5. Зайцева Н. В., Попова А. Ю., Май И. В., Шур П. З. Методы и технологии анализа риска здоровью в системе государственного управления при обеспечении санитарно-эпидемиологического благополучия населения // Гигиена и санитария. 2015. Т. 94. № 2. С. 93--98.
6. Зайцева Н. В., Май И. В., Кирьянов Д. А., Горяев Д. В., Клейн С. В. Социально-гигиенический мониторинг на современном этапе: состояние и перспективы развития в сопряжении с риск-ориентированным надзором // Анализ риска здоровью. 2016. № 4. С. 4--16.
7. Зырянов С. М., Калмыкова А. В. Подходы к оценке эффективности деятельности контрольно-надзорных органов по предупреждению нарушений обязательных требований // Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления. 2019. № 3. С. 31--66.
8. Кучаков Р. К. Реформа контрольно-надзорной деятельности России в 2016-- 2019 гг. Промежуточные итоги / под ред. Д. А. Скугаревского. СПб. : Институт проблем правоприменения при Европейском университете в Санкт-Петербурге, 2020.
9. Механтьев И. И., Масайлова Л. А., Цинкер М. Ю., Ласточкина К. С. Определение эффективности контрольно-надзорной деятельности Роспотребнадзора на основе расчета рисков медико-демографических потерь на примере Воронежской области // Научно-медицинский вестник Центрального Черноземья. 2017. № 70. С. 95--99.
10. Минэкономразвития России. Доклад об осуществлении государственного контроля (надзора), муниципального контроля в соответствующих сферах деятельности и об эффективности такого контроля (надзора) в 2019 году.
11. Попова А. Ю., Брагина И. В., Зайцева Н. В., Май И. В., Шур П. З., Митрохин О. В., Горяев Д. В. О научно-методическом обеспечении оценки результативности и эффективности контрольно-надзорной деятельности федеральной службы в сфере защиты прав потребителей и благополучия человека // Гигиена и санитария. 2017. Т. 96. № 1. С. 5--9.
12. РСПП. Контрольно-надзорная и разрешительная деятельность в Российской Федерации. Аналитический доклад.
13. Шепелев Д. В. Проблемы повышения эффективности контрольно-надзорной деятельности в Российской Федерации в контексте реализации функций государства // Право и государство: теория и практика. № 7 (175). С. 57--60.
14. Alphonce R., Alfnes F., Sharma A. Consumer vs. citizen willingness to pay for restaurant food safety // Food Policy. 2014. № 49 (P1). P. 160--166.
15. Blanc F., Faure M. Smart enforcement in the EU // Journal of Risk Research. 2020. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2019.1673800
16. Blanc F. From Chasing Violations to Managing Risks. Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.
17. da Cunha D. T., Saccol A. L. F., Tondo, E. C., de Oliveira A. B. A., Ginani V. C., Araujo C. V., Lima T. A. S., de Castro A. K. F., Stedefeldt E. Inspection score and grading system for food services in Brazil: The results of a food safety strategy to reduce the risk of foodborne diseases during the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2016. 7(APR). DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00614.
18. Deloitte Centre for Government Insights. Artificial Intelligence in Government. Using cognitive technologies to redesign public sector work -- a Global Perspective.
19. Dobrolyubova E.I. Evaluating Performance of Government Inspection Bodies: Evolving Approaches // The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy. 2017. Vol. 10, iss. 2. Pp. 49--72.
20. Ma L., Liu P. Missing links between regulatory resources and risk concerns: Evidence from the case of food safety in China // Regulation and Governance. 2019. Vol. 13, no. 1. P. 35--50.
21. Mari N., Saija K., Janne L. Significance of official food control in food safety: Food business operators' perceptions // Food Control. 2013. Vol. 31, no. 1. P. 59--64. DOI: 10.1016/j. foodcont.2012.09.041
22. Nagyova L., Andocsova A., Geci A., Zajac P., Palkovic J., Kosiciarova I., Golian J. Consumers' awareness of food safety //Potravinarstvo Slovak Journal of Food Sciences, 2019. No. 13 (1). P. 8--17.
23. Nie W., Abler D., Zhu L., Li T., Lin G. Consumer preferences and welfare evaluation under current food inspection measures in China: Evidence from real experiment choice of rice labels // Sustainability (Switzerland). 2018. No. 10 (11): 4003. DOI: 10.3390/su10114003.
24. OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit. Paris : OECD Publishing, 2018.
25. Reiher C. Food safety and consumer trust in post-Fukushima Japan // Japan Forum. No. 29 (1). P. 53--76.
26. Wong M. R., McKelvey W., Ito K., Schiff C., Jacobson J. B., Kass D. Impact of a lettergrade program on restaurant sanitary conditions and diner behavior in New York City // American Journal of Public Health. 2015. No. 105 (3). P. e81 --e87.
27. Xu L., Wu L. Food safety and consumer willingness to pay for certified traceable food in China // Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2010. No. 90 (8). Pp. 1368--1373. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.3985.
28. Analiticheskij centr pri Pravitel'stve Rossi- jskoj Federacii (2018). Rezul'taty ocenki admin- istrativnoj nagruzki na organizacii i grazhdan, osushhestvljajushhih predprinimatel'skuju dejatel'nost' (vtoroj zamer, 2018). Available at: https://ac.gov.ru/archive/files/content/20043/ ad-nagruzka-knd-pdf.pdf, accessed 01.10.2020 [in Rus].
29. Ganus A.A. (2018) Vestnik Sankt- Peterburgskoj juridicheskoj akademii, no. 3 (40), pp. 15--19 [in Rus].
30. Dobrolyubova E.I., Yuzhakov V.N. (2017) Ocenka rezul'tativnosti kontrol'no-nadzornoi dejatel'nosti: analiz praktiki i metodicheskie rekomendacii. Moscow, Delo», 174 p. [in Rus].
31. Doklad Upolnomochennogo Prezidenta RF po zashhite prav predprinimatelej 2018 g. (2019) Available at: http://doklad.ombudsmanbiz.ru/ doklad_2018.html, accessed 01.10.2020 [in Rus].
32. Zaitseva N.V., Popova A.Ju., May I.V., Shur P.Z. (2015) Gigiena i sanitarija, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 93--98 [in Rus].
33. Zaitseva N.V., May I.V., Kir'janov D.A., Gorjaev D.V., Klejn, S.V. (2016) Analiz riska zdorovju, no. 4, pp. 4--16 [in Rus].
34. Zyryanov S.M., Kalmykova A.V. (2019) Public Administration Issues, no. 3, pp. 31--66 [in Rus].
35. Kuchakov R.K. (2020). Reforma kontrol'no- nadzornoy deyatel'nosti Rossii v 2016--2019 gg. Promezhutochnye itogi. St. Petersburg, Institut problem pravoprimeneniya pri Evropeyskom universitete v Sankt-Peterburge [in Rus].
36. Mehantiev I.I., Masaylova L.A., Tsinker M.Yu., Lastochkina K.S. (2017) Nauchno- medicinskij vestnik Central'nogo Chernozemja, no. 70, pp. 95--99 [in Rus].
37. Minjekonomrazvitija Rossii [Ministry of economic development of Russia] (2020). Doklad ob osushhestvlenii gosudarstvennogo kontrolja (nadzora), municipal'nogo kontrolja v sootvetstvujushhih sferah dejatel'nosti i ob jeffektivnosti takogo kontrolja (nadzora) v 2019 godu. Available at: https://ar.gov.ru/ ru-RU/document/default/view/614, accessed [in Rus].
38. Popova A.Ju., Bragina I.V., Zaitseva N.V., May I.V., Shur P.Z., Mitrohin O.V., Goryaev V. (2017) Gigiena i sanitarija, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 5--9 [in Rus].
39. RSPP (2019) Kontrol'no-nadzornaja i razreshitel'naja dejatel'nost' v Rossijskoj Federacii. Available at: http://www.goskontrol- rspp.ru/docladykomiteta, accessed 21.04.2020 [in Rus].
40. Shepelev D.V. (2019) Pravo igosudarstvo: teorija i praktika, no. 7 (175), pp. 57--60 [in Rus].
41. Alphonce R., Alfnes F., Sharma A. (2014) Food Policy, vol. 49 (P1), pp. 160--166 [in Eng].
42. Blanc F., Faure M. (2020) Journal of Risk Research. DOI: 10.1 080/1 3669877.2019.1673800 [in Eng].
43. Blanc F. (2018). From Chasing Violations to Managing Risks. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing [in Eng].
44. da Cunha, D.T., Saccol, A.L.F., Tondo, C., de Oliveira, A.B.A., Ginani, V.C., Araujo C.V., Lima, T.A.S., de Castro, A.K.F., Stedefeldt, E. (2016) Inspection score and grading system for food services in Brazil: The results of a food safety strategy to reduce the risk of foodborne diseases during the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 7(APR). DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00614. [in Eng].
45. Deloitte Centre for Government Insights (2017). Artificial Intelligence in Government. Using cognitive technologies to redesign public sector work -- A Global Perspective. Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/ public-sector/articles/artificial-intelligence-in- government.html, accessed 01.10.2020 [in Eng].
46. Dobrolyubova E.I. (2017) The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 49--72 [in Eng].
47. Ma L., Liu P. (2019) Regulation and Governance, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 35--50 [in Eng].
48. Mari N., Saija K., Janne L. (2013) Food Control, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 59--64. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.09.041 [in Eng].
49. Nagyova L., Andocsova A., Gйci A., Zajac P., Palkovic J., Kosiciarova I., Golian J. (2019) Potravinarstvo Slovak Journal of Food Sciences, vol. 13 (1), pp. 8--17 [in Eng].
50. Nie W., Abler D., Zhu L., Li T., Lin G. (2018) Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 1 0(11 ):4003. DOI: 10.3390/su10114003 [in Eng].
51. OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit (2018). Paris, OECD Publishing [in Eng].
52. Reiher C. (201 7) Japan Forum, vol. 29 (1), pp. 53--76 [in Eng].
53. Wong M.R., McKelvey W., Ito K., Schiff C., Jacobson J.B., Kass D. (2015) American Journal of Public Health, vol. 105 (3), pp. e81--e87 [in Eng].
54. Xu L., Wu L. (2010) Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, vol. 90 (8), pp. 1368-- 1373. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.3985 [in Eng].
Abstract
COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF SANITARY AND EPIDEMIOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCE
Elena I. Dobrolyubova, The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Leading Researcher, Cand.Sc. (Economics), The Russian Federation
Vladimir N. Yuzhakov, The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Director of the Research Center "Center for Public Administration Technologies" Institute for Applied Economic Research, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor. The Russian Federation,
Introduction. Improving control and supervisory activities on the basis of introducing risk-oriented approaches is an urgent area of public administration reforms both in Russia and abroad. Traditionally, assessing the effectiveness of this area is carried out on the basis of the state control intensity indicators (the number of inspections), and assessing risks in controlled areas is carried out on the basis of statistical indicators, partially dependent on state control bodies. To obtain a balanced assessment of the state control effectiveness and efficiency, it is important to take into account other data sources reflecting the citizens' and the business community position.
The purpose of the study is to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of sanitary and epidemiological surveillance on the basis of both statistical data and the results of sociological studies reflecting the position of citizens and business.
Methods. The authors suggest their own methods for comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of state control.
The scientific novelty of the study consists in a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of sanitary and epidemiological surveillance, taking into account various data sources and making it possible to assess the progress of implementing the reform of state control in this area. Results. The results of the study indicate, in general, an increase in the effectiveness and budgetary efficiency of sanitary and epidemiological surveillance over the last years of the reform implementation. At the same time, at the level of intermediate and immediate results, there are multidirectional trends, and the growth in the total costs of business and the state is ahead of the growth in the results achieved.
Conclusions. The use of the authors' comprehensive methodology for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of state control makes it possible to obtain reliable data characterizing the actual state of things in the area under consideration. Further improving the efficiency and effectiveness of sanitary and epidemiological surveillance requires expanding the scope of applying risk-oriented approaches and improving the quality of considering the appeals of the citizens who faced with risks of wrongdoing.
Key concepts: public administration, control and supervisory activities, effectiveness, sanitary and epidemiological surveillance, sociologicalresearch, efficiency.