Проблемы электронного гражданского участия в публичной политике города: случай Санкт-Петербурга

Современная публичная политика характеризуется партисипаторным поворотом - последовательным расширением возможностей для граждан влиять на содержание и реализацию политических курсов органами публичной власти через различные каналы. На фоне цифровизации институты власти внедряют различные электронные площадки и механизмы цифровой обратной связи, получившие название электронного гражданского участия (e-participation), являющихся эволюцией офлайн-взаимодействия. На фоне широкого распространения Интернета и цифровых устройств власть и экспертное сообщество возлагают большие надежды на электронные механизмы, связанные прежде всего с вовлечением в политико-управленческий процесс как ранее не заинтересованных акторов и стейкхолдеров, так и с обратной реинтеграцией в него тех, кто потерял к этому интерес. Электронное участие развивается и в России, прежде всего в городах федерального значения. Однако несмотря на интерес исследователей к данному феномену, он подвергался изучению с точки зрения теоретических рамок, присущих компьютерным наукам (ввиду специфики поля) и меньше - со стороны политической науки. Представленная статья - попытка узнать больше о том, с чем сталкиваются современные каналы электронного участия при их внедрении и функционировании. С этой целью мы взяли интервью у десяти общественных активистов и экспертов в Санкт-Петербурге, пользующихся этими каналами и взаимодействующих с властями. В ходе исследования было выяснено, что платформы электронного участия позволяют быстро решать простые вопросы публичной политики на уровне города. При этом внедрение электронного участия требует серьезной оптимизации внутренней структуры взаимодействия органов власти и создания каналов обмена информацией. Кроме того, недостаточность нормативно-правовой базы формирует предпосылки к снижению эффективности взаимодействия за счет необязательности учета информации от стейкхолдеров и их мнения. На механизм функционирования влияет и цифровой барьер, не позволяющий всем социальным группам эффективно пользоваться подобными инструментами. Сделан вывод о необходимости более обширного исследования российских площадок.

1. Archon F. Democratic theory and political science: a pragmatic method of constructive engagement. American political science review. 2007, Vol. 101, N 3, P. 443-458. DOI: 10.1017/s000305540707030x

2. Arnstein Sh.R. A Ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American institute of planners (JAIP). 1969, Vol. 35, N 4, P. 216-224. DOI: 10.1080/01944366908977225

3. Bannister F., Connolly R. ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government information quarterly. 2014, Vol. 31, N 1, P. 119-128. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002

4. Belyi V.A., Smirnova P.V., Chugunov A.V Implementation of electronic state services in the economic and demographic conditions of the Covid-19: citizens survey results in St. Petersburg.International journal of open information technologies. 2020, Vol. 8, N 11, P. 97-109. (In Russ.). EDN: XOTUZZ

5. Bélanger F., Carter L. Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The journal of strategic information systems. 2008, Vol. 17, N 2, P. 165-176. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsis.2007.12.002

6. Bershadskaia L.A., Chugunov A.V. Evolution of e-participation technologies: a comparative analysis of e-petition portals in Russia, USA and the UK. Informatsionii resursi Rossii. 2013, Vol. 4, N 134, P. 28-33. (In Russ.).

7. Bora A., Hausendorf H. Participation and beyond: dynamics of social positions in participatory discourse.Comparative sociology. 2009, Vol. 8, N 4, P. 602-625. DOI: 10.1163/156913309X461660

8. Brandsen T., Honingh M. Distinguishing different types of coproduction: a conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public administration review. 2016, Vol. 76, N 3, P. 427-435. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12465

9. Bryer T.A. The costs of democratization: social media adaptation challenges within government agencies. Administrative theory & praxis. 2011, Vol. 33, N 3, P. 341-361. DOI: 10.2753/atp1084-1806330302

10. Chadwick A. Explaining the failure of an online citizen engagement initiative: the role of internal institutional variables. Journal of information technology & politics. 2011, Vol. 8, N 1, P. 21-40. DOI: 10.1080/19331681.2010.507999

11. Chugunov A.V., Filatova O.G. (eds). E-Participation: conceptualization and practice in Russia. Saint-Petersburg: Aleteja, 2020, 254 p. (In Russ.).

12. Cunningham M., Cunningham P. Exploiting the knowledge economy: issues, applications and case studies. Amsterdam, Netherlands; Washington, DC: IOS Press, 2006, 200 p.

13. Dalton R.J., Wattenberg M.P. Parties without partisans. Political change in advanced industrial democracies (comparative politics). Oxford: Oxford university press, 2002, 328 p. DOI: 10.1093/0199253099.001.0001

14. Dawes S.S. The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance. Public Administration Review. 2008, Vol. 68, P. 86-102. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00981.x

15. Deakin M. Smart cities: governing, modelling and analysing the transition. Edinburgh: Routledge, 2013, 248 p.

16. Denhardt R.B., Denhardt J.V. The new public service: serving rather than steering. Public administration review. 2000, Vol. 60, N 6, P. 549-559. DOI: 10.1111/0033-3352.00117 EDN: EQBVMD

17. Dijk J.A.G.M. van. The deepening divide: inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005, 240 p.

18. Đurman P. Participation in public administration revisited: delimiting, categorizing and evaluating administrative participation. HKJU-CCPA. 2020, Vol. 20, N 1, P. 79-120. DOI: 10.31297/hkju.20.1.4

19. Fietkiewicz K.J., Mainka A., Stock W.G. eGovernment in cities of the knowledge society. An empirical investigation of Smart Cities' governmental websites. Government information quarterly. 2017, Vol. 34, N 1, P. 75-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.003

20. Fountain J.E. Building the virtual state. Washington D.C.: Brookings institution press, 2001, 256 p.

21. Galynis K.I. Trends in the development of the initiative budgeting in the regions of the Far Eastern federal district. Vestnik universiteta. 2019, N 8, P. 12-19. 10.26425/1816-4277-2019-8-12-19 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.26425/1816-4277-2019-8-12-19(InRuss.) EDN: ZOFIAR

22. Hepburn P. Local democracy in a digital age: lessons for local government from the manchester congestion charge referendum. Local government studies. 2014, Vol. 40, N 1, P. 82-101. DOI: 10.1080/03003930.2013.829457

23. Hofmann S. Just because we can - governments' rationale for using social media. ECIS 2014 Proceedings, Tel Aviv, Israel, June 9-11, 2014. Mode of access: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.680.3801&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed: 14.06.2022).

24. Jho W., Song K.J. Institutional and technological determinants of civil e-Participation: Solo or duet? Government information quarterly. 2015, Vol. 32, N 4, P. 488-495. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.003

25. Kabanov Y., Chugunov A.V. Electronic 'Pockets of Effectiveness': E-governance and Institutional Change in St. Petersburg, Russia. Electronic Government. EGOV 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. St. Petersburg, P. 386-398. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-64677-0_32

26. Kabanov Yu.A., Fediashin S.V. Chugunov A.V. Development of the electronic "Reception Desks" in the Russian regions: pilot survey results of 2017-2018. Information resources of Russia. 2019, N 3, P. 32-36. (In Russ.). EDN: JMDRKP

27. Kabanov Yu.A., Panfilov G.O, Chugunov A.V. Monitoring of e-participation resources: methodology and some results. State and citizens in the electronic environment. 2020, N 4, P. 572-573. DOI: 10.17586/2541-979X-2020-4-61-72

28. Kim S.-E. The Role of trust in the modern administrative state: an integrative model. Administration & society. 2005, Vol. 37, N 5, P 611-635. DOI: 10.1177/0095399705278596 EDN: JKJSJT

29. LeBlanc D. E-participation: a quick overview of recent qualitative trends, ST/ESA/2020/DWP/163. Mode of access: https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/working-paper/wp163 (accessed: 14.06.2022).

30. Lee C., Chen D., Huang T. The interplay between digital and political divides: the case of e-petitioning in Taiwan. Social science computer review. 2014, Vol. 32, N 1, P. 37-55. DOI: 10.1177/0894439313497470

31. Lee J., Kim S. Citizens' e-participation on agenda setting in local governance: do individual social capital and e-participation management matter? Public management review. 2018, Vol. 20, N 6, P. 873-895. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1340507

32. Linders D. From e-government to we-government: defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government information quarterly. 2012, Vol. 29, N 4, P. 446-454. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003

33. Lunat Z. The internet and the public sphere: evidence from civil society in developing countries. The electronic journal of information systems in developing countries. 2008, Vol. 35, N 1, P. 1-12. DOI: 10.1002/j.1681-4835.2008.tb00240.x

34. Macintosh P.A. Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In: 37 th Annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Big Island, HI, USA: IEEE, 2004, P. 5-8. DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265300

35. Meijer A. E-governance innovation: barriers and strategies. Government information quarterly. 2015, Vol. 32, N 2, P. 198-206. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.01.001

36. Moon M.J. The Evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality? Public administration review. 2002, Vol. 62, N 4, P. 424-433. DOI: 10.1111/0033-3352.00196 EDN: EQCWDZ

37. Odintsova A.V. Initiative budgeting in the system of spatial development. Federalism. 2019, N 1, P. 56-71. DOI: 10.21686/2073-1051-2019-1-56-71 EDN: DKQAQX

38. Oliveira G.H.M., Welch E.W. Social media use in local government: Linkage of technology, task, and organizational context. Government information quarterly. 2013, Vol. 30, N 4, P. 397-405. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.019

39. Peters B.G. Bureaucracy and democracy. Public organization review. 2010, Vol. 10, N 3, P. 209-222. DOI: 10.1007/s11115-010-0133-4

40. Pretty J. Participatory Learning for sustainable agriculture. World development. 1995, Vol. 23, N 8, P. 1-19. DOI: 10.1016/0305-750x(95)00046-f

41. Robbins M., Simonsen B., Feldman B. Citizens and resource allocation: improving decision making with interactive web-based citizen participation. Public administration review. 2008, Vol. 68, N 3, P. 564-575. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00891.x

42. Rose J. Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships. Information systems journal. 2015, Vol. 25, N 5, P. 531-571. DOI: 10.1111/isj.12052

43. Rowe G., Frewer L. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science technology and human values. 2013, Vol. 25, N 1, P. 3-29. DOI: 10.1177/016224390002500101 EDN: JQAKCH

44. Rybalchenko P.A., Chugunov A.V. E-Participation system development in St. Petersburg: the case of "our Petersburg" portal, 2014-2018. Information resources of Russia. 2018, N 6 (166), P. 27-34. (In Russ.).

45. Santamaria-Philco A., Canos Cerda J.H., Penades Gramaje M.C. Advances in e-participation: a perspective of last years. IEEE Access. 2019, Vol. 7, P. 155894-155916. DOI: 10.1109/access.2019.2948810 EDN: XEGQKN

46. Schlaufer C. Why do nondemocratic regimes promote e-participation? The case of Moscow's active citizen online voting platform. Governance. 2021, Vol. 34, N 3, P. 821-863. DOI: 10.1111/gove.12531 EDN: ZKKPJZ

47. Steinbach M., Sieweke J., Süß S. The diffusion of e-participation in public administrations: a systematic literature review. Journal of organizational computing and electronic commerce. 2019, Vol. 29, N 2, P. 61-95. DOI: 10.1080/10919392.2019.1552749

48. Stivers C. Governance in dark times: practical philosophy for public service.Washington D.C.: Georgetown university press, 2008, 176 p.

49. Tolbert C.J., Mossberger K. The effects of E-Government on trust and confidence in government. Public administration review. 2006, Vol. 66, N 3, P. 354-369. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00594.x

50. van Veenstra A.F., Janssen M., Boon A. Measure to improve: a study of eparticipation in frontrunner Dutch municipalities. In: Tambouris E., Macintosh A., de Bruijn H. (eds). Electronic participation lecture notes in computer science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2011, P. 157-168.

51. Vidiasov E. Yu. Institutionalization of citizens' electronic participation of the Russian Federation in the management of the Megapolis (on the example of St. Petersburg) [Dissertation]. St. Petersburg: Saint-Petersburg State University, 2020, 319 p.

52. Vidiasova L.A., Vidiasov E. Yu., Tensina I.D. A study of social trust in information technology in the provision of electronic public services and the use of electronic participation portals (Case Study of St. Petersburg, Russia). Monitoring of public opinion: economic and social changes. 2019, N 5, P. 43-57. 10.14515/monitoring.2019.5.03 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2019.5.03(InRuss.) EDN: IGPYAX

53. Vidiasova L.A, Tensina I.D. A study of the trust of St. Petersburg residents in the use of information technology for interaction with authorities.International Journal of open information technologies. 2020, Vol. 8, N 1, P. 42-46. EDN: SYJRGO

54. Wagenaar H. Meaning in action: interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. New York: Routledge, 2014, 336 p.

55. Zheng L. Social media in Chinese government: drivers, challenges and capabilities. Government information quarterly. 2013, Vol. 30, N 4, P. 369-376. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.017

56. Zheng Y. Explaining citizens' e-participation usage: functionality of e-participation applications. Administration & society. 2017, Vol. 49, N 3, P. 423-442. DOI: 10.1177/0095399715593313