Purpose: This article substantiates the influence of mechanisms, methods, and technologies of a functional representation of group interests on the strategic management of socio-economic processes in the context of geopolitical turbulence.

Methodology: The work defines the socio-stratification basis for the representation of group interests, their role as subjects of representation in the modern system of management of social processes, the features of the convergence of functional representation of various interest groups, first of all, the multiform structures of the consulting and expert system, and ways to improve their performance subject to current reforming trends towards improvement of the quality of life and update of the importance of human capital..

Result: The authors determined the dependence of the results of managing socio-economic processes, the strategy of sustainable economic development of Russia on the degree of conscious complicity, social activity of the population and the presence of relevant institutions of functional representation of group interests, transparent (open, mutually beneficial, corruption-free) management mechanisms of a particular region. Government authorities, functional representation institutions can use the scientifically based recommendations proposed by the authors in the development of socio-economic projects and programs aimed at effective, first of all, regional development, and at the establishment of open channels of interaction in a “society - business - state” symbiosis. The article will also be of assistance to the scientific community as a theoretical justification of practical actions aimed at developing the institutions of a functional representation of group interests

Applications: This research can be used for the universities, teachers, and students.

Novelty/Originality: In this research, the model of convergence of institutes of a functional representation of group interests under transformation of social processes, quality of life, and human capital is presented in a comprehensive and complete manner.


  1. Akkuzova, A., Mankeyev, Z., Akkuzov, A., Kaiyrbekova, U., & Baiymbetova, R. (2018). Some features of the meaning “literary text” in the pragmalinguistic aspect. Opción, 34(85-2), 20-34.
  2. Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk‐taking. European journal of social psychology, 36(4), 511-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.324
  3. Antúnez, J. V. V. (2016). De nuevo al debate sobre la cuestión de los paradigmas científicos. Opción, 32(81), 7-10.
  4. Bahremand, A. (2015). The concept of translation in different teaching approaches and methods. UCT Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research, 3(1), 5-9.
  5. Bartsits, I.N. (2010). Towards a new bureaucracy: the burden of corruption and anti-corruption expertise. Investigator, 2, 11 - 14.
  6. Bently, A. (1967). The Process of Government. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674733657
  7. Bogdanov, I. Y., & Kalinin, A. P. (2001). Corruption in Russia: Socio-economic and legal aspects. Moscow: ISPI RAS.
  8. Cawson, A. (1996). Corporatism and Political Theory. Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 213.
  9. Christoforou, T. (2003). The precautionary principle and democratizing expertise: a European legal perspective. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 205-211. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780443
  10. Courtney, S. A. (2018). Teacher Educator-Embedded Professional Learning Model. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(3), 103-123. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/2702
  11. Kubr, M. (Ed.). (2002). Management consulting: A guide to the profession. International Labour Organization.
  12. Lepekhin, V. A. (1995). Лоббизм. – М.: Фонд «IQ»,– С. 20-28.
  13. Niranjan, D. S. (2016). W.T.O. AND SUGAR TRADE OF INDIA. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 4(1), 41-48. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2016.415
  14. Nowotny, H. (2003). Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and public policy, 30(3), 151-156. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780461
  15. Nussbaum, M. C. (2002). Moral expertise?: Constitutional narratives and philosophical argument. Metaphilosophy, 33(5), 502-520. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9973.00245
  16. Lanzi, D. (2007). Capabilities, human capital and education. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(3), 424-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.005
  17. Marger, M. N. (2001). Social and human capital in immigrant adaptation:: The case of Canadian business immigrants. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(2), 169-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(00)00099-8
  18. Chhibber, A. (2000). Social capital, the state, and development outcomes. Social capital. A multifaceted perspective, 296-309.
  19. Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary sociology, 29(6), 785-795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2654086
  20. Best, D., & Laudet, A. (2010). The potential of recovery capital. London: RSA.
  21. Shapiro, J. M. (2006). Smart cities: quality of life, productivity, and the growth effects of human capital. The review of economics and statistics, 88(2), 324-335. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.2.324