Digitalization of public administration: e-democracy vs e-government
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52575/2712-746X-2021-46-2-250-262Keywords:
digitalization, public administration, e-democracy, e-government, digital platformAbstract
Today, the concept of public administration continues to develop actively. At present, its evolution is largely determined by the increasing level of technical innovations and changing socio-political conditions. From the point of view of technological innovation, the concept is evolving towards the idea of the state as a digital platform, which is focused not only on the provision of services, but also on ensuring the participation of citizens in the decision-making process. And in social terms, the emphasis is on a new format of interaction between citizens and the state: dialogue and partnership. But such a transition faces a certain public opinion. The purpose of the study was to study the opinion of the population and experts on the digitalization of public administration in the context of e-government and e-democracy. It should be noted that the expert definition of these concepts is different: e-government is the provision of a high level of transparency of power and the free exchange of information between the state and society, and edemocracy is the interaction of citizens, authorities, public organizations on electronic platforms. Support for the promotion of E-Democracy and E-Government among experts and the population in Russia is not absolute. Most experts and the population believe that "Electronic Democracy" will contribute to obtaining information on the decisions taken by the authorities, conducting polls and votes on current problems, submitting collective appeals, petitions. At the same time, e-Government will help to obtain information about the activities of the authorities, simplify complaints about the actions/omissions of the authorities, and increase citizens' control over the quality of services. This demonstrates the similarity of these projects with regard to the transparency of the State. It should be noted that the experts called the insufficient activity of the population, the lack of interest on its part as an obstacle to the development of the concept of a platform state. Data on the use of electronic platforms implementing the functionality of "electronic democracy" and "electronic government" show a greater penetration of the second project into the digital network space.
Downloads
References
Белов В. Г. 2012. Электронная демократия в современной России. Ценности и смыслы, 4 (20): 129-138.
Василенко Л.А., Зотов В.В., Захарова С.А. 2020. Использование потенциала социальных медиа в становлении участвующего управления. Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Социология, 20 (4): 864-876. DOI 10.22363/2313-2272-2020-20-4-864-876
Зверева Г.И. 2019. Концепции «платформенного общества» в современных социокультурных исследованиях. Вестник РГГУ. Серия: Литературоведение. Языкознание. Культурология, 8: 161-171. DOI 10.28995/2686-7249-2019-8-161-171.
Зотов В.В. 2020. Информационно-аналитические платформы как основа цифровизации общества. Труды 63-й Всероссийской научной конференции МФТИ. Гуманитарные науки и педагогика. М.: МФТИ: С.71-72.
Лаврик Н.В. 2017. Электронная демократия: мировой опыт. Вестник Забайкальского государственного университета, 23(2): 67-75. DOI: 10.21209/2227-9245-2017-23-2-67-75
Литвинова Т.Н. 2018. Развитие электронного правительства в России: проблемы и перспективы. Право и управление. XXI век, 3: 60-68. DOI: 10.24833/2073-8420-2018-3-48-60-68
Маневский Е.В. 2019. Факторы развития электронной демократии в современном обществе. Политика и общество, 2: 15-20. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0684.2019.2.21852
Мисников Ю.Г., Филатова О.Г., Чугунов А.В. 2016. Электронное взаимодействие власти и общества: направления и методы исследований. Научно-технические ведомости СПбГПУ. Гуманитарные и общественные науки, 1 (239): 52-60. DOI: 10.5862/JHSS.239.6
Пермякова А.С., Платонов А.С., Юмаев Е.А. 2019. Особенности развития электронной демократии в Российской Федерации. Ученые записки Крымского федерального университета имени В.И. Вернадского. Философия. Политология. Культурология, 5 (1): 104-116.
Сморгунов Л.В. 2007. От электронного государства к электронному правлению: смена парадигмы. Политическая наука, 4: 20-49.
Сморгунов Л.В. 2019. Патртисипаторная государственная управляемость: платформы и сотрудничество. Власть, 27 (5): 9-19.
Чугунов А.В. 2016. Электронное участие как канал обратной связи власти и граждан: проблемы институционализации. Азимут научных исследований: экономика и управление, 4 (17): 453-459.
Apperley Th., Parikka J. 2018. Platform studies epistemic threshold. Games and Culture, 13 (4): 349–369. DOI: 10.1177/1555412015616509
Babintsev V.P., Sapryka V.A. 2013. Opportunities of sociology in the time of troubles. World Applied Sciences Journal. 26 (12): 1535-1537. DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.26.12.13604.
Castelnovo W., Sorrentino M. 2017. The Digital Government Imperative: a ContextAware Perspective.Public Management Review, 20 (5): 709-725. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1305693
Chung Ch.-S. 2017. From Electronic Government to Platform Government. Journal of Platform Technology, 5 (3): 3-10.
Dawes S., Gregg V., Agouris P. 2004. Digital Government Research: Investigations at the Crossroads of Social and Information Science. Social Science Computer Review, 22 (1): 5-10. DOI: 10.1177/0894439303259863
Digital Government Strategies for Transforming Public Services in the Welfare Areas: OECD comparative study. 2016. OECD. 63 p.
Dugdale A., Daly A., Papandrea F., Maley M. 2005. Accessing E-government: Challenges for Citizens and Organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71 (1): 109-118. DOI: 10.1177/0020852305051687.
Eriksson K., Vogt H. 2013. On Self-service Democracy: Configurations of Individualizing Governance and Self-directed Citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory, 16 (2): 153-173. DOI: 10.1177/1368431012459693
Gil-Garcia J.R., Dawes Sh.S., Pardo T.A. 2018. Digital Government and Public Management Research: Finding the Crossroads. Public Management Review, 20 (5): 633-646. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181
Gillespie T. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Modernization, and the Hidden Decisions that Shape Social Media. – New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 296 p.
Janssen M., Estevez E. 2013. Lean government and platform-based governance –Doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly, 30: S1–S8. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.11.003.
Knox C. 2013. Public Administrators’ Use of Social Media Platforms: Overcoming the Legitimacy Dilemma? Administration and Society. Vol. 20. № 10. P. 3-20. DOI: 10.1177/0095399713503463
Leorke D. 2012. Rebranding the platform: the limitations of ‘Platform Studies’. Digital culture and education, 4: 257-268.
O’Reilly T. 2010. Government as a Platform. Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice (ed. by D. Lathrop, L. Ruma). Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly Media. P. 11-40.
Plantin J.-Ch., Lagoze C., Edwards P.N., Sandvig Ch. 2018. Infrastructure studies meet Platform Studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media and Society. Vol. 20. № 1. P. 293-310. DOI: 10.1177/1461444816661553
Abstract views: 561
Share
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2021 NOMOTHETIKA: Philosophy. Sociology. Law
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.