communicologyКоммуникологияCommunicology2311-30652311-3332МАК10.21453/2311-3065-2022-10-4-71-93communicology-302Research ArticleПОЛИТИЧЕСКАЯ СОЦИОЛОГИЯPOLITICAL SOCIOLOGYЦифровые партисипативные технологии в деятельности законодательных органов инновационных регионов РоссииDigital participatory technologies in the activities of legislative bodies of innovative regions of RussiaМартыноваС. Э.MartynovaS. E.

 Мартынова Светлана Эдуардовна – кандидат филологических наук, доцент, ведущий научный сотрудник экспертно-аналитического центра государственной и муниципальной службы Института «Высшая школа государственного управления» 

 Москва 

 Martynova Svetlana Eduardovna – CandSc (Philol.), Associate Professor, Leading Researcher at the Expert and Analytical Center for State and MunicipalService of the Institute Graduate School of Public Administration 

 Moscow 

status.sm@mail.ruТуманянГ. В.TumanyanG. V.

Туманян Гарник Вагинакович – аспирант факультета политологии

 Москва 

 Tumanjan Garnik Vaginakovich – postgraduate student of the Faculty of Political Science 

 Moscow 

tumangar@mail.ruРоссийская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте Российской Федерации (РАНХиГС)РоссияRussian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA)Russian FederationМосковский государственный университет им. М.В. Ломоносова (МГУ)РоссияLomonosov Moscow State University (MSU)Russian Federation2022301220221047193Copyright © Мартынова С.Э., Туманян Г.В., 20222022Мартынова С.Э., Туманян Г.В.Martynova S.E., Tumanyan G.V.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.communicology.ru/jour/article/view/302

В статье приводятся результаты исследования цифровых технологий законодательных органов субъектов Российской Федерации, направленных на совместное принятие решений с гражданами. Во внимание взяты инновационные регионы России. Такой выбор мотивирован тем, что самостоятельность и активность граждан, которая характеризует, в первую очередь, инновационные территории, создает благоприятные условия для развития технологий со-управления. Проанализирована практика партисипативного цифрового взаимодействия 17 регионов России, входящих в группы сильных и средне-сильных инноваторов. Источниками эмпирического материала стали официальные документы, разделы официальных сайтов, сообщения в социальных сетях, новостные сводки за период 2010-2020 гг. Выявлены ведущие формы электронного участия граждан в деятельности законодательных органов инновационных субъектов РФ. Результаты соотнесены с социальными характеристиками регионов и сопоставлены с опытом других стран. Кроме того, выделены факторы развития цифровых партисипативных технологий и цифровые компетенции государственных служащих

The article represents the results of a study of digital technologies of the legislative bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, aimed at joint decisionmaking with the participation of citizens. A new focus of attention is the consideration of the compliance of the development of information and communication technologies of legislative bodies with the level of independence and activity of society in different regions, while the cuttent study is dedicated to the most innovative regions of Russia. This choice is motivated by the fact that the independence and activity of citizens, that is characteristic for innovative territories, creates favorable conditions for the development of co-management technologies. The authors analyse the practice of participatory digital interaction of 17 Russian regions included in the groups of strong and medium-strong innovators. The sudy is based on the analysis of the official documents, relevant sections of official websites, messages on social networks, and news reports for the period 2010–2020. This allowed to determine the major forms of electronic participation of citizens in the activities of the legislative bodies of innovative subjects of the Russia. The results are correlated with the social characteristics of regions and compared with the experience of other countries.

публичное управлениепартисипативностьзаконодательные органыцифровые технологиицифровые компетенцииparticipationlegislative authoritiesdigital technologiesdigital competenciesReferencesИнглхарт Р. (1997). Постмодерн: меняющиеся ценности и изменяющиеся общества // Полис. Политические исследования. № 4. С. 6-33.Barratt C., Allison E.H. (2014). Vulnerable people, vulnerable resources? Exploring the relationship between people's vulnerability and the sustainability of community-managed natural resources. Development Studies Research. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 16-27.Мартынова С.Э. (2020). Партисипативное принятие городских решений: правовые ожидания граждан // Государственная власть и местное самоуправление. № 12. С. 50-56.Bell E., Scott T.A. (2020). Common institutional design, divergent results: A comparative case study of collaborative governance platforms for regional water planning. Environmental Science and Policy. Vol. 111. Р. 63-73.Погодина И.В., Манохин В.С. (2020). Платформы органов власти как инструменты электронного участия: зарубежный опыт // Государственная власть и местное самоуправление. № 12. С. 57-60.Breuer A., Groshek J. (2017). Assessing the Potential of ICTs for Participatory Development in Sub-Saharan Africa with Evidence from Urban Togo. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society. No. 30. P. 349-368.Barratt C., Allison E.H. (2014). Vulnerable people, vulnerable resources? Exploring the relationship between people's vulnerability and the sustainability of community-managed natural resources. Development Studies Research. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 16-27.Callaghan G., Wistow G. (2006). Governance and public involvement in the British National Health Service: Understanding difficulties and developments. Social Science & Medicine. No. 63:9. P. 2289-2300.Bell E., Scott T.A. (2020). Common institutional design, divergent results: A comparative case study of collaborative governance platforms for regional water planning. Environmental Science and Policy. Vol. 111. Р. 63-73.Campling P. et al. (2021). A multi-actor, participatory approach to identify policy and technical barriers to better farming practices that protect our drinking water sources. Science of The Total Environment. Vol. 755. Part 2. 142971.Breuer A., Groshek J. (2017). Assessing the Potential of ICTs for Participatory Development in Sub-Saharan Africa with Evidence from Urban Togo. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society. No. 30. P. 349-368.Casula M. (2015). Opportunity Structures for Citizens’ Participation in Italian Regions: A Case Study. Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11. Iss. 2. Article 6.Callaghan G., Wistow G. (2006). Governance and public involvement in the British National Health Service: Understanding difficulties and developments. Social Science & Medicine. No. 63:9. P. 2289-2300.De Vries H., Bekkers V., Tummers L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: a systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration. Vol. 94, No. 1. Р. 146-166.Campling P. et al. (2021). A multi-actor, participatory approach to identify policy and technical barriers to better farming practices that protect our drinking water sources. Science of The Total Environment. Vol. 755. Part 2. 142971.Dommett K., Flinders M. (2015). The Centre Strikes Back: Meta-Governance, Delegation, and the Core Executive in the United Kingdom, 2010-14. Public Administration. Vol. 93. No. 1. Р. 1-16.Casula M. (2015). Opportunity Structures for Citizens’ Participation in Italian Regions: A Case Study. Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11. Iss. 2. Article 6.Edelenbos J., van Schie N., Gerrits L. (2010). Organizing interfaces between government institutions and interactive governance. Policy Sciences. No. 43. P. 73–94. DOI 10.1007/s11077-009-9086-2.De Vries H., Bekkers V., Tummers L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: a systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration. Vol. 94, No. 1. Р. 146-166Font J., Pasadas del Amo S., Smith G. (2016). Tracing the Impact of Proposals from Participatory Processes: Methodological Challenges and Substantive Lessons. Journal of Public Deliberation. Vol. 12: Iss. 1. Article 3.Dommett K., Flinders M. (2015). The Centre Strikes Back: Meta-Governance, Delegation, and the Core Executive in the United Kingdom, 2010-14. Public Administration. Vol. 93. No. 1. Р. 1-16.Fox C. (2015). Political Authority, Practical Identity, and Binding Citizens. International Journal of Philosophical Studies. Vol. 23, No. 2. P. 168-186.Edelenbos J., van Schie N., Gerrits L. (2010). Organizing interfaces between government institutions and interactive governance. Policy Sciences. No. 43. P. 73–94. DOI 10.1007/s11077-009-9086-2.Galbraith J.K. (1973). Economics and the Public Purpose. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Font J., Pasadas del Amo S., Smith G. (2016). Tracing the Impact of Proposals from Participatory Processes: Methodological Challenges and Substantive Lessons. Journal of Public Deliberation. Vol. 12: Iss. 1. Article 3.Gonzalez R., Llopis J., Gasco J. (2013). Innovation in public services: The case of Spanish local government. Journal of Business Research. No. 66. Р. 2024-2033.Fox C. (2015). Political Authority, Practical Identity, and Binding Citizens. International Journal of Philosophical Studies. Vol. 23, No. 2. P. 168-186.Inglehart R. (1997). Postmodern: changing values and changing societies. Polis. Political studies. No. 4. P. 6-33 (In Rus.).Galbraith J.K. (1973). Economics and the Public Purpose. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Klierova M., Kutik J. (2017). One Stop Government – Strategy of Public Services for Citizens and Businesses in Slovakia. Administratie si Management Public. № 28. Р. 66-80.Gonzalez R., Llopis J., Gasco J. (2013). Innovation in public services: The case of Spanish local government. Journal of Business Research. No. 66. Р. 2024-2033.Lees-Marshment J. (2016). Deliberative Political Leaders: The Role of Policy Input in Political Leadership. Politics and Governance. Vol. 4. Issue 2. P. 25-35. DOI: 10.17645/pag.v4i2.560.Klierova M., Kutik J. (2017). One Stop Government – Strategy of Public Services for Citizens and Businesses in Slovakia. Administratie si Management Public. № 28. Р. 66-80.Macintosh A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the (2004).Lees-Marshment J. (2016). Deliberative Political Leaders: The Role of Policy Input in Political Leadership. Politics and Governance. Vol. 4. Issue 2. P. 25-35. DOI: 10.17645/pag.v4i2.560.Martynova S.E. (2020). Participatory urban decision-making: legal expectations of citizens. State power and local self-government. No. 12. P. 50-56 (In Rus.).Macintosh A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the (2004).Martynova S.E. Evarovich S.A. (2018). Participative HR-technologies in governance of Russian regions. Space and Culture. No. 6 (4). P. 36-47.Martynova S.E. Evarovich S.A. (2018). Participative HR-technologies in governance of Russian regions. Space and Culture. No. 6 (4). P. 36-47.Offe C. (2017). Referendum vs. Institutionalized Deliberation: What Democratic Theorists Can Learn from the 2016 Brexit Decision. Daedalus. No. 3. P. 14-27.Offe C. (2017). Referendum vs. Institutionalized Deliberation: What Democratic Theorists Can Learn from the 2016 Brexit Decision. Daedalus. No. 3. P. 14-27.Peltz E. (2016). Review of Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy by Tina Nabatchi and Matt Leighninger (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2015). Journal of Public Deliberation. Vol. 12. Iss. 1. Article 9.Peltz E. (2016). Review of Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy by Tina Nabatchi and Matt Leighninger (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2015). Journal of Public Deliberation. Vol. 12. Iss. 1. Article 9.Pflughoeft B., Schneider I. (2020). Social media as E-participation: Can a multiple hierarchy stratification perspective predict public interest? Government Information Quarterly. Vol. 37. No. 1. Article 101422.Pflughoeft B., Schneider I. (2020). Social media as E-participation: Can a multiple hierarchy stratification perspective predict public interest? Government Information Quarterly. Vol. 37. No. 1. Article 101422.Pirralha A. (2017). Political Participation and Wellbeing in the Netherlands: Exploring the Causal Links. Applied Research Quality Life. No. 12. Р. 327-341. DOI 10.1007/s11482-016-9463-x.Pirralha A. (2017). Political Participation and Wellbeing in the Netherlands: Exploring the Causal Links. Applied Research Quality Life. No. 12. Р. 327-341. DOI 10.1007/s11482-016-9463-x.Pogodina I.V., Manokhin V.S. (2020). Platforms of authorities as tools of electronic participation: foreign experience. State power and local self-government. No. 12. P. 57-60 (In Rus.).Rossini P.G., Maia R.C. (2014). Is political participation online effective: A case study of the e-democracy initiative conducted by the Brazilian chamber of deputies. In: Handbook of Research on Advanced ICT Integration for Governance and Policy Modeling. No. 1. P. 345-366.Rossini P.G., Maia R.C. (2014). Is political participation online effective: A case study of the e-democracy initiative conducted by the Brazilian chamber of deputies. In: Handbook of Research on Advanced ICT Integration for Governance and Policy Modeling. No. 1. P. 345-366.Speer J. (2012). Participatory Governance Reform: A Good Strategy for Increasing Government Responsiveness and Improving Public Services? World Development. Vol. 40. No. 12. P. 2379–2398.Scott T.A., Carter D.P. (2019). Collaborative governance or private policy making? When consultants matter more than participation in collaborative environmental planning. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. Vol. 21. Issue 2. P. 153-173.Scott T.A., Carter D.P. (2019). Collaborative governance or private policy making? When consultants matter more than participation in collaborative environmental planning. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. Vol. 21. Issue 2. P. 153-173.Speer J. (2012). Participatory Governance Reform: A Good Strategy for Increasing Government Responsiveness and Improving Public Services? World Development. Vol. 40. No. 12. P. 2379–2398.Sztompka P. (2006). New perspectives on trust: Review essay. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 112, No. 3. P. 905-919.Sztompka P. (2006). New perspectives on trust: Review essay. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 112, No. 3. P. 905-919.Theesfeld I., Dufhues T., Buchenrieder G. (2017). The effects of rules on local political decisionmaking processes: How can rules facilitate participation? Policy Science. No. 50. P. 675-696. DOI 10.1007/s11077-017-9284-2.Theesfeld I., Dufhues T., Buchenrieder G. (2017). The effects of rules on local political decisionmaking processes: How can rules facilitate participation? Policy Science. No. 50. P. 675-696. DOI 10.1007/s11077-017-9284-2.Toffler A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Morrow.Toffler A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Morrow.Touraine A. (2007). Sociology after sociology. European Journal of Social Theory. No. 10(2). P. 184-193.Touraine A. (2007). Sociology after sociology. European Journal of Social Theory. No. 10(2). P. 184-193.Witesman E., Walters L. (2015). Modeling Public Decision Preferences Using Context-Specific Value Hierarchies. American Review of Public Administration. Vol. 45 (1). Р. 86-105. DOI: 10.1177/0275074014536603.Witesman E., Walters L. (2015). Modeling Public Decision Preferences Using ContextSpecific Value Hierarchies. American Review of Public Administration. Vol. 45 (1). Р. 86-105. DOI: 10.1177/0275074014536603.Zakrzewska M. (2017). The role of social participation in the concept of good governance – a theoretical approach. Public policy and Administration. Vol. 16. No. 4. P. 529-537. DOI: 10.13165/V PA-17-16 – 4 – 01.Zakrzewska M. (2017). The role of social participation in the concept of good governance –a theoretical approach. Public policy and Administration. Vol. 16. No. 4. P. 529-537. DOI: 10.13165/V PA-17-16 – 4 – 01.Zheng Y. (2017). Explaining Citizens’ E-Participation Usage: Functionality of E-Participation Applications. Administration and Society. No. 3. P. 423-442.Zheng Y. (2017). Explaining Citizens’ E-Participation Usage: Functionality of E-Participation Applications. Administration and Society. No. 3. P. 423-442.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.