management system for regional participants of dual education]. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal, no. 2, pp. 74-95. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-20192-74-95. (In Russ.)
Koryttsev M. A. (2009). Kvazirynki: institutsionalnaya struktura i mekhanizmy funktsion-irovaniya [Quasi-markets: Institutional structure and mechanisms of functioning]. Rostov-on-Don: Fond "Sodeystvie - XXI vek" Publ. 316 p. (In Russ.)
Kumaritova A. A. (2008). Gosudarstvennye i munitsipal'nye granty: vozniknovenie, stanov-lenie i perspektivy razvitiya v rossiyskom grazhdanskom prave [State and municipal grants: Emergence, formation and development prospects in the Russian civil law]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, no. 7, pp. 88-99. (In Russ.)
Milner B. Z. (1998). Teoriya organizatsii [Organizational theory]. Moscow: INFRA-M Publ. 193 p.
Mokronosov A. G., Mavrina I. N. (2016). Predprinimatelskiy potentsial razvitiya avtonom-nogo vuza [Entrepreneurial potential for the development of an autonomous university]. Ekaterinburg: Russian State Vocational Pedagogical University. 166 p. (In Russ.)
Moskovskaya A. A. (2018). Stimuly i baryery privlecheniya negosudarstvennykh postavsh-chikov k okazaniyu sotsial'nykh uslug: rossiyskiy i zarubezhnyy opyt [Incentives and barriers to engaging non-state providers in the provision of public social services: Russian and foreign experience]. Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsipalnogo upravleniya = Public Administration Issues, no. 3, pp. 88-116. (In Russ.)
Nikishina A. L., Radchenko I. N. (2015). Gosudarstvenno-chastnoe partnerstvo v sotsial'noy sfere: analiz funktsionirovaniya i problemy [Public-private partnership in the social sphere: Analysis of the functioning and problems]. Vektor nauki Tol'yattinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya "Ekonomika i upravlenie" = Science Vector of Togliatti State University. Series: Economics and Management, no. 1, pp. 69-73. (In Russ.)
Nyukhaev D. V. (2012). Gosudarstvenno-chastnoe partnerstvo v sotsial'noy sfere [Public-private partnership in the social sphere]. Sotsialno-ekonomicheskieyavleniya iprotsessy = SocioEconomic Phenomena and Processes, no. 1, pp. 116-119. (In Russ.)
Pass C. L., Lowes B., Davies L. (1998). Slovar po ekonomike Collins. [Collins dictionary of economics]. Saint Petersburg: Ekonomicheskaya shkola Publ. 750 p. (In Russ.)
Sidenko O. A. (2017). Politsentrichnost' i setevaya model' publichnogo upravleniya [Polycen-tricity and governing by network]. Vestnik Voronezhskogogosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya
"Istoriya. Politologiya. Sotsiologiya" = Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: History. Political Science. Sociology, no. 2, pp. 104-110. (In Russ.)
Sukharev O. S. (2009). Problemy effektivnosti v ekonomike (klassicheskaya i sistemnaya traktovka) [Problems of efficiency in economics (classical and system interpretation)]. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoy teorii = Russian Journal of Economic Theory, no. 2, pp. 5-15. (In Russ.)
Khapaeva S. S., Ershova E. S., Ershova S. A. (2018). Sotsial'nyy proekt "My vmeste": opyt organizatsii [Social project "we are together": Experience of the organization]. Vestnik Mosko-vskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. Seriya "Pedagogika" = Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University. Series: Pedagogics, no. 4, pp. 23-27. DOI: 10.18384/2310-7219-2018-423-28. (In Russ.)
Shafikov A. M. (2016). Gosudarstvennaya podderzhka sotsialno orientirovannykh nekom-mercheskikh organizatsiy, okazyvayushchikh uslugi sotsial'noy zashchity. Avtoref. diss. kand. ekon. nauk [State support of socially oriented non-profit organisations providing social welfare services. Abstract of Cand. econ. sci. diss.]. Chelyabinsk. 27 p. (In Russ.)
Shuba K. N. (2014). Obespechenie gosudarstvennoy podderzhki sotsial'no orientirovannykh nekommercheskikh organizatsiy [Providing state support for socially oriented non-profit organisations.]. Izvestiya Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta = Bulletin of the Saint Petersburg State University of Economics, no. 3, pp. 126-128. (In Russ.)
Yarskaya-Smirnova E. R., Romanov P. V. (2005). Novaya ideologiya i praktika sotsial'nykh uslug: otsenka effektivnosti v kontekste liberalizatsii sotsial'noy politiki [New ideology and practice of social services: Efficiency assessment in the context of social policy liberalisation]. Zhurnal issledovaniy sotsial'noy politiki = The Journal of Social Policy Studies, no. 4, pp. 489-512. (In Russ.)
Archambault E. (2015). France: A late-comer to government - nonprofit partnership. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, vol. 26, pp. 2283-2310. DOI 10.1007/s11266-015-9644-5.
Goldsmith S., Eggers W. D. (2005). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 211 p.
Henry N. (2002). Is privatization passé? The case for competition and the emergence of inter-sectoral administration. Public Administration Review, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 374-378.
Hood C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, vol. 69, issue 1, pp. 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x.
Le Grand J. (1991). Quasi-markets and social policy. The Economic Journal, vol. 101, issue 408, pp. 1256-1267. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234441.
Liu J., Dietz T., Carpenter S., Alberti M., Folke C., Moran E., ... Taylor W. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, vol. 317, pp. 1513-1516. DOI:10.1126/ science.1144004.
Nalçcz S., Les E., Pielinski B. (2015). Poland: A new model of government - nonprofit relations for the east? Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 2351-2378.
Ogorodnikova E. S., Plakhin A. E., Kochergina T. V., Mikhailovsky P. M., Guseva T. I., Selezneva M. V. (2019). The effectiveness of state support for entrepreneurs in the markets
of social services in rural areas. Espacios, vol. 40, no. 25. https://www.revistaespacios.com/ a19v40n25/19402528.html.
Ostrom E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 641-672. DOI: 10.1257/aer.100.3.641.
Information about the authors
Ekaterina S. Ogorodnikova, Cand. Sc. (Econ.), Associate Prof., Associate Prof. of Management and Entrepreneurship Dept., Ural State University of Economics, 62/45 8 Marta / Narodnoy Voli St., Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia Phone: +7 (343) 283-10-53, e-mail: ogoroes@usue.ru
Andrey E. Plakhin, Dr. Sc. (Econ.), Associate Prof., Head of Management and Entrepreneur-ship Dept., Ural State University of Economics, 62/45 8 Marta / Narodnoy Voli St., Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
Phone: +7 (343) 283-10-53, e-mail: apla@usue.ru
Konstantin V. Rostovtsev, Cand. Sc. (Econ.), Associate Prof., Associate Prof. of Management and Entrepreneurship Dept., Ural State University of Economics, 62/45 8 Marta / Narodnoy Voli St., Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia Phone: +7 (343) 283-10-53, e-mail: rostovtsev@isnet.ru
© Ogorodnikova E. S., Plakhin A. E., Rostovtsev K. V., 2022
