Abstract:
На основі аналізу наукових, емпіричних та публіцистичних джерел зʼясовано сутність, зміст та особливості трактування державного контролю та адміністративного нагляду як важливих
засобів публічного адміністрування, здійснено їх співвідношення (порівняння) з метою визначення спільних рис та відмінних ознак. Наголошено на недостатній увазі науковців до проблеми інтерпретації контролю та нагляду як засобів публічного адміністрування, розв’язання якої дозволить визначити ці явища як структурні елементи системи публічного адміністрування та надати їх повну характеристику.
Description:
In the article, on the basis of the analysis of scientific, empirical and journalistic sources, the essence, content and peculiarities of the interpretation of state control and administrative supervision as important means of public administration are clarified, their correlation (comparison) is performed in order to identify common features and distinguishing features. The lack of attention of scientists to the problem of interpreting control and supervision as a means of public administration has been emphasized, the solution of which will allow to identify these phenomena as structural elements of the public administration system and to give them a full description. The author has concluded that it is impossible to give a comprehensive answer to the question of
defining the boundaries between the terms "control" and "supervision". After all, there are too many approaches to defining “oversight”. Some authors believe that supervisory activity is a specific type of control
exercised in a specific field (or a type of supervisory control). Others generally reject the existence of such a standalone method of protection as administrative surveillance. It is emphasized that in the theoretical and legal sense, supervision has fundamental differences from control (state, judicial, parliamentary, public), since it is based not on the verification of executive activity, and other management activity - on the supervision of the behavior of the management entity, so that the latter did not engage in unlawful acts that could cause harm to society and to individual citizens. In distinguishing the two concepts, the main problem is that scientists take as their basis different criteria (whether the depth of control activity, or the possibility of canceling the decision of the supervised structure, etc.). In this connection, the following criteria of separation of control and supervision are proposed: depth of verification activity (main criterion); the nature of the powers of the relevant control and oversight bodies; the position which each of them occupies in the system of state bodies; the presence of the organizational subordination of the entities of the supervisory activity and the controlled or supervised entities.
