Advertisement

Evaluating E-Participation Institutional Design. A Pilot Study of Regional Platforms in Russia

  • Andrei V. Chugunov
  • Yury KabanovEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11021)

Abstract

The paper presents an attempt to develop an e-participation evaluation technique that considers institutional design, compatible with large- and small-N analysis, as well as useful for policy-makers. Based on the new institutionalism and previous research, we assess the development of access, embeddedness and control features of e-participation. The framework is tested on 85 Russian regional e-participation portals, followed by the analysis of factors that might explain the variation. Possible applications and future research are also discussed.

Keywords

E-Participation Evaluation Institutional design Russian regions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research is conducted with the support of the Russian Science Foundation grant № 18-18-00360.

References

  1. 1.
    Best, S.J., Krueger, B.S.: Analyzing the representativeness of internet political participation. Polit. Behav. 27, 183–216 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-005-3242-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bryson, J.M., Quick, K.S., Slotterback, C.S., Crosby, B.C.: Designing public participation processes. Pub. Adm. Rev. 73, 23–34 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02678.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, J., Pan, J., Xu, Y.: Sources of authoritarian responsiveness: a field experiment in China. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 60, 383–400 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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, ICEGOV, pp. 70–77. ACM (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3047273.3047276
  5. 5.
    Chugunov, A.V., Kabanov, Y., Zenchenkova, K.: Russian e-petitions portal: exploring regional variance in use. In: Tambouris, E., et al. (eds.) ePart 2016. LNCS, vol. 9821, pp. 109–122. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45074-2_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coleman, S.: Can the Internet Strengthen Democracy. Polity, Cambridge (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coursey, D., Norris, D.F.: Models of e-government: are they correct? An empirical assessment. Pub. Adm. Rev 68, 523–536 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00888.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finkel, S.E.: Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: a panel analysis. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 29, 891–913 (1985).  https://doi.org/10.2307/2111186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gel’man, V., Ryzhenkov, S.: Local regimes, sub-national governance and the ‘power vertical’ in contemporary Russia. Eur. Asia Stud. 63, 449–465 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2011.557538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodin, R.E. (ed.): The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grönlund, Å.: Connecting egovernment to real government - the failure of the UN eparticipation index. In: Janssen, M., Scholl, H.J., Wimmer, M.A., Tan, Y.H. (eds.) EGOV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6846, pp. 26–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22878-0_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grönlund, Å.: ICT is not participation is not democracy – eParticipation development models revisited. In: Macintosh, A., Tambouris, E. (eds.) ePart 2009. LNCS, vol. 5694, pp. 12–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03781-8_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hall, P.A., Taylor, R.C.: Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Polit. Stud. 44, 936–957 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hassan, S., Gil-Garcia, J.R.: Institutional theory and e-government research. In: Handbook of research on public information technology, pp. 349–360 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heeks, R., Bailur, S.: Analyzing e-government research: perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Gov. Inf. Q. 24, 243–265 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heeks, R.: Most eGovernment-for-Development Projects Fail: How Can Risks be Reduced, vol. 14. Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, Manchester (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Helmke, G., Levitsky, S.: Informal institutions and comparative politics: a research agenda. Perspect. Polit. 2, 725–740 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592704040472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kabanov, Y., Chugunov, A.V.: Electronic “Pockets of Effectiveness”: e-Governance and institutional change in St. Petersburg, Russia. In: Janssen, M., et al. (eds.) EGOV 2017. LNCS, vol. 10428, pp. 386–398. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64677-0_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kabanov, Y., Sungurov, A.: E-Government development factors: evidence from the Russian regions. In: Chugunov, A.V., Bolgov, R., Kabanov, Y., Kampis, G., Wimmer, M. (eds.) DTGS 2016. CCIS, vol. 674, pp. 85–95. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49700-6_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim, S., Lee, J.: E-Participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Pub. Adm. Rev. 72, 819–828 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02593.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kubicek, H., Aichholzer, G.: Closing the evaluation gap in e-Participation research and practice. In: Aichholzer, G., Kubicek, H., Torres, L. (eds.) Evaluating e-Participation. PAIT, vol. 19, pp. 11–45. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25403-6_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lacigova, O., Maizite, A., Cave, B.: eParticipation and social media: a symbiotic relationship? Eur. J. ePract. 16, 71–76 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee, C.P., Chang, K., Berry, F.S.: Testing the development and diffusion of e-government and e-democracy: a global perspective. Pub. Adm. Rev. 71, 444–454 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02228.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lidén, G.: Technology and democracy: validity in measurements of e-democracy. Democratization 22, 698–713 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.873407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lindner, R., Riehm, U.: Broadening participation through E-Petitions? An empirical study of petitions to the German parliament. Policy Internet 3, 1–23 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., Schneeberger, A.: eParticipation: the research gaps. In: Macintosh, A., Tambouris, E. (eds.) ePart 2009. LNCS, vol. 5694, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03781-8_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Macintosh, A.: Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2004.1265300
  28. 28.
    Meijer, A., Bekkers, V.: A metatheory of e-government: creating some order in a fragmented research field. Gov. Inf. Q. 32, 237–245 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Olphert, W., Damodaran, L.: Citizen participation and engagement in the design of e-government services: the missing link in effective ICT design and delivery. J. Assoc. Inf. Sys. 8, 491–507 (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Östling, A.: How democratic is e-Participation? In: Proceedings of the International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, CeDEM 2011, Austria, 5–6 May 2011, pp. 59–70. Danube University Krems(2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Scheerder, A., van Deursen, A., van Dijk, J.: Determinants of Internet skills, use and outcomes: a systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telemat. Inform. 34, 1607–1624 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Scherer, S., Wimmer, M.A.: Reference framework for E-participation projects. In: Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., de Bruijn, H. (eds.) ePart 2011. LNCS, vol. 6847, pp. 145–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23333-3_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smith, G.: Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tolbert, C.J., Mossberger, K., McNeal, R.: Institutions, policy innovation, and e-Government in the American states. Public Adm. Rev. 68(3), 549–563 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00890.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wright, S., Street, J.: Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. New Media Soc. 9, 849–869 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807081230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhang, H., Xu, X., Xiao, J.: Diffusion of e-government: a literature review and directions for future directions. Gov. Inf. Q. 31, 631–636 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.10.013MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tambouris, E., Liotas, N., Tarabanis, K.: A framework for assessing eParticipation projects and tools. In: 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2007, p. 90. IEEE (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2007.13
  38. 38.
    Garcia, A.C.B., Maciel, C., Pinto, F.B.: A quality inspection method to evaluate e-government sites. In: Wimmer, M.A., Traunmüller, R., Grönlund, Å., Andersen, Kim V. (eds.) EGOV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3591, pp. 198–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11545156_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K.: A framework for evaluating web sites of public authorities. Aslib Proc. 60(5), 517–546 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530810908229CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations