ISSN (print) - 0131-7652

ISSN (online) - 2686-7605

Vol. 49 No. 12 (2019)
Тема номера: Управление в цифровой экономике

Electronic Public Participation in Russia: Technology or Institute, Solo or Duo?

PDF (Русский)
  • E. Kapoguzov,
  • S. Revyakin
E. Kapoguzov
Omsk F. M. Dostoevsky State University, Omsk
Bio
S. Revyakin
National Research University – Higher School of Economics, Moscow
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30680/ECO0131-7652-2019-12-27-46

Published 2019-12-02

Keywords

  • public participation,
  • e-platforms,
  • import of institutions,
  • governance

How to Cite

1.
Kapoguzov Е, Revyakin С. Electronic Public Participation in Russia: Technology or Institute, Solo or Duo?. ECO [Internet]. 2019 Dec. 2 [cited 2024 Nov. 24];49(12):27-46. Available from: https://ecotrends.ru/index.php/eco/article/view/3932

Abstract

Public participation is an integral attribute of modern public governance, designed to optimize search for an effective solution and increase a likelihood of its implementation. Today, in the practice of public participation and co-production within the framework of public administration in Russia, electronic platforms are coming in active use. We set out to explore e-participation platforms in Russia trying to answer two research questions. The first question is whether e-participation platforms in Russia represent an autonomous institution involving citizens in decision-making process or such platforms serve as front-end technology which duplicates already existing processes in the public administration. The second question is aimed at whether the agenda discussed on the three e-platforms we researched reflects most pressing socio-economic problems of citizens, and to what extent the citizens can influence it. Three e-participation platforms from three different areas have been explored to answer our research questions (Moscow, the Republic of Bashkortostan, Voronezh). The paper shows that the e-participation platforms explored represent front-end technology for citizens’ right to appeal to state authorities using WWW and receive a response, but outcomes of such voting could not be used as the rationale for official decision making according to the Russian legislation. At the same time, topics discussed on the platforms do not reflect most pressing socio-economic issues of the citizens and the discussion has no influence on the agenda and alternatives for voting. The power of citizens is limited to vote/not vote on the agenda submitted by the state authorities. The paper concludes that the situation reflects an early stage of adopting e-tools in public participation in Russia focusing on learning and education.
PDF (Русский)

References

  2. Бычкова О. Публика и принятие правительственных решений: кому нужны «народные» обсуждения и консультации? // Вопросы экономики. 2014. № 6. С. 63–80.
  3. Bychkova, O. (2014). The Public and Decision-making Process: Who and Why Needs Citizen Participation? Voprosy Ekonomiki. No. 6. Pp. 63–80. (In Russ.).
  4. Капогузов Е. А. Трансформация государственного управления на региональном уровне: возможен ли импорт институтов? Институциональная трансформация: федеральный и региональный уровни. Материалы международной конференции. Кемерово, 2009. C. 70–74.
  5. Kapoguzov, E.A. (2009). Transformation of public administration at the regional level: is it possible to import institutions? in: Institutional Transformation: Federal and Regional Levels. Proceedings of the international conference. Kemerovo. Pp. 70–74. (In Russ.).
  6. Капогузов Е. А., Ковеченкова А. И. Инициативное бюджетирование – от практик к институционализации? (случай г. Омска) // ЭКО. 2018. №№ 9 (531). С. 39–50.
  7. Kapoguzov, E.A., Kovechenkova, A.A. (2018). Initiative Budgeting: From Praktice to Institutionalization? (Case of City Omsk). ECO. No. 9. Pp. 39–50. (In Russ.).
  8. Нуреев Р. М., Карапаев О. В. Три этапа становления цифровой экономики // Вопросы регулирования экономики. 2019. Т. 10. № 2. С. 6–27.
  9. Nureev, R. M, Karapaev, O.V. (2019). Digital economy as an economic institute. Journal of Economic Reguation. Vol. 10. No. 2. Pp. 6–27. (In Russ.).
  10. Argenbright R. (2016). Moscow under Construction. City Building, Place‐Based Protest, and Civil Society. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
  11. Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. JAIP. Vol. 4. No. 35. Pp. 216–224.
  12. Chalmers, J.A., Branch, K. (1998). Integrating Planning and Assessment Through Public Involvement. In Public Involvement Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute of Water Resources.Ed. by Creigton J. L., Delli Priscoli. IWR Staff Rep. 81–1: U. S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources. Fort Belvoir. Pp. 455–462.
  13. Chiu, K., Wagner, L., Choe, L., Chew, C., Kremzner, M. (2016). Piloting social engagement on a federal agency–administered Facebook page. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. No. 3 (56). Pp. 330–337.
  14. Davies, J. et al. (2018). Understanding innovation platform effectiveness through experiences from west and central Africa. Agricultural Systems. (165). Pp. 321–334.
  15. Donders, M., Hartmann, T., Kokx, A. (2014). Eparticipation in Urban Planning: Getting and Keeping Citizens Involved. International Journal of E-planning Research. Vol. 3. No. 2. Pp. 54–69.
  16. Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C. (2007).The Benefits of Facebook “Friends”: Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Vol. 12. No. 4. Pp. 143–168.
  17. IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation. (2017). Available at: https://sustainingcommunity.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/spectrum-of-public-participation/ (accessed: 30.09.2019).
  18. Irvin, R.A., Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the effort? Public Administration Review. No. 1 (64). Pp. 55–65.
  19. Janowski, T., Pardo, T., Davies, J. (2012). Government Information Networks–Mapping Electronic Governance Cases through Public Administration Concepts. Government Information Quarterly. Vol. 29. No. 1. Pp. 1–10.
  20. Janssen, M, Estevez, E. (2013). Lean Government and Platform-based Governance – Doing more with Less. Government Information Quarterly. Vol. 30. Pp. 1–8.
  21. Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N.K., Kouzmin, A. (2003). Reinventing the Democratic Governance Project through Information Technology? A Growing Agenda for Debate. Public Administration Review. Vol. 63. No. 1. Pp. 44–60.
  22. Lember, V., Kattel, R, Tõnurist, P. (2018). Technological Capacity in the Public Sector: the Case of Estonia. International Review of Administrative Sciences. Pp. 214–230.
  23. Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-Participation in Policy-Making. 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (IEEE). Pp. 1–10.
  24. Macintosh, A. (2006). e-Participation in Policy-Making: the Research and the Challenges. Exploiting the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications. Case Studies. Pp. 364–369.
  25. Mcnutt, K. (2014). Public Engagement in the Web 2.0 era: Social Collaborative Technologies in a Public Sector Context. Canadian Public Administration. Vol. 1. No. 57. Pp. 49–70.
  26. OECD. (2001). OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-making “Citizens as Partners”. Available at: http://www.internationalbudget.org/wp-content/uploads/Citizens-as-Partners-OECD-Handbook.pdf (accessed 04.06.2019).
  27. Osborne, S. (2010). The New Public Governance? London: Routledge.
  28. Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K. (2010). e-Participation initiatives in Europe: Learning from practitioners // 2nd IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference on Electronic Participation. Pp. 54–65.
  29. Pina, V., Torres, L., Royo, S. (2017). Comparing Online with Offline Citizen Engagement for Climate Change: Findings from Austria, Germany and Spain. Government Information Quarterly. Vol. 1. No. 34. Pp. 26–36.
  30. Rania, Q. (2017). Using Social Hub Media to Expand Public Participation in Municipal Urban Plans. Procedia Engineering. Vol. 198. Pp. 34–42.
  31. Scholl, H.J. (2002). E-government: A Special Case of ICT-enabled Business Process Change. The 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. P. 1.
  32. Smyth, E. (2001). Would the Internet Widen Public Participation? MRes Thesis. UK, University of Leeds.
  33. Stelzle, B., Jannack, A., Rainer Noennig J. (2017).Co-Design and Co-Decision: Decision Making on Collaborative Design Platforms.
  34. Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M., Dwivedi, Y. (2011). Transformational Change and Business Process Reengineering (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector. Government Information Quarterly. Vol. 28. No. 3. Pp. 320–328.
  35. Wilcox, D. (1994).The Guide to Effective Participation. Brighton, Partnership Books.