Self-regulation as a type of managerial activity

The subject. In the context of the ongoing administrative reform in the Russian Federation the issue of self-regulation is becoming increasingly important. Introduction of Institute of self-regulation is intended to reduce the degree of state intervention in private spheres of professional activity, to eliminate excessive administrative barriers, reduce government expenditures on regulation and control in their respective areas of operation, which is especially important in the current economic conditions. However, in Russian legal science is no recognized definition of "self-regulation", but a unity of views on the question of the relationship between self-regulation and state regulation of business relations. In this regard, the author attempts to examine the concept of "self-regulation" through the prism of knowledge about public administration. The purpose of the article is to identify the essential features and to articulate the concept of self-regulation by comparing it with other varieties of regulation. Methodology. The methodological basis for the study: general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, comparison, description); private and academic (interpretation, formal-legal). Results, scope. Based on the analysis allocated in the science of administrative law approaches to the system of public administration justifies the conclusion that the notion "regulation" is specific in relation to the generic concept of "management" and is a kind of management, consisting in the drafting of rules of conduct and sanctions for non-compliance or inadequate performance. In addition, the article highlights the problem of the genesis of self-regulation, building a system of principles of self-regulation, comparison of varieties of self-regulatory organizations among themselves. Conclusions. The comparison of self-regulation other types of regulation (such as state regulation and co-regulation) highlighted the essential features of this phenomenon and the place of self regulation in the system of public administration. Based on the above characteristics formulated the author's definition of self-regulation. Self-regulation is proposed to understand the management activities carried out by self-regulatory organizations, and consisting in the development and establishment of standards and rules of professional activity, as well as sanctions for non-compliance or inadequate performance.


Introduction
Formation and development of self-regulation in the Russian Federation is a consequence of the ongoing administrative reform, aimed at optimizing the system of public administration.
The development of the system of self-regulating organizations in the field of economy was listed among the priority directions of the administrative reform envisaged by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation "On Measures for Conducting Administrative Reform in 2003-2004". The Concept of Administrative Reform in the Russian Federation in 2006-2010, approved by the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 25, 2005 No. 1789-r "On the development and adoption of normative legal acts, abolishing redundant and duplicate functions carried out by the executive authorities, allowing to transfer a number of state functions to selfregulating organizations and establish mechanisms to prevent the emergence of new redundant functions in the bodies of executive power" were named among the important activities in the framework of administrative reform.
The Concept of long-term social and economic development of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020, approved by the decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 17, 2008 No. 1662-r, specified the need to create conditions for free enterprise and competition, the development of self-regulatory mechanisms of the business community.
According to A.N. Kostyukov, the result of the development of self-regulation in our country is to improve the business climate, reduce administrative pressure on business entities [1, p. 58-63].
1. Self-regulation in the system of public administration Self-regulation as one of the priority areas of administrative reform is inextricably linked with the system of public administration. That is why it is advisable to study the concept of "selfregulation" through the prism of knowledge about public management.
Most scientists agree that the basis of management is the effect of the subject on the object of management in order to ensure the stable functioning of a particular system [2, c. 50; 3, p. 13; 4, p. 8].
Management can be classified on various grounds [5, c. 49]. The greatest scientific value for the purposes of this article, in our view, is the classification depending on the specifics of the subject of management. In the science of administrative law, public administration is identified as a kind of social management.
Public administration includes state and local government, as well as management in public associations, commercial and non-profit organizations.
At the same time, there is a tendency to expand the circle of managing subjects as a result of empowering organizations that are not members of the public authorities. According to the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, set forth in Decree No. 15-P of May 19, 1998, the Constitution of the Russian Federation "does not prohibit states from transferring certain powers of the executive authorities non-governmental organizations involved in the implementation of public authority functions", provided that this does not contradict the Constitution and federal laws.
On the correct remark of Yu.N. Starilov, management relations form an independent element of the subject of administrative law [7, c. 44]. A.I. Stakhov also quite rightly includes "relations in which, without direct participation, but under the control of administrative and public bodies, individual organizations or individuals exert an authoritative influence on the behavior of other individuals or organizations aimed at ensuring enforcement norms of federal legislation and legislation of the subjects of the Russian Federation" in the structure of the subject of administrative law [8, c. 11-13].
Currently, the circle of subjects of public administration includes also non-profit organizations that carry out the publicly-delegated powers transferred to them, including certain types of self-regulating organizations.
Public management is a complex phenomenon, consisting of many elements.
In the science of administrative law, different approaches to the system of public administration in general and public administration in particular are highlighted. D.N. Bachrach rightly notes that management is divided into relatively independent types of organizational activities, which can be named control functions. Among the general managerial functions, these are relatively independent specialized types of managerial activity, like forecasting, planning, normative regulation, methodological guidance, structural function, work with personnel, financing, operational regulation, accounting, control, records management [9, p. 63-64].
In the opinion of Yu.M. Kozlov, the fullness of state management of organizational content "is expressed in the implementation of the basic forms of managerial activity -planning and regulation, the selection and placement of personnel, control and verification of performance" [10, p. 10].
B.M. Lazarev defined the function of management as a kind of managerial activity. Among the functions of social management, the author singled out forecasting, planning, organization, regulation, management, coordination, control, accounting [11, p. 150].
V.E. Chirkin defines public administration as a set of activities: rule-making, administrative, control, organizational, etc. [12, p. 41] G.I. Petrov believed that the term "element" is more preferable for designating the components of management, rather than "function", since management itself is a social function.
Using the nature of management actions as a criterion for classifying the elements of social management, the author proposed the following complex of their main types: selection, placement and education of personnel, information, forecasting, planning, regulation, decision, execution, control [13, p. 47-49].
Despite the fact that different terms are used to designate the components of management in the science of administrative law, their various lists are singled out, regulation is a universally recognized element of management.
Specialists in the field of theory of state and law also consider state regulation as one of the manifestations (functions) of public administration [14, p. 56].
Thus, the concept of "regulation" is specific to the generic notion of "management." Regulation is a kind of management activity, the content of which is to develop rules of conduct and establish sanctions for their failure to perform or improper performance.
Depending on the subject of regulation, the following types of regulation can be singled out: state regulation, regulation, self-regulation.
State regulation is the establishment and provision by the state of general rules of behavior of subjects of public relations and their adjustment depending on changing conditions [15, p. 16].
I.S. Nikolaev, among the main signs of state regulation of entrepreneurial activity, calls the following [18, c. 26-30]: 1) state regulation of entrepreneurial activity is an impact of the state aimed at a certain range of entities, which include legislative, executive and judicial authorities, business entities and other independent participants in the relationship; 2) the object of state regulation of entrepreneurial activity are relations in the field of entrepreneurial activity, specified in accordance with its direction; 3) the purpose of state regulation of entrepreneurial activity is the prevention, modification or termination of a certain kind of economic situation or, on the contrary, its maintenance in an appropriate condition; 4) state regulation of entrepreneurial activity has a legal basis. In the domestic literature there is also co-regulation, which assumes simultaneous implementation of regulation by the state and other (non-authoritative) subjects. If self-regulation involves restricting state intervention in certain areas of entrepreneurial activity, the implementation of regulation directly by associations of market participants without external interference, the essence of co-regulation, on the contrary, is reduced to the implementation of regulation on the basis of harmonizing the interests of power and non-state actors [19, c. 15].
As an example of the co-regulation Z.M. Baymuratova cites the activities of the Advertising Council of Russia as an organization that carried out work on setting standards for activities, monitoring compliance with these standards, reviewing complaints and resolving conflicts. At the same time, members of the Advertising Council of Russia are not only representatives of the advertising sector (the Association of Advertisers, the Russian Association of Advertising Agencies and others), but also representatives of government bodies (FAS Russia) and consumer organizations [2 0, c. 36].
In our opinion, co-regulation takes place when the relevant acts are taken by the representatives of the professional community not independently, but by joint publication with representatives of public authorities or when the acts developed by the representatives of the relevant activity for making them legally pass the procedure of mandatory approval by the authorized authorities.
Examples of regulatory acts are normative legal acts adopted by the Council of Ministers of the USSR jointly with the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions.

Concept and characteristics of self-regulation
The third type of regulation is self-regulation. Self-regulation is a complicated phenomenon. In the most general form, self-regulation is defined as "the ability of the system to react independently to external influences that disrupt its normal functioning" [2 2, c. 780].
The study of the history of the creation and functioning of associations of subjects of professional activity allows us to come to the conclusion that self-regulation is not a fundamentally new legal phenomenon, previously unknown in our country. The first prototypes of self-regulating organizations were born in Russia in the Middle Ages as voluntary associations of traders.
In the XVIII century on the initiative of the state that used the European experience, workshops were created as an organizational form of association of craftsmen, which gave the right to engage in crafts.
In the Soviet period, self-regulation can only be spoken of as a declarative principle of the functioning of the bar.
The emergence of self-regulation as a special kind of managerial activity occurred in Russia in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The greatest degree of legal regulation of self-regulation achieved since the adoption of the Law on SRO.
Economists consider self-regulation as "an institution within which a group of economic agents creates, changes and complements the legitimate rules governing the economic activities of these agents, and regulatory subjects have the opportunity to legitimately control the behavior of the regulator (controller)" [23, c. 7].
Despite the true reflection of the content of self-regulation, this definition is not without its shortcomings: it does not indicate that the necessary condition for self-regulation of the activities of economic entities is their association in self-regulatory organizations as the organizational basis for self-regulation.
Researchers in the field of sociology define self-regulation as "an institution created as a result of the voluntary activity of social actors through their association in organizations whose activities are aimed at developing rules regulating the behavior of participants in certain activities, their subsequent monitoring, as well as the possibility of prosecution for violation of these rules, subject to minimal state regulation of this sphere " [24, c. 13 ] .
This definition includes a prerequisite of self-association of the subjects in the special organizations and quite rightly lists the major functions of such organizations. However, this definition of self-regulation is called voluntary association of subjects, without regard to envisaged by the Federal Law "On self-regulatory organizations" [5] (hereinafter -the Law on SRO) diversity of models of self-regulation.
Part 1 of Art. 2 of the Law on SRO contains a legal definition of self-regulation: "Selfregulation refers to independent and proactive activity that is carried out by business or professional activity and the content of which is the development and establishment of standards and rules for such activities, as well as monitoring compliance with these standards and requirements of the rules".
The question of the concept of self-regulation remains controversial.
One of the most comprehensive approaches to self-regulation adheres to Y.A. Tihomirov who defines it as a "public affairs management system constructed on the basis of self-organizing and self-activity" [26, p. 193-213], that is, the author does not limit the possibility of self beyond any organization. Some researchers followed the legislator considers the self as a special kind of activity that "is expressed either in the transfer of rights organizations, or in the regulation of the organization of its participants" [27, p.51-54 ] . Other authors define self-regulation as an "institution within which economic agents independently establish the rules of economic activity in a particular area of business; they legally govern the behavior of the controller, which monitors compliance with the established rules, and are also objects of control " [ 28, p. 88-98 ] .
Russian scientists are divided in answering the question of whether the state's participation is prerequisite of self-regulation. There are following points of view: -According to the first of these self-regulation occurs without the intervention of the state [29,p. 121-126; 30, p. 220-223]; -part of the research highlights a special kind of self-regulation: self-regulation with the "participation" of the state (delegated self-regulation) [ 31 , p. 12-14; 32, p. 173]; -according to supporters of the third approach, "self-regulation takes a middle position between government regulation and corporate self-regulation, as the SRO rules are not fully provided by the legal protection of the state" [ 33, p. 70] .
The state's role in self-regulation depends on the reason of its occurrence, as well as selfregulation models. The first position reflects the degree of state involvement in the case where selfregulation occurs at the initiative of the subjects of the professional activity and not as a result of state coercion. The second of the above points of view, more correct, since it takes into account the dependence of the state's role of self-regulation model. In the case of compulsory self line between government regulation and self-regulation is less clear, however, no reason for their identification.
When deciding on the state's role in self-regulation seems most reasonable point of view, according to which "self-regulation in any case involves an element of control that comes from the state, represented by its authorities" [34, p. 115-116], regardless of the occurrence of the bases and a model of self-regulation.
Currently, self-regulation in the Russian Federation shall be exercised under the conditions of association of subjects of professional activity in the self-regulatory organizations.
According to Art. 3 of the Law on SRO "self-regulatory organizations are as recognized non-profit organizations established for the purpose envisaged by the present Federal Law and other federal laws, based on membership, combining of business entities based on the unity of industries producing goods (works, services) or market produced goods (works, services) or uniting subjects of professional activity of some kind".
Membership in self-regulatory organizations, as a general rule, is voluntary. However, federal laws on specific types of entrepreneurial activity can be provided by compulsory membership of self-regulatory organizations. Thus, depending on the legal value of the two selfregulatory models can be distinguished: voluntary and compulsory ones.
Compulsory membership of self-regulatory organizations is provided for persons engaged in the following activities: activities of arbitration managers and operators of electronic platforms assessment activities; auditing activities; actuarial activities; credit cooperatives; energy audits; engineering surveys, preparation of project documentation, construction; activity audit Unions of Agricultural Cooperatives; the organization of gambling in bookmakers and betting. In addition, January 11, 2016 came into force the Federal Law of July 13, 2015 № 223-FZ "On self-regulatory organizations in the financial market and on amendments to Articles 2 and 6 of the Federal Law" On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts Russian Federation", which is set for virtually all financial institutions the obligation to be members of self-regulatory organization, the form of which corresponds to the type of activity carried out by a financial institution.
In this case, the entry to the self-regulatory organization is not a subjective right and legal obligation. By virtue of para. 3 of Art. 49 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation devoted to the legal capacity of a legal person, the right to a legal entity to carry out activities for the class which requires membership in the self-regulatory organization or a certificate self-regulatory organization for admission to a particular type of work, there is the entry of the legal entity in the self-regulatory organization.
The norms of Art. 49 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation together with the dispositive regulation of social relations by fixed and mandatory elements of a method that is characteristic of administrative law.
In the case of voluntary self-regulation SRO members make a decision on joining the SRO and, accordingly, its acceptance of the obligations under the rules of self-fulfillment. In the case of compulsory self-regulation of entry into the self-regulatory organization and compliance with standards and regulations is a condition for the implementation of relevant activities. Membership in this kind of self-regulating organizations is not more than the entry barrier -market access conditions. In these cases, the boundaries between state regulation and self-regulation are becoming less clear, however, these concepts are not identical. M.A. Yegorova said that the main difference in the legal status of voluntary SRO and the SRO based on obligatory membership, is the purpose of their activities: "Voluntary associations operate in order to meet the only common interests of their members, and the purpose of the activities with the necessary self-regulation is thet implementation of public interest" [37, p. 25-32].
The presence of these features allows a number of scientists adhere to the viewpoint of the public legal status of self-regulatory organizations with compulsory membership [ 39 , c . 49-50] .
In our view, the differences between two varieties of self-regulatory organizations, in addition to the presence or absence of obligation to engage in them, is as follows. The hallmark of the SRP, based on the principle of compulsory membership is giving them publicly-imperious powers: the power to establish standards and rules of professional activities, compliance with which is a mandatory condition for the implementation of the relevant activities; authority to monitor compliance of their members, not only the standards and rules of self-regulation, but also the provisions of the federal laws on specific types of professional activity; power to deal with complaints against members of the self-regulatory organization and cases of violation of the requirements of not only the standards and rules of self-regulatory organization, the conditions of membership in the self-regulatory organization, but also the requirements of laws on certain types of professional activities, as well as on the application to the members of disciplinary measures, to the exclusion of members of the self-regulatory organization, entailing a ban on the exercise of the relevant activity.
Due to the fact that the SRO with compulsory membership implement public authority their functions get public law character. Performing SRO with compulsory membership of their functions affect the rights and legitimate interests of not only their members but indefinite number of people, which shall enter into private law relationships SRO members, who are subject to appropriate regulation [4 2 , c . 37-41] .
The foregoing suggests that self-regulation based on the principle of compulsory membership, is a public administrative activity.
Comparison of self-regulation with other species reveals the following essential features of the phenomenon: 1. The content of the self-regulation serves the development and establishment of standards and rules of professional activity, as well as sanctions for non-performance or improper performance.
In the case of compulsory self-regulation SRO membership is a prerequisite for the implementation of the relevant type of professional activities. In this case self-regulatory organizations are involved in public administration. 2.
Self-regulation is carried by associations of subjects of professional activity, having the status of self-regulatory organizations. 3.
The object of self-regulation are social relations in specific areas of professional activity. 4. The purpose of self-regulation is to ensure conditions for the exercise of professional activities.

5.
Self-regulation has a legal framework. Regulatory framework for the activities of the SRO is created by the state. In this case, the standards and rules of professional activity are developed by self-regulatory organizations in accordance with the requirements of federal law.

The principles of self-regulation.
In domestic legal literature the question about the system of self-regulation principles is still not answered. The problem of administrative law principles of public administration is deeply researched [44, p. 8-11; 45, p. 26-67; 46, p. 2-11].
GA Tosunyan identifies the following principles of banking self-regulation [50, p. 49-51] : -the principle of voluntary participation in the self-regulatory organization; -the principle of unity and functional subsidiarity; -the principle of independence of the self-regulating banking organization from the state, as well as from individual banks and their groups; -the principle of reducing the administrative burden on credit institutions in the process of co-regulation of credit institutions by public authorities and self-regulating banking institutions and the elimination of duplication of functions; -the principle of subsidiary liability of members of self-regulated banking organizations for the obligations of these institutions in the amount of annual contributions. D.A. Petrov highlights including the following principles of self-regulation [51, p. 21-22]: freedom of self-regulation, combination of private and public interests, functional subsidiarity, additional liability of members of the self-regulatory organization.
However, an obvious disadvantage of all the above systems principles is the lack of guidance on the criteria for their selection, which gives reason to doubt that the list is exhaustive. The principles do not take differences between the models of compulsory and voluntary selfregulation into account.
The study of the fundamental principles of the theory of public administration and administrative law, as well as of the legislation, allowed to justify the system of compulsory selfregulation principles. It includes general principles of public administration: (objectivity, effectiveness, legality, democracy, publicity) and special principles of self-regulation (the organization of professional and (or) a territorial basis, organizational independence of selfregulatory organizations, the interaction of self-regulatory organizations and bodies public authorities, transparency of self-regulatory organizations, the combination of public and private interests, providing state legal and institutional guarantees of self-regulation).

Conclusions.
Self-regulation is an independent kind of administrative activity that differs from state regulation and co-regulation on the subject of management.
It can be defined as a management activity carried out by self-regulatory organizations, consisting in the development and establishment of standards and rules of professional activity, as well as sanctions for non-performance or improper performance.