Organisational Social System of the State

Each modern state, regardless of its population, can be called a great social system. Of course size of its territory and population may assign the state to more or less complex system, but it does not change the fact, that the system is great. It means that each such system is probabilistic (far from perfect) and undergoes numerous dynamic processes—in functional and structural terms. Each great system consists of large number of subsystems, which to a certain degree are autonomous— however, as a whole and individual elements they come under singleand multisite steering. At the same time it is multi-level, characterised by hierarchical and network order, where infinite number of provisional and informative feedback occurs. Although individual sub-systems in the great system are characterised by intentional activity, to some extent subordinate to the general goal of a state, the extent of this subordination is often declarative or illusory. But in every state there is no possibility of full determination of all dependencies, which occur in an infinite number of subsystems (Eysmont 1968).

This causes, that the excluded or marginalised social gatherings of one subsystem may be deprived of due care from the state, becoming the enclaves of new interactions, very often of fixed and not always desired character; sometimes on the contrary. In the case of discrimination—they become the bastions of protection of values, traditions or culture, and even workplaces. On the other hand, commercial and lobby subsystems with uninhibited yearning for realisation of own particular interests (in the name of falsely declared common good) may contribute to permanent destruction of the state, where indicating guilty of such practices may not be possible.

State from the point of view of the system consists of four basic elements: inputs (material, human, financial, information), transformation processes (technical and managerial), results (resulting from the transformation process and including any products, services, profits and losses, information, behaviour of employees) and above described feedback (multidirectional interactions: internal and external systems) (Griffin 2004).

Taking the above into consideration, it is right to state, that complexity of modern state, its internal contradictions and mutually complementing dependencies allow to assume, that it is a special type of organisational social system, characterised by (Hu 1994):

(a) Non-triviality—namely significance, where huge unpredictability and changeability occur, being the foundation of human creativity and progress. Person and non-trivial nation is a contradiction of its triviality present

e.g. in states with dictator governance system with ideological and dogmatic designing the society to predictable, standard and non-creative behaviours and actions.

(b) Self-controllability and autonomy—associated with subjectivity and

making decisions by individuals and the whole society, which is only reaching maturity (in the mental and social sense), when it is capable of autonomous and self-organisational behaviours in the spirit of self-control. Loss of this ability within the entity may be caused by e.g. depriving it from autonomy, limiting its citizen rights, or within society—by indoctrination and totalitarianism.

(c) The phenomenon of the game—is an indispensable organisational part of every society. It is related to mutual competition, both in official and hidden form, in legal way and contradicting generally accepted law or rules of operation.

(d) Arrow's impossibility theorem (so-called theory of non-existence)— formulated by economist K. Arrow, says that in a given social system it is impossible to find a satisfying decision-making method (each function of social interest on a set of more than two candidates), which would be acceptable by every member of society. If it would have happened, with maintaining independence and unanimity of accepted alternatives, then such state can be called dictatorship. In literal meaning this theorem explains, that if there are at least two voters and we have at least three possibilities to choose from, it is impossible to build such decision-making method, that would be satisfying for everyone (Kamin´ski 1994; Feldman and Serrano 2008).

(e) Boundaries of information complexity—are associated with gigantic flow of information, which brain is not able to process faster than 1047 bit/s, while absolute calculation abilities are 1060–1070 bit/s.

(f) Self-organisation and evolution—are the basis of living cell (entity) or organisation (state and society), they create the organisational order, transform structures as dynamic systems and associated with theory of chaos, which can be caused by simple structures.

(g) Social indeterminacy principle—”coherence or regularity of functioning of a social system determined in the way of observations made by internal observer and predication based on the results of the observations is neither objective nor permanent” (Łojewski 2012).

In general, state organisational system consists of three elements: organisational roles (behaviours resulting from performing tasks), norms sanctioning people's behaviour, and values which are the foundation of norm building within ideological justifications (Katz and Kahn 1979). This system in the spirit of praxeological school (Kotarbin´ ski 1958) should be identified with material (being in time and space), attribute (given feature), and functional organisation (managing organisational resources and at the same time element of managing process) (Sułkowski 2012).

It can be assumed after Luhmann (2012), that the notion of social system should relate to two dimensions: individual and society. In the first case (individual) it is an organic, mental and social system under the substantial entirety of the personality. In the second case both society, state, integrative grouping of states, and global international society are social systems. As social systems also considered should be “mutual interactions like friendship, marriage, company; interactions in organisations, that is societies, enterprises, universities; in more complex functional and communicative structures of political and economic systems and science or process-understood systems of political choices, legislation and jurisdiction”.

State social system in institutional perspective can be divided into three types of organisation: formal, informal and non-governmental, so-called non-profit. They belong to the regulative sphere of national economy (sector I) and to sphere of real economic processes—enterprises and households (sector II) and non-governmental organisations (sector III). The basis of such system are production factors, especially those like wisdom and capital (in particular intellectual), and more traditional factors—land and work (Fig. 3.3).

It should be stressed, that knowledge about this model is not only a production factor, but plays fundamental role giving each element of this system a new dimension (Drucker 1999).

State social system can also be discussed in three levels of organisation: resources, social processes and organisational processes. In resource approach we need to list natural resources—both renewable (e.g. natural) and non-renewable (mineral resources), land (geodesic space), inanimate natural resources (water, air, soil, minerals), animated natural resources (animals and plants), or other values that are difficult to measure (Łojewski 2008). Those can be artificial resources, mostly material, like fixed capital (devices, machines, infrastructure) and financial capital (Łojewski 2008).

Fig. 3.3 Organisational model of state's social system. Source: own

At the same time state's material resources can be divided in two groups (Izdebski 2007):

– resources related to fixed capital (including non-material and legal values), which should include public economic property (public institution plays the role of entrepreneur), administrative property necessary to complete tasks, and inalienable public goods (roads—if public, libraries, parks, forests, etc.),

– financial resources as working assets—considered as the most important inflow approach to financing public tasks form a given budget,

– informational resources—by many considered as even more important that financial ones, since they enable conversion of information into knowledge and its practical use in appropriate time and space and generate value.

Whereas, the non-material resources (e.g. patents, licenses, reputation, knowhow, logos) give the state an opportunity to build a competitive advantage, they have no physical form, are included in the unique assets (Murawska 2008).

Resources can be divided to appropriated and non-appropriated (e.g. a playground for children). In general, four types of resources used by state can be distinguished and they include:

(a) human resources (human capital) giving a possibility to achieve specific advantages and increase developmental chances (all citizens of a state and its inhabitants, e.g. ministers, physical workers, academic staff, public

officers and employees of the departments, institutions and government agencies, craftsmen, inventors, designers, engineers),

(b) financial resources (revenue from taxes, tickets or EU subsidies; revenue of state-owned companies—”these are all forms of money” (Michalak 2007,

p. 61, translated).

(c) Material resources (technical and road infrastructure, buildings, new technologies, raw materials, semi-finished products, equipment and facilities of any kind, which in a sense are indirect fixed state assets),

(d) Information resources (all data, information and knowledge) (Griffin 2004).

The identification of a social level is done with resources and under certain rules. Social processes are formed, which include communication, formation of certain interest groups, interactions, identification and crystallisation of roles and social patterns, distribution of social authority and conflicts. Only at the level of resources and the level of social processes it is possible to identify state-level organization built on the basis of formal structure, strategy and organizational culture (Sułkowski 2012).

Introducing economic influences in the theory of organisation and social systems is not generally accepted. According to A.G. Ramos such approach is faulty in public management, disturbs human psyche, and pursue of one's dreams and selffulfilment, which can be carried out with parallel activity in economic life, is pushed to a further plan of social processes (Salm et al. 2006). This is why it is so important to build common organisational culture, mutual trust within bearing transaction costs of participation in socio-economic life and realised strategy directed at mutual positive influences.

< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >