This study investigates the technique of organising the information obtained during the comparative historical and legal analysis. The main methods of data systematisation include classification and typologization. Classification is manifested in the division of objects into certain classes and can be based on a variety of criteria. Therewith, each individual classification should be performed based only on one feature. In contrast to the classification, typologization can be performed on a set of essential features and is aimed at understanding the essence of the phenomena under study. Any historical and legal typologization depends on the selected criteria. The result of comparative historical and legal analysis can be the production of entire arrays of information, to organise which it is advisable to use methods of cluster analysis. Cluster analysis constitutes a set of techniques that allow classifying multidimensional observations, and its purpose is to create clusters – groups of similar objects. This study also provides an algorithm for using cluster analysis. All the above methods of information systematisation serve as the basis for further evaluation of the data obtained, the main element of which is an explanation. It is in the process of explanation that the essential aspects and relations of the compared historical and legal objects are covered and the internal causal relationship between the studied state and legal phenomena is established. Evaluation of the results of comparative historical and legal research does not end with a simple explanation, but can also continue in scientific forecasting, the logical basis of which is the method of modelling. The process of modelling at the stage of systematisation and evaluation of the results of comparative historical and legal research takes place in several stages, which are also covered in this study

The relevance of the topic of the article is determined by the very specific features of coexistence and interaction of central and local authorities, which is expressed in the objective need to find in each case effective mechanisms for balancing and reconciling their interests. The purpose of the article is to study the complex and contradictory processes of the rebuilding period in the USSR, related to the implementation of administrative reform by M.S. Horbachov, in particular, such an important component as the separation of powers between the union and republican bodies of state power and administration. With the use of formal-legal, logical-legal and historical-genetic methods, thorough conclusions are made about the reasons for the failure of M.S. Horbachov in the separation of powers between the center and the seats. Based on the application of the comparative historical and legal method, the peculiarities of administrative reform in some Soviet republics are singled out. The activities of the ruling elite of the USSR aimed at transforming the state mechanism through the redistribution of powers between the union and republican authorities are gradually analysed with the involvement of normative and legal material. The concrete steps of the union republics to declare their sovereignty in the conditions of deteriorating domestic political situation in the USSR are considered. The process of preparation for the adoption by the Soviet republics of the new Union Treaty as a way of overcoming the crisis that engulfed the USSR at the end of the perestroika M.S. Horbachov. The practical value of scientific work is manifested in the following provisions: decentralisation processes through the redistribution of powers between central and local authorities should be comprehensive, well-planned and conducted based on scientifically developed models; professionalism and general competence of elites become a critical factor in the context of large-scale managerial reforms; the category of time is the most important resource during the state and legal transformations in the conditions of intensive technological development