Advertisement

Electronic “Pockets of Effectiveness”: E-governance and Institutional Change in St. Petersburg, Russia

  • Yury Kabanov
  • Andrei V. Chugunov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10428)

Abstract

The paper explores the patterns and factors of e-governance development in ineffective institutional settings. Although it is assumed that most of e-projects in such countries failed, we argue that in some contexts such initiatives can survive in the hostile environment and achieve relatively positive results, leading to limited institutional changes. We adapt the pockets of effectiveness framework in order to analyze the Our Petersburg portal (St. Petersburg, Russia). Our findings suggest that such electronic “pockets” may emerge as a deliberate policy of the political elite in an attempt to make institutions work properly. The key factors of such projects’ success relate to agency, namely the political patronage and control, policy entrepreneurship, as well as organization autonomy and the power of the initiative.

Keywords

E-government E-governance Institutional change Pockets of effectiveness 

References

  1. 1.
    Ahn, M.J., Bretschneider, S.: Politics of e-government: e-government and the political control of bureaucracy. Public Adm. Rev. 71(3), 414–424 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Åström, J., Karlsson, M., Linde, J., Pirannejad, A.: Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: domestic and international factors. Gov. Inf. Q. 29(2), 142–150 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2011.09.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barrett, M., Grant, D., Wailes, N.: ICT and organizational change introduction to the special issue. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 42(1), 6–22 (2006). doi: 10.1177/0021886305285299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bekkers, V., Homburg, V.: The myths of e-government: looking beyond the assumptions of a new and better government. Inf. Soc. 23(5), 373–382 (2007). doi: 10.1080/01972240701572913 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bershadskaya, L., Chugunov, A., Trutnev, D.: e-Government in Russia: is or seems? In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 22–25 October 2012, pp. 79–82. ACM, New York (2012). doi: 10.1145/2463728.2463747
  6. 6.
    Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., Grimes, J.M.: Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Gov. Inf. Q. 27(3), 264–271 (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buffat, A.: Street-level bureaucracy and e-government. Publ. Manag. Rev. 17(1), 149–161 (2015). doi: 10.1080/14719037.2013.771699 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chadwick, A.: Web 2.0: new challenges for the study of E-democracy in an era of informational exuberance. I/S J. Law Policy Inf. Soc. 4(3), 9–42 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chugunov, A.V., Kabanov, Y., Zenchenkova, K.: Russian e-petitions portal: exploring regional variance in use. In: Tambouris, E., Panagiotopoulos, P., Sæbø, Ø., Wimmer, M.A., Pardo, T.A., Charalabidis, Y., Soares, D.S., Janowski, T. (eds.) ePart 2016. LNCS, vol. 9821, pp. 109–122. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45074-2_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chugunov, A.V., Kabanov, Y., Misnikov, Y.: Citizens versus the government or citizens with the government: a tale of two e-participation portals in one city-a case study of St. Petersburg, Russia. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pp. 70–77. ACM, March, 2017. doi: 10.1145/3047273.3047276
  11. 11.
    Elbahnasawy, N.G.: E-government, internet adoption, and corruption: an empirical investigation. World Dev. 57, 114–126 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.12.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fountain, J.E.: On the effects of e-government on political institutions. In: Kleinman, D.E., Moore, K. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society, pp. 462–478. Routledge, London (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fountain, J.E.: Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Brookings Institution Press, Washington (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garud, R., Hardy, C., Maguire, S.: Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: an introduction to the special issue. Organ. Stud. 28(7), 957–969 (2007). doi: 10.1177/0170840607078958 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gascó, M.: New technologies and institutional change in public administration. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 21(1), 6–14 (2003). doi: 10.1177/0894439302238967 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gel’man, V., Ryzhenkov, S.: Local regimes, sub-national governance and the ‘power vertical’ in contemporary Russia. Eur. Asia Stud. 63(3), 449–465 (2011). doi: 10.1080/09668136.2011.557538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gel’man, V.: The rise and decline of electoral authoritarianism in Russia. Demokratizatsiya 22(4), 503–522 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gel’man, V., Starodubtsev, A.: Opportunities and constraints of authoritarian modernisation: Russian policy reforms in the 2000s. Eur. Asia Stud. 68(1), 97–117 (2016). doi: 10.1080/09668136.2015.1113232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gel’man, V.: The vicious circle of post-soviet neopatrimonialism in Russia. Post Sov. Affairs 32(5), 455–473 (2016). doi: 10.1080/1060586X.2015.1071014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Göbel, C.: The information dilemma: how ICT strengthen or weaken authoritarian rule. Statsvetenskaplig tidskrifts arkiv 115(4), 385–402 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Golosov, G.V., Konstantinova, M.: Gubernatorial powers in Russia: the transformation of regional institutions under the centralizing control of the Federal authorities. Probl. Post Communism 63(4), 241–252 (2016). doi: 10.1080/10758216.2016.1146906 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goncharov, D.V., Shirikov, A.: Public administration in Russia. In: Liebert, S., Condrey, S.E., Goncharov, D.V. (eds.) Public Administration in Post-communist Countries: Former Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe, and Mongolia, pp. 23–43. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    He, B., Warren, M.E.: Authoritarian deliberation: the deliberative turn in Chinese political development. Perspect. Polit. 9(02), 269–289 (2011). doi: 10.1017/S1537592711000892 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heeks, R.: Most e-government-for-development projects fail: how can risks be reduced? iGovernment Working Paper Series, Vol. 14. Manchester: Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jho, W., Song, K.J.: Institutional and technological determinants of civil e-participation: solo or duet? Gov. Inf. Q. 32(4), 488–495 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Johnson, E., Kolko, B.: e-Government and transparency in authoritarian regimes: comparison of national-and city-level e-government web sites in Central Asia. Digital Icons Stud. Russian Eurasian Central Eur. New Media 3, 15–48 (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Katchanovski, I., La Porte, T.: Cyberdemocracy or Potemkin e-villages? Electronic governments in OECD and post-communist countries. Int. J. Publ. Adm. 28(7–8), 665–681 (2005). doi: 10.1081/PAD-200064228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim, S., Lee, J.: E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Adm. Rev. 72(6), 819–828 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leonard, D.K.: ‘Pockets’ of effective agencies in weak governance states: where are they likely and why does it matter? Publ. Adm. Dev. 30(2), 91–101 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Linde, J., Karlsson, M.: The Dictator’s new clothes: the relationship between e-participation and quality of government in non-democratic regimes. Int. J. of Public Adm. 36(4), 269–281 (2013). doi: 10.1080/01900692.2012.757619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Linders, D.: From e-government to we-government: defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Gov. Inf. Q. 29(4), 446–454 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lipsky, M.: Street-level bureaucracy. In: 30th ann (ed.) dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Luna-Reyes, L.F., Gil-Garcia, J.R.: Digital government transformation and internet portals: the co-evolution of technology, organizations, and institutions. Gov. Inf. Q. 31(4), 545–555 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maerz, S.F.: The electronic face of authoritarianism: e-government as a tool for gaining legitimacy in competitive and non-competitive regimes. Gov. Inf. Q. 33(4), 727–735 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meijer, A.J., Zouridis, S.: E-government as institutional transformation. In: Khosrow-Pour, M. (ed.) Innovations Through Information Technology, pp. 565–568. Idea Group, Hershey (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nograšek, J., Vintar, M.: E-government and organisational transformation of government: black box revisited? Gov. Inf. Q. 31(1), 108–118 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    North, D.C.: Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, NY (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K.: Success factors in designing eParticipation initiatives. Inf. Organ. 24(4), 195–213 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Petrov, N., Titkov, A.: Rating of Democracy by Moscow Carnegie Center: 10 Years in Service. Moscow Carnegie Center, Moscow (2013)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reddick, C.G., Abdelsalam, H.M., Elkadi, H.: The influence of e-government on administrative discretion: the case of local governments in Egypt. Public Adm. Dev. 31(5), 390–407 (2011). doi: 10.1002/pad.615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reddick, C.G.: Citizen interaction with e-government: from the streets to servers? Gov. Inf. Q. 22(1), 38–57 (2005). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2004.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Roll, M. (ed.): The Politics of Public Sector Performance: Pockets of Effectiveness in Developing Countries. Routledge, London (2014)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roll, M.: The state that works. Pockets of effectiveness as a perspective on stateness in developing countries. Institut für Ethnologie und Afrikastudien, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität. Working Paper No. 128 (2011)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schlæger, J.: Digital governance and institutional change: examining the role of e-government in China’s coal sector. Policy Internet 2(1), 37–61 (2010). doi: 10.2202/1944-2866.1014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schlæger, J.: E-Government in China: Technology, Power and Local Government Reform. Routledge, London (2013)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shim, D.C., Eom, T.H.: E-government and anti-corruption: empirical analysis of international data. Int. J. Public Adm. 31(3), 298–316 (2008). doi: 10.1080/01900690701590553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stier, S.: Political determinants of e-government performance revisited: comparing democracies and autocracies. Gov. Inf. Q. 32(3), 270–278 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Welch, E.W., Pandey, S.K.: E-government and bureaucracy: toward a better understanding of intranet implementation and its effect on red tape. J. Public Adm. Res. Theor. 17(3), 379–404 (2007). doi: 10.1093/jopart/mul013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wright, S., Street, J.: Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. New Media Soc. 9(5), 849–869 (2007). doi: 10.1177/1461444807081230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yang, K.: Neoinstitutionalism and e-government beyond jane fountain. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 21(4), 432–442 (2003). doi: 10.1177/0894439303256508 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Erdmann, G., Engel, U.: Neopatrimonialism reconsidered: critical review and elaboration of an elusive concept. Commonwealth Comp. Polit. 1(45), 95–119 (2007). doi: 10.1080/14662040601135813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chugunov, A.V., Kabanov, Y., Zenchenkova, K.: E-participation portals automated monitoring system for political and social research. In: Chugunov, A.V., Bolgov, R., Kabanov, Y., Kampis, G., Wimmer, M. (eds.) DTGS 2016. CCIS, vol. 674, pp. 290–298. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-49700-6_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsSt. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.ITMO UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations