State Communication Policy Design under the Conditions of the Information Society Development in the Russian Federation

The purpose of this article is to develop a theoretical model of the communication policy of public authorities of the Russian Federation under the conditions of the information society development and justification of the critical conditions of its implementation. The methodological background of the study is a problem analysis of existing communication practices of public authorities to identify the key integrative problems that hinder the achievement of the goal of effective communication policy for the development of the information society. These include: consideration of the technological factor as a key element and the conditions for the formation of the information society; a significant emphasis on national security, understood in a restrictive, isolationist sense; the construction of state communication policy on the basis of a unified, unidirectional communication process; the communication gap from other stakeholders of the information society; identification of communication with information. These problems were decomposed and transformed into governance challenges, and the communication process of public authorities in Russia was designed taking into account the goals of the information society development and selected governance challenges. The results of the analysis justify the need to shift the emphasis of the formation and development of communication policy from the technological to the social one, namely, the formation of stakeholders of the information society, which includes public servants. Continuous training for the development of relevant knowledge and skills becomes an integral element of communication policy. The study also concluded that it is necessary to replace the restrictive, isolationist connotation of state security with a broader and more flexible interpretation of security as sustainable development. Using sustainable development as a metaphor (message) for stakeholder engagement, a clear communication policy model should be developed that takes into account the principles that follow from the theory of the information society and the communication theory of power.

information society, state communication policy, sustainable development, communication model

1. Balashov A. I., Rogova E. M., Rudskaya I.A. Formation of regional innovation system in St. Petersburg // Economic revival of Russia. 2015. No. 1. P. 96–114. (In rus)

2. Ershov G. G. Anthroposystem: communicative models and adjustable integration // Historical Journal: scientific research. 2012. No. 4. P. 11–25. (In rus)

3. Matveev A.S. Communication Nature of Social Governance // Philosophy and Culture. 2013. No. 5. P. 643–649. (In rus)

4. Ursul A. D. Security and Sustainable Development Challenges Evolutionary Approach and Interdisciplinary Perspectives // Security Issues. 2014. No. 5. P. 1–62. (In rus)

5. Filatova O. G., Shabanova E. S. Public communications of state authorities of the Russian Federation in the space Web 2.0: analysis of blogs and social networks // Internet and modern society. 2011. P. 220–224. (In rus)

6. Kharkovskaya E. V., Bikbaev A. I. Popularization of sports through technologies of mass communications // International Journal of Humanities and Natural Sciences. 2017. V. 2. No. 3. P. 41–44. (In rus)

7. Chernyshev A. I. Need of application modern electronic communications by bodies of state authorities in Russia // the Sociodynamics. 2014. No. 8. P. 132–138. (In rus)

8. Shamakhov V. A., Balashov A. I. New social and political normality and lessons of modernization of the post-Soviet system of public administration // Administrative consulting. 2016. No. 12. P. 6–15. (In rus)

9. Arras S., Braun C. Stakeholders wanted! Why and how European Union agencies involve nonstate stakeholders. Journal of European Public Policy. 2018. 25 (9). P. 1257–1275.

10. Azmat F. Sustainable Development in Developing Countries: The Role of Social Entrepreneurs. International Journal of Public Administration. 2013. 36:5. P. 293–304.

11. Barbero M. J. Digital Convergence in Cultural Communication. Popular Communication. 2009. 7 (3). 147–157.

12. Barns S., Cosgrave E., Acuto M., Mcneill D. Digital Infrastructures and Urban Governance. Urban Policy and Research. 2017. 35 (1). P. 20–31.

13. Bell D. The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society. The Educational Forum. 1976. 40 (4). P. 574–579.

14. Brady G. L., Geets P. C. F. Sustainable development: the challenge of implementation. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 1994. 1 (3). P. 189–197.

15. Castells M., Cardoso G. The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. Washington DC : Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2006.

16. Crozier M. Recursive Governance: Contemporary Political Communication and Public Policy, Political Communication. 2007. 24 (1). P. 1–18.

17. Dick A. L. Who needs the information society? New circuits of power and resistance. Communicatio. 2000. 26 (1). P. 3–14.

18. Dolničar V., Prevodnik K., Vehovar V. Measuring the Dynamics of Information Societies: Empowering Stakeholders Amid the Digital Divide. The Information Society. 2014. 30 (3). P. 212–228.

19. Filho W. L., Tripathi S.K., Guerra A., Giné-Garriga R. at all. Using the sustainable development goals towards a better understanding of sustainability challenges. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 2019. 26 (2). P. 179–190.

20. Kruyen P. M., Van Genugten M. Opening up the black box of civil servants’ competencies. Public Management Review. 2019.

21. Menou M.M., Taylor R.D. A “Grand Challenge”: Measuring Information Societies. The Information Society. 2006. 22 (5). P. 261–267.

22. Napoli P. M. Foundations of Communications Policy: Principles and Process in the Regulation of Elec-tronic Media. 2001.Cresskill, NJ : Hampton Press Inc.

23. Porat M.U. Global Implications of An Information Society. Journal of Communication. 1978. 28 (1). P. 70–80.

24. Raboy M., Landry N., Shtern J. Digital Solidarities, Communication Policy and Multi-Stakeholder Global Governance. 2010. New York : Peter Lang.

25. Servaes J. Communication policies, good governance and development journalism. Communicatio. 2009. 35 (1). P. 50–80.

26. Sivarajah U., Weerakkody V., Waller P. at all. The role of e-participation and open data in evidence-based policy decision making in local government. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce. 2016. 26 (1–2). P. 64–79.

27. Throsby D. Culturally sustainable development: theoretical concept or practical policy instrument? International Journal of Cultural Policy. 2017. 23 (2). P. 133–147.