Methodological approaches to the assessment of state control and inspection system by the citizens as its beneficiaries

Cover Page


The success of the reform of the state control and inspection system depends significantly on taking into account the estimates of all stakeholders, i.e. business, government, and citizens as beneficiaries of the state control and inspection activities; and such estimates should be considered at the stages of planning, monitoring, and evaluating the achieved results. The priority project ‘Reforming State Control and Inspection System in the Russian Federation’ considers citizens’ estimates only if presented by statistical indicators that reflect the nature, frequency, and scale of harm often measured by the control bodies themselves, i.e. such data are prone to distortion. The authors suggest to supplement this system by indicators allowing the citizens to assess the state control and inspection activities and reform. These indicators can be measured in representative surveys, which would allow to balance the existing system of monitoring the state control and inspection activities. The article presents both international and Russian approaches to the sociological study of the efficiency of the state control and inspection system. The authors identify methodological rules of such surveys, such as that all adult citizens should be questioned regardless of their experience of interaction with control bodies. The article also describes the types of public legally protected values and the types of risks that should be part of sociological questionnaires; and suggests some key indicators for the assessment of the state control activities by the citizens: the frequency of facing the need to protect public values (the lower the frequency, the higher the effectiveness); the general estimate of the public values safety (by groups of risks); and the results of citizens’ interaction with the control bodies to protect public values including damage compensation.

About the authors

V N Yuzhakov

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

Author for correspondence.
Vernadskogo Prosp., 82, Moscow, Russia, 119571


E I Dobrolyubova

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

Vernadskogo Prosp., 82, Moscow, Russia, 119571


A A Spiridonov

Tula State Lev Tolstoy Pedagogical University; Office of the Government of the Russian Federation

Prosp. Lenina, 125, Tula, Russia, 300026; Krasnopresnenskaya nab., 2, Moscow, Russia, 103274



  1. Бойков В.Э. Защита прав предпринимателей (краткие итоги выборочного социологического опроса) // Социология власти. 2010. № 8 / Boikov V.E. Zashchita prav predprinimateley (kratkie itogi vyborochnogo sotsiologicheskogo oprosa) [Legal protection of entrepreneurs’ rights (summary of the sample survey)]. Sotsiologiya Vlasti. 2010: 8 (In Russ.).
  2. Бойков В.Э. Налоговые отношения в социологическом измерении // Социология власти. 2008. № 5 / Boikov V.E. Nalogovye otnosheniya v sotsiologicheskom izmerenii [Taxation relations in the sociological dimension]. Sotsiologiya Vlasti. 2008: 5 (In Russ.).
  3. Добролюбова Е.И. Международный опыт оценки результативности и эффективности государственного контроля в сфере охраны труда и обеспечения безопасности на рабочем месте // Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления. 2016. № 2 / Dobrolyubova E.I. Mezhdunarodny opyt otsenki rezultativnosti i effektivnosti gosudarstvennogo kontrolya v sfere okhrany truda i obespecheniya bezopasnosti na rabochem meste [International experience of assessing the efficiency of public control in occupational safety]. Voprosy Gosudarstvennogo i Munitsipalnogo Upravleniya. 2016: 2 (In Russ.).
  4. Добролюбова Е.И., Зыбуновская Н.В., Покида А.Н., Южаков В.Н. Оценка влияния государственного контроля (надзора) на деятельность хозяйствующих субъектов // Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления. 2017. № 2 / Dobrolyubova E.I., Zybunovskaya N.V., Pokida A.N., Yuzhakov V.N. Otsenka vliyaniya gosudarstvennogo kontrolya (nadzora) na deyatelnost khozyaystvuyushchikh sub’ektov [Estimates of the impact of state control and inspections on business activities]. Voprosy Gosudarstvennogo i Munitsipalnogo Upravleniya. 2017: 2 (In Russ.).
  5. Троцук И.В., Никулин А.М., Вегрен С. Трактовки и способы измерения продовольственной безопасности в современной России: дискурсивные и реальные противоречия // Мир России. 2018. Т. 27. № 1 / Trotsuk I.V., Nikulin A.M., Wegren S. Traktovki i sposoby izmereniya prodovolstvennoy bezopasnosti v sovremennoy Rossii: diskursivnye i realnye protivorechiya [Interpretations and dimensions of food security in contemporary Russia: Discursive and real contradictions]. Mir Rossii. 2018: 27 (1) (In Russ.).
  6. Южаков В.Н., Добролюбова Е.И. Итоги комплексного мониторинга практики применения Федерального закона «О защите прав юридических лиц и индивидуальных предпринимателей при осуществлении государственного контроля (надзора) и муниципального контроля» от 26.12.2008 № 294-ФЗ в 2011 г. // Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления. 2012. № 1 / Yuzhakov V.N., Dobrolyubova E.I. Itogi kompleksnogo monitoringa praktiki primeneniya Federalnogo zakona “O zashchite prav yuridicheskikh lits i individualnykh predprinimateley pri osushchestvlenii gosudarstvennogo kontrolya (nadzora) i munitsipalnogo kontrolya” ot 26.12.2008 No. 294-FZ v 2011 g. [Results of the complex monitoring of the implementation of the Federal Law ‘On Protection of Rights of Legal Entities and Individual Entrepreneurs when Exercising State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control’ of December 26, 2008 No. 294-FZ in 2011]. Voprosy Gosudarstvennogo i Munitsipalnogo Upravleniya. 2012: 1 (In Russ.).
  7. Aguilar J. The perception of security and confidence in public institutions. 2013. Baseline%202012%20English.pdf.
  8. Baig A., Dua A., Riefberg V. Putting citizens first: How to improve citizens’ experience and satisfaction with government services. 2014.
  9. Better regulation, better benefits: Getting the balance right. 2009. http://webarchive.nationalarchives. whatwedo/bre.
  10. Blanc F. Inspection Reforms: Why, How, and with What Results. Paris; 2012.
  11. Community Preservation and Development Corporation. Perceptions of Public Safety. 2016.
  12. Jørgensen T.B., Bozeman B. Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society. 2007; 39 (3).
  13. Martin S., Downe J. Performance measurement of local public service networks. Studies in Public and Non-Profit Governance. 2014: 3.
  14. Measuring Reform Success: Business Surveys, “Client Satisfaction” and Administrative Burden. The Challenges of Obtaining Reliable Data. Washington; 2012.
  15. Measuring Regulatory Performance: A Practitioner's Guide to Perception Surveys. Paris; 2012.
  16. National public opinion survey on citizen perception of safety and security in the Republic of Croatia. 2009. and_recovery/Safety_and_security.html.
  17. Perception Surveys in Fragile and Conflict-Affected States. 2013. hdq910.pdf.
  18. Public Safety Survey. 2009. Public_Safety_Burnaby.pdf.
  19. Quinet K., Bird A. Perceptions of public safety issues in Central Indiana. 2000.
  20. Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections. OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy. Paris; 2014.
  21. Russo H. The benefits of regulation: A public and business perceptions survey. 2010.
  22. Thijs N. Measure to improve. Improving public sector performance by using citizen-user satisfaction information. 2011. Measure_to__Improve.pdf.
  23. Van Asselt M., Poortvliet P.M., Ekkel E.D., Kemp B., Stassen E.N. Risk perceptions of public health and food safety hazards in poultry husbandry by citizens, poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians. Poultry Science. 2018; 97 (2).



Abstract - 489

PDF (Russian) - 293




Copyright (c) 2019 Yuzhakov V.N., Dobrolyubova E.I., Spiridonov A.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies