Public Management of Risks and Threats in the Conditions of the Martial Law of the European State

Abstract

The article substantiates the approaches to solving the actual scientific problem of the theory and practice of public administration – the peculiarities of public (state and local) administration in the conditions of security violations and martial law on the territory of the country. Such an analysis was carried out on the basis of a clear definition of the place and role of the anti-crisis management system in the balance of social relations in the public sphere and the development of mechanisms for coordinating the actions of management subjects. The content of the main concepts of the anti-crisis public management is defined. The methodology of the stages of development of public administration has been developed, which is aimed at a meaningful classification – the expediency of using the mechanisms and tools of anti-crisis management as a means of achieving the goal in the conditions of martial law and post-war recovery of the European state. The essence of individual mechanisms and tools for ensuring management in the field of risks to human life is revealed. The information scheme of the functioning of the institutional mechanism of anti-crisis management in the conditions of martial law in a separate European state has been developed.

1. Introduction

The main tasks facing the Ukrainian state today are preserving sovereignty; ensuring economic, resource, civil, and food security; accelerating European and Euro-Atlantic integration; restoring sustainable and dynamic economic development; restoring a decent standard of living and security of citizens; increasing the effectiveness of the state administration system, and regional and local development under martial law. The resolution of these and other issues largely depends on the effective legal regulation of the functioning of the mechanisms and tools of state administration as a whole and its basis – ensuring the management of the development of territories, especially in the sphere of life support.

In the conditions of martial law, there is a negative trend of increasing the aggressive influence of an external threat (the war of the Russian Federation against Ukraine) on the system of public administration in Ukraine, in particular, on the effectiveness of the functioning of the organizational and legal mechanisms of resource provision for economic development, which were practically not adapted to the conditions of martial law in the state and needed prompt regulatory settlement and adjustment. This work is carried out by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 24/7. A list of laws and resolutions are adopted under martial law [1].

We note that risks and threats to the entire system of management and economic (resource) security in particular emphasize the assessment of vulnerable component mechanisms and tools of the system of public (state and local) management and administration in the conditions of martial law in Ukraine. We believe that these components are significant structural disparities, monopoly and closure of certain industries, obstacles to the development of the military and defense sectors, underestimation of civil protection of the population and territories, unresolved energy and technological dependence of the economy on the Russian Federation, uncontrolled outflow of material and financial resources outside of Ukraine, activity of shadow structures, presence of enemy agents of the Russian Federation, absence of a professional school of public management and administration, and others.

It is clear that, today, the domestic system of public management of national, regional, and local development needs latest approaches to the reality of Russian military aggression on the territory of Ukraine, which in turn actualizes the research, development, and introduction into domestic practice of foreign experience (initiatives) based on modern management approaches in the conditions of martial law, especially with regard to the development of communities in terms of resource livelihoods.

We agree with the opinion of a well-known expert that the Ukrainians managed to defeat and oust the Russians from the territories they have now captured. There are several reasons for this, − writes the American philosopher Francis Fukuyama in his column for americanpurpose.com, where he analyzes the causes of aggression and the path to the destruction of the Russian Federation. As early as March 10, 2022, F. Fukuyama published the article “Preparation for Defeat,” in which he claims that Russia may be moving toward complete defeat in its war in Ukraine. At the time, the material attracted considerable attention in the world, and many people decided that the author was very optimistic. Most of this prediction was confirmed today. In fact, the Russians were defeated in their attempts to conquer Kyiv and retreated from northern Ukraine in the beginning of April.

Today, in the socio-economic literature, there is no single system of classification of risks and threats of managerial activity, but on the contrary, there are many approaches that, for the most part, determine only the purpose and individual tasks of management. Taking into account the shortcomings of the already developed classifications of risks, as well as analyzing the peculiarities of the methodology of developing classifications, we consider it necessary to carry out an analysis of the system of public management of risks and threats in the conditions of martial law in Ukraine.

2. Public administration: theory and risks of use

The field of science-public management is formed from a set of economic, legal phenomena and social relations in society, which characterize the sphere of interaction between the state and man (society) as an object of management and self-management at the local level.

The main thing that makes up the content of public administration is the most important functions of the state as an institution of public administration, the interaction of regularities (laws) and the principles of their implementation, scientific justification of the need for state policies as the basis of management, and implementation of local self-government. Functional analysis of the state’s management activities, the organization of government bodies as a political and legal institution of the managing society, and the corresponding organizational, legal, and social anti-crisis relations formed at all management levels, is a subject of public management, in particular, in the conditions of martial law in the state.

In general, management is goal setting (conscious, foreseen, and thought out), organization and regulation of human interaction related to one’s own social, collective, and group life activities, which is carried out both directly (in forms of self-management) and through specially created institutions (institutes).

Modern public administration relies on state power and is supported and ensured by it in terms of achieving goals and anti-crisis development of the entire economic system. Public management extends to the entire society in the direction of state restrictions on activity (management) and local development, in particular during martial law and the subsequent restoration of territories. It is the state through legislative activity that establishes basic, general, and typical rules (norms) of people’s behavior. This is especially important in the conditions of martial law.

The state provides public management with regulation mechanisms and tools. Unlike other types of management, public management cannot become real without a system and mechanisms for implementing specific policies. We believe that public administration differs from state administration in that it uses all the possibilities of the rule of law, thanks to the use of existing mechanisms, laws, and control of society over all bodies of state power and effective local self-government.

Management as a specific phenomenon begins when there is a conscious public principle, interest and knowledge, goals and will, energy and human activity in any interconnections, relationships, and .processes.

Public administration is formed by people for conscious self-regulation of their life activities and has the same importance for ensuring their needs and interests as family and property, morality and law, production method and the state, knowledge and information, and so on. All these determine the dependence of management on the state of society, ideals, and values.

At different historical moments, management is reproduced by the corresponding society, “takes” its essence from it, realizes its capabilities, and is characterized and developed according to the level of its development.

Public administration is one of the most complex and responsible spheres of intellectual and practical activity of people and society. This is an area on which the well-being of the country and, ultimately, the fate of every person depends to a large extent. In management, everything comes from the person and is oriented toward him [2].

That is why, public administration in society arose, which is always relevant, as society is an open system because nothing in it is given once and for all, is not unchanging, and absolutely stable. Personal and social relationships are reproduced daily. Without it, chaos, anarchy, and decay ensue. In conditions of openness, management serves as the most important social institution of self-preservation and self-renewal.

We believe that it is not entirely correct to define management as an action or only influence in society. Its more adequate concept is the category of “relationships,” which defines the main thing in management because it influences the consciousness, behavior, activity of people, and their mutual relations.

3. A new stage in the formation of anti-war state administration

The martial state of our country’s development is complicated by the objective necessity of the urgent implementation of a set of urgent measures in all spheres of Ukrainian society, in particular, state (state and local self-government) administration. Today, the dominant role is occupied by the task of scientific substantiation of the functioning (adaptation) of the integral system of state administration in the conditions of martial law, and its priority is the system of personnel life support.

Research positions of scientists regarding the theoretical understanding of “public administration” have different interpretations and completely polar views. Some authors interpret public management as the influence of a separate subject of management, endowed with public power, on a certain object for the purpose of any results of social relations. Others, such as rule-making, administrative, economic-control, organizational-legal, and other activities, are carried out on the basis of developed regulations, rules, and procedures. The third is how to manage a specific situation together with relationship partners.

Let us consider the evolution of state administration with the traditional separation of separate periods of time (stages), which specify the mechanisms and tools of a specific model of administration that is used in this period in the state.

Stage 1 (from 1880 to 1920) is the initial study of state management.

The time of the initial stage 1, the study of public administration itself, was 40 years. Famous researchers of this stage are V. Wilson, M. Weber, A. Fayol, and others. The essence of public administration as a separate scientific direction was first investigated by V. Wilson. His scientific research proved that there are differences between other sciences, including political science, law, and the science of public administration. Thus, V. Wilson noted that the purpose of this science is the study of specific activities and directions of influence of the authorities, as well as managerial actions to carry out this work with minimal costs and as efficiently as possible. His research was aimed at identifying and analyzing the principles of public administration. He attributed to them the separation of political and management issues, comparative analysis of business and policy structures, research of the civil service, and improvement of its efficiency by using the experience of managing business structures in the work of state bodies.

The functioning of all public administration systems is carried out in such a way that every civil servant who is empowered and has a certain competence and responsibility, regardless of whether he is a high-ranking manager or a junior specialist in the ministry, has the power of decision and establishes the universal, public focus of this management decision. Therefore, the decision made on the spot should remain the main and predominant tool in the field of management, which combines the political and managerial vector of the development of social relations in the state. In our opinion, it is important that such relations are the object of state administration and reveal their social significance. Our analysis of the first stage of the development of public administration proved that it is based on a comparative analysis of the contradiction “politics/management,” and research in this area made it possible to reveal the interdependence of the development of politics and management.

Stage 2 took place (from 1920 to 1950) the theory of management at the microlevel or individual economic entity. Economic relations in the space of contacts of private and public economic sectors were investigated. This stage took place at the level of 30 years. R. Simon, D. Waldo, M. Follet, E. Mayo, A. Maslow, and others became prominent representatives of this period.

At this stage, an interesting school of “human relations” developed. M. Follet, E. Mayo, and A. Maslow became the main researchers in this direction. The researchers focused their own research on the behavior of individuals and their activities in the organization.

At this stage, a general theory of management was formulated, which exists within the framework of the interaction of the private and public sectors, in particular, the principles of enterprise management, which have significant differences from state management, were studied.

Stage 3 (from 1950 to 1990) is a study of state policies and necessary management in a separate sphere of social relations. At this stage of the development of the theory of public administration, the works of P. Aucoin, F. Thompson, D. Truman, K. Hood, and others are of greatest interest. We believe that the researchers used effective directions, methods, and tools that were borrowed from the nonstate sector of the economy (real competition, hiring and contract systems, approaches to making the management decision itself, and the formation and implementation of state policies by increasing the efficiency of free decision-making). Mechanisms of adaptive ability to respond to a constantly changing environment, formation of orientation to developing strategy and policy, etc., were also investigated.

During this period, the concept of “new public management” was formed in the 1980s and was realized by a combination of market management mechanisms and management ideas and technologies of business entities of the private sector of the economy. According to this concept, executive authorities are perceived as economic entities that achieve results and provide management services to the population.

Also, the analysis of stage 3 proved that there was a real vector and separate tendencies to research the essence of modern public administration using socio-psychological and behavioral approaches, as well as the use of market laws and principles in the system and mechanisms of public administration.

Stage 4 (from 1990 to 2000) is the direction of “renewed management.” For 10 years, the research stage of public administration continued. The following scientists and practitioners were engaged in this: T. Gebler, D. Osborn, P. Plastrik and others. Scientists studied state administration itself from the point of view of the effective conditions of business entities.

It is important that such an “economic approach” to the functioning of the management system in the state involves the use of market laws for the effective functioning of bureaucratic structures in order to increase the efficiency of their work and achieve the best indicators in the ratio of costs and results of activities in the field of public administration.

The study of this stage of the formation of public administration finds ways of fundamental changes in the understanding of the goals of public administration and the transition from minimum requirements to the maximum result of the activity of the state administration system, which, in addition to solving the main tasks, provides for the performance of many additional functions, particularly aimed at improving the quality of human life.

Stage 5 (from 2000 to 2022) is the direction of “increasing the effectiveness of public administration.” The beginning of the XXI century laid the foundation for research in the field of public administration, which continued until the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian war in Europe. Representatives of this direction were R. Brittany, M. Kartel, L. Jacobson, and others. We believe that, in this period, directions and mechanisms for improving the efficiency of public authorities and the quality of administrative services provided by the state are being investigated in the context of the development of democracy and society, which receive priority and special social significance. During this stage, there were studies of modern communication, which mainly characterized the interaction between representatives of state and private structures. In this regard, such research contributed to the adoption of socially significant decisions and made it possible to implement the functions of reforming the public administration system based on European management practice.

Within this stage, the concept of efficiency is often used in connection with the concepts of effectiveness, productivity, and efficiency of functioning. As for public administration, efficiency is usually associated with the achievement of the goals of public authority, the completeness and quality of the state’s performance of its main functions.

In addition, here is stage 6 (from February 24, 2022, to the present) which the direction of anti-crisis or military public administration and testing of the system under the conditions of martial law in Ukraine. The beginning of 2022 is marked by the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the beginning of a war in the center of Europe. Perhaps, this stage is still in its infancy, but it is important from the point of view of public administration in the sphere of protecting sovereignty and democratic values around the world [3].

Thus, the analysis of the modern stage of public administration research showed the relevance of the formation of a new concept of public administration, which is based on the public and especially the anti-war character of government in the state.

4. Economic security of the state, stimulation, and support of public administration

The main tasks facing the Ukrainian state today are preserving sovereignty; ensuring economic, resource, civil, and food security; accelerating European and Euro-Atlantic integration; restoring sustainable and dynamic economic development; restoring a decent standard of living and security of citizens; and increasing the effectiveness of the public administration system (state, regional, and local) under martial law. The resolution of these and other issues largely depends on the effective legal regulation of the functioning of the mechanisms and tools of public administration as a whole and its basis – ensuring the management of the development of territories, especially in the sphere of life support.

In the conditions of martial law, there is a negative trend of increasing the aggressive influence of an external threat (the war of the Russian Federation against Ukraine) on the system of public administration in Ukraine, in particular, on the effectiveness of the functioning of the organizational and legal mechanisms of resource provision for economic development, which were practically not adapted to the conditions of martial law in the state and needed prompt regulatory settlement and adjustment. This work is carried out by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 24/7.

It should be noted that risks and threats to the entire management system emphasize the assessment of vulnerable component mechanisms and tools of the system of public management and administration under the conditions of martial law in Ukraine. We believe that these components are significant structural disparities, monopoly and closure of certain industries, obstacles to the development of the military and defense sectors, underestimation of civil protection of the population and territories, unresolved energy and technological dependence of the economy on the Russian Federation, uncontrolled outflow of material and financial resources outside of Ukraine, the activity of shadow structures, the presence of enemy agents of the Russian Federation, the absence of a professional school of public management and administration, and others.

It is clear that, today, the domestic system of public management of national, regional, and local development needs the latest approaches to the reality of Russian military aggression on the territory of Ukraine, which in turn actualizes the research, development, and introduction into domestic practice of foreign experience (initiatives) based on modern management approaches in the conditions of martial law.

Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine is unprecedented in terms of duration, scale, and devastating economic consequences. The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s lasted almost 8 years and cost the Iraqi economy $452.6 billion (seven GDPs of the country at that time). Russia’s five-day military aggression against Georgia in 2008 cost the latter about 23% of GDP (2 billion euros). Japan lost a quarter of its national wealth and a third of its production capacity in World War II [4].

According to preliminary estimates by experts, the economy of Ukraine lost up to 50% of the production capacities of enterprises in strategic industries, most of which were located in the east of Ukraine. The result of active hostilities was the disruption of both external and internal economic relations, the destruction of the country’s housing stock, the destruction of production, social, and service infrastructure, and the blocking of seaports and other logistics channels. More than 80% of Ukrainian enterprises have reduced or stopped their activities. The fall in economic activity caused a reduction in tax revenues to the budget, limiting the government’s ability to implement independent recovery policies.

According to the estimates of the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, the gross domestic product of our country will decrease by 30.4% in 2022, which, although it is the largest drop in the recent history of Ukraine, is significantly less than the forecast level of international financial organizations (45–50%).

Critical to the country’s further recovery and development are humanitarian risks associated with the loss of human capital and redistribution of labor within the country and loss of household income and livelihoods. According to United Nations estimates, as of January 17, 2023, the number of Ukrainian refugees registered for temporary protection in European countries reached 4.9 million people, of whom only a third expressed hope to return.

As the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion, almost 4.8 million internally displaced persons have been officially registered in Ukraine, the increase of this socially vulnerable category of citizens causes significant pressure on the system of administration of public services.

Unemployment in the country increased sharply (from 9.9 to 30% according to the ILO methodology), adding to the imbalance of regional labor markets.

The Ukrainian state was able to avoid the most negative and pessimistic scenarios not only thanks to the unprecedented support of partner countries, which, according to the estimates of the National Bank of Ukraine, reached 120 billion dollars in 2022, of which 28 billion dollars was directed to finance the needs of the budget of Ukraine, but also due to the capacity of the public administration system, the stability of the institutions built over the years of systemic reforms.

There are the following systemic factors that ensured the effective functioning of public administration mechanisms and tools during the war:

• Developed economic system – entrepreneurial initiative, resource-based and network interaction, and lack of hierarchical centralized management of processes of redistribution of public resources made it possible to respond promptly to the challenges of wartime.

• Developed communications – a flexible system of transport, trade, information, and telecommunications ties preserved the “connectivity” of the country, mitigated the humanitarian crisis, and facilitated the coordination of actions of state and public institutions.

• Decentralization of public power – the broad powers of competent communities provided an opportunity to strengthen the defense capacity of the state.

• A developed civil society – the volunteer movement and a high level of self-organization of society became the basis of the stability of basic social systems.

• High level of openness of public administration – economic, political, and civil communications with foreign partners established in previous years made it possible to quickly attract help from the international community in financial (grants and loans), economic (material aid), humanitarian (humanitarian goods, programs support of refugees, and treatment of servicemen), and military (provision of weapons, ammunition, ammunition, and training of servicemen) spheres.

• Digitalization – the level of digitalization of the spheres of state administration achieved before the start of the full-scale war enabled the effectiveness of public authorities and the performance of duties vital for the functioning of the country.

The institutional nature of such factors makes it possible to consider them as characteristic features of the public administration system that has developed in Ukraine as a result of the entire previous period of social changes. In particular, due to Russia’s full-scale military aggression in Ukraine, the International Monetary Fund has worsened the forecast for the growth of the world economy. The IMF expects the world economy to grow by 3.6% in 2022 and 2023. This is a sharp slowdown compared to 6.1% growth in 2021.

It should be noted that the macroeconomic trends of the state’s development (2024–2030), which are in the forecasts of the Ukrainian government and international financial organizations are still not very positive. The probability of Ukraine’s victory in the war against Russia is the end of 2024 - the beginning of 2025 [5].

The Ukrainian economy reached the bottom of its decline in April–May 2022, and since then, despite any intensity of shelling of its territory, it has shown a slow but stable trend of recovery of the main macroeconomic indicators. Thus, Ukraine’s GDP in US dollars, which fell from $200 to $158 billion in the first year of the war, will rise to $170 billion in the second year, which will be the starting point for dynamic recovery. Investment, employment, savings, foreign and domestic trade show identical dynamics, improving steadily since summer 2022, despite ongoing large-scale hostilities. And we, as before, observe this improvement in 2023 as well. Absolutely all macroeconomic indicators show that Ukraine has already passed the bottom of its economic crisis related to the war.

At a conference in the Swiss city of Lugano, Ukraine announced the necessary amount of investment for recovery and received a positive response from representatives of the USA, the EU, and international financial organizations regarding potential sources of funding. This amount is ~$750 billion, of which ~200–300 billion is planned to be raised through partnership grants and borrowings in 2023–2025, and in 2026–2032, another $50 billion in 2024–2025 and $200 billion are expected in the form of private investments. In the first 3 years after the end of the war, partner aid is mainly expected, and in 2026–2032, on the contrary, the focus shifts to private investments. Briefly summarizing all the factors listed above, he considers a highly probable scenario in which Ukraine will “catch up” with its pre-war economic development trajectory by 2030. At the same time, the country will maintain double-digit growth figures for the next eight post-war years. By 2030, the indicative GDP figures are expected to be $440 billion, and the average salary is $1150.

5. Directions of ensuring management in the field of human life risks

Accidents, catastrophes, which are accompanied by deaths, injuries, shortening of life expectancy, and damage to health and the natural environment are the consequences of the manifestation of hazards, in particular, the management system. There is always the problem of assessing these consequences. The quantification of damages caused by the danger depends on many factors, for example, the number of people who were in the danger zone, the amount, and quality of material values that were there, natural resources, etc.

Each type of damage has its own quantitative expression. For example, the number of dead, wounded or sick, the area of the infected territory, the area of the forest that burned, the value of the destroyed buildings, etc.

The first quantitative method of determining damage is value-based, that is, determining damage in monetary terms. The second, universal, most widespread assessment of danger is risk. It can also be called a factor of potential danger. The concept of “risk” is “perceived possibility of danger.” Obviously, the definition “perceived probability of danger” should also be considered more accurate.

Risk is a quantitative assessment of danger. It is the ratio of the number of certain undesirable realized consequences (n) to the maximum possible number of them (N1) for a specific period of time: R = n/N, that is, it is the frequency of realization of dangers. It is a companion of any human activity.

The above formula allows you to calculate the dimensions of an individual, group, and general risk. When assessing the general risk, the value N determines the maximum number of all events, and when assessing the group risk, the maximum number of events in a specific social group was selected from the total number based on a certain characteristic. The group can include people belonging to the same profession, age, and gender; the group can consist of one class of economic activity subjects [6].

According to the degree of admissibility for society, the risk is neglected, acceptable, marginally permissible, and excessive. Negligible risk has such a small level that it is within the permissible deviations of the natural level. Acceptable is the level of risk that the public can calmly accept, taking into account the technical, economic and social possibilities at this stage of the development of civilization. The maximum acceptable risk is the largest risk that cannot be exceeded, regardless of the expected result. Excessive risk is characterized by an extremely high level, which in the vast majority of cases leads to negative consequences.

Today, it is practically impossible to achieve a zero level of risk, that is, absolute safety. Absolute security cannot be guaranteed to any person regardless of their lifestyle and social status. We live because we avoid danger every day.

The demand for absolute security, attractive for its humanity, can turn into a tragedy for people. At this stage of society’s development, the neglected risk is also impossible to achieve given the technical and economic prerequisites for this. Therefore, the modern concept of life safety is based on achieving an acceptable risk. The essence of the idea of the concept of “tolerable risk” is to try to create such a low level of risk that society perceives at the moment. Tolerable risk combines technical, economic, social, and political aspects and is a certain compromise between the level of security and the possibilities of its achievement.

The analysis of scientists’ approaches to the definition of the concept of “risk” allows us to form signs by which its meaning is perceived. According to the first sign – possibility and probability of loss of resources – risk is characterized by possible success or loss of part of resources, losses, and lack of income in alternative developments of certain management actions. That is, in this aspect, risk is considered the result of an action and its consequence, which is determined by the influence of uncertainty factors.

J.M. Keynes generally interprets risk as a part of the value associated with possible losses caused by an unforeseen change in market prices, excessive operation of equipment, or destructive consequences of disasters.

In our opinion, risk is an objective characteristic of activity that accompanies any management decisions in conditions of uncertainty and is measured by the probability of not obtaining the expected results. That is, the results of risky decisions cannot be equated with a threat or danger, the action of which causes the deterioration of the system. Favorable conditions make it possible to obtain a result, to achieve the set goals, and only with a negative coincidence of circumstances, an undesirable result is possible.

As for the study of the content of the concepts of “threat” and “danger,” the scientific literature allows us to come to a conclusion about the lack of clear definition of these concepts. “Danger” and “threat” are identified by some scientists; some define danger as a form of threat, and others define a threat as a stage or form of danger A number of researchers emphasize the consequences of threats and dangers, defining them as the action of factors, phenomena, events that cause an undesirable state of the enterprise, losses, damage, and so on.

So, from the author’s point of view, a threat is a cause, phenomenon, event, or condition that can prevent the achievement of management goals and objectives. The situation becomes dangerous when the threat takes real forms of manifestation. That is, danger is a concrete form of manifestation of a threat, the destructive influence of which is fully realized and indisputable.

Returning to the results of the research on the content of risk, it is necessary to note its role in determining threats and dangers in the field of public administration.

Comparing the above concepts of risk and threat, it is possible to note that they are closely related. If a threat is a probable possibility of an obstacle to the goals and tasks of public administration, then the risk measures, evaluates this threat, and gives an idea about the mathematical expression of the probability of the occurrence of such obstacles.

Given that risk accompanies any management activity, threats are also an invariable attribute of the entire management system in the state. The degree of threat and its transition into a form of danger for management, in our opinion, is characterized by the level of risk, which, in turn, is determined by the probability of occurrence and the impact on management activities. That is, at an acceptable level of risk, the negative influence of external and internal environmental factors is considered a threat to activity, and when a critical level of risk is reached, the threat takes the form of danger.

Note that there is a direct dependence of the level of risk on the probability of negative events and the impact on management activities, but for each type of risk (each negative change in factors of the external and internal environment), the trajectory of the level of risk will have an individual form, which must be determined on the basis of mathematical modeling.

Thus, risks and threats in the field of public administration are of a constant nature with different levels, and the danger arises only when this level of critical importance is reached.

The variety of threats in the activity of a modern enterprise determines the need to systematize them according to certain key features, which will make it possible to timely diagnose them, assess them, and apply measures to overcome them or adapt to their impact.

The study of the essence of threats, their differences, and common features with risks and dangers, the proposed classification of threats, and their detailed description makes it possible to form a basis for diagnosing negative impacts from the stage of occurrence to overcoming. The system of tracking and assessing the characteristic signs of threats, their dynamics, and composition, is a necessary task of the management: a continuous process of identifying early signs of threats allows timely response to negative trends, preventing the spread of their impact on the companys activities or, in the absence of the possibility of prevention, “mitigating” their negative effect.

As for the content of the concepts “risk,” “threat,” and “danger,” certain differences in their understanding can be distinguished: risk is an objective characteristic of the enterprise’s activity, which accompanies any management decisions in conditions of uncertainty and is measured by the probability of not obtaining the expected results; threat causes, phenomena, events, and conditions that can prevent the achievement of goals and objectives of economic entities; danger is a specific form of manifestation of a threat, the destructive effect of which on the activity of the enterprise is fully realized and indisputable.

Threats and risks are indispensable attributes of management activity. The danger arises when the level of risk of critical importance of the entire system of public management and regulation in the state is reached.

Our conducted research allows us to state that risk in the field of public administration is a rather broad concept, a specific subject of scientific research that has its own status. In order to give a reasonable definition, it is necessary to find out what, in fact, is a risk in the field of public relations in public administration.

We believe that the objectivity of risk in the field of public administration is that it exists as a result of objectivity, inherent in management categories of conflict, uncertainty, vagueness, lack of comprehensive information at the time of assessment, and making certain management decisions. In turn, it is possible to distinguish and take into account several types of uncertainty and the socio-economic risk caused by it: (1) uncertainty of goals and criteria and, therefore, the need to take into account multicriteria in the processes of evaluation, management, decision-making; (2) lack of data, in particular quantitative data, which are necessary at the time of decision-making to calculate quantitative estimates of relevant indicators; (3) lack of time to make scientifically based decisions; (4) uncertainty of the actions of counterparties and competitors; (5) the ambiguity of estimates of forecasts of the development of the controlled object and the socio-economic environment.

The subjectivity of risk is caused by the fact that real people with their own experience, psychology, interests, tastes, manner of behavior, propensity or aversion to risk, etc., are involved in public activities. Thus, the objective-subjective nature of risk is determined by the fact that it is generated by processes of both subjective and objective nature, that is, those whose existence does not depend on the will and consciousness of people. As a subject of scientific research, the category “risk” should have its own object, subject, and sources of origin. The analysis of scientific literature devoted to the theoretical aspects of risk research made it possible to generalize the definition of such concepts. The object of risk can be understood as a public system and administration, and it is impossible to evaluate the effectiveness and conditions of its functioning in the future in exhaustive completeness and with necessary accuracy. A risk subject can be understood as a person or a team that is interested in the results of risk object management and has the appropriate competence to manage and make relevant decisions regarding the risk object. Under the sources of the origin of risk are meant factors, processes, and phenomena that cause uncertainty and conflict.

The study of the practical activities of subjects of public management activity gives reasons to claim that the main sources of the origin of risks include the following: (1) spontaneity of natural processes and phenomena, natural disasters; (2) randomness; (3) clash of conflicting interests; (4) uncertainty; (5) incompleteness, insufficient information about the object, process, phenomenon to which the management decision relates; (6) limitation, insufficiency of material, financial, labor, and other resources needed for making and implementing management decisions; (7) the impossibility of unambiguous knowledge of the object at the existing levels and methods of scientific knowledge; (8) inevitable differences in mechanisms and tools, intentions, assessments, stereotypes, behavior, and so on [7].

It is advisable to consider the risk in both historical and managerial aspects. As a historical category, risk is a possible danger perceived by a person, as risk is historically connected with the entire course of social development. As society develops, namely, with the emergence of commodity-money relations, risk becomes a category of economics and management. In the event of a risk, subjects of economic activity can receive three types of economic results: negative (loss), zero (neutral), and positive (profit). It should be noted that risk, like any economic category, manifests itself through functions. In particular, the economic literature distinguishes such risk functions as innovative, regulatory (constructive and destructive), compensatory (stabilizing), precautionary, control, and so on.

Probably, that is why, there is no single system of classification of management risks in the literature on public administration, but on the contrary, there are many approaches, which, for the most part, are determined by the purpose and tasks of the activity.

Having analyzed such a structural characteristic as the nature of accounting, we can claim that risks are divided into external and internal. External risks are understood to be risks that are not directly related to the public activities of the governing bodies of an individual country and the country as a whole.

In turn, in the structure of external risks, the following subtypes can be distinguished, namely, risks of the management system in the country – risks associated with the internationalization of the economies of countries, which can lead to the instability of state power, the state system and legislation, ineffective public policy, sharp polarization of the interests of various social groups of the country, etc.; force majeure – risks associated with war, floods, earthquakes, storms and other natural disasters, revolutions, coups, strikes, etc., which interfere with the effectiveness of public administration; transfer – risks associated with the impossibility of transferring funds to the creditor’s country due to currency restrictions in the borrower’s country; tax – risks associated with a possible reduction in budget revenues as a result of a change in tax policy or the size of tax rates in individual countries.

Internal risks are understood as the risks that arise as a result of the activities of the national governing bodies of a certain country and the country as a whole. Analyzing management activity, it is possible to distinguish subtypes of internal risks, namely, resource risks, caused by the lack of a margin of safety in relation to resources in the event of a change in the situation, which leads to a deficit in the state’s economic system; organizational – risks caused by deficiencies in work organization, which include errors in planning and design, deficiencies in work coordination, weak regulation, incorrect supply strategy, errors in the selection and placement of personnel, disorganized marketing activities, and unstable financial position; and social – risks caused by the assessment of loyalty risks, that is, the attitude to work, the quality of the workforce, etc. Also, the most important group, in our opinion, are the risks of public management, which are grouped by such a classification feature as the nature of the consequences of using mechanisms and tools in the field of management.

We note that the risk of public management is a category that characterizes relations between management subjects regarding their perception of objectively existing uncertainties and conflicts in management, decision-making, and evaluation, which are complicated by possible threats and unused opportunities. As for the classification of risks in public activity, according to the results of the research, in accordance with the practical and methodological tasks of determining their types, it is possible to predict the existence of a classification of risks based on the following characteristics: (1) time of occurrence; (2) nature of accounting; and (3) the nature of the consequences.

The classification of risk management mechanisms in public activity involves the allocation of two groups of such groups: (1) traditional, which in turn, is divided into contractual and classical-calculated ones and (2) unconventional, divided into regulatory (financial and economic) and institutional mechanisms. Therefore, public administration encourages the emancipation of the creative activity of the individual and synergy of the activity of the community and society. The development of the conceptual and categorical apparatus and conceptual ideas of public administration is the basis for the identification of risk patterns, which is a component of the modern theory of public administration.

6. Conclusions and prospects for further research

The analysis and research carried out in the article allow us to draw the following conclusions.

Under the conditions of martial law in Ukraine and updating the processes of public management of measures of emergency situations, risks and threats are carried out taking into account a clear algorithm and comprehensively from a legal point of view. Mostly, such management and regulation are ensured and concentrated in the fields of administrative, environmental, and labor law.

We consider it a task of the scientific field of public administration, and it is necessary to carry out a thorough analysis and monitoring of modern features of the legal evolution of domestic legislation in relation to the public sphere in the conditions of martial law.

It should be noted that, in the process of solving the problem of maintaining and ensuring the safety of social relations and citizens from an organizational and legal point of view, the leading countries of the world gradually improved their own legislation regarding emergency (military) situations – from the development and adoption of legislation regulating actions in the conditions of the occurrence and development of specific cases of danger before the adoption of separate laws regulating general conceptual actions during the war.

In recent years, many events and meetings have been held in Ukraine aimed at improving the ideology (concept) of public administration in emergency situations, but it was quite difficult to foresee an open war on the territory of Ukraine with the Russian Federation. Such measures were conditioned by the fact that the issues of safety and protection of the population, as well as economic and cultural objects from the occurrence and development of emergency situations, risks, and threats, were almost not perceived as a component of state security, with the recognition of the priority of the protection of the population and territories from various threats, which may arise during the long-term development of the entire system in the state, in contrast to solving the problems of defense, which is focused specifically on wartime. Thus, at the current military stage of the development of Ukraine’s economy, a search is being made for a rational management model for providing protection, taking into account the effective and functional principle of response on the part of the state in the conditions of the occurrence and development of emergency situations, instead of using the usual industry principle, which was previously used in the public administration system.

It should be noted that the modern formation of the public administration system in the conditions of martial law in Ukraine is accompanied by the presence of a significant number of conflicts of legislation focused on the regulation of emergency situations, as well as the actual functioning of the system of forecasting, prevention, detection, and neutralization of emergency situations at the state level, particularly in the direction of the use of anti-crisis mechanisms and tools of public administration in the state.

The public administration system of Ukraine is doomed to function for a long time under constant pressure caused by the aggressive policy of the Russian Federation, which increases and diversifies the levers of destructive influence on economic development in Ukraine. The long-term nature of the threats generated by the aggressive course of the Russian Federation makes it impossible to build good-neighborly bilateral relations.

We note that, in such a situation, it is necessary to provide favorable conditions for the development of the economy after martial law on a resource basis, to provide a favorable environment for investment and entrepreneurship, a stable basis for financial stability, effective tools for the state to implement its social functions under conditions of permanently high risks of external military threats, and unpredictable hybrid impacts of various types and levels. The relevant policy should focus on overcoming the key obstacles to the country’s strategically oriented development caused by the consequences of the Russian military aggression.

Public policy priorities should be (1) development of the potential of the real sector of the economy, overcoming export and import dependence on the Russian Federation; (2) implementation of structural transformation of old industrial regions with modernization of traditional sectors of the economy to restore (within economic expediency) their competitiveness on world markets; (3) implementation of the European industrial policy toolkit, strengthening of Ukraine’s subjectivity as a partner of the EU; (4) increasing directions of implementation of the integration of the Ukrainian transport system into European and international projects; (5) a sharp decrease in the level of dependence on trade with the Russian Federation in goods and services in strategic and strategic areas of the national economy; (6) closure of Russian markets; (7) improvement and renewal of the Association Agreement with the EU, particularly in the field of Ukraine’s integration into the EU’s single energy market; (8) the introduction of real tax benefits for the transformation of small mining towns, provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Tax Code of Ukraine and other legislative acts of Ukraine on ensuring the balance of budget revenues” dated November 30, 2021, no. 1914-IX; (9) reforming management mechanisms and tools to ensure the national interests of Ukraine and prevent economic and civil security risks; (10) formation of a system of information collection and processing and formation of a modern database on temporarily occupied territories; (11) accumulation of information about the actions of the Russian Federation regarding the undermining of the sovereignty of Ukraine in the economic and other spheres, development of compensation mechanisms for losses; and (12) institutional improvement of sanctions policy, particularly, its legislative support, elimination of identified shortcomings in this area with the aim of improving the interaction between state bodies and civil society, creating favorable conditions for effective response to existing and potential threats to the national security of Ukraine.

In the context of the analysis of post-war development priorities, intermunicipal and inter-regional cooperation can be considered as a powerful resource tool, which should solve the triple task of the national level: to promote the reintegration and consolidation of the country, to ensure the infrastructural integrity of the country, capitalization, mobilization, and optimization of the use of regional resources as the main source of economic reproduction of Ukraine.

Thus, the analysis of the current state, risks, and threats of the public administration system in relation to issues of improvement of anti-crisis mechanisms gives grounds for the conclusion that an imperfect system of legal regulation is currently operating in Ukraine, a sufficiently formal and categorical principle is dominant in accordance with the legislative norms of the pre-war state. While the regulatory system itself has a very complex structure and practically does not meet the military needs of the state. Therefore, the complexity of the object of legal regulation and the variety of problems create certain risks and threats, complications in the adjustment of legal norms in wartime. As a result, there are disagreements in different laws on the same issue, which complicates the possibility of their direct application in the field of resource provision during martial law and the period of further reproduction. A lot is being done today in this direction, and the experts of the Institute of Legislation are actively participating and providing proposals for amendments to the legislation in the conditions of martial law.

In our opinion and the opinion of experts-scientists, the rule-making work in this area still has reserves and is still proceeding by solving individual issues, without the necessary degree of generalization, which leads to contradictory trends in the process of legal regulation of public management and administration issues in the conditions of martial law in Ukraine. The sustainability of relations in this area is made impossible by the numerous changes that were constantly made to the current laws and other normative legal acts and by the lack of adaptation to the martial law. This leads to the need for a thorough study (monitoring) of the problems of legal regulation of public management and administration issues, in particular, issues related to the organization of the implementation of their functions by the relevant bodies, particularly ensuring the process of formation and use of all anti-crisis potential in the conditions of martial law and the subsequent recovery of the economy of Ukraine after the Victory over Russia.

Additional information

ORCID 0000-0002-4545-612X.