The Formation of a Stable Technopolitical Environment as a Factor in the Development of Recursive Public Policy in Russia

Aims. Conceptualization of technopolitical sphere impact on recursive processes of public policy; defining key problems that inhibit public authorities from improving digital politics stability essential for developing public policy recursive potential.
Methods. The work is based on institutional approach traditional for conducting interdisciplinary research about using informational and communicative technologies in politics and governance. Moreover, it is helpful for considering meaning of public institutes in the scope of conceptualization of technopolitical sphere stability and recursiveness as an attribute of public policy.
Results. Recent approaches to understanding the essence of public policy define the efficiency of shaping political agenda, developing and making decisions as more and more dependent on expert knowledge and ways of political participation. Based on the recursiveness as a public policy attribute there is made a point of expert knowledge for building and keeping feedback linking between system elements as a key principle of public policy change as an «epistemic thing». Recursive processes progression depends on stability of technopolitical sphere that rests upon quality, direction and dynamics of institutional change, political inclusiveness. As for Russia, building technopolitical infrastructure necessary for recursive processes is in progress now and meet a wide range of political and governmental rigidity, legal framework insufficiency. In order to overcome it, public authorities shall pay attention to total improving the digital literacy, coordination, legal framework update and developing new institutes of digital intersectoral collaboration.
Conclusion. In public policy and its actors recursiveness serves as a principle of systematic monitoring politics and governance which defines evolutional dynamics of these processes. Digital politics creates conditions for building recursive processes into the context of shaping political agenda, developing and making decisions. The research results highlight issues significant for contemporary political science in the context of technopolitical national development and can be enhanced with both theoretical and applied research.

1. Avtsinova G. I. Digitalization policy in modern Russia: features of formation and development prospects // PolitBook. 2019. N 4. P. 6–20 (in Rus).

2. Volodenkov S. V. The role of information and communication technologies in modern politics // Antinomy [Antinomii]. 2018. N 2. P. 69–86 (in Rus).

3. Vyzhimova N. G., Ivanova E.Yu., Kolesnichenko E. A. Digitalization of management as a factor in the development of the modern state // Bulletin of Science and Practice [Byulleten’ nauki i praktiki]. 2018. N 5. P. 465–473 (in Rus).

4. Grishin O. E. Sustainability of the political system: concept, approaches, regulators // Modern problems of science and education [Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya]. 2015. N 1. P. 19–24 (in Rus).

5. Gutorov V. A. Politics: science, philosophy, education. SPb.: St. Petersburg State University, Faculty of political science, 2011 (in Rus).

6. Dobrolyubova E. I. Digitalization of the state: traps and prospects // Economic development of Russia [Ekonomicheskoe razvitie Rossii]. 2020. N 3. P. 58–61 (in Rus).

7. Ivakhnenko E. N. Autopoyesis of “epistemic things” as a new horizon for building social theory // Bulletin of the Russian State Humanitarian University. Series “Philosophy. Sociology. Art history” [Vestnik RGGU. Ser. «Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Iskusstvovedenie»]. 2015. N 5. P. 80–91 (in Rus).

8. Kaplunenko A. M. On the question of the conceptual foundations of public policy as an “epistemic object” // Democracy and management: Newsletter of the RSF grant N 19-18-00210 “Political ontology of digitalization: a study of the institutional foundations of digital formats of state manageability”. 2021. N 1. P. 8–12 (in Rus).

9. Kondratenko K.S. Institutional Recursion of Public Sociotechnical Systems // Democracy and Governance: RNF Grant Newsletter N 19-18-00210 “Political Ontology of Digitalization: a Study of the Institutional Foundations of Digital Formats of State Manageability”. 2021. N 1. P. 13–17 (in Rus).

10. Luhman N. Reality massmedia/translation from German A. Yu. Antonovsky. M.: Praxis, 2005 (in Rus).

11. Neverov K. A. Interoperability in public administration as a recursive process // Democracy and management: Newsletter of the RSF grant N 19-18-00210 “Political ontology of digitalization: a study of the institutional foundations of digital formats of state manageability”. 2021. N 1. P. 18–22 (in Rus).

12. Nikovskaya L. I. Civic consciousness and civil society // Mind at a crossroads: public consciousness between the past and the future: A collection of scientific articles. M.: Aspect Press, 2017 (in Rus).

13. Pravoslavsky S.S. Recursive mechanisms in social systems // Scientific almanac [Nauchnyi al’manakh]. 2018. N 5-3. P. 86–91 (in Rus).

14. Public policy: institutions, digitalization, development/edited by L. V. Smorgunov. M.: Aspect Press, 2018 (in Rus).

15. Ryazanov A. V., Demidova M. V. Models of discursive and recursive management of symbolic capital in socio-economic systems // Bulletin of the Volga Institute of Management [Vestnik Povolzhskogo instituta upravleniya]. 2015. N 4. P. 96–104 (in Rus).

16. Chugunov A. V. Institutional model of e-government: the main actors and mechanisms of their interaction // State and citizens in electronic environment [Gosudarstvo i grazhdane v elektronnoi srede]. 2018. N 2. P. 66–70 (in Rus).

17. Shmatko N. A. The phenomenon of public policy // Sociological research [Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya]. 2001. N 7. P. 106–112 (in Rus).

18. Yakimets V. N., Nikovskaya L. I. Civic participation, intersectoral partnership and Internet technologies of public policy // Social and humanitarian knowledge [Sotsial’nye i gumanitarnye znaniya]. 2019. N 3. P. 208–223 (in Rus).

19. Almond G., Powell B. Comparative politics today. A world view. Glenview; Boston; London: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1988.

20. Cairney P. Understanding Public Policy. Theories and Issues. London : Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

21. Chandler D. Digital governance in the anthropocene: the rise of the correlational machine // Chandler D., Fuchs C. (eds.). Digital objects, digital subjects: interdisciplinary perspectives on capitalism, labour and politics in the age of Big Data. London: University of Westminster Press. 2019.

22. Colebatch Hal К. Policy. University of Minnesota Press. 1998.

23. Coleman S., Freelon D. Introduction: conceptualizing digital politics // Coleman S, Freelon D. (eds.). Handbook of digital politics. Cheltenham-Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015.

24. Heclo H. Modern social politics in Britain and Sweden: from relief to income maintenance. New Haven : Yale University Press, 1974.

25. Howlett M. Policy Design: What, Who, How and Why? // L’instrumentation et ses effets. Paris : Presses de Sciences Po. 2014.

26. Hofmann J., Katzenbach C., Gollatz K. Between coordination and regulation: finding the governance in Internet governance // New Media and Society. 2017. N 9. P. 1406–1423.

27. Morrison T. Actionable learning. A handbook for capacity building through case-based learning. Tokyo : Asian Development Bank Institute, 2002.

28. Sabatier P. A., Jenkins-Smith H. C. Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO : Westview Press. 1993.

29. Theocharis Y., van Deth J. W. The curious case of digitally networked participation conceptualizing and measuring digitally enabled political participation // Social Science Research Network’s eLibrary [Electronic source]. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2657082 (accessed: 15.09.2021).

30. Totaro P., Ninno D. Algorithms and the practical world // Theory, Culture and Society. 2016. N 1. P. 1–14.