What is decentralization of the economy. Decentralization - what is it? Centralization and decentralization of management

DECENTRALIZATION

DECENTRALIZATION

(decentralization) Transfer of powers and responsibilities for decision-making from the center to other organizations. Within the public sector, decentralization means that decisions are made not by the central government, but by local and regional authorities. In the private sector, decentralization means that decisions are made not at company headquarters, but directly in divisions or branches. Decentralization can also take the form of public authorities delegating decision-making powers to private bodies, such as housing associations, or forcing the break-up of monopoly companies.

Economy. Dictionary. - M.: "INFRA-M", Publishing House "Ves Mir". J. Black. General editor: Doctor of Economics Osadchaya I.M.. 2000 .

DECENTRALIZATION

transfer of management functions from central authorities to local authorities, expansion of the range of powers of lower authorities at the expense of higher ones.

Raizberg B.A., Lozovsky L.Sh., Starodubtseva E.B.. Modern economic dictionary. - 2nd ed., rev. M.: INFRA-M. 479 pp.. 1999 .

Economic dictionary. 2000 .

See what "DECENTRALIZATION" is in other dictionaries:

Decentralization... Spelling dictionary-reference book

- (new Latin, from de from, and centrum center, focus). In general: removal, separation from the center; in particular: management opposite to centralization; development of self-government in individual provinces of the state. Dictionary of foreign words included in... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

- [de], decentralization, female. (from the Latin prefix de from, without the word centralization) (book). A management system based on the transfer of some functions of central authorities to local authorities. Decentralization of the trust apparatus. Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

Dispersal Dictionary of Russian synonyms. decentralization noun, number of synonyms: 1 dispersal (4) ASIS Synonym Dictionary ... Synonym dictionary

decentralization- and, f. décentralization f. The opposite of centralization; such a government system when parts of the state enjoy to some extent the right of self-government. Pavlenkov 1911. The German Chancellor.. is unexpectedly an ardent supporter of... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

decentralization- decentralization. Pronounced [decentralization] and acceptable [decentralization]… Dictionary of difficulties of pronunciation and stress in modern Russian language

In constitutional law, the process of transferring from the center to the localities part of the functions and powers of the central bodies of the state ... Legal dictionary

Transfer of control from central authorities to local authorities. Dictionary of business terms. Akademik.ru. 2001... Dictionary of business terms

DE INTRALIZE [de], zuyu, zuesh; bathed; owls and nesov., that (book). Make (do) less centralized, disperse (chill). D. management. Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

- (from Latin de... prefix meaning absence, cancellation, elimination of something, and French centralization centralization) English. decentralization; German Decentralisation. The process of transferring the functions of central government to local authorities. cm.… … Encyclopedia of Sociology

Books

• , P.P. Gronsky. Reproduced in the original author's spelling of the 1917 edition (Moscow publishing house). IN…
• Decentralization and self-government, P.P. Gronsky. Reproduced in the original author's spelling of the 1917 edition (Moscow publishing house)…

the process of expanding and strengthening the rights and powers of localities, regions, autonomies, republics - subjects of federations, etc. or lower bodies or organizations while simultaneously narrowing the rights and powers of the corresponding center.

D. is one of the possible ways to optimize the management of activities in the state, society, economy, culture, etc., especially in those countries where an unreasonably high level of centralization has developed. The specific level of D. is determined each time independently in relation to a given country, taking into account a wide variety of factors; international situation; the nature of the social and state system; goals and objectives of the country being solved at this stage; size of territory and population; national composition of the population and national-territorial structure; availability and level of personnel training locally, etc. Examples of strong democracy include real autonomy of a territory, federalization, and confederalization of a country. In everyday consciousness, democracy is often seen as a path to the collapse of the state (party, organization, etc.). Historical experience, however, shows that if we are not talking about limitless, anarchist, but about scientifically based democracy, then this does not lead to a severance of ties with the center and the disintegration of the whole, but to the strengthening of the unity and integrity of the country. Unfortunately, this was not taken into account in a timely manner in our country with its existing over-centralization, and, in particular, therefore it was not possible to prevent the collapse of the USSR.

The Russian state at the present stage of development is in conditions that are characteristic of a permanent innovation process. This is a determinant of the fact that in post-Soviet Russia there was a need for a well-structured domestic policy, the activities of state institutions, as well as the establishment of a certain vector of political governance. In particular, one should find an answer to the question: “Decentralization - what is it, and what are its differences from the centralization of power?”

What are the processes of centralization and decentralization of management?

Turning to the terminology, we can conclude that centralization and decentralization of management are different concepts. Thus, centralization is the concentration of all power in the hands of one organization. From a political point of view, when the government does not accumulate all power in its own hands, but gives some competence to local self-government bodies, this is decentralization. What it is, you can find out in more detail expert answers on this issue.

Two methodological approaches to decentralization of power

Today, according to Vardan Baghdasaryan, there are two methodological approaches that allow us to answer the question: decentralization - what is it. The entire volume of managerial powers can be represented by a specific figure, which will be 100%. If more than 90% of powers are concentrated in the hands of higher authorities and only 10% are given to the competence, then it can be argued that in a given state management is centralized. If the percentage distribution of power is inversely related, that is, 90% relate to the powers of local self-government and only 10% to government bodies at the federal and regional levels, then we can say that a process of decentralization of management has taken place.

Thus, the first methodological approach allows us to talk about a management model - excessive decentralization. In other words, pressing issues for local self-government cannot be resolved directly “on the ground”. To do this, it is necessary to lobby the interests of a particular locality in higher authorities, which in most cases is impossible to achieve.

If the decentralization of powers follows the second model, then the risk of separatism within the state increases. This may become the main determining factor in the collapse of the country's statehood.

What are the disadvantages of decentralization of power?

It is not enough to answer the question: “Decentralization - what is it?” - it is important to understand the main pros and cons of this mechanism of separation of powers.

1. Loss of monopoly by government. This disadvantage lies in the fact that central government bodies cannot carry out stabilization work. Part of the powers is assigned to the regions of the Russian Federation, which is a fairly significant financial burden for them. It is for this reason that they spread
2. The growth of bureaucratization. Decentralization of power is not only the distribution of powers, but also an increase in the number of government institutions and officials, each of which plays its own specific role. This causes excessive regulation both in the political sphere and in the economic and social sphere.
3. In addition, decentralization of power means increasing corruption in local governments. When power is delineated, powers are redistributed at the local level. Local elites come to control, thanks to whom they lobby the interests of business companies using bribery of authorities, giving bribes and giving gifts.
4. Lack of transparency of local authorities. If the highest government bodies publish reports on their activities, then local government leaves its work in the shadows. Officials at the local level control the activities of the media, so it is not possible to publicize the activities of the authorities from an unfavorable angle.

Despite the fact that decentralization of power in Russia faces numerous problems, this mechanism has a number of unrealized advantages and opportunities.

Flexibility of local self-government

Local governments are much better informed about existing problems in a particular locality. Thanks to this, it is possible to make flexible decisions aimed at solving emerging situations. However, due to the lack of proper political and economic incentives, the system does not work.

Competition between local self-government jurisdictions

One of the main advantages of decentralization is competition between different jurisdictions. However, due to the fact that there is no single economic space within the Russian Federation, there is low mobility of labor, labor and

Responsibility of LSG

Responsibility of the authorities to the electorate. It is believed that it is the LSG that is as close as possible to the people and knows their needs and problems. Therefore, activities should be as open and transparent as possible. In fact, the top local authorities are representatives of local elites who prefer to leave their own work in the shadows, thereby hiding the true direction of their activities.

Mechanism of checks and balances

Proportional centralization and decentralization of management, which presupposes a strict division of powers according to the 50/50 principle, allows us to avoid the usurpation of power. However, for the effective functioning of the mechanism, institutions specializing in control are necessary. On the territory of the Russian Federation, this practice is weak, which does not allow adequate coordination of management between different levels of government.

Centralization and decentralization of power is an issue that is most relevant today in Russia. Only a competent distribution of powers among bodies at various levels of government will allow us to avoid the possible disadvantages of this mechanism for delimiting competence and realize the opportunities.

Internet program "Finding Meaning"
Topic: "Decentralization"
Issue #120

Stepan Sulakshin: Good afternoon, colleagues! Today's term, the meaning of which we will reveal, is “decentralization”. At the moment, this term is relevant because in the difficult conflict of the development of Ukrainian statehood, one of the points of conflict between the militia of Donetsk, Lugansk and the central Kyiv authorities concerns the possibilities and potential for the decentralization of public administration in Ukraine.

But in our Russian practice of state building, this topic is also relevant in the current political dictionary, since local government reforms, federalism reforms have not yet been completed, and the question of decentralization and centralization is relevant. Vardan Ernestovich Bagdasaryan begins.

Vardan Baghdasaryan: Two methodological approaches to considering the category of “decentralization” can be proposed. I'll start with the first approach. We know that there is a certain amount of management authority, and it is 100%. How should these managerial powers be distributed between central and local authorities? If we assume that 90% of powers are given to the center, and 10% to the localities, then we can say that there is centralization. If, on the contrary, 90% of powers are local, and only 10% are given to the center, then here we can talk about decentralization.

In the first model, the model of excessive centralization, local issues are not resolved, which means that in order to achieve their solution, one must appeal to the center, and this always involves overcoming many bureaucratic steps. In the second option, when 90% of the powers are local, the threat of separatism arises.

It would seem that we need to find the optimum, and such an optimum, obviously, will be a 50 to 50 ratio. But, in fact, we can apply our own optimum ratio of the distribution of powers between the center and the localities to different civilizational contexts, to different country contexts.

For Russia, the issue of centralization is more than relevant. If we look at the course of Russian history, remember how Russian statehood was formed, remember the basic milestones from which Great Russian statehood began to emerge, then we will see that here there was a centralization of Russian lands around Moscow and then - the creation of a Russian centralized state. Through centralization, the vector of Russian history and the building of Russian statehood was set.

In Russian history, this increased importance of the centralization factor was influenced by several integral factors. The first factor is the world's largest territory with an always low population density. Economic ties with such a dispersed population are fragile; a powerful political state center was required that would integrate this space, not always economically, but often politically, and in some other way.

The second factor is the traditional multi-ethnicity on the territory of Russia. This multi-ethnicity implied threats of national separatism, and in order to suppress this national separatism there had to be a powerful center that would not only suppress, but also ideologically integrate this entire space.

Well, the third, perhaps the main factor, in any case, many Russian historians believed so, is the military factor. It is clear that preparations for war and the military sphere cannot be left to the local level. Or rather, it is theoretically possible, but nothing good can come of it.

The military factor of Russia being surrounded by a foreign civilization and the threat of military pressure from the outside implied increased centralization, which has always been preserved in the history of Russia. In the history of Russia there was experience of decentralization, for example, in 1917, during the late Gorbachev period. These points of crisis of statehood - 1917 and 1991, show how dangerous this decentralization vector, despite its external attractiveness - “let's give power to the localities, let the people solve their problems themselves,” is. Medvedev, as president, actively advocated one of his basic programs - the idea of ​​decentralization.

But there is another challenge. There is a challenge to the omnipotence and arbitrariness of central officials who can paralyze any system, and this challenge must also be taken into account. Therefore, the question here is to find this optimum.

I would like to note that decentralization is not identical to democracy, although sometimes these concepts are almost equated. There are examples of completely different models that emerged as a result of decentralization. Suffice it to recall a classic example that has even become a household word, the Roman Empire.

In essence, it was a decentralized education. The power of the emperor is nominal, the power of the center is insignificant, but in the localities there was by no means democracy. In the localities, the omnipotence of feudal lords reigned, who gained complete control over the population.

The realities of our decentralization - in the 90s, one could observe how criminals and local authorities, being elected figures in local government bodies, essentially seized power locally. But we all know how these elections were carried out. Who could besiege these local authorities and local criminals? Again, only a strong central government.

The first approach is related to finding the optimum between centralization and decentralization. But there is a second approach. You can consider this problem on another scale of the level of controllability - how controllable the system is: 100% or 0%, when it becomes uncontrollable. It is clear that there is not a single system, either absolutely controllable or absolutely uncontrollable, so here we need to find some value that reflects this moment.

The more controllable the system is, the better it is, obviously, the more opportunities there are to solve problems that arise in this system in a targeted manner. If central authorities provide, say, 40% of the level of possible 100% controllability of the system, then in the absence of local authorities this will amount to 40% of the controllability of the entire system.

If local authorities appear, suppose they provide another 40%, that is, the level of controllability of the system in this case is 80% of the theoretically possible level of controllability of the system. In this formulation of the issue, local authorities do not take away their powers from the central ones; they extend their powers to places where the power of the central apparatus does not reach. What is observed here is not a distribution of control from the state level to the local level, but, on the contrary, the accumulation of the effect of both - the local one is added to the state level.

We can give an example of the creation of a centralized state from history. This is the time of Ivan the Terrible. I think that no one will doubt that under Ivan the Terrible the centralization vector was quite strong, but it was under him that local bodies and local government were created.

That is, in this case it was not a matter of redistributing powers to whom is greater - the center or the localities, but about establishing powers where there was no control at all, that is, a compounding effect is observed. Therefore, in this second proposed formulation of the question, decentralization does not occur as a transition from centralization to local control, a vector shift in this direction, but here centralization plus local control is observed as a synergistic effect of spreading the controllability of the system. Thank you.

Stepan Sulakshin: Thank you, Vardan Ernestovich. Vladimir Nikolaevich Leksin.

Vladimir Leksin: The meaning of the concepts “centralization” and “decentralization” would seem obvious and quite simple. Both of these concepts come from the same Latin word - centrum, the center of a circle. It is usually assumed that centralization is the concentration in one hand, in one body, sometimes in one place, of anything - power, resources, political influence.

Decentralization, on the contrary, is the abolition or weakening of the sole function of the center with the appearance of these functions in other government bodies, other territories, and so on. Moreover, centralization and decentralization are the natural foundations or principles for constructing any organizational system. There is probably no organizational structure in which there is only centralization, or in which everything is decentralized.

And here the most important thing, the most difficult thing is to find a balance between them, and neither centralization nor decentralization in its pure form can ever be considered an end in itself; they are always needed for something. And this “for something” is probably the most difficult thing in the science of management, if such a science exists, and even more so in practice.

Why do we concentrate power in one hand, for what purpose are we trying to disperse it in one way or another? There are 4 directions of decentralization of power. The very first direction, the most famous, is the separation of powers. Once upon a time there was a kind of decentralization of the autocratic management structure, when the court and the executive power were in the same hands, and the ruler himself issued laws, and so on.

The second direction, the most understandable to everyone, is the delimitation of jurisdiction, powers and resources between the authorities of individual levels of state territorial administration. The third direction is, unfortunately, the transfer of a number of functions of government bodies to God knows to whom. Most often, non-governmental organizations or commercial structures receive some kind of management outsourcing.

Finally, the fourth, most significant direction is the distribution of state functions between specialized government bodies. The last administrative reform, when we simultaneously had ministries, services and departments, was probably the most surprising phenomenon in the decentralization of power, which, frankly speaking, did not lead to anything good. All the experts say this.

The advantages of decentralization are undeniable - the potential for distribution of power. This is an opportunity, seeing what can be seen from your window, from your workplace, at the level of a small district or settlement, to do something that the center will never do for the reason that there is not enough intelligence, or resources, or information .

At the same time, decentralization is the most difficult of all management actions that can be. And the difficulty here is that the center still remains, and a very complex procedure of agreement, dissatisfaction, and various kinds of not entirely legitimate actions begins regarding what needs to be done by whom. It's very difficult.

The peak of government decentralization is the federal structure, so it is not surprising that out of almost 200 states, only 25 are federal states. This is an unusually complex system of government. Here in Russia it was done again.

It would seem that now there are no problems for any centralization; everything can be centralized. The most powerful information flows, any information about resources, problems, troubles, and so on can converge in the center. And the center, in the same way, with one click of a computer can transfer any information, any resources, or anything you like to the localities. In reality, all this, of course, is not true.

What is our country like? These are 85 subjects of the federation, of which 3 cities of federal significance - Moscow, St. Petersburg and Sevastopol, 27.5 thousand local governments, 1087 cities, very diverse, from large to small, almost 150 thousand rural settlements, in a third of which no one lives. This is a complex structure, geographically distributed across different borders in the north, south, east, and west of the country.

It would seem that this is where local self-government and local authorities would need to really turn around. Actually this is not true. I have already said that territorial decentralization presupposes, first of all, the delimitation of objects of vision, powers, and resources. Now in the country there are 4,600 different kinds of powers approved by laws, which are distributed among different authorities.

What is local government? He has, for example, 30 of his own issues of local importance, he seems to have his own resources, and most importantly, according to our Constitution, local self-government is not included in the structure of government. This is a completely independent structure.

In fact, this constitutional rule was not only violated from the very beginning, but was never applied, because in local governments 96% of all their powers and 92% of all resources are determined only by the center. This is what they must do according to federal laws, according to the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and what they must do on instructions from the president, the Government of the Russian Federation.

They have nothing of their own. They are only executors of what is given from above. And if, God forbid, one of them does something necessary on the spot, but is not included in the rules established by him from above, the laws of resource distribution, and so on, he will immediately go to trial, because this will be considered misuse means or misuse of power.

This chimerical nature of our decentralized system is, of course, extremely harmful; it can only be justified in one way. Centralization in any state is justified and necessary when there is a clear goal towards which the state must go in order for the well-being of the country and the happiness of its citizens to be at an unusually high level.

In this case, perhaps, for some time it is necessary to concentrate power in one hand, so that everyone works only within the framework of this goal. But now, since this does not exist, the balance between decentralization and centralization in our country is not just precarious, it is absolutely irrational.

There has not been a single case when any authority was transferred from top to bottom for its execution, and at the same time a calculation of social, economic, demographic effectiveness was made in terms of the fact that this would have a positive result. This, again, is a centralized shaft of orders and obligations that comes from top to bottom.

As for Ukraine, I cannot say anything about this, because the speeches about decentralization that come from there make me very confused. It seems to me that this is not what these territories would need, which now, from my point of view, absolutely rightly disagree with the actions of the central authorities. Thank you.

Stepan Sulakshin: Thank you, Vladimir Nikolaevich. When we talk about decentralization and centralization, in terms of what do we consider them? What comes to mind in connection with these basic terms? Two categories - state and management, again, public management, because management can also be outside state institutions, for example, in some team, corporation, and so on. We still focus on the political vocabulary within the framework of derivative meanings and terms in relation to the state.

That is, we are talking about the institutional state structure, the functional structure and the adjacent numerous aspects of the corresponding relations of state building and public administration.

Formally, and in essence, decentralization is the redistribution of power and resources from higher levels and authorities to lower ones, usually located in a geographic province relative to the capital of the state.

Here two mental spaces are mixed, in which thought seeks a center - the center of a certain space. On the one hand, these are indeed geographical principles, because the state is located in geographical space. There is a capital, where control and decision-making centers, resource distribution sources and origins are concentrated, and a geographical province.

But there is a second space, already abstract, this space of authority or, as they say now, the vertical of power. It is usually represented as a pyramid. The top of the pyramid, the center, at the top is where the capital is, where the central governing bodies are, and below is the entire distributed subordinate space of authorities, levels and powers, and so on. Therefore, here we are talking about centralization and decentralization both in a hierarchical sense - from top to bottom along the levels of subordination, and in a geographical sense. In our federal country this is especially specific.

Why am I talking about two things - about powers and resources? Because subordination in the hierarchy is based on two matters, two institutions. The first subordination is administrative or formalized subordination, the second is based on the possibilities of resource provision for the relevant functions by the relevant bodies.

When redistribution and reform of power relations are now taking place within the framework of federalism or, one step lower, within the framework of local self-government, it is easy to transfer powers. Well, we copied two pieces of paper. Previously, the center was responsible for a certain issue, and now the head of some village council will be responsible, but there are no resources to ensure these powers. Well, how to implement them? Therefore, the power opportunity arises from the administrative and resource opportunities, which in the same way can be centralized or decentralized.

What are powers? This is a set of rights and responsibilities of a government administrative body or person. What type are these rights and responsibilities, these powers? The first, most important type, is political rights and obligations, the second is administrative, the third is legal, the fourth is security or law enforcement.

This applies to financial spheres, areas of budgeting, taxation, other elements of the budget revenue base and the possibility of spending them, economic spheres, areas of education, culture, health care, science, public safety, ecology, national relations and so on.

It is clear that power without resources in each of these areas turns, to put it mildly, into a fiction. Someone gives coiands to someone, but it is impossible to fulfill this, because there are no material, human and other resources. Resources include, first of all, financial or budgetary components, if we talk about power, which is provided by the tax base and other circumstances, these are state reserves, the contingent of law enforcement agencies in the territory, this is a purely physical factor of administrative power capabilities, information resources and some less significant resources.

Therefore, when we talk about decentralization as a redistribution of power and resources, this is not just a figure of speech. This is a conversation about the very redistribution of the tax base, spending opportunities, areas of responsibility, resources of all types that I talked about.

And, of course, the main issue in such a complex structure of distribution of resources and power mandate is the coordination of powers and resources across levels, so that there are no holes, and so that there is no inconsistency - powers were given, but resources were not given. The opposite is unlikely to happen, because, of course, everyone grabs resources for themselves, and this is understandable.

The second problem is the optimal distribution across levels, both in the center and on the periphery, for example, in the tax revenue base of the budget. Taxes, as they say, are collected on the ground. Here is a person with income, here is an enterprise, here is property subject to tax, and so on. So, how much to collect in taxes and how much to leave at the local, territorial level, and how much to consolidate to the center, and then how much to subsidize back from there within the framework of vertical inter-budgetary relationships - this is a question of a complex multi-parameter optimization problem.

What is the criterion for success in this optimization? This, of course, is the integrity, strength, and success of the state as a whole. Because if you re-decentralize, then the state itself will disappear, and if you re-centralize, then it can turn into some kind of structure that is not reflexive to the realities of life and does not react to what is happening there, as, for example, was the case in the Soviet Union when there was re-centralization and power and resources.

Therefore, re-centralization and re-decentralization are points of a successful appearance and life of the state that cannot be achieved. Success is somewhere in the middle. And finding this optimum, setting up all these material and virtual power redistributions, this is the challenge, in response to which this or that state either becomes successful or may ultimately fall apart.

Can you imagine how relevant this is for our modern Russian state building, in which these issues are resolved in a far from optimal way. Therefore, once again, decentralization is the redistribution of power and resources from higher levels of government and authorities to lower ones, usually located in a geographic province relative to the capital.

Thank you. I hope everyone will now pay attention to what politicians say and what they do when they talk about decentralization. All the best.

In any organization, the question of distribution of powers arises, which is the most important problem when choosing the design of the organization. At the same time, there are two fundamentally different approaches: centralization and decentralization. Centralization– concentration of decision-making rights at the highest level of management. Controllability rate– the number of people directly subordinate to one manager. Decentralization– transfer or delegation of decision-making rights to lower levels of management. It must be borne in mind that all powers cannot be centralized or decentralized. Complete centralization is hampered by the fact that people have limited resources of time, knowledge, experience and can simultaneously solve only a certain number of problems and absorb a limited amount of information. Complete decentralization is impossible due to the fact that the organization will lose control and fall into a state of chaos. This inevitably leads to the fact that centralization in one respect simultaneously requires the reverse process in another. Thus, excessive concentration of solutions to certain problems in a higher management structure will lead to the fact that most of them will inevitably be accepted at its lower levels, which will not at all improve their quality, but will reduce efficiency and increase the bureaucratization of management. Centralization and decentralization of management can develop as breadth, so deep down. In the first case, we are talking about an increase in the number of problems under the control of a given subject; in the second - about their more thorough and detailed elaboration, which otherwise could be carried out at the lower levels of the management hierarchy. The degree of centralization or decentralization in an organization and its divisions is measured using the following variables: - the number of decisions made at each level of management; - the importance of decisions made for the organization; - degree of control over the implementation of the decision made.

In a small organization, all decisions can be made by its leader. However, with an increase in the size of the organization, the scale and complexity of work, a situation may arise when the manager is overloaded with decision-making and there will be a need to delegate authority (decentralization). Decentralization indicates that power is widely distributed throughout the organization, while centralization means that power is held at the top of the organization.

Centralization- this is the concentration of decision-making rights, the concentration of power at the top level of management of the organization. Decentralization- this is the transfer or delegation of responsibility for a number of key decisions, and therefore the transfer of rights corresponding to this responsibility to the lower levels of management of the organization.

Benefits of Centralization

1. Centralization improves control and coordination of specialized independent functions, reduces the number and scale of erroneous decisions made by less experienced managers. 2. Strong centralized management avoids a situation in which some departments of the organization grow and develop at the expense of others or the organization as a whole. 3. Centralized management makes it possible to more economically and easily use the experience and knowledge of the personnel of the central administrative body.

Allows you to ensure high consistency in the actions of organizational units; - improves control over the activities of departments; - reduces the number of errors when making decisions; - in concentrating the decision-making process in the hands of those who know the general situation better, have a greater outlook, knowledge, and experience; - eliminating unjustified duplication of management functions, leading to savings in relevant costs; - strengthening the strategic focus of the management process and ensuring, if necessary, the concentration of resources on key areas of the organization’s activities.

Disadvantages of centralization:- a lot of time is spent transmitting information, during which a significant part of it is lost or distorted; - the most important decisions are made by people who are disconnected from life and have a poor understanding of the specific situation, while at the same time, performers who are familiar with the situation are excluded from developing and making decisions and they are forced upon them; - solutions turn out to be of insufficient quality and are ineffectively implemented in practice.

Suppression of creative initiative of personnel in solving production problems of the organization;

Reduced management efficiency;

Reduced ability of personnel to adapt to new production and work conditions.

Benefits of Decentralization

1. It is impossible to manage particularly large organizations centrally due to the huge amount of information required for this and, as a consequence, the complexity of the decision-making process.

2. Decentralization gives the right to make decisions to the manager who is closest to the problem that has arisen and, therefore, knows it best.

3. Decentralization stimulates initiative and allows the individual to identify with the organization. With a decentralized approach, the largest division of the organization appears very small to its leader, and he can fully understand its functioning, have complete control over it, and feel like a part of this division. Such a leader can be as enthusiastic about his department as an independent entrepreneur is about his entire business. 4. Decentralization helps prepare a young manager for higher positions by giving him the opportunity to make important decisions early in his career. This ensures an influx of talented managers into the organization. It is assumed that talented leaders are not born, but become through the process of gaining experience. Because the time frame for promotion from rank-and-file to senior positions is shorter, decentralization helps ensure that ambitious and assertive young executives stay with the firm and grow with it.

Allows you to quickly solve problems; - allows you to make objective decisions; - gives flexibility to the organization; - stimulates initiative, develops the creative abilities of middle and lower level managers; - reduces the cost of office work; - allows you to refuse detailed instructions from the center, thereby reducing its overload with secondary problems and reducing information flows. Disadvantages of decentralization:- due to the isolation of the decision-making process and its concentration on the lower levels of the management structure, the interests of other departments and the organization as a whole are often poorly taken into account or completely ignored; - decisions are often tactical in nature, turn out to be small and ineffective; - lack of general rules and procedures for developing and making decisions.

Weakening control and unity in action;

Manifestation of properties of emergence (inf. the presence in a system of properties of integrity, i.e. such properties that are not inherent in the constituent elements; e. is one of the forms of manifestation of the principle of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones; integrity, the presence of new properties of integrity in a system, i.e. i.e. properties that none of its constituent elements have);

the desire to isolate structural units.