The first story, identified among the participants in this study, is the concept of political leadership or the lack of political commitment of the Board of Directors to impose the bureaucratic process of modernization. This account suggests that the success of public service reform depends largely on the motivation of reformers and their willingness to impose legislation on the public service. The underlying logic of public service reform reveals the dynamic interaction of unequal players in bureaucratic reforms. As a result, the early phase of reform is characterized by efforts to reconcile conflicting ideas and interests between the main actors (presidential administration, ministries and agencies of the Russian Federation), while the political implementation phase is characterized by the absence of comprehensive regulation and uneven application of public service standards. The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, in his 1944 work, compared bureaucratic management to profit management. Profit management is the most effective method of organization if the services provided can be verified by the economic calculation of profits and losses. However, if the service in question cannot be economically calculated, bureaucratic administration is required. It has not resisted universal bureaucratic management; On the contrary, he argued that bureaucracy is an indispensable method for social organization, because it is the only method that can make the law superior, and it is the protector of the individual against despotic arbitrariness. Taking the example of the Catholic Church, he stressed that bureaucracy is only suitable for an organization whose code of conduct does not need to change. He went on to argue that complaints about bureaucratization generally do not refer to criticism of bureaucratic methods themselves, but to « the intrusion of bureaucracy into all areas of human life. » Mises has seen bureaucratic processes at work in both the private and public sectors; However, he felt that bureaucratization in the private sector could only be done because of state interference. According to him, « it is enough to realize that the straitjacket of bureaucratic organization paralyzes the initiative of the individual, whereas in the capitalist society of the market, an innovator still has a chance to succeed.
The former ensures the stagnation and preservation of inveteral methods, the second has challenged progress and improvements.  Given the unsatisfactory scope of the results of research on Russia`s bureaucratic reform process, this document aims to contribute to the discussion of the cause-and-effect processes that are causing the formation of a very long phase of implementation and the absence of observable CSR results.