STATE REGULATION OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS, METHODS AND MODERN TRENDS

Abstract

Introduction. This article examines the theoretical foundations, methods, and current trends of state regulation of entrepreneurial activity. The relevance is due to the need to find a balance between market freedom and public control, especially in the context of digital transformation and sanctions pressure. The aim is a comprehensive analysis of the essence, instruments, and evolution of regulation, as well as identifying problems and directions for improvement. Methods. The dialectical method was used to examine regulation in dynamics, revealing the contradiction between the fiscal and stimulating functions of the state. Formal-legal (analysis of normative acts), comparative-legal (comparison of models in different legal systems), and statistical methods were applied. The study covers periods from the NEP to the present, including analysis of reforms in the 2000s, 2010s, and 2020s. Results. Administrative methods (registration, licensing, control, technical regulation) and economic methods (tax, monetary, customs-tariff, subsidies) are systematized. The evolution of Russian regulation is shown: from rigid administrative control under the NEP and the liberal chaos of the 1990s to bureaucratic pressure in the 2000s and the current search for balance. Key trends are identified: the introduction of a risk-based approach (Government Resolution No. 806), the "regulatory guillotine" (large-scale cancellation of outdated acts since 2021), digitalization of supervisory activities, and the development of self-regulation and co-regulation. The system for protecting entrepreneurs’ rights is analyzed through three institutions: the business ombudsman (extrajudicial protection with the right to suspend acts), the prosecutor’s office (authoritative supervisory powers, identifying hundreds of thousands of violations annually), and the reform of control and supervisory activities (Federal Law No. 248-FZ, preventive model). Discussion. It is substantiated that the effectiveness of regulation directly correlates with the balance between private and public interests. Directions for improvement are proposed: expanding the ombudsman’s powers, decriminalizing certain economic crimes, clarifying the concept of "direct threat of harm" (Article 4.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses), further developing remote forms of control and preventive measures. The implementation of these measures will create a favorable investment climate and ensure constitutional freedom of entrepreneurship.