Oleg Bolgar

  Liudmyla Bogush


The subject of the study is organizational and economic relations that arising in the application of market instruments of regulation of public services for the registration of rights. Methodology. The instrumental and methodological apparatus of the research is formed by the applied methods of economic analysis of the activities of organizations in the service sector, statistical methods, selective observation, the method of economic and mathematical modelling, grouping, generalization, expert assessments, methods of economic theory, marketing, etc. The aim of the article is to develop theoretical and methodological provisions, as well as the development of practical recommendations to improve the process of providing public services for the registration of property rights on the basis of benchmarking. The results of the study showed that the current state of the public services sector is characterized by uneven development and use of modern forms and methods of their management. Improvement of the system of management of public services involves studying the application of best practices, finding solutions for those areas where the gap between the desired and actual state of public services is maximum or exceeds accepted standards. Benchmarking is the most suitable tool for solving these problems. Conclusion. The development of public services for the registration of property rights is a process of consecutive management decisions, based on which methods and ways to improve the effectiveness of their provision are determined. Each stage of the benchmarking process is characterized by a high degree of responsibility of the decisions made, since the wrong choice at one stage will lead to incorrect conclusions and results of subsequent stages. Therefore, when developing a system of public services for the registration of property rights, a consistent algorithm that meets the requirements of management is needed. The benchmarking process is constant and regular. Property rights registration authorities, being monopolists in providing registration services at the regional level, implement the function of satisfying the needs of the population and are financed from the budget. A number of reasons, such as the impersonality of budget funds, indirect interaction between the consumer and the service producer, lack of motivation of employees to meet public needs, lead to the emergence and increase of gaps in the perception of consumers and service producers. In turn, benchmarking is a reliable tool for optimizing the process of providing the services in question and minimizing these gaps.

How to Cite

Article views: 396 | PDF Downloads: 238



benchmarking, state registration, property rights, quality of services, service economy, public goods, management tools, market tools


Brown, T. (2016). Learning from experience and managing the transaction costs of internal and contract service delivery. Paper presented at 2016 APPAM fall conference in Madison.

Calhoun, J. W. (2014). Administrative office management: complete course. Cengage Learning.

Daft, R. L. (2012). Management. South-Western, Cengage Learning.

Fernandez, S. (2016). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review. Mar./Apr. pp. 168–176.

Ferreira, E. J. (2009). Administrative management. 2nd ed. Lansdowne: Juta Academic.

Forsythe, D. W. (2011). Pitfalls in designing and implementing performance management systems. Quicker? Better? Cheaper?: managing performance in American government. The Rockfeller Institute Press.

Galanter, M. (1981). Justice in many rooms: courts, private ordering, and indegenous law. J. of Legal Pluralism, 19, 1–47.

Greener, I. (2009). The Consumer in Public Services: Choice, Values and Difference. The Policy Press.

Grief, A. (1993). Contract enforceability and economic institutions in early trade: the maghribi trade coalition. American Economic Review, 83(3), 525–548.

Gronroos, C. (1990). Service management and marketing: managing the moment of truth in the service sector. Cambridge, Mass: Marketing Science Institute.

Le Grand, J. (2019). The other invisible hand: delivering public services through choice and competition. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.

Martin, S. (2015). Multiple public service performance indicators: toward an integrated statistical approach. J. of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 599–613.

Monro, D. (2003). The role of performance measures in a federal-state context: the examples of housing and disability services. Australian J. of Public Administration, 62 (1), 70–79.

Needham, C. (2011). Personalizing public services: understanding the personalization narrative. Bristol: The Polity Press.

Nyhan, R. C. (2009). Comparative performance measurement: A primer on data envelopment analysis. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22(3), 348–364.

Ohinata, Y. (2004). Benchmarking: the Japanese experience. Long Range Planning, 27 (4), 48–53.

Poister, Th. H. (2003). Measuring performance in public and non-profit organizations. Jossey-Bass.

Stewart, J. (2004). Performance measurement: when performance can never be finally defined. Public Money and Management, 45–49.

Seybert, J. A. (2006). Benchmarking: an essential tool for assessment, improvement, and accountability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spendolini, M. J. (2013). The benchmarking books. 2nd ed. N.Y.: Amacom Books.

Stapenhurst, T. (2009). The benchmarking book. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Watson, G. H. (2017). Strategic benchmarking reloaded with six sigma: improving your company's performance using global best practice. Hoboken, New Jersey : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Wang, X. H. (2015). Hypotheses about performance measurement in counties: findings from a survey. J. of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 403–428.