Dmitriy Arkatov
ABSTRACT
How do specific characteristics of public servants impact their attitudes towards e-participation? In the current literature on e-government and e-participation there is surprisingly a little number of articles that cover this issue. Usually, researchers pay their attention to organizational and structural explanations for e-participation adoption and implementation success. This includes economic variables, such as GDP and openness to trade, innovativeness of a particular country or a region as well as how certain agents employ different strategies to manage content. In this article we argue that there may be another important dimension which includes personal features of the public servants such as their gender, position, department and their values, attitudes and skills that may affect how they treat e-participation in their respective public administration. For these purposes, we conducted a web survey of 417 public servants in St. Petersburg, Russia. The survey questions covered their demographics, how they perceive citizens and their expertise and knowledge as well as their ICT skills. Additional questions measured their bureaucratic values and attitudes. Based on this data, we conducted an analysis running multiple linear regressions. Our results show that demographics and ICT skills don't play as important role as it was shown in the preceding studies. Furthermore, the key factor impacting the public servants’ appraisal of digital participation usefulness is their attitudes towards ordinary citizens. The more they think that the general public is constructive, the higher is their inclination towards e-participatory platforms usage. This study is a first part of a 3-year long project aimed at evaluating the Ecosystem of City Services in St. Petersburg. These findings will be used further to advance our understanding how civic servants and general public interact using digitalized communication as a part of Smart City infrastructure.
- J. Norman Baldwin, Robin Gauld, and Shaun Goldfinch. 2012. What Public Servants Really Think of E-Government. Public Management Review 14, 1 (January 2012), 105–127. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.589616Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Thomas C. Beierle and Jerry Cayford. 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
- V.J.J.M Bekkers and V.M.F. Homburg (Eds.). 2005. The Information Ecology of E-Government. Retrieved May 4, 2023 from https://www.iospress.com/catalog/books/the-information-ecology-of-e-governmentGoogle Scholar
- Vanessa Bouche and Craig Volden. 2011. Privatization and the Diffusion of Innovations. The Journal of Politics 73, (April 2011), 428–442. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381611000041Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrew Chadwick. 2011. Explaining the Failure of an Online Citizen Engagement Initiative: The Role of Internal Institutional Variables. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 8, 1 (February 2011), 21–40. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2010.507999Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dorothy M. Daley and James C. Garand. 2005. Horizontal Diffusion, Vertical Diffusion, and Internal Pressure in State Environmental Policymaking, 1989-1998. American Politics Research 33, 5 (September 2005), 615–644. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X04273416Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48, 2 (1983), 147–160. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101Google ScholarCross Ref
- Carol Ebdon and Aimee L Franklin. 2006. Citizen Participation in Budgeting Theory. Public Administration Review 66, 3 (2006), 437–447. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00600.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Kaja J. Fietkiewicz, Agnes Mainka, and Wolfgang G. Stock. 2017. eGovernment in cities of the knowledge society. An empirical investigation of Smart Cities’ governmental websites. Government Information Quarterly 34, 1 (January 2017), 75–83. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.003Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robin Gauld, Shaun Goldfinch, and Simon Horsburgh. 2010. Do They Want It? Do They Use It? The “Demand-Side” of E-government in Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly 27, (March 2010), 177–186. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2009.12.002Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, Sharon S. Dawes, and Theresa A. Pardo. 2018. Digital government and public management research: finding the crossroads. Public Management Review 20, 5 (May 2018), 633–646. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richard Heeks and Savita Bailur. 2007. Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly 24, 2 (April 2007), 243–265. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.06.005Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul Hepburn. 2014. Local Democracy in a Digital Age: Lessons for Local Government from the Manchester Congestion Charge Referendum. Local Government Studies 40, 1 (January 2014), 82–101. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2013.829457Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johann Höchtl, Peter Parycek, and Michael Sachs. 2011. E‐participation readiness of Austrian municipalities. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 5, 1 (March 2011), 32–44. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/17506161111114635Google ScholarCross Ref
- Renée A. Irvin and John Stansbury. 2004. Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? Public Administration Review 64, 1 (2004), 55–65. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Liang Ma. 2013. The Diffusion of Government Microblogging: Evidence from Chinese municipal police bureaus. Public Management Review 15, 2 (February 2013), 288–309. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.691010Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rony Medaglia. 2012. eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly 29, 3 (July 2012), 346–360. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.02.010Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ines Mergel. 2013. Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the U.S. federal government. Government Information Quarterly 30, 2 (April 2013), 123–130. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.12.004Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joshua L. Mitchell. 2018. Does Policy Diffusion Need Space? Spatializing the Dynamics of Policy Diffusion. Policy Studies Journal 46, 2 (2018), 424–451. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12226Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christopher Z. Mooney. 2001. Modeling Regional Effects on State Policy Diffusion. Political Research Quarterly 54, 1 (March 2001), 103–124. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290105400106Google ScholarCross Ref
- Milena I. Neshkova and Hai (David) Guo. 2012. Public Participation and Organizational Performance: Evidence from State Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22, 2 (April 2012), 267–288. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur038Google ScholarCross Ref
- Janet Newman, Marian Barnes, Helen Sullivan, and Andrew Knops. 2004. Public Participation and Collaborative Governance. J. Soc. Pol. 33, 2 (April 2004), 203–223. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279403007499Google ScholarCross Ref
- Everett Rogers. 2003. Diffusion Networks. In Networks in the Knowledge Economy. Oxford University Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195159509.003.0011Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alex Santamaria-Philco, Jose H. Canos Cerda, and M. Carmen Penades Gramaje. 2019. Advances in e-Participation: A perspective of Last Years. IEEE Access 7, (2019), 155894–155916. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2948810Google ScholarCross Ref
- Carmen Sirianni. 2010. Investing in Democracy: Engaging Citizens in Collaborative Governance. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Malte Steinbach, Jost Sieweke, and Stefan Süß. 2019. The diffusion of e-participation in public administrations: A systematic literature review. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 29, 2 (April 2019), 61–95. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2019.1552749Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pamela S. Tolbert and Lynne G. Zucker. 1983. Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 1 (1983), 22–39. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2392383Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christine B. Williams, Girish J. “Jeff” Gulati, and David J. Yates. 2013. Predictors of on-line services and e-participation: a cross-national comparison. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o ’13), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 190–197. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2479724.2479752Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- How public servants' characteristics, attitudes and competences affect perceptions of e-Participation? Evidence from St. Petersburg, Russia
Recommendations
Participation and Citizen Empowerment platform for e-governance: Communal Integration System (SINCO)
ICEGOV '19: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceThe Governance concept reaches an important place in the theoretical debates and political practices because it introduces new forms on policy formulation and managing, making it possible to redefine the way we participate as citizens and propose ways ...
Prospects of e-government implementation in Nigeria
ICEGOV '07: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Theory and practice of electronic governanceE-governance is a democratic practice that is gradually gaining universal acceptance and applicability. It refers to a governmental type aimed at achieving effective service delivery from government to citizens, moving governance from traditionalist ...
e-government... not e-governance... not e-democracy not now!: not ever?
ICEGOV '10: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceThe argument that I offer in this paper, supported by literature and empirical evidence, is that e-government is just that -- electronic government -- and little more. I define e-government as the delivery by alternate, electronic means of governmental ...
Comments