English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The purpose of the paper. Search for the best motivation means for fruitful, efficient, and high-quality service activities of public servants requires in-depth study of those resources which are traditionally “associated” with public service. Traditionally, bonus for public servants still remains one of these kinds of means which is linked with the “distinguished”, “over-productive” official activities. Methodology. Comparative and legal analysis of “bonus” laws of countries across the world shows the difference in consideration of the role and purpose of an award in the modern public service, which contributes to the defeat of its real resource, false identification with the “scheduled”, “regular” pay for labour, along with other components of the latter, which does not depend on “achievements” in the official activities. Results. The author, on the basis of comparative legal research, substantiates the need to model the results of “bonus” rulemaking and enforcement of unified “rule-making filters” in different countries of the world for the targeted use of reward as a means to encourage public servants for the effective, efficient, and high-quality official activities, which is the purpose of the article. It is expedient: a) to define a bonus at the regulatory level as a means of encouragement and harmonization of related subject-matter legal terms; b) to differentiate two types of bonuses for public servants – according to the results of annual efficiency rating of person’s official activities (“effective”, “valuation”) and the bonus as a type of encouragement as a whole (“general”, “common”); c) “standardization” of the bonus amount for public servants, namely: “valuation” (“effective”) should be in percentage (twenty percent is proposed) to the annual salary of a person who received an excellent grade on the basis of annual evaluation, “general” (“common”) as a means of encouragement related to “achievements” of a public servant in official activity, “within rate” (from minimum to maximum) with “binding” to the official salary (it is proposed from one to two) of a public servant; d) to introduce regulatory “filters” of bonus frequency towards “common” (“general”) type due to the mandatory adherence to requirements for the application of encouragement means for a public servant in accordance with their consolidation in a unified list, which makes his “constant” bonus awarding impossible; e) intensification of the principles of transparency, publicity, openness, control over “bonus procedure”, elimination of the prerequisites for a broad manifestation of the discretion of subject who makes a final decision (with the introduction of principles for the division of powers on initiation and final decision, the approval of a draft decision with the public, etc.) on the bonus reward for a public servant. Practical applications. Under the conditions of practical application of the abovementioned recommendations, it is quite possible to use bonuses as means for stimulation, encouragement to fruitful, effective, and qualitative official activity of public servants, a real means to improve public service in general.

baltic journal of economic studies

BONUS FOR A PUBLIC SERVANT – IS IT SCHEDULED RAISE TO OFFICIAL SALARY OR EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR MOTIVATION? THERE SHOULD BE REGULATORY “FILTERS” FOR ITS USE