PRIORITY AREAS AND MEANS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION COUNTERING RAIDING

Tetyana Kuzmenko

doi:10.23856/5836

Tetyana Kuzmenko Education and Research Institute “Institute of Public Administration” of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6895-1329

Keywords: public administration, to counteract raiding, directions, means, priorities.

Abstract

Each business entity should make sufficient efforts to respond appropriately to the existing challenges (including the threat of a raider attack); however, not always and not all of them are able to cope with this on their own, and therefore require external assistance, which is expressed in the use of appropriate means of public administration to counteract raiding. The objective of the article is to improve the list of means and priority areas of public administration addressing raiding. The generalization of the developments of leading scholars and practitioners, as well as the results of the author's own research in this area, allow improving the list of means of public administration of countering raiding in the following priority areas: organisational and methodological support of public administration of countering raiding; prevention of raiding; localisation of raider attacks; minimisation of the negative consequences of the spread of raiding. The key to success in this area is the proper use of advanced methodological support, balanced application of administrative, economic, organisational, legal and socio-psychological methods of public administration, as well as consideration of market mechanisms and social norms which, to a certain extent, affect the functioning of business entities. The author proves the inadmissibility of the following: involvement of public administration officials in unfair competition; use of public authority to appropriate or gain influence over a company that has been subjected to a raider attack; use of anti-raider measures as a way of dealing with «inconvenient» public administration officials; preservation of the practice when the principle of «presumption of innocence» is applied instead of the principle of «presumption of impunity».

References

1. Aizenberg E., Hanegraaff M. (2019). Is politics under increasing corporate sway? A longitudinal study on the drivers of corporate access. West European Politics. 43(1). 181–202. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2019.1603849
2. Angumuthoo M., Lotter D., Wood S. (2020). Public Interest in Mergers: South Africa. The Antitrust Bulletin. 65(2). 312–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X20912882
3. Cheng B., Christensen T., Ma L., Yu J. (2021). Does public money drive out private? Evidence from government regulations of industrial overcapacity governance in urban China. International Review of Economics. 76. 767–780. DOI: 10.1016/j.iref.2021.07.012
4. Derevyanko B., Turkot O. (2021). Pro protydiiu zbyranniu chuzhoho vrozhaiu «reideramy» [On countering illegal harvesting by «raiders»]. Ukrains’ka politseistyka: teoriia, zakonodavstvo, praktyka [Ukrainian policing: theory, legislation, practice]. 1. 132–141. https://doi. org /10.32366/2709-9261-2021-1-1-132-141 [in Ukrainian]
5. Dudorov O.O., Kamenskiy D.V., Titarenko S.S. (2021). Kryminal’no-pravova otsinka zlovzhyvan’ derzhavnykh reiestratoriv u konteksti protydii reiderstvu [To the question of correct criminal law definition of seizure of subjects of economic activity (raiding)]. Naukovyi visnyk Natsional’noi akademii vnutrishnikh sprav [Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Internal Affairs]. 1. 118–130. https://doi.org/10.33270/01211181.118 [in Ukrainian]
6. Frattaroli M. (2020). Does protectionist anti-takeover legislation lead to managerial entrenchment? Journal of Financial Economics. 136(1). 106–136. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.03.014
7. Gradstein M., Kaganovich M. (2019). Legislative restraints in corporate bailout design. Journal of Economic Behavior. 158. 337–350. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2018.12.003
8. Grytsyshen D.O. (2021). Derzhavna polityka v sferi zapobihannia ta protydii ekonomichnii zlochynnosti [State policy in the field of prevention and counteraction to economic crime]: Extendet abstract of candidate’s thesis. Kharkiv, 437. [in Ukrainian]
9. Kaplan R., Lohmeyer N. (2020). A comparative capitalism perspective on the privatization of governance: Business power, nonbusiness resistance and state enforcement in Germany, 2000–2010. Socio-Economic Review. 19(1). 247–272. DOI: 10.1093/ser/mwaa001
10. Kuzmenko T. (2021). Sutnist’ poniattia «reyderstvo» [Essence of the concept of «raiding»]. Ekonomichni chytannia [Economic readings]: materialy I mizhnarodnoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii [materials I international science practice conference], 2021, February 19. Kharkiv, 90–91. [in Ukrainian]
11. Nyberg D. (2021). Corporations, Politics, and Democracy: Corporate political activities as political corruption. Organization Theory. 2(1). 1–13. DOI: 10.1177/2631787720982618
12. Pisarevskiy M., Aleksandrova V., Yevtushenko V., Poroka S., Shoiko V., Karpeko N. (2021). Management of economic security of industrial enterprises for countering raiding. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development. 43.1. 151–160. https://doi.org/10.15544/mts.2021.13
13. Vaheesan S. (2020). Privileging Consolidation and Proscribing Cooperation: The Perversity of Contemporary Antitrust Law. Journal of Law and Political Economy. 28. 28–45. https:// doi.org/10.5070/LP61150255
14. Vasylchyshyn O., Bilous I. (2020). Raiding as a separate type of organized criminal activity in the financial sphere. Economic analysis. 30.1.2. 216–222. https://doi.org/10.35774/ econa2020.01.02.216
15. Waked D. (2020). Antitrust as Public Interest Law: Redistribution, Equity and Social Justice. The Antitrust Bulletin. 65(1). 87–101. DOI: 10.1177/0003603X19898624