E-Government and Citizens: An Empirical Study of Interaction on the Official Portal in St. Petersburg
https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2021-12-48-69
Abstract
This article examines the conformity of e-government theoretical aspects with practical outcomes of interaction between executive authorities and citizens while governance optimization. The empirical part of this study evaluates the current level of communication between local authorities and citizens via electronic resources based on the portal “Our Saint Petersburg” data. Citizens capacities and claims causes are revealed as well as portal functioning problems over the past two years.
About the Authors
A. A. Kaisarov
NRU Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexander A. Kaisarov - Associate Professor in NRU Higher School of Economics, Candidate of Economic Sciences.
St. Petersburg
V. P. Kaisarova
Saint-Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Valentina P. Kaisarova - Assosiate professor in St. Petersburg SU, Candidate of Economic Sciences.
St. Petersburg
E. A. Vasilieva
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (North-West Institute of Management of RANEPA)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena A. Vasilieva - Professor of the Faculty of State and Municipal Administration of North-West Institute of Management of RANEPA, Doctor of Science (Sociological Sciences).
St. Petersburg
References
1. Golubeva A. A., Sokolova E. V. Innovation in the public sector: an introduction to the problem // Vestnik of Saint Petersburg State University. Management [Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. Seriya Menedzhment]. 2010. N 4. P. 28–57. (In rus).
2. Citizens began to use more often the portal «Our St. Petersburg» for the solution of city problems [Gorozhane stali chashhe ispol’zovat’ portal «Nash Sankt-Peterburg» dlja reshenija gorodskih problem] [Electronic resource]. URL: https://goo.gl/rU7uj8 (accessed: 20.03.2018) (In rus).
3. Kaisarova V. P. Theory and practice of public services administration // Vestnik of Saint Petersburg State University. Econimics [Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. Seriya Economica]. 2010. N (2). P. 88–98. (In rus).
4. Krasil’nikov D. G., Sivinceva O. V., Troickaja E. A. Modern Western management models: synthesis of New public management and Good governance // Ars Administrandi. 2014. N 2. P. 45–62 (In rus).
5. The mechanism of interaction with citizens’ claims is waiting for modernization [Mehanizm raboty s obrashhenijami grazhdan zhdet modernizacija] [Electronic resource]: https://goo.gl/Lmp1jp (accessed: 25.08.2018) (In rus).
6. Okinawa Charter on Global Information Society [Okinavskaja hartija global’nogo informacionnogo obshhestva] [Electronic resource]: https://goo.gl/fMnXQg (accessed: 12.04.2018) (In rus).
7. Portal «Our St. Petersburg» received a million message [Portal «Nash Sankt-Peterburg» prinjal millionnoe soobshhenie] [Electronic resource]: https://goo.gl/Lmp1jp (accessed: 25.08.2018) (In rus).
8. Baker M., Coaffee J., Sherriff G. Achieving successful participation in the new UK spatial planning system // Planning, Practice & Research. 2007. N 22 (1). P. 79–93.
9. Bovaird T. Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services // Public administration review. 2007. N 67 (5). P. 846–860.
10. Bryson J. M., Quick K S., Slotterback C. S., Crosby B. C. Designing public participation processes // Public administration review. 2013. N 73 (1). P. 23–34.
11. Carman C. The Process is the Reality: Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and Participatory Democracy // Political Studies. 2010. N 58 (4). P. 731–751.
12. Dugdale A. et al. Accessing e-government: challenges for citizens and organizations // International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2005. N 71 (1). P. 109–118.
13. Ertiö T. P. Participatory apps for urban planning — space for improvement // Planning Practice & Research. 2015. N 30 (3). P. 303–321.
14. Fraga E. Trends in e-government how to plan, design, secure, and measure e-government // Government Management Information Sciences (GMIS) Conference. 2002.
15. Gazley B. Beyond the contract: The scope and nature of informal government–nonprofit partnerships // Public administration review. 2008. N 68 (1). P. 141–154.
16. Harder C. T., Jordan M. M. The transparency of county websites: A content analysis // Public Administration Quarterly. 2013. P. 103–128.
17. Holmes D. eGov: eBusiness strategies for government. Boston : Nicholas Brealey Publishing. 2001.
18. Hood C. C., Margetts H. Z. The tools of government in the digital age. London : Palgrave Macmillan. 2007.
19. Hough R. Do Legislative Petitions Systems Enhance the Relationship between Parliament and Citizen? // The Journal of Legislative Studies. 2012. N 18 (3–4). P. 479–495.
20. Johnson P. A., Sieber R. E. Motivations driving government adoption of the Geoweb // GeoJournal. 2012. N 77 (5). P. 667–680.
21. Johnston E. W., Hansen D. L. Design lessons for smart governance infrastructures // Transforming American governance: Rebooting the public square, 2011. P. 197–212.
22. Linders D. From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media // Government Information Quarterly. 2012. N 29 (4). P. 446–454.
23. Maguire D. J., Longley P. A. The emergence of geoportals and their role in spatial data infrastructures // Computers, environment and urban systems. 2005. N 29 (1). P. 3–14.
24. Meijer A. J., Curtin D., Hillebrandt M. Open government: connecting vision and voice // International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2012. N 78 (1). P. 10–29.
25. Ronaghan S. A. Benchmarking e-government: a global perspective. Assessing the progress of the UN member states // United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public Administration & American Society for Public Administration. 2002.
26. Rowe G., Frewer L. J. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation // Science, technology, & human values. 2000. N 25 (1). P. 3–29.
27. Sheppard J. Online petitions in Australia: Information, opportunity and gender // Australian Journal of Political Science. 2015. N 50 (3). P. 480–495
28. Sieber R. Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework // Annals of the association of American Geographers. 2006. N 96 (3). P. 491–507.
29. Tapscott D. The digital economy: Promise and peril in the age of networked intelligence. New York : McGraw-Hill. 1996.
30. UNE-government Survey 2014. E-government for the Future We Want. Retrieved on 19 April 2016 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://goo.gl/GD6ywa (accessed: 20.03.2018).
Review
For citations:
Kaisarov A.A., Kaisarova V.P., Vasilieva E.A. E-Government and Citizens: An Empirical Study of Interaction on the Official Portal in St. Petersburg. Administrative Consulting. 2021;(12):48-69. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2021-12-48-69
Views:
447
Email this article 