The Concept of Public Administration by S.E. Desnitsky (Reconstruction Experience).

Solovev Konstantin Anatol'evich Doctor of History Professor, Department of History of State and Municipal Administration, M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Lomonosovskii Prospekt, 27, of. 2 ksoloviov@spa.msu.ru Other publications by this author

The figure of S. E. Desnitsky is one of the key ones for understanding how the managerial thought of Russia developed in the second half of the XVIII century. Unlike the absolute majority of those of his contemporaries who were preoccupied with management problems, he was neither an official nor a statesman. As a professor at Moscow University, involved in the discussion of management problems, he occupied an extremely rare position, in his time, as an expert and adviser. And this gave him a serious advantage in the conceptual elaboration of management issues, since it allowed him to distract from many specific problems in favor of broad solutions.

In the Russian literature of the twentieth century, the figure of S. E. Desnitsky (within the framework of the established historiographical tradition) stands in the first row of "enlighteners", that is, those figures of science and education who, in their views, went beyond the "feudal ideology" ^{[8, p. 36]} and even moved "from criticism of different sides autocratically- the serfdom system, to its peak, awareness of the need to destroy it by revolutionary means" ^{[15, p. 21]}. This kind of desire to identify the socio-political function in the activities of Desnitsky is still present ^{[3],[16],[27]}. In addition, Desnitsky is increasingly called an outstanding disciple and follower of A. Smith ^{[13, pp. 179-186]} and, of course, one of the founders of Russian jurisprudence ^{[18],[20],[25]}. In recent years, domestic authors have also been attracted by the side of Desnitsky's views, which is associated with various aspects of management activities ^[4],[5],[23].

In studies on the history of the formation and implementation of management theories, the most significant feature of the conceptualization of managerial thought is the goal-setting of management and the principles within which it is possible to achieve the stated goals. So A.V. Butov, in describing Machiavelli's management concept, points to the basic goal ("the transformation of Italy into a strong independent state"), the desired form and six basic principles of management ^{[6, pp. 175, 179-181]}. In turn, O. R. Khaltayeva, describing the managerial concept of legists in medieval China, does not mention goal-setting, focusing on three basic principles of management: "law (fa), power (shi) and art (shu)" ^{[26, p. 11]}. The boundary separating historical and modern concepts of public administration is considered to be the concept of "rational bureaucracy" by M. Weber. In characterizing this concept, researchers pay attention to changes in the goal-setting of management ^{[12, p. 87]} and to new principles: "formal rationality of legal bureaucracy" ^{[12, p. 83]}, "a clear distinction between the rights and duties of employees" ^{[1, p. 84]}. And we can confidently assert that in the works, both on the history of management and on the analysis of modern management doctrines, the content of a particular concept of public administration is determined by: a) the purpose of management, b) its principles, c) tasks (or a set of functions) and d) tools.

The purpose of the article is to identify the managerial views of S.E. Desnitsky, and its main task is to systematize the views of S. E. Desnitsky on public administration issues set out in his texts of the late 1760s. This kind of systematization, combined with the methods of semantic analysis, will, in our opinion, allow us to identify a number of interrelated provisions on goals, principles, tasks and methods of management. By combining these provisions into semantic blocks, we will be able to substitute for ourselves the general management concept of S. E. Desnitsky. The object of the article is the managerial thought of Russia of the second half of the XVIII century, and the subject is the personal contribution of S.E. Desnitsky to the development of managerial thought.

In order to understand what (hypothetically) Desnitsky's concept of public administration could be, we must turn to those of his texts that contain, in one form or another, all of the above elements. There is no such text. Hence the need for reconstruction. We have at our disposal several texts created in 1768, with different goals and with a general message to comprehend both the process of public administration itself (or, as Desnitsky wrote to the empress: "exercises in state affairs") ^{[11, p. 293]} and the possibility of its improvement in Russia.

The first text is "A Word about the direct and closest way to Learning Jurisprudence" (hereinafter referred to as the "Word"), uttered by Desnitsky "at the public meeting of the Imperial Moscow University ... on June 30, 1768" ^{[11, p. 187]}. Its appearance is due to the fact that Desnitsky, who received his doctorate from the University of Glasgow and confirmed it at a special examination held in August 1677 at Moscow University ^{[8, p. 24]}, received a course on "Roman law ... with application to Russian" ^{[28, p. 139]}. It was prescribed to read this course in Russian ^{[28, pp. 140-141]}. The "word" was an introduction to the new course of law and was supposed to reflect general theoretical approaches to its presentation. And this means that the author should have indicated here, first of all, his understanding of the purpose and objectives of management.

The second text is "The idea of the establishment of legislative, judicial and punitive authorities in the Russian Empire" ^{[15, pp. 292-334]} (hereinafter referred to as the "Idea"). Its main content is the concretization of European theoretical views on public administration, as applied to Russia. The emergence of the "Representation" is connected with the work of the Laid Commission. According to P. S. Graziansky, at least one part of the "Presentation" (the fourth) was written in a polemic with the "Mandate" of Catherine II ^{[8, p. 79]}. It is in this text that the principles on which the author relied and the tools that, in his opinion, should be involved in the governance of the country are most clearly presented.

The first thing that should be pointed out when identifying Desnitsky's concept of public administration is the place that, in his opinion, public administration occupies in the system of public relations. By pointing to this place, you can determine the goal setting of the management. In the "Word" there is a section "On natural jurisprudence". In this section, the author identifies four parts of "natural jurisprudence", understood not in a narrow sense (as a set of legal knowledge) and in the broader sense – as a set of forms of social life. This broad perception is indicated by him as follows: "the reasons that operate in all states and are the basis of all laws and regulations" ^{[11, p. 202]}. Four types of relations in society ("causes") make it necessary to identify four blocks of issues in the resolution of which it is necessary to use legal norms:

"1) About the occurrence of rulings in different centuries and among different peoples;

2) About the rights that occur in society from different states and ranks of people;

3) On the rights arising from various and mutual affairs between ordinary people;

4) About the police, or civil welfare" ^{[11, p. 204]}.

The first part in this classification is devoted to the origin and evolution of power as the main regulator of public relations. Part Two relates to the legal characteristics of social structures: international, state, estate, family. The third part describes "the property of rights originating from various cases between the inhabitants, which are material: property, the right is allowed, inheritance, mortgage and special privileges and other personal; contract and contract-like right; crime and similar right in crime" ^{[11, pp. 205-206]}. The fourth part, "improvement", captures the state's ability to maintain harmony in society and improve public relations. Accordingly, parts one and four are important for the topic of management.

The key term for understanding the views on governance in the XVIII century is "governance". We can assume that Desnitsky's term "board" has a double meaning. When Desnitsky points to the "incident of the boards", he means the origin of power as a way of organizing society, the emergence of the right to "obedience from all" ^{[11, p. 211]}. When he writes about "laws and boards", then "boards", in the plural, are filled with other content. Both "laws" and "boards" are ways to exercise the right to power. At the same time, "laws" are decisions made by the authorities. And "board" is the process of execution of decisions made, since one of the dictionary meanings of the term "board" is "execution, execution" ^{[21, p. 114]}. The management process is associated with the implementation of two key functions. The first is legislative, that is, in Desnitsky's terminology, the fixation of rights "occurring in society". The second is executive. In Desnitsky, it is designated as an activity for "civil improvement", the improvement of public relations. These two functions determine the place of governance in society: it introduces organizational principles into those relationships that develop naturally, but do not have the quality of self-regulation. In this regard, it is necessary: a) creation of rules ("laws") regulating such relations and b) activities to monitor compliance with these rules ("boards").

Explaining the reasons for the gradual transition of ancient societies from custom to laws, Desnitsky, albeit not directly, formulates the original purpose of governance. This goal is the regulation of property relations. And it looks like this in Desnitsky: "gradually rising, the peoples, in the knowledge of property and being content at first with a few simple and imperfect laws, did not require deliberate people to interpret them" ^{[11, p. 197]}. This idea of the emergence of management from the need to protect property is taken by Desnitsky from English political thought, about which he himself writes in The Word, naming as the authors of "political, metaphysical and moral works" by Gobs, Cumberland, Mandeville, Locke and others ^{[11, p. 202]}.

The idea of the goal-setting of public administration is clearly heard in Locke, in chapter IX (On the goals of political society and government), his "Two Treatises on Government": "... the great and main goal of uniting people into states and putting themselves under the authority of the government is to preserve their property" ^{[14, p. 334]}. It should be noted, however, that the concept of "property" in Locke does not mean "property". It is interpreted broadly as a combination of "life, freedom and possession" ^{[14, p. 334]}. But Desnitsky did not seek to expand the meaning of the concept of "property". In designating the goals of public administration, he preferred to use another concept – "well-being". His teacher J. Locke very often used this concept to characterize the goal-setting of management and, at the same time, built it into the construction of "safety and well-being" ^{[14, pp. 36, 71, 349]}, giving this construction (as well as the concept of "property") an individual beginning. Both "property" and "well–being" in Locke are categories applied to a person's personality. Desnitsky, on the other hand, preferred to shift the emphasis in favor of collective ("common") well-being: "In state affairs, such as when concluding treatises and other similar ones, people caress themselves with great hope in anticipation of general well-being" ^{[11, p. 215]}. Accordingly, if Locke's goal-setting of public administration is conceptually connected with the "well-being" of everyone, then Desnitsky's is connected with the "well-being" of everyone. The desire for "general well-being", which we find in Desnitsky, is close, in our opinion, to how Gobs contrasted "personal well-being" ("private fortune") with "public prosperity" ("publique prosperity") ^{[9, p. 75],[31]}. Accordingly, Desnitsky builds a hierarchy of management goals in which "general well-being" is more important than individual well-being.

The goal of management is achieved by solving the tasks assigned to it, which is the content of management. In the same section "On natural jurisprudence" Desnitsky formulates the tasks of "civil improvement" in the following form: "it should show everything that belongs to the improvement and welfare, convenient maintenance and safety of the inhabitants, and talk about the means necessary to prevent internal unrest and to protect against enemy attacks" ^{[11, p. 206]}.

We see three blocks of tasks here. The set of tasks of the first block is associated with providing favorable conditions for the life of "ordinary people". And we need to understand who the author means. The dictionary of the Russian language of the XI – XVII centuries knows only one meaning of this word: "local resident, inhabitant" ^{[21, p. 210]}. In the Dictionary of the Russian language of the XVIII century, another meaning of this term is already recorded – "a resident of ... the State" ^{[22, p. 140]}. However, an example is given from the translation from the French treatise "Citizen with calculation or Everyday accounting", made in 1786. Iradion Gvozdikovsky, translator of Moscow University. A year earlier, in 1785, the term "urban inhabitants" was used in the normative act – "City Regulations", put into effect by the "Charter of the Cities". Here, the "urban philistine" or "philistine" is a class category of "middle-class citizens", that is, those "who are either old-timers in that city, or were born, or settled, or houses, or other buildings, or places, or land, or are registered in a guild, or in a workshop, either they were sent to the city service, or they were recorded in the salary, and they are serving or burdensome in that city" ^{[19, p. 85]}.

The legal concept of "urban inhabitants" is thus related to: a) the place of residence, b) a set of duties (duties) and c) a specific set of rights for this class category. It can be assumed that in the understanding of Desnitsky, a philistine is a person living in the Russian state, bearing responsibility to him and possessing the rights peculiar to his estate. And since different estates have a different set of rights, then the content of the concepts: "well-being", "welfare", "convenient maintenance", "security" - they have different. So, in his "Legal reasoning about the different concepts that peoples have about the ownership of estates in various states of communal communities" in 1781, the content of the concept of "philistine" is revealed in two ways: and as a "resident" ("thus they live in a society extending in each yurt to three, four and up to five hundred inhabitants, Hottentots") and as a "landowner" ("in the original agricultural state, every philistine occupies as much land for himself as he needs") ^{[10, pp. 17-18]}. And we can make one more assumption: where the term "citizen" was used in European managerial thought, Desnitsky had to use some other term for the reason that the concept of "citizen" conflicted with the concepts of "subject" and "estates". And Desnitsky's replacement for the "citizen" was the "philistine". Moreover, in his texts, the term "civil" does not mean "inherent in citizens" (sovereign subjects of public relations), but a property of residents, "philistines" that does not relate to the state.

So, the tasks of the state administration of the first block (that is, those related to "welfare"), in Desnitsky, are formulated as follows: "the introduction and encouragement of manufactories, the patronage of commerce, the reliable establishment of banks and coins for the welfare of merchants and an undoubted power of attorney in everything should be taken into consideration here" ^{[11, p. 206]}. To this are added the following tasks: "to discuss what are the best means here to bring farming to perfection" and "to try to find ways to collect the sovereign's treasury for that and to diligently observe it" ^{[21, p. 206]}. The general orientation of these tasks is twofold: a) maintaining the existing relations in a stable state; b) their gradual improvement.

The second block is connected with the use of "means necessary to prevent internal disturbances." In modern terms, these are the tasks of crisis management, in the part that relates to maintaining the stability of existing social relations. In the XXI century, such tasks are formulated in a detailed form: "early diagnosis of a stagnant, and subsequently a crisis situation, proactive search for effective means and methods of management; flexible situational response; concentration of efforts on promising areas of political and socio-economic development" ^{[17, p. 10]}. Desnitsky, of course, we will not find such a detailed study of this type of tasks (and this was not the subject of his speech), but the indication of the need to find and use "means" of anti-crisis management, in our opinion, is clearly visible in him.

The third block correlates with the task of defending the country, which echoes the definition of political power in J. Locke's "Two Treatises...": "... I consider the right to create laws ... to regulate and preserve property, and to use community force to enforce these laws and to protect the state from external attacks — and all this is just for the public good" ^{[14, p. 263]}.

A full-fledged concept of public administration (as we noted above) should be based on principles: universal and organizational. Universal principles set the boundaries of state intervention in the affairs of society. For the XVIII century . The universal principle that is present in almost any text on governance and/or political power is the principle of the "common good". We can also find it in Desnitsky: "In state affairs, such as when concluding treatises and other similar ones, people caress themselves with great hope in anticipation of general well-being..." ^{[11, p. 215]}. At the same time, he has another universal principle, designated as "the welfare of the fatherland" ^{[11, p. 306]}, understood not as the sum of the benefits of all those who live in this fatherland, but as a category of a higher strand. In the Word, Desnitsky highlights the special role of the state "to retain the dignity, power, glory and majesty of the empire, since great state dependents are required for the establishment and maintenance of sciences, arts and troops" ^{[11, p. 207]} And in the "Presentation" he relies precisely on the concept of "the welfare of the empire", and not on the concept of the "common good" ^{[11, p. 292]}. Finally, another universal principle introduced by Desnitsky (and not used in the European managerial thought of the XVIII century) is the principle of class orientation of management. However, it manifests itself in Desnitsky, not everywhere, but only in order to free the "noble" from punishment, which provides for "publicly and vilifying to do in front of all the people" ^{[11, p. 308]}.

As for the organizational principles, there are two of them: the principle of separation of powers and the principle of multi-level management, which provides for different tasks and different mechanisms for their execution for the state power and for the "civil" power. The principle of separation of powers is formulated at the very beginning of the "Presentation" as follows: "To make laws, to judge by laws and to make a court in execution — these three positions constitute three authorities, that is, legislative, judicial and punitive power, on which the authorities depend almost all the positions of office and all the main government in the states" ^{[11, p. 295]}. To this introductory phrase, Desnitsky gives a footnote to Montesquieu's treatise "On the Spirit of Laws" (you can read about this in detail in the article by Yu. V. Taraborina ^[24]), which is logical and useful if you take into account who this text was intended for in the first place (and this is Catherine II, an admirer of Montesquieu).

The thesis about the "main government" through the law, refers us to the "Lectures on jurisprudence" by A. Smith (which he read in 1762-1763) and, in particular, to the statement: "... as it is the highest exertion of government to make laws and lay down rules to bind not only ourselves, but also our posterity, and those who never gave any consent to the making of them" ("the highest business of the government is to make laws and establish rules that bind not only ourselves, but also our offspring, as well as those who never gave consent to their creation") ^[29]. But, of course, we remember that the idea of separation of powers in Russia itself did not come from England, but from France, from Montesquieu, and not from J. Locke or A. Smith.

The tools of public administration (as it can be understood from Desnitsky's texts) should: a) include the concept of "law" and b) correspond to the tasks of each of the "authorities". For the legislature, the main (but not the only) tool proposed by Desnitsky is lawmaking, which is explained as follows: "To make, supplement, correct or destroy laws — this will eventually be required by circumstances when the state begins to come to great perfection and when commerce and duties begin to rise. ... It cannot be otherwise, the more nations rise, are cleaned out and come to the highest perfection, the more laws they demand" ^{[11, p. 295]}. Two other tools that, in Desnitsky's concept, the legislative power should use are "to impose duties in the state" and "to observe the conclusion of treatises with neighboring powers" ^{[11, pp. 295-296]}. These tools were supposed to be used in the work of the Governing Senate, transformed into a representative institution.

By the way Desnitsky explained the need to expand legislative activity (with reference to commerce and property rights), we see that he most likely relied on the teachings of G. Grotius (Grotius), from which, in fact, A. Smith began his lectures on jurisprudence: "This naturally led him to inquire into the constitution of states and the principles of civil laws; into the rights of sovereigns and subjects; into the nature of crimes, contracts, property, and whatever else was the object of law..." ("This naturally prompted him to investigate the constitution of states and the principles of civil law; the rights of sovereigns and subjects; the nature of crimes contracts, property and everything else that was the subject of the law ...") ^[29].

Such an interpretation of both the goal-setting and the content of the legislative process, in turn, implied an appeal to the pan-European concept of the "common good" as the basis of public administration. Which, in turn, led to the understanding of management as an activity to coordinate the interests of different social groups. However, based on Russian realities (and knowing the direction of the addressee's thoughts), Desnitsky introduced the following passage into his text: "In the UK, until both parliaments agree with the king, in France until the secretary and parliament sign, until then no legislation intended to be put into effect can be made and will not have the force of law. In Russia, however, the monarchical state and the integrity of the fatherland requires legalizing the very opposite of these states to the institutions, that is, so that until then nothing is published in the national news and would not have the force of a decree until it receives the monarch's permission and confirmation" ^{[11, p. 299]}. Thus, Desnitsky's "law" turns from an instrument for coordinating the interests of various strata of society, in the name of realizing the idea of the "common good" (European concept), into an instrument for realizing the monarch's will, in the name of the interests of the state, which may coincide with the interests of certain groups of the population or exist by themselves (Russian concept).

The tools of the legislative power are focused on the establishment of a norm, in the form of a law (internal norm) and a contract or, in Desnitsky's terminology, a "treatise" (external norm). The key tool that is not necessary to establish a norm is taxes ("duties"). They are necessary for the maintenance of the state. Attributing them to the activities of the legislature is associated with the rationing of these deductions. And then it is necessary to use the tools of another branch of government – the judiciary.

The purpose of the judiciary is to restore justice, which can be violated either by deviation from the norm (violation of the law), or by an act that does not yet fall under the law. And if, in the first case, the task of the court is to restore the operation of the law, then in the second case ("when the law will not get, because it is impossible to limit all the adventures of pi in which state by laws and foresee ahead) ^{[11, p. 302]}, Desnitsky suggests focusing on a combination of "truth and justice" or "conscience and justice", referring in a note to the book by Henry Nuom, Lord Kemz "Principles of Equity" (translated by Desnitsky - "Law based on justice") ^{[11, p. 303]}, the first edition of which was published in 1760. In this book, Lord Kemz correlates the concept of justice with what could be described as common sense, not innate, but based on reason and practice: "That there is in mankind a common sense of what is right and wrong, and an uniformity of opinion, is a matter of fact, of which the only infallible proof is observation and experience..." ("That in humanity there is a sound understanding of what is right and what is wrong, and the uniformity of opinions is a fact, the only irrefutable proof of which is observation and experience ...") ^[30].

In full accordance with this doctrine, which equates justice with common sense, Desnitsky selects the tools of the "judicial power". Here in the first place is the judges' knowledge of "natural philosophy", "the teachings of human nature" and "many examples of court cases", starting from Roman law ^{[11, p. 304]}. The second tool is the impartiality of the court, determined by the principle of its irremovability: "so that the judge, once made, to the very death of a judge and at his post always stayed, and moreover, he was given full power to judge everyone without exception so that no one would be allowed to add appeals to him, differently in the case when he is clearly against the law who will condemn" ^{[11, p. 305]}. The third tool is the publicity of the trial, carried out "in the presence of strangers" ^{[11, p. 303]}. And, finally, the fourth tool is the use of the institute of juries in courts: "for the recollection and justification of judges in the investigation of criminal and litigation cases; such people can be chosen at will and at the discretion of judges for any court from all the inhabitants in cities where the trial can be carried out, and then only for a while until the trial is over" ^{[11, p. 303]}.

All these tools allow the "judicial authorities" to act independently and publicly, using knowledge, experience, and common sense in investigating crimes and passing verdicts. If the legitimacy of the legislative power in Desnitsky completely coincides with the legitimacy of the monarch, then everything is different with regard to the court: legality is provided by law, and legitimacy is provided by public opinion, in which the fairness of decisions is secured by the publicity of the court and the use of the institution of juries.

Desnitsky's third power is "punitive". Her key task is to maintain the norm: "in general, to observe calmness and silence in the places assigned to her" ^{[11, p. 309]}. This task is realized through the identification of violators (thieves, robbers and the like to take to prison ... to prepare for a certain time for trial in a provincial city or in the main provincial court") and their punishment by court ("to keep convicts in prison and execute them in a place ordered by judges") ^{[11, p. 309]}. Accordingly, the tools of the "punitive power" are violence, which we now call legitimate. This violence is carried out by a team of soldiers, one part of whom must be in the city ("Infantry soldiers to any team will be the case – to stand guard on the streets at all times and observe calm and silence in their designated places"); the other – in rural areas ("mounted soldiers will be the case – to ride with a patrol, catch fugitives, thieves, robbers and criminal convicted people leaving prison") ^{[11, p. 310]}.

It is worth noting here that this part of Desnitsky's proposals was based on the latest methods of the English police, the transformation of which began in 1763 and consisted in the creation of five urban and thirteen rural patrol detachments in London and its environs, with the addition to them, soon a mounted detachment of eight people ^{[7, p. 187]}.

The extremely narrow range of tasks of the "punitive power" is caused by the fact that in Desnitsky's management concept, "a lot of cases" should be transferred to another level – "civil power". The meaning of the term "civil" in this concept is determined by the following quote: "This power should be entrusted to such people who live in the city and who have more things to do in the city. Consequently, citizens can be allowed to have such power, and even more so merchants and artistic people" ^{[11, p. 313]}. "Citizens" here are townspeople, "city dwellers, some of whom eat from the city, others live in the city..." ^{[11, p. 314]}. Accordingly, the "civil power" is the power organized by the residents of the city to solve all issues arising in the city dormitory. This – local – government is separated from the state: a) by the institution of elections for "civil positions" and b) by the lack of salary and the need to "serve in a civil position on their own content" ^{[11, p. 314]}. The non-inclusion in the "civil power" of rural residents of the "lower kind" (that is, not nobles) is specifically stipulated in the "Appendix 1". In this part, a separate form of organization of local government is proposed for two parts of the "lower kind": those who have a number of rights (odnodvorets, arable soldiers, black-and-white peasants) and those who are deprived of "benefits" and "property": peasants of landlords, palace and economic ^{[11, pp. 318-319]}.

Probably, the "royal cities" of Britain were a model for proposals for the organization of urban self-government. Desnitsky studied in Glasgow, which had the status of a "royal city" and was familiar with the structure and management practices of such cities. And in them "city councils had the same powers as in rural areas were vested with church parishes, councils of commissioners and sheriffs" ^{[2, p. 80]}. Accordingly, Desnitsky proposed to organize local government "in provincial and noble merchant provincial cities", not as in small, but in rural areas, not as in the city ^{[11, p. 315]}.

A detailed description of Desnitsky's ideas about the organization of local government is not included in the objectives of this article. It should be noted only that the sphere of this management is the economic and social life of citizens, the organization of urban space. But if we read into his proposals on the organization of public spending (in Appendix IV "On the legalization of finance"), we will notice that Desnitsky left part of the powers in the management of social processes to the state. In his enumeration of the "third kind of state costs" appear: "Enterprises concerning the general benefit, especially in a state still unsettled, are divided into countless pretexts: this includes the construction of cities, roads, making canals, cleaned rivers, various institutions for public education and charity, various institutions that can lead science and art in blooming state" ^{[11, p. 326]}. Here we see both tasks of a national nature (roads, canals, rivers and patronage of "sciences and arts") and those that could be solved by "civil administration" ("the structure of cities", "popular education and contempt"). Such an understanding of the tasks of the state goes beyond the activities of the "punitive" authorities and requires the use of completely different tools, not those possessed by the police. But these tools are not spelled out in Desnitsky's proposals, unlike a detailed enumeration of the tools that the state should use when collecting income.

Thus, we can say that, relying on the achievements of English and German educational thought, Desnitsky formulated his own management concept. In this concept, the goal of management is to introduce an organizational principle into the "natural" relations between people and, first of all, into property relations. The universal principle of the "common good" (obligatory to mention for all political authors of Europe of the second half of the XVIII century) Desnitsky, correlating with the realities of Russia, supplemented with two more: the principle of the state good and the principle of estate management. To solve management problems, he proposed to follow two organizational principles: separation of powers (in the interpretation of Montesquieu) and multi-level management. Accordingly, for each of the "authorities" allocated to him, he determined the tasks peculiar only to her and the tools necessary for their solution. The unity of management was achieved by highlighting the law as the main management tool. A special element of his management concept was the allocation of "civil management" (in urban public space), based on the principle of public self-government and thereby limiting the state's ability to interfere in the lives of "ordinary people".