E. N. Zaborova. Practice of Electronic Interaction between the Government and the Population in the Sverdlovsk Region

doi: 10.15507/2413-1407.127.032.202402.290-307

UDК 316.462:314.122(470.54)

Abstract

Introduction. The issue of interaction between the government and the population has long been actively discussed in the scientific literature, since the degree of involvement of the population in the management of the region and the municipality shows the level of democracy of society. The government and the population are relatively independent communities with their own interests, which may not coincide, the alienation of the population from management generates corruption and dictatorship of the government. The scientific problem is the development of mechanisms for involving the population to participate in the management of the territory and strengthening the motivation of officials of regional and municipal authorities to interact with the population. One of the ways to solve this problem is to improve the mechanisms and forms of interaction. The purpose of the article is to investigate the extent of the spread of new forms of electronic interaction between the government and the population and to assess them.

Materials and Methods. Analytical materials of research on the subject, key legal acts regulating the process of interaction between the government and the population were selected and summarized. The method of analyzing statistical data presented on the official websites of the Government of the Sverdlovsk Region and the Administration of the municipal formation of the city of Yekaterinburg was used. The indicators for 10 years (from 2013 to 2023) on the number of citizens’ appeals and their forms, as well as reports of the election commission of the Sverdlovsk region on remote voting, are analyzed.

Results. The tendency of the predominance of electronic forms of interaction over written appeals and personal meetings of citizens with government representatives has been revealed. Electronic forms are replacing classical forms (voting in elections at polling stations) and are becoming an integral part of new processes such as proactive budgeting. Electronic forms facilitate the interaction process in terms of saving money and time, but at the same time they also generate new challenges (increasing formalism, susceptibility to technical failures, distrust of technology, etc.).

Discussion and Conclusion. It is noted that the new forms of electronic interaction are a big step forward, the transition from the practice of simply informing the population to the direct involvement of citizens in the management and distribution of budgetary funds. Great expectations are placed on the new electronic forms; it is assumed that they will increase the activity of the population. However, along with the obvious advantages, they give rise to new problems that require further study and implementation in the practice of interaction between the authorities and the population.

Keywords: information interaction between the government and the population, electronic appeals, remote voting, initiative budgeting

Conflict of interest. The author declares no conflict of interest.

For citation: Zaborova E.N. Practice of Electronic Interaction between the Government and the Population in the Sverdlovsk Region. Russian Journal of Regional Studies. 2024;32(2):290–307. https://doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.127.032.202402.290-307

REFERENCE

1. Konovalov D.A. Political and Economic Approach in Studying of the Institutional Bases of Dictatorships. Herald of Omsk University. Series “Historical Studies”. 2018;(3):234‒241. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) EDN: YVMYXR

2. Cherkasov A.I. Direct and Participatory Democracy as the Means of Citizen’s Involvement into the Local Decision-Making. Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law. 2018;13(2):190‒215. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/pryamaya-i-partisipatsionnaya-demokratiya-kak-sredstvo-vovlecheniya-naseleniya-v-protsess-prinyatiya-resheniy-na-mestnom-urovne (accessed 19.01.2024).

3. Bogdanov V.S., Merzlyakov A.A. Diagnostics of the Potential of Social Participation in the Context of Organizing Feedback between Authorities and Population. Research Result. Sociology and Management. 2018;4(4):65‒77. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.18413/2408-9338-2018-4-4-0-6

4. Reutov E.V. Responsible Participation in the Affairs of Local Community as a Factor of Development of Local Self-Governance. Upravlenie gorodom: teoriya i praktika. 2020;(1):8‒13. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) Available at: https://mauimrst.ru/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/1-35-2020-upravlenie-gorodom.pdf (accessed: 01.19.2024).

5. Bely V.A., Vidyasova L.A., Chugunov A.V. Citizens E-Participation in the Modern Metropolis: Area and Specifics. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Sociology. 2022;15(2):105‒122. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu12.2022.201

6. Bobrova D.N., Petrova O.S. Modern Technologies in Working with Citizens’ Appeals in Local Self-Government Bodies. State and Municipal Management. Scholar Notes. 2021;(3):212‒218. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) EDN: QVRYJN

7. Sokolov A.P., Semenov D.A. Interaction of State Authorities with the Population Through Digitalization. Economics and Management: Problems, Solutions. 2022;3(4):301‒306. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.36871/ek.up.p.r.2022.04.03.023

8. Zvonareva A.Yu. To the Question of Organization of Work with Appeals of Citizens. Academic Thought. 2020;(2):117‒121. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) Available at: https://clck.ru/3AW6ew (accessed 17.01.2024).

9. Meretukova I.V., Chernov Yu.I. To the Question of the Constitutional and Legal Foundations of Economic Activity. Epomen. 2021;(65):197‒203. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) Available at: https://www.epomen.ru/issues/2021/65/epomen-65-66-2021.pdf (accessed 19.01.2024).

10. Savoskin A.V. Citizen’s Appeal as Legal Category. Nauchnyi yezhegodnik Instituta filosofii i prava Uralskogo otdeleniya Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. 2017;17(3):85‒99. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.17506/ryipl.2016.17.3.8599

11. Alekseev R.A., Abramov A.V. Problems and Prospects of Using Electronic Voting and Blockchain Technology in Elections in Russia and Abroad. Citizen. Elections. Authority. 2020;(1):9‒21. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) Available at: https://clck.ru/3AW7Vd (accessed 18.01.2024).

12. Kolyushin E.I. Legal Issues of Remote Electronic Voting. Constitutional and Municipal Law. 2020;(2):25‒30. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) EDN: XMVPCJ

13. Fedorov V.I., Yezhov D.A. Evolution of Electronic Voting in Russia: Problems of Classification and Periodization. Bulletin of Moscow Region State University. 2021;(1):146‒162. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.18384/2224-0209-2021-1-1055

14. Best E., Augustine M., Lambermont F. Direct Democracy and Grassroots Participation: Levers for Shaping EU Citizenship and Identity? Maastricht: EIPA; 2011. https://doi.org/10.2863/63437

15. Baiokki G., Ganuzan. Definition of Best Practices: Neoliberalism and the Long-Term Effect of Applying the Badge in Practice. In: Lee K.W., McQuarrie M., Walker E.T., eds. Democratizing Inequality: Dilemmas of New Public Opinion. New York University Press.; 2015. p. 187‒203. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479847273.003.0010

16. De Oliveira B. Participatory Action Research as a Research Approach: Advantages, Limitations and Criticism. Journal of Qualitative Research. 2023;23(3):287‒297. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-08-2022-0101

17. Monchka K., Jeran A., Matczak P., Milewicz M., Allegretti G. Models of Participatory Budgeting. Analysis of Participatory Budgeting Procedures in Poland. Polish Sociological Review. 2021;216(4):473‒492. https://doi.org/10.26412/psr216.03

18. Vagin V.V. Participation of Citizens in State Programs of the Russian Federation. Municipal Property: Economics, Law, Management. 2023;(1):23‒26. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) Available at: https://lawinfo.ru/articles/2231/ucastie-grazdan-v-gosudarstvennyx-programmax-rossiiskoi-federacii (accessed 18.01.2024).

19. Vinogradova T.I. Participatory Budgeting as a Tool Contributing to the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Financial Journal. 2021;13(2):46‒60. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.31107/2075-1990-2021-2-46-60

20. Derbeneva V.V. E-Participation as a Vector of Developing Participatory Budgeting. ECO. 2020;(9):90‒113. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) Available at: https://ecotrends.ru/index.php/eco/article/view/4113 (accessed 19.01.2024).

21. Rodríguez-Hevía L.F., Rodríguez-Fernández L., Ruiz-Gómez L.M. European Regional Inequalities in Citizens’ Digital Interaction with Government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. 2022;16(4):504‒518. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-03-2022-0031

22. Gerber A.S., Rogers T. Descriptive Social Norms and Motivation to Vote: Everybody,s Voting and so Should You. The Journal of Politics. 2009;71(1):178‒191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608090117

23. Haro-de-Rosario A., Sáez-Martín A., del Carmen Caba-Pérez M. Using Social Media to Enhance Citizen Engagement with Local Government: Twitter or Facebook? New Media & Society. 2018;20(1):29‒49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816645652

24. Sweeney A.D.P. Electronic Government-Citizen Relationships: Exploring Citizen Perspectives. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 2008;4(2):101‒116. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680802076165

25. Hand L.C., Ching B.D. “You Have One Friend Request” An Exploration of Power and Citizen Engagement in Local Governments’ Use of Social Media. Administrative Theory & Praxis. 2011;33(3):362‒382. https://doi.org/10.2753/ATP1084-1806330303

26. Chadwick A., May C. Interaction Between States and Citizens in the Age of the Internet: “E-Government” in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance. 2003;16(2):271‒300. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0491.00216

27. Clayton T.J., Streib G. The New Face of Government: Citizen-Initiated Contacts in the Era of E-Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2003;13(1):83‒102. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mug010

28. McNeal R., Hale K., Dotterweich L. Citizen–Government Interaction and the Internet: Expectations and Accomplishments in Contact, Quality, and Trust. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 2008;5(2):213‒229. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680802298298

29. Santini R.M., Carvalho H. Online Platforms for Citizen Participation: Meta-Synthesis and Critical Analysis of their Social and Political Impacts. Comunicação e sociedade. 2019;36:163‒182. https://doi.org/10.17231/comsoc.36(2019).2350

30. Shevchenko O.M. Digital Divide in Modern Russian Society: Levels and Social Consequences. Humanities of the South of Russia. 2023;12(1):54‒65. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.18522/2227-8656.2023.1.4

31. Robinson L., Cotten S.R., Ono H., Quan-Haase A., Mesch G., Chen W., et al. Digital Inequality and Why It Matters. Information, Communication and Society. 2015;18(5):569‒582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532

32. Khan K., Arshad J., Khan M. Investigating Performance Constraints for Blockchain Based Secure E-Voting System. Future Generation Computer Systems. 2020;105:13‒26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.11.005

33. Neziri V., Shabani I., Dervishi R., Rexha B. Assuring Anonymity and Privacy in Electronic Voting with Distributed Technologies Based on Blockchain. Applied Sciences. 2022;12(11):5477. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12115477

34. Petitpas A., Jacquet J., Schiarini P. Does E-Voting Matter for Turnout, and to Whom? Electoral Studies. 2021;71:102245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102245

About the author:

Elena N. Zaborova, Dr.Sci. (Sociol.), Professor of the Chair of Regional, Municipal Economics and Management of the Ural State University of Economics (62 8th March St., Yekaterinburg 620144, Russian Federation), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4319-6440, Scopus ID: 7801409598, ezaborova@yandex.ru

Availability of data and materials. The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the author on reasonable request.

The author has read and approved the final manuscript.

Submitted 23.01.2024; revised 29.02.2024; accepted 12.03.2024.