Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
It has been proven that state policy in the field of diplomatic service is, nevertheless, a rather individual concept.The government decides on its own how to choose one or another vector of development.For example, the experience of the United States of America provides an opportunity to draw a conclusion: the government should not be a spectator and a statist, it should be fully involved in the process of state-social dialogue.The signs of dialogue in the United States of America are transparent and clear, manifested, first of all, in the openness and publicity of the government, freedom of speech and opinion of the public and mass media, free expression of one's own civil and political position by social institutions and bodies of civil initiative.It has been proven that in order to create an effective and modern state apparatus with democratic principles of diplomatic representation, it is necessary to choose the most humane way to dialogue with the population.The Ukrainian experience shows that the process of communication between the authorities and citizens is more intense, and the problem lies in an insufficiently established way of exchanging proposals between the community and state institutions.It is indicated that the public character of the government and the publicity of the officials is important in the context of the formation of a high level of trust from the population and confidence in the competence of civil servants.The position of countries such as France, Denmark and Sweden is progressive and modern: social networks, which are actively used in today's conditions, take on the role of a communication tool between the government and society.It is worth noting that such a concept is used in Ukraine, but the development of the socio-diplomatic management apparatus needs improvement.
Філіппова et al. (Tue,) studied this question.