Методичні підходи до оцінювання резилентності соціально-економічної системи в умовах глобальної нестабільності

Abstract

Охарактеризовано особливості оцінювання резилентності соціально-економічної системи до глобальних шоків на основі ідентифікації основних параметрів резилентності. Обґрунтовано, що для аналізу резилентності соціально-економічної системи варто використовувати “технічний”, “екологічний” та “адаптивний” підходи. Доведено об’єктивну необхідність аналізу організаційних та управлінських драйверів, оскільки рівень резилентності значною мірою формується під впливом управлінських рішень соціально-економічної системи.The article aims to substantiate the need to analyze the resilience of a socio-economic system based on “technical”, “environmental”, and “adaptive” approaches. It characterizes the features of the evaluation of a socio-economic system’s resilience against global shocks following the identification of the main resilience parameters. The author of the article uses the literature review method to explain the importance of the methodological approach to the evaluation of a socio-economic system’s resilience against global shocks, which can be singled out based on economic, innovative, socio-demographic, institutional-managerial, and environmental drivers of economic development. Such scientific research methods as a theoretical-logical explanation, systematization and explanation, and semantic analysis were also applied to study the essence and evaluate the resilience of a socio-economic system. The research is carried out in the framework of institutional economic theory, national economic recovery, and national and regional economies. The conducted research proves the fact that a socio-economic system’s resilience is a multifaceted concept, while resilience consists of a lot of elements of economic, social, organizational-institutional, managerial, environmental, innovative nature, etc. Therefore, resilience cannot evaluated based on one or two parameters or a certain integral index. The article characterizes the measurement of resilience by the volume of a shock the system can withstand (absorb) before it becomes capable to enter a new stability phase. If a new post-shock configuration or condition deteriorates compared to the pre-shock period, a system is assessed as a low-resilience system. Therefore, the system that has managed to enter a new post-shock configuration or its development trajectory is in a better condition compared to the pre-shock period is characterized by high resilience. The article proves the objective necessity to analyze the drivers of organizational and managerial nature since the resilience level is formed under the impact of certain decisions in a socio-economic system’s management, its links to other systems, etc. When evaluating a socio-economic system’s resilience, it is also reasonable to analyze the budget resilience drivers, primarily the observance of balance (prevention of imbalances) between budgetary expenditures and revenues. Therefore, interbudgetary transfers as an essential factor of impact on the resilience, including subsidized regions, should be analyzed when evaluating a system’s resilience. The emphasis on the causal relationship between dependent and independent variables in the course of evaluating the resilience of a socio-economic system is substantiated. The article offers a recursive model, which is more appropriate for the evaluation of “prospective output” to reveal the system’s ability to recover and return to the pre-shock event growth trajectory. The research value lies in the development of a methodological approach to the evaluation of a socio-economic system’s resilience in global instability. The article provides recommendations regarding the application of a multidimensional methodology, which, on the one hand, analyzes the system’s resilience based on the system and holistic approaches and, on the other hand, describes the results of a shock and driving variables with the allocation of individual components of a socio-economic system (economic, social, environmental, managerial, and organizational-institutional, etc.).