Advertisement

E-Participation Projects Development in the E-Governance Institutional Structure of the Eurasian Economic Union’s Countries: Comparative Overview

  • Radomir Bolgov
  • Vitalina Karachay
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 674)

Abstract

The paper provides preliminary results of the comparative overview of e-participation projects development within the e-governance institutional structure in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) member-states. The authors analyze (1) Legal base on e-governance and e-participation; (2) E-governance institutions and stuff; (3) Participation instruments of public engagement. In future the authors plan to elaborate the methodology of e-participation processes monitoring in the countries of the EAEU, and to examine the issue of e-governance institutions effectiveness in the EAEU region.

Keywords

Electronic governance Electronic participation Information and communication technologies (ICT) Institutional structure Citizen engagement Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) Eurasian integration 

1 Introduction

December 21, 2015 the decision about establishment of new direction in the framework of Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) Collegium’s activity – internal markets, informatization, information and communication technologies (ICT) – was adopted at the supreme Eurasian economic council. The decision came into effect from the February, 2016.

Karine Minosyan (Armenia) was adopted as responsible for the issues of informatization, ICT, information interaction, and functioning the internal markets. Thus, the importance of forming the common digital agenda was stressed by members of the EAEU [17].

Implementation and development of e-participation instruments let to involve different groups of citizens in public policy and facilitate creation of new effective forms of interactions between citizens and state via creation of bilateral exchange of information.

Thereby, the perspective research direction is analysis of opportunities and perspectives of e-services providing e-cooperation between citizens and public authorities, assessment of new modern mechanisms of feedback, determination of high demand services via analysis of corresponding petitions.

It is worthy to note that e-governance technologies may be used not only for creation of the investment attraction of the regions and country, and improvement of quality of life, but also for achievement of goals of successful integration and advanced development. Thus, it is important to explore the national specifics of information technologies implementation and elaborate the recommendations for common e-governance development in the Eurasian region.

The purpose of the paper is analyzing the current state of e-participation projects development in EAEU member-states within the e-governance institutional structure.

2 Literature Review

The issue of e-governance development at post-Soviet countries, including the countries of EAEU, is considered as key component of the Information Society. According to the researches, the main obstacle for the development of Information Society in transitive countries is a low level of democracy [2], a low level of economic development [3]. E-Governance development in the EAEU countries is analyzed by D. Marushka and M. Ablameyko [9], G. Junusbekova [7], T. Pardo and E. Styrin [12].

The legal aspects of Information Society development in EAEU and the comparative analysis of e-governance implementation in the member-states of the Eurasian Economic Union is developed in the papers of V. Karachay and R. Bolgov [5, 8]. The issue of measurement and evaluation of socio-economic and political effects of e-governance, including the e-participation and open data effects are studied by Y. Misnikov [11]. The question of smart cross-border e-governance systems and applications is studied in the paper of A. Sideridis et al. [15]. The perspectives and approaches of electronic identification of citizens are analyzed in [4].

However, despite of the development of different aspects of the topic of e-governance development in the Eurasian region, there is a lack of complex comparative researches concerning the issues of e-participation projects within the frameworks of e-governance institutional structure in the countries of EAEU. Thus, the current research is aimed of fill the gap in this field.

3 Methodology

This study presents preliminary results of the comparative overview of the e-participation projects development in the e-governance institutional structure of the EAEU member-states. For conducting the research, we use a method of structural analysis of politics [16], which allows analyzing the different levels of e-governance decision-making system as a certain political structure, consisting of the elements and relationships between them.

For studying the e-participation projects development in the member-states of the EAEU, we analyze (1) Legal base on e-governance and e-participation; (2). E-Governance institutions and stuff; (3) Participation instruments of public engagement (in particular, by the example of e-government portals research).

Moreover, following by the framework for Measuring and Evaluating e-Participation (METEP), elaborated by the UNDESA’s Division for Public Administration and Development Management (DPADM), for studying the promotion of the successful e-participation technologies in the EAEU countries, we aimed at the reaching of such objectives: determinate the eliminating barriers for participatory policy making; studying the effective public engagement tools; analyzing capacities for evaluating e-participation progress [10].

4 UN E-Participation Index of the EAEU Countries

E-participation instruments implementation may influence the nature of government, make it more transparent and more under controlled for publicity. Moreover, e-governance mechanisms development may facilitate the widening of the opportunities for citizens participation in public policy.

The level of ICT-development and e-governance instruments’ maturity may be partially characterized by the position of the concrete state in the international ratings of e-government development. United Nation (UN) e-Government Development Index is counted for every country by averaging the results of three indexes: the level of e-services development, infrastructure, and human capital. Thereto, the e-participation index is rated separately, results of which influence the e-government development rate. The e-participation index was aimed at evaluation the level of cooperation between the state and the citizens with the use of Web 2.0 instruments, including the blogs, social networks, and mobile communication. The special attention was focused on that fact that citizens’ interactions must be constantly conducted, but not only during the election campaign.

The Fig. 1, demonstrates the dynamics of the positions of the countries of Eurasian Economic Union (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia) in UN e-Participation Development Index [18]. Thus, it is worth to note the considerable progress of Russian (from 86th position in 2010 to 30th in 2014) and Armenia (from 135th position in 2010 to 59th in 2014). Generally, the positive dynamics of these EAEU countries in current e-government development rating is determined by improvement the positions of Russia and Armenia on the components of e-services development and the level of ICT-infrastructure development.
Fig. 1.

The dynamics of EAEU Countries’ positions in the UN e-participation Index

In particular, such growth in the position of Russia become possible because of ICT sector development and e-governance infrastructure development, including the government web-site development and active presentation the interest of Russian Federation in the frameworks of cooperation with the international organizations. The main advantage became the creation of Common Portal of State Services [1].

Generally, it is worth to note that the e-government actively develop in Russia during last several years. The part of participants that got e-services in 2014 passed 35 %. From the beginning of 2015 it was counted 28, 8 million visits of Common Portal of State Services, totally from the moment of its launching the users visited it 205 million times. Daily average of visits for indicated period is about 200 thousand. For the first five months 2015 the users applied at the portal 6, 5 million of federal services, 256 thousand of regional services, and 278 thousand of municipal services [13].

Thus, despite on the positive dynamics of some member-states of EAEU (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Russia) in UN e-Participation Index, it is worth to note that the citizens of the member-states of the Eurasian Economic Union are rather the passive recipients of public services than co-authors of public values. Therefore, the public policy must be focused on citizens’ inclusion to the decision-making process.

5 E-Participation Project’s Development Within E-Governance Institutional Framework in Eurasian Economic Union

With the aim of analysis the e-participation projects development in EAEU countries within the e-governance institutional infrastructure the legislation base on e-governance, the responsible institutions, and the correspondent participation technologies of public engagement were examined.

5.1 Legal Base on E-Governance

The legislative on Information Society development defines the establishment and the implementation of the e-governance, including the e-participation in EAEU. The normative formalizing of e-governance and e-participation development will let to create effective instruments of citizens engagement in public policy and decision-making process.

E-governance Legislation Development in Armenia.

The main legislative acts on the e-governance in Armenia are: Conception of the Information Technology Domain Development (August 28, 2008); the Law on e-Communication; Law on E-Documents and E-Signature (December 14, 2004); Conception on E-Administration System’s Development in Republic Armenia.

It is worth noting that the legislation on e-governance development in Armenia is needed to be enriched. For example, some legislative acts have lost their power as the Conception E-Community Development (February 25, 2010). Thus, the e-participation initiatives must be supported by the correspondent legislation. Only in that way it would be possible to consider the real social participation in public policy via usage of ICT-instruments.

E-governance Legislation Development in Belarus.

The main legislative acts on the e-governance in Belarus are: Strategy on Information Society Development till 2015 (adopted in 2010); National Program on Advanced Development in ICT Domain (March 28, 2011); resolution of the Council of Minister of the Republic of Belarus on Basic e-Services (February 10, 2012); President Decree on Some Issues of information Society Development in Belarus Republic (November 8, 2012); Law on the E-Document and E-Signature (December 28, 2009); Law on information, Informatization, and Information Protection (November 10, 2008); ‘Electronic Belarus’ (2002).

However, despite of the considerable legislation base on e-governance in Belarus, the main problem in e-governance implementation consists in forming urgent conceptual and legislation base for development of electronic cooperation between citizens and state. Moreover, it is worth to formalize legislatively the terms ‘e-government’, ‘e-service’, elaborate the law draft on citizens access to public information.

E-governance Legislation Development in Kazakhstan.

The main legislative acts on the e-governance in Kazakhstan are: Law on Informatizaion (January 11, 2007); Law on Making Alterations and Amendments to Some Legislation Acts on ‘e-Government’ and ‘Mobile Government’ Issues (July, 2014); Law on Informatization; Law on Electronic Documents and Electronic Signature; State Program ‘Information Kazakhstan - 2020’.

Thus, the e-governance development in Kazakhstan is supported by the substantial normative base. However, the main problem in e-governance implementation is consists in lack of critical mass of citizens who are ready to use e-governance services. Thereto, the citizens are not interested in participating in e-governance projects and initiatives.

E-governance Legislation Development in Kyrgyzstan.

The main normative documents on e-governance development in Kyrgyzstan are the Program of ICT Development (November 8, 2001); National Strategy ‘ICT for Kyrgyz Republic Development’ (2002); Law on Informatization (1999); Program on e-Government Development (2013–2017).

It is worth noting that Kyrgyzstan is at the primary stage of e-governance development. The e-governance projects implementation will be regulated by the National Program ‘Electronic Kyrgyzstan 2020–2025’. Within the framework of this program the necessary ICT-infrastructure will be created, the public services are planned to be delivered in electronic format.

E-governance Legislation Development in Russia.

The main legislative acts on the e-governance in Russia are: Strategy of the Information Society Development in Russia (February 7, 2008); State Program of Russian Federation ‘Information Society’ (2011–2020) (October 20, 2010); the Federal Law № 210-FZ ‘On the Organization of the State and Municipal e-Service Delivering’ (July 27, 2010); the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation № 601 (May 7, 2012) ‘On the Main Directions of Improvement the Public Administration System’.

It is significant that within the Russian legislation framework the main key-terms, priorities, and goals of Information Society are determined, the responsible persons form the implementation of the realization the corresponding policy are appointed (‘competence zones’). However, often e-governance projects development in Russia is conducting out of frameworks of corresponding strategies and programs without guiding the main priorities and goals.

Based on the findings of the analysis of Information Society legislation in Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia, there are no Information Society Development Strategies in Kazakhstan and Armenia (as an independent document, like those that exist in Russia, Kyrgyzstan, and Belarus). Whereas taking into consideration the centralization of power and low level of the development of civil society in Kazakhstan and Armenia, it is reasonable to suggest that in condition of presence of the Strategies the level of development of the Information Society could be much better then without it.

The Programs on the Information Society development in EAEU countries are similar by objectives (create conditions for accelerated development of ICT services to facilitate the development of the Information Society, including provision of public e-services etc.) and priorities (modern ICT infrastructure, the efficiency of public administration, socio-economic and cultural development, development of the national information space, adoption of the e-government, overcoming the digital divide etc.). All the countries have the agencies responsible for the implementation of the Programs that raises the reliability of its implementation [5].

With the aim analysis of the priorities of Information Society development in EAEU countries, the corresponding programs and strategies were examined. In case of the element is present in strategy, we marked it ‘S’, in case of presence the element in the national Program we marked it by ‘P’.

Table 1, demonstrates that e-government and ICT infrastructure development are identified as priorities almost in all the Programs and Strategies. At the same time, such important components of Information Society as e-identification and registration of citizens as well as ICT in the civil society are not mentioned in the Programs and Strategies of these countries, except Kyrgyzstan.
Table 1.

Priorities of information society development (from EAEU Countries’ strategies and programs)

Priorities

EAEU Countries

Armenia

Belarus

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Russia

e-Government

S

S, P

P

S

S, P

e-Education

 

S, P

   

e-Health

 

S, P

  

S

ICT infrastructure

S

S

P

S

S

Information security

S

P

 

S

S

Thus, based on analysis of legislation on e-governance in the countries of EAEU, it is worth to note common features. In particular, all the countries have the common priorities for development – communications, ICT, digital signature, e-government, information security. These priorities are formalized in the corresponding national programs and strategies. However, the issues of e-commerce, e-participation instruments development, e-learning etc. are out of legislative base [5].

5.2 E-Governance Institutions and Stuff

E-Governance Institutions and Stuff in Armenia.

The main public authorities responsible on e-governance development in Armenia are:
  • Ministry of Transport and Communication (Responsible for elaboration and implementation of the public policy in the field of communication and informatization in Armenia and facilitates the market environment creation in the sphere of telecommunication).

  • Ministry of Economics (Responsible for economic public policy implementation in Armenia; attracts the investments for innovation enterprises; supports the IT-industrials; facilitates the regional cooperation).

  • Commission on Public Services Regulations (Responsible for licensing in Republic of Armenia).

The ICT implementation and the creation of modern information and communication infrastructure are the priority directions of government’s activity in Armenia. More than 60 % of population in Armenia uses the data transmission services.

E-Governance Institutions and Stuff in Belarus.

The main responsible bodies on e-governance development in Republic of Belarus are Ministry of Communication and Informatization (Department of Informatization); Department on Information Systems Exploitation “National Center of e-Services”; Research initiative e-Belarus.org; Institute of Applied Program Systems; Association ‘Infopark’.

It is worth noting that at the current moment the e-governance in Belarus is still not become an instrument for cooperation between the state and the citizens. The e-governance institutions development as well as the development of the corresponding legal base is needed to be completed.

E-Governance Institutions and Stuff in Kazakhstan.

The main responsible bodies on e-governance development in Republic of Kazakhstan are Ministry on Investments and Development (Committee on Communication, Informatization, and Information); National Operator in the Field of Information Technologies of the Republic Kazakhstan ‘National Information Technologies’; Center of the E-Government Competences; National Information and Communication Holding Company ‘Zerde’; Company ‘National Information Technologies’ (the national operator of the Republic Kazakhstan in the domain of information technologies); National Company ‘Kazsatnet’ (responsible executor for Single transport environment of public authorities of the Republic of Kazakhstan); ‘Center of E-Commerce’ (single operator in state electronic procurements); ‘Kazcontent’ (responsible for forming of the national segment of global international network Internet in Kazakhstan, including the network information resources development, It infrastructure organization; stimulation of the investment and innovative activity in IT-sphere); ‘National Processing center’; ‘National University of Information Technologies’, ‘Lincompany’ (conducts the commerce researches); Department on Informatization and Information Resources Protection of the Administration of the President.

Despite on creation of the substantial technological base for e-governance projects’ development, the particularity of e-governance development in Kazakhstan consists in that the most large-scale projects on e-governance implementation were realized by international IT-Companies.

E-Governance Institutions and Stuff in Kyrgyzstan.

The main responsible bodies on e-governance development in Kyrgyz Republic are Ministry of Transport and Communication (the Center of ICT Development); E-governance Center of the Kyrgyz Republic Government (till 2015); Council on ICT (under the President of Kyrgyzstan) is responsible for coordination activity on determination and elaboration of the strategic directions on informatization, telecommunication, and modern ICT application; Public Information Center under the President Administration (facilitates the reinforcement of the transparency and accountability of public authorities activity to the civil society; delivers the official public information to citizens); ‘Soros-Kyrgyzstan’ Foundation (responsible for elaboration and the implementation of the instruments on local governments activity); ICT Development Foundation; Public Foundation ‘Information Promotion’; Civil Initiative ‘Internet Policies’; ‘Kyrgyztelecom’ (the National operator of e-government); Association of Communication’s Operators; Association of the Professionals of the ICT Sphere.

Accordingly to the government’s agenda, it is planned to implode the 68 public authorities into common electronic network till 2016. It is planned to complete the necessary ICT infrastructure and accomplish the transition of public services into the electronic format till 2025.

E-Governance Institutions and Stuff in Russia.

The main body responsible for e-governance development and implementation in Russia is the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation (the e-Government Development Department). The Department is responsible for the regional informatization; for providing e-services for citizens and business; for e-government infrastructure development etc.

The Department of the Informatization Coordination of the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation is responsible for the methodical support of the public authorities on ICT and regional informatization. Furthermore, the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation has a lot of coordinative and consultative bodies such as the Government commission on federal communication and technical issues of informatization; the Expert council on cloud computing; the Governmental commission on communications; Council on regional informatization; Expert council on IT development; Consultative council on e-governance development etc.

Besides, the Department of the state regulation in economy of the Ministry of the economic development of the Russian Federation is responsible, in particular, for state policy and legislation regulation on the issues of raising the quality of government e-services and information government systems; provides the functioning of the Russian Open Data portal data.gov.ru etc.

The functions of control and supervision of the mass-media (including electronic), IT and personal data processing are realized by the Federal service for supervision of communications, information technology, and mass media (“Roskomnadzor”).

The Committee on Information Policy, Information Technologies and Communication of State Duma of the Russian Federation is responsible for legislative regulation on information technologies and mass-communications. The Department of IT and communications of the Government of the Russian Federation is responsible for development and implementation of the e-governance projects. Besides, the Temporary commission on the Information Society development of the Federal Council of the Russian Federation is functioning for providing the legislative regulation in the domain of Information Society development in Russia.

For the implementation of the “Open Government” in Russia there are some bodies responsible for its realization: the Department of the Government of Russian Federation on formation of the Open Government system and the Government commission on the coordination of Open Government activities (the head of the Commission is the Prime Minister of Russia). Besides, the Prime Minister of the Russia is also responsible for usage ICT for improving the quality of life and the entrepreneurship conditions, thus he is a head of the corresponding government commission.

Open Government in Russia is considered as a system of mechanisms and principles providing effective interactions between the state and society, high quality of the adopted balanced decisions in the conditions of increasing the dynamics of social and economic processes in Russia. Open Government ensures involvement of the non-profit and business organizations into the decision-making process. The main priorities of Open Government in Russia are increase of information openness of public authorities; providing the Open Data by public authorities; ensuring the transparency and accountability of the state costs and investments; providing the effective system of public control.

Thus, it is worth to summarize that the common feature in e-governance institutional infrastructure in all the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union is the existence of variety of institutions responsible for e-governance development. The difficulty of a great number of these institutions causes the duplication of functions and the dissipation of the responsibility in e-governance projects implementation.

Therefore, with the aim of refining the existent e-governance institutional structure in EAEU member-states, making it more efficient, it must to be transformed.

5.3 Participation Services of Public Engagement

E-governance development provides not only increase of the effectiveness of the functioning the public authorities, but also forming the effecting interactions between the citizens and government; improvement of the citizens access to public information; citizens engagement into policy-making, thus, effective electronic governance is the priority of the state development that facilitates providing the transparency and accountability of the public authorities [8, p. 64].

Based on the methodology of UN E-Participation Index Research, the e-government portals of every member-state of EAEU were examined: ‘Electronic Government of the Republic of Armenia’ (e-gov.am); ‘Unified Portal of E-Services’(http://portal.gov.by – Belarus); ‘Public Services and Information Online’ (http://egov.kz/wps/portal/index?lang=ru – Kazakhstan); ‘E-Petition Portal to Public Authorities of Kyrgyzstan for Citizens’ (http://www.kattar.kg/), Common Government Services Portal of Russian Federation (https://www.gosuslugi.ru/). As the Common E-Government Portal of Kyrgyzstan is under the development the ‘E-Petition Portal to Public Authorities of Kyrgyzstan for Citizens’ was examined.

Such issues as presence of archive information (budget, legislation etc.) and data bases on education, healthcare, labor, environment, finance, social maintenance; number of portal’s languages; social networks functions; e-consultation mechanisms on 6 issues: education, healthcare, finance, labor, environment, social maintenance; public opinion instrument (online forums, instruments for e-petitions, e-surveys, e-voting ets.); e-decision making instruments were selected for analysis (Table 2).
Table 2.

Analysis of E-government portals of the EAEU member-states

Examined issues

EAEU Member-States’ e-Government Portals

Armenia e-gov.am

Belarus http://portal.gov.by

Kazakhstan http://egov.kz/wps/portal/index?lang=ru

Kyrgyzstan http://www.kattar.kg/

Russia https://www.gosuslugi.ru/

Archive information and data bases

+

+

+

+

Number of portal’s languages

2

3

3

2

4

Social networks functions

+

E-consultation mechanisms

+

+

+

+

+

Public opinion instrument

+

+

E-decision making instruments

Based on the analysis of e-government portals of the EAEU member-states, it is possible to conclude that almost all the web-sites (except the portal of Kyrgyzstan) contain the archive information and data bases on education, healthcare, labor, environment, finance, social maintenance. Moreover, the information at the all portals is presented at least in two languages (all the portals (except the portal of Kyrgyzstan) have English as the official language, thus the information is accessible for foreign citizens also). Besides, it is possible to get the e-consultations at all the portals (at the Belarus’ portal we checked the marks ‘+’ and ‘−’, because on some issues the website gives only the possibility to address over the telephone).

However, the instruments for e-decisions making are absent at all the portals. Moreover, most of portals do not contain the mechanisms for getting the public opinion.

Thus, unfortunately, the e-government portals in member-states of EAEU do not operate as the instruments of public engagement.

It is worth noting that in all the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union the e-participation services progressively develop. The citizens can send the inquiry, voice the opinion, or get the consultation by means of corresponding portals (for example, ‘My City’ Belarus; ‘RosYama’, ‘RosZhKH’, ‘Angry Citizen’, public platforms for e-petitions and e-voting ‘Russian Public Initiative’ (RPI), ‘Petitions247.com’, ‘Change.org’, ‘OnlinePetition’, ‘Democrator.ru’ etc. (Russia); ‘Information Initiative’ Foundation, petitions’ platform ‘KzHeтa’ (Kazakhstan); Global Network Community - Petitions’ Portal ‘Avaaz.org’, ‘GoPetition’ etc.).

Nevertheless, contemporary electronic participation instruments in the countries of EAEU are aimed at provision the electronic interaction between citizens and state, however, currently it is reasonable to state the declared goals and objectives of some e-services (including, for example, public platforms for e-petitions and e-voting « Russian Public Initiative ») are not supported by its functional properties.

According to the researches of the Project on e-Services Development ‘Transactional e-Governance Development in Armenia’, the number of e-governance services users barely reaches 5 %. Moreover, 95 % of respondents declare about absence of the necessity of interaction with public authorities via modern ICT [6]. Thus, on the scale of ICT infrastructure development, the citizens’ interest in getting e-public services is not improving.

Therefore, for effective development of e-governance mechanisms of e-participation in EAEU member-states it is necessary to develop the corresponding legislation, raise the citizens’ literacy in the sphere of digital media, including via the increasing the awareness of publicity concerning the e-participation initiatives, engage the formal and informal e-participation institutions for citizens’ involvement into the public policy (for example, social networks, crowdsourcing, mobile services), develop the official government portals as platforms for information cooperation etc. [14].

6 Conclusions and Future Work

The e-governance implementation in the countries of the Eurasian Economic union supposes not only the raise of effectiveness of public administration, but also the development of effective interactions between the state and the citizens; improvement of the citizen’s access to information and public services; promotion the citizens participation in public decision-making (i.e. concerning the principles of socially inclusive governance), thus the issue of e-participation is an important and urgent component of Information Society, it facilitates the promotion of public accountability and transparency.

Based on comparative analysis of e-participation projects’ development within the e-governance institutional structure of EAEU countries, it is worth noting that modern electronic participation instruments in the countries of EAEU are poorly developed. Despite on its aim is the provision of the electronic interaction between citizens and state, however, currently it is reasonable to state the declared goals and objectives of some e-services and initiatives are not supported by its functional properties.

Analysis of the legislation on e-governance of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia reveled similarity of the approaches of these countries to the Information Society development. Strategies, Programs and Laws marked similar goals, they have similar titles. They were adopted at about the same time. However, the corresponding legislative base is needed to be enriched (in particular, it is recommended to develop and normatively formalize some issues - e-commerce, e-learning etc.). This may encourage cooperation and integration in the information field. However, it is possible to assert that the development of e-governance in member-states of EAEU is contradictory, non-universal, not always coordinated with the main strategies and programs. Whereas, it should be linked with the strategic goals and priorities. Consequently, the barriers in effective e-governance development and its institutional immaturity influence the general development of e-governance in EAEU. Thus, at the current moment it is difficult to effectively encourage cooperation and integration in the region.

As the result of the research, it is concluded that there are a lot of institutions responsible for e-governance development in EAEU countries. The difficulty of a great number of these institutions causes the duplication of functions and the dissipation of the responsibility in e-governance projects (including the e-participation projects) implementation.

The issue for future research is might be the matter of determining the institutional maturity of e-governance development in EAEU member-states. This issue is rather contradictory. It might be connected with the lack of the corresponding researches in this domain. At the same time, there is no univalent definition of the institutional maturity and the principle of its assessing, that makes the issue debatable and needs more researches.

Moreover, it is planned to study in future researches the e-participation influence to the integration processes in the Eurasian region. Based on the results of this analysis, it is planned to elaborate the optimal e-governance model with aim of further Eurasian integration development and sustainable development of the Eurasian region.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research was conducted with the support of Russian Foundation for Humanities, Grant №. 15-03-00715.

References

  1. 1.
    Aksyonov, A.: International ICT-development ratings (Mezhdunarodnye reitingi urovnya razvitiya ICT). http://d-russia.ru/mezhdunarodnye-rejtingi-urovnya-razvitiya-ikt.html
  2. 2.
    Astrom, J., Karlsson, M., Linde, J., Pirannejad, A.: Understanding the rise of e-participation in nondemocracies: domestic and international factors. Gov. Inf. Q. 29(2), 142–150 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bershadskaya, L., Chugunov, A., Dzhusupova, Z.: Understanding e-government development barriers in CIS countries and exploring mechanisms for regional cooperation. In: 2nd Joint International Conference on Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective, and International Conference on Electronic Democracy, pp. 87–101 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bolgov, R., Chugunov, A., Filatova, O., Misnikov, Y.: Electronic identification of citizens: comparing perspectives and approaches. In: Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2014), October 27–30, 2014, Guimarães, Portugal, pp. 484–485. ACM Press, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bolgov, R., Karachay, V., Zinovieva, E.: Information society development in eurasian economic union countries: legal aspects. In: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2014), pp. 387–390, October 27–30, 2014, Guimarães, Portugal. ACM Press, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Junusbekova, G.A.: Electronic government in Republic of Kazakhstan as a way to improve state government system. Life Sci. J. 10(4), 1353–1360 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karachay, V., Bolgov, R.: An overview of the e-governance development in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) countries: the case of Russia. electronic governance and open society: challenges in Eurasia. In: Proceedings of the International Conference, EGOSE 2015, 24–25 November, 2015, pp. 59–65 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marushka, D., Ablameyko, M.: Belarus and the baltic states: comparison study on e- government development results. In: 7th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, ICEGOV 2013, pp. 382–383 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Measuring and Evaluating e-Participation (METEP): Assessment of Readiness at the Country Level. http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/METEP%20framework_18%20Jul_MOST%20LATEST%20Version.pdf
  11. 11.
    Misnikov, Y.: E-Participation as a process and practice: What METEP can measure, why and how? UNDESA (2013). http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN90456.pdf
  12. 12.
    Pardo, T., Styrin, E.: Digital government implementation: a comparative study in USA and Russia. In: 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2010, vol. 5, pp. 3815–3824 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Russia and Kyrgyzstan will activate the cooperation in the sphere of electronic government (Rossiya i Kirgiziya Aktiviziruyut Sotrudnichestvo v Oblasti Electronnogo Pravitelstva). http://minsvyaz.ru/ru/events/33432/
  14. 14.
    Sedikin, M.A.: e-Participation as dialog between the state and the citizens (Electronnoye Uchastie kak Dialog Vlasti I Obschestve). In: Discussion (Discussia), vol. 1 (№. 31), January 2013. http://www.journal-discussion.ru/publication.php?id=204
  15. 15.
    Sideridis, A.B., Protopappas, L., Tsiafoulis, S., Pimenidis, E.: Smart cross-border e-gov systems and applications. In: Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 570, pp. 151–165 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Challenges of Theories on Democracy. Elaboration over new Trends in Transitology. Boulder, NY (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Chiefs of EAEU Member-States Ratified New Structure of EEC Collegium (Glavy EAES Utverdili Noviy Sostav Kollegii EEC). http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/nae/news/Pages/22-12-2015-5.aspx
  18. 18.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.St. Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.E-Governance CenterITMO UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations