Advertisement

The Comparison of Governmental and Non-governmental E-Participation Tools Functioning at a City-Level in Russia

  • Lyudmila Vidiasova
  • Ekaterina Mikhaylova
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 674)

Abstract

The paper examines different types of e-participation tools functioning in Russia. This research presents a part of a complex scientific sociological project focused on determination of the critical factors which influence the e-participation development in Russia. This paper reflects the results of a comparative study of e-participation portals functioning with a special attention to its nature: government and non-government.

The authors made an attempt to find the effectiveness of Saint Petersburg portals’ work with the use of an automated information system. The research hypothesis stated that individuals and their groups could be more productive in e-participation tools development.

The research results showed the difference in activities on each portal as well as an expected fate of e-petitions. The research hypothesis was partly confirmed. The first practice of citizens’ electronic collaboration was linked with an initiative platform “Beautiful Saint Petersburg”. At the same time a governmental portal “Our Petersburg” also demonstrated a high-level of citizens’ interest and involvement. The research also showed comparatively common citizens’ activity in different city districts.

The study revealed that Saint Petersburg example is an illustration of authorities’ orientation to the citizens’ needs. The development of e-participation platforms of both types had found a positive feedback from the citizens from the very beginning of its operation.

Keywords

E-participation E-democracy Comparative analysis Institutional functions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted with support of the Grant of the President of the Russian Federation to young scientists №MK-5953.2016.6 “The research of e-participation tools development factors in Russian Federation”.

References

  1. 1.
    Aichholzer, G., Allhutter, D.: Evaluation perspectives and key criteria in eParticipation. In: Proceedings of 6th Eastern European eGovernment Days, 23–25 April 2008, Prague, Oesterreichische Computer Gesellschaft (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alathur, S., Vigneswara, I., Gupta, M.P.: Citizen empowerment and participation in e-democracy: Indian context. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pp. 11–19 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brody, S.D., Zahran, S., Grover, H., Vedliz, A.: A spatial analysis of local climate change policy in the United States: risks, stress, and opportunity. Landscape Urban Plan 87(1), 33–41 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Citizens trust to social institutions in Russia, Levada-Center research (2015). http://izvestia.ru/news/592638
  5. 5.
    Janssen, D., Kies, R.: Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Polit. 40, 317–335 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jho, W., Song, K.: Institutional and technological determinants of civil e-Participation: solo or duet? Gov. Inf. Q. 32, 488–495 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karkin, N., Janssen, M.: Evaluating websites from a public value perspective: a review of Turkish local government websites. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 34, 351–363 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kubicek, H., Lippa, B., Westholm, H.: Medienmix in der lokalen Demokratie. Die Integration von Online-Elementen in Verfahren der Bürgerbeteiligung, Final report to the HansBöckler-Foundation, Bremen (2007). http://www.ifib.de/projektedetail.html?id_projekt=135&detail=Medienmix%20in%20der%20lokalen%20Demokratie
  9. 9.
    Macintosh, A., Whyte, A.: Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation. Transf. Gov. People Process Policy 2(1), 16–30 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Medaglia, R.: eParticipation research: moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Gov. Inf. Q. 29, 346–360 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nort, D.: Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pina, V., Torres, L., Royo, S.: Are ICTs improving transparency and accountability in the EU regional and local governments? an empirical study. Public Adm. 85(2), 449–472 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Portney, K.: Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities, 2nd edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J.: Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 29(4), 512–557 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schroetera, R., Scheel, O., Renn. O., Schweizer. P.: Testing the value of public participation in Germany: theory, operationalization and a case study on the evaluation of participation. Energ. Res. Soc. Sci. (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.013
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Warburton, D., Willson, R., Rainbow, E.: Making a difference: a guide to evaluating public participation in central government (2007). http://www.involve.org.uk/evaluation/Making%20a%20Differece%20-%20A%20guide%20to%20evaluating%20public%20participation%20in%20centralgovernment.pdf
  18. 18.
    Winkler, R.: e-Participation in comparison and contrast: online debates at the EU’s platform ‘Your Voice in Europe’. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on e-Government, University of Quebec at Montreal, Canada, 26–28 September 2007, Academic Conferences International, pp. 238–248 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ITMO UniversitySaint PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations