Advertisement

Politics of Open Data in Russia: Regional and Municipal Perspectives

  • Yury Kabanov
  • Mikhail Karyagin
  • Viacheslav Romanov
Chapter
Part of the Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements book series (ACHS)

Abstract

The study is devoted to the development of open government data (OGD) policy in Russia, its regions and cities. We argue that although OGD are a potential driver of citizen participation and smart city innovations, these effects can be interfered with by political, institutional, socio-economic (structural) factors, as well as by agency. We use a mixed quantitative—qualitative methodology, and data gathered within the Infometer project, to unveil the determinants of OGD success and failure. Our findings suggest that although some general patterns can be traced, agency as a motivation to innovate plays a crucial role.

Keywords

Open data E-democracy Online engagement E-participation Smart city Russia Regions of Russia Comparative analysis Neoinstitutionalism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The paper was prepared within the framework of the Academic Fund Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) in 2016 (grant №16-05-0059) and supported within the framework of a subsidy granted to the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program.

References

  1. 1.
    Effing R, van Hillegersberg J, Huibers T (2011) Social media and political participation: are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube democratizing our political systems? In: Macintosh A, Tambouris E, de Bruijn H (eds) Electronic participation: third IFIP WG 8.5 international conference, EPart 2011, Delft, The Netherlands, August 29–September 1, 2011. Springer, Berlin, pp 25–35. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-23333-3_3
  2. 2.
    Gil de Zúñiga H, Jung N, Valenzuela S (2012) Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. J Comput Mediated Commun 3(17):319–336. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x
  3. 3.
    Coglianese C (2009) The transparency president? The Obama administration and open government. Governance 4(22):529–544. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01451.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meijer AJ, Curtin D, Hillebrandt M (2012) Open government: connecting vision and voice. Int Rev Adm Sci 1(78):10–29. doi: 10.1177/0020852311429533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Janssen M, Charalabidis Y, Zuiderwijk A (2012) Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Inf Syst Manage 4(29):258–268. doi: 10.1080/10580530.2012.716740 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ubaldi B (2013) Open Government Data. OECD, 2013Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Balch O (2013) Can open data power a smart city revolution? The guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/open-data-power-smart-city
  8. 8.
    Hinssen P (Ed.) (2013) Open data power smart cities. Across Technology, KankarbaghGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tauberer J (2009) Open data is civic capital: best practices for “open government data”. https://razor.occams.info/pubdocs/opendataciviccapital.html
  10. 10.
    Bartenberger M, Grubmüller-Régent V (2014) The enabling effects of open government data on collaborative governance in smart city contexts. eJournal eDemocracy Open Gov 1(6):36–48Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davies T (2010) Open data, democracy and public sector reform. A look at open government data use from data.gov.uk. http://www.opendataimpacts.net/report/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/How-is-open-government-data-being-used-in-practice.pdf
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Gurstein MB (2011) Open data: empowering the empowered or effective data use for everyone? First Monday. 2(16). http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3316/2764
  14. 14.
    Davies T (2014) Open data policies and practice: an international comparison. Available at SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2492520 or doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2492520
  15. 15.
    Susha I et al (2015) Critical factors for open data publication and use: a comparison of city-level, regional, and transnational cases. JeDEM-eJournal eDemocracy Open Gov 2(7):94–115Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meijer A, Bekkers V (2015) A metatheory of e-government: creating some order in a fragmented research field. Gov Inf Q 3(32):237–245. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Conradie P, Choenni S (2014) On the barriers for local government releasing open data. Gov Inf Q 31:S10–S17. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jho W, Song KJ (2015) Institutional and technological determinants of civil e-Participation: solo or duet? Gov Inf Q 4(32):488–495. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee C, Chang K, Berry FS (2011) Testing the development and diffusion of e-government and e-democracy: a global perspective. Public Adm Rev 3(71):444–544. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02228.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stier S (2015) Political determinants of e-government performance revisited: comparing democracies and autocracies. Gov Inf Q 3(32):270–278. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davies T (2013) The messy reality of open data and politics. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2013/apr/08/messy-reality-open-data-politics
  22. 22.
    Serewicz L (2011) The dark side of open data: politicized data. https://lawrenceserewicz.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/the-dark-side-of-open-data-politicized-data/
  23. 23.
    Peled A (2011) When transparency and collaboration collide: the USA open data program. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 11(62):2085–2094. doi: 10.1002/asi.21622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fountain JE (2004) Building the virtual state: information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gel’man V (2014) The rise and decline of electoral authoritarianism in Russia. Demokratizatsiya 4(22):503–522Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Katchanovski I, La Porte T (2005) Cyberdemocracy or Potemkin e-villages? Electronic governments in OECD and post-communist countries. Int J Public Adm 7–8(28):665–681. doi: 10.1081/PAD-200064228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Linde J, Karlsson M (2013) The dictator’s new clothes: the relationship between e-participation and quality of government in non-democratic regimes. Int J Public Adm 4(36):269–281. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2012.757619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Karlsson M (2013) Carrots and sticks: internet governance in non–democratic regimes. Int J Electron Gov 3(6):179–186. doi: 10.1504/IJEG.2013.058405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brancati D (2014) Democratic authoritarianism: origins and effects. Annu Rev Polit Sci 17:313–326. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-052013-115248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    He B, Warren ME (2011) Authoritarian deliberation: the deliberative turn in Chinese political development. Perspect polit 9(02):269–289. doi: 10.1017/S1537592711000892
  31. 31.
    Chugunov AV, Kabanov Y, Zenchenkova K (2016) Russian e-Petitions portal: exploring regional variance in use. In international conference on electronic participation. Springer International Publishing, pp 109–122. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45074-2_9
  32. 32.
    Gel’man V, Ryzhenkov S (2011) Local regimes, sub-national governance and the “power vertical” in contemporary Russia. Eur-Asia Stud 3(63):449–465. doi: 10.1080/09668136.2011.557538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kabanov Y, Karyagin M (2015) Deserted Islands of openness: problems of open data in Russia. Politex 4:38–51 [in Russian]Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Norris P (2001) Digital divide: civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet world-wide. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gulati G, Williams C, Yates D (2014) Predictors of on-line services and e-participation: a cross-national comparison. Gov Inf Q 31(4):526–533. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhang H, Xu X, Xiao J (2014) Diffusion of e-government: a literature review and directions for future directions. Gov Inf Q 31(4):631–636. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yun HJ, Opheim C (2010) Building on success: the diffusion of e-Government in the American States. Electron J E-Government 8(1):71–82Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kabanov Y, Sungurov A (2016) E-Government development factors: evidence from the russian regions. In: Chugunov AV, Bolgov R, Kabanov Y, Wimmer M, Kampis G (eds) Digital transformation and global society: first international conference, DTGS 2016, St. Petersburg, Russia, June 22–24, 2016, Revised Selected Papers, 85–95, Springer International Publishing (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-49700-6_10
  39. 39.
    Petrov N, Titkov A (2014) Rating of democracy by Moscow Carnegie Center: 10 years in service. Moscow Carnegie Center, Moscow [in Russian]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yury Kabanov
    • 1
  • Mikhail Karyagin
    • 1
  • Viacheslav Romanov
    • 2
  1. 1.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsSt. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.InfometerSt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations