SOCIO-CULTURAL DIMENSION AND MODERN INTERPRETATION OF THE THEORY OF A SOCIAL AGREEMENT

Abstract

Purpose of Article. The purpose of the article is to reveal the socio-cultural dimension of the theory of social contract, to comprehend the basic determinants of service-oriented public policy through the implementation of a comparative analysis of theories of "contractionism" ("contractualism") and "clientelism" ("clientism"), especially in the clarification of functional relationships between subjects and objects of interaction in the context of their historiography and modern use. Methodology. The methodological basis of the study is a comparative and systematic analysis, as well as historical logical and retrospective methods that ensured the study of the theories of "contractionism" ("contractualism") and "clientelism" ("clientism") in the historical context of development and interpretation of modern development of the Ukrainian state, allowed to reveal the essence and highlight the ideology and socio-cultural foundations of service-oriented public policy. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty consists in expanding theoretical ideas concerning the ideology of constructing a service state and the role of customer-oriented relations in international and national practice of public governance. The service orientation is substantiated as the basic principle of the transformation of the system of rendering of governance services. Conclusions. The relevance of the concept of a public contract (social contract) is substantiated by the necessity for practical implementation of the ideology of the service state. The basic principles of contractualism and constructive dialogue as the value orientations of modern integration processes in Ukraine are determined. The importance of contractualism as a mechanism of constructive dialogue in the conditions of functioning of a social contract is substantiated. The achievement of social consensus through the conclusion of a social contract is considered as the basis for the development of civil society, and, at the same time, a guarantee of the legitimacy of power. At the same time, the destructiveness of clientism (clientelism) in the relationship between government and civil society is substantiated.