ECPR GENERAL CONFERENCE

UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL 26 - 29 AUGUST 2015

THE PANEL: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

CLUSTERING RUSSIAN ‘OPEN GOVERNMENT’: BUILDING DESIGNS OF

PARTICIPATORY PROCEDURES FOR INCLUSION

Leonid Smorgunov

Faculty of Political Science,

St. Petersburg State University,

Universitetskaya nab., 7/9, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia

E-mail: lvsmorgunov@gmail.com

Biographical notes: Leonid Smorgunov is a Professor of the Faculty of Political Science at the

St. Petersburg State University, Russia. His research interests include public administration

reforms, electronic governance, political networks and collaboration

ABSTRACT The paper concerns contemporary Russian trends in policy engagement of citizens and civil society through building

networks of „open government‟. In the developing public administrative systems often cooperation between

governmental institutions and civil associations demonstrate partial effect, which is associated not only with blanks of

implementation of good institutions, but also of imitation of its activity. Networks of "Open Government" in Russia are

often called like such incomplete (imitational) structures. The article describes the process of network learning in

incomplete or imitational structures. Using network clustering method the author demonstrates three visible and invisible

clusters of Russian „open government‟ with different resources and knowledge control. These networks demonstrate

contradictory designs of participatory procedures for inclusion in policy process and different modes of network

learning.

Keywords Open government, incomplete institutions, network clusters, transparency, civic involvement, Russia

INTRODUCTION

The development for open electronic government began at the late of last decade. Under the

slogans of transparency, participation, and collaboration this movement has occupied many

countries [Open…, 2011; Scassa, 2014]. In general the movement relates to some changes in the

ideology of administrative reform. The emergence of networked social structures transformed the

task of public administration. In this regard, the term «governance» was taken as the basic for the

description of a new way of managing in a networked society [Kooiman, 2010]. Public governance

as a function of social coordination, which is designed to carry not only by professional managers,

but also civil society, insisted talking so much about the impact of many new participants. Public

affairs, public authorities and organizations became transparent and open for public discussion, and

the latter becomes an important resource for policy-making. Governance as the management of

public affairs has been assessed not only in terms of pragmatic criteria of efficiency, but also

includes political and moral criteria; code of ethics is becoming an important part of evaluation of

management activities. That why planning and assessing open government is addressed within a

„public value‟ framework [Harrison et al., 2011].

The process of political and administrative activity becomes saturated with new forms and

mechanisms, which include such unusual components for older models, as a public examination,

public forums, public-private commissions, etc. There are different names for these new forms of

public engagement into policy and decision-making processes. Mark Warren categorizes, for

example, many of these developments as “governance-driven democratization” [Warren, 2009, p. 4].

Some scholars use term “collaborative governance”: “Collaborative governance, as it has come to be

known, brings public and private stakeholders together in collective forums with public agencies to

engage in consensus-oriented decision-making” [Ansell and Gash, 2008, p. 543; see also: Jonston et

al., 2011; Emerson et al., 2012]. Paying attention to citizen engagement and participation in public

governance Peter Walker and Patrick Shannon gives for this development name “participatory

governance” [Walker and Shannon, 2011]. Partly independent trend in modern theory of public

governance take characteristics of new development from process of community engagement into

policy and decision-making. This direction elaborates the concepts of “governance through

community engagement” [Bell and Hindmoore, 2009, p. 137-161], “community engaging

government” [King and Cruickshank, 2012] or “integrated public governance” [Kernaghan, 2009].

In different countries these transformations were general motives for political and administrative

building open government. This political trend in the Russian contexts has appeared only in the

second half of the 2000s, when the issues of building e-government and the interaction between

society and the state got special attention during the revision of the Federal program "Electronic

Russia (2002-2010)". These issues were resolved but through trial and error, and not consistent

policy of engagement. Practice often adjusts the direction of reforms. However, as evidenced by

Russian researchers, the study of the transformation of public administration under the influence of

networking on the federal and local levels shows a positive trend with regard to strengthening the

mutual coupling of the state and society [Gnedash and Morozova, 2012; Miroshnichenko,2013].

Cooperation is often influenced by the needs of both government and civil society. Thus, despite the

often imitative nature of emerging institutions of cooperation, there is a process of mutual learning

and sharing of knowledge to set issues on the agenda of open government and open data. The system

of open government in Russia started to form in 2012, which took civil- centered approach as the

basis of his work.

Network approach was used for the analysis of emerging in the public space of the Russian policy

the civil, government and pro-government networks based on the realization of the idea of „open

government‟. The study was conducted in 2014-15. 154 actors of network organization related to

open government were studied. For data collection and analysis the program resources and data of

The Web Information Company "Alexa", Web services CY-PR com and Maynspy.ru were used. For

data visualization and network clustering the packages of specialized programs PAJEK and

NetDraw were used.

First part of the paper concerns the development of governmental portal in Russia as base for

improving civic involvement in policy; the second part is about the concept of Russian open

government; the third and fourth parts say on the clustering Russian open government and the issues

of civic involvement here.

DEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNMENTAL PORTALS (GP) IN RUSSIA FOR

IMPROVING CIVIC INVOLVEMENT IN POLITICS

There are three main stages of Russian public policy in the implementation of new electronic

technology in governmental activities and involvement of citizens in policy-making. First stage is

related with the Federal program “Electronic Russia (2002-2010). It could be named the “step

involvement of public authorities in electronic space”. Second stage is connected to the

Governmental program “Information Society (2011-2020)”. This stage is “step involvement of

population in using electronic public services”. Third stage which overlapped with the second one is

a development of open government in Russia. Third stage is directed to “cooperation of government

and society in policy”. These three stages or trends in public policy are important for understanding

of the issue of open government implementation in Russia.

Development for governmental portals (GP) in Russia for improving public services and civil

engagement in policy-making can be attributed to the beginning of the 2000s. Approved in January

2002, the Federal program "Electronic Russia (2002-2010)" contained a segment on the introduction

and mass distribution of information technologies to improve the efficiency of public administration

and local self-government [The legal…, 2002]. The general aims of the program were: (1) ensuring

transparency in the activities of public authorities and accessibility of government information

resources, the creation of conditions for effective cooperation between public authorities and

citizens; (2) improvement of activity of public authorities and local governments; (3) improving

cooperation between state authorities and local governments with economic agents and the

introduction of information and communication technologies in the real economy. The program

included three stages. In the first phase (2002) it was supposed to form the background of program

activities related to analysis of an appropriate regulatory framework, the informatization of the

economy, foreign experience with carrying out the integration of government information resources,

etc. In the second phase (2003-2004) the aims were to implement projects for providing interaction

between the government authorities and local self-government with citizens and economic actors in

the fields of taxation, a customs documentation , registration and liquidation of legal limitations for

issuing licenses and certificates, preparation and submission of records and other. In the third phase

(2005-2010) it is planned to create the preconditions for mass distribution of information and

communication technologies in all spheres of public life on the basis of a unified information and

telecommunications infrastructure using e-commerce system. August 15, 2006 the Russian

government approved a new edition of the Federal program, which takes into account the new tasks

of increasing the effectiveness of the functioning of public administration based on clearly defined

goals of e-government. The program provided activities in the six main areas : the formation of

standards and guidelines for the use of ICT in public administration ; ensuring effective interagency

informational exchange based on the government informational systems integration; ensuring the

effectiveness of cooperation between state authorities and organizations with the population;

implementation of informational management systems in the activities of public authorities; creating

standard software and hardware solutions support the activities of public authorities; managing the

implementation of program activities.

The results of the program were the creation of a broad network of portals and web sites of state

and municipal authorities, the development of a feedback of the state and the public, increasing

transparency of public authorities. In society and between public servants formed a strong belief

about the effectiveness of the use of new electronic tools to improve the quality of public services

and public confidence in the state. However, there was also much criticism, alleging the incomplete

implementation of the program and even its failure.

Second governmental program "Information Society (2011-2020)” providing e-government was

approved by the Federal Government in October 2010. It symbolized the beginning of the new stage

in the development of e-government in Russia: “step involvement of population in using electronic

public services”. The main goal of the program is" getting individuals and organizations benefit

from the use of information and communication technologies by providing equal access to

information resources, digital content development, application of innovative technologies, and

radically more effective governance in ensuring security in the information society" [Government…,

2010]. Analysis of the program shows that its objectives in general consistent with the objectives of

the present stage of the information society and e-government in the world. However, it is clearly

that in it there is no enough emphasis on the socio- political component of the transformation of e-

government on the basis of ideology «eGov 2.0». So, the task is "increasing transparency of public

authorities", but rather, it is focused on increasing public awareness than to intensify its participation

in public decision making. The ideas of participation and cooperation are poorly expressed. Yet in

terms of technology the program will create the conditions for a new e-government and, apparently

promoting its technological component will change its socio- political content.

Yet 15 December 2009 the Single Portal of Public and Municipal Services (SPPMS)

(www.gosuslugi.ru) has been launched as demonstrative. The program pushed forward this GP and

now the SPPMS provides a uniform point of access for citizens to the corresponding state and

municipal services given by public authorities, to give to citizens and the organizations the uniform

interface of access to the governmental information and to reception of the public services with

possibility of transition to the Internet site of the authority responsible for granting of concrete state

service or to a Internet portal of public authorities of the subject of the Russian Federation (a

regional portal of the public services). Among them the following services are provided - filling of

forms for registration of identification documents (passports, driver's licenses), various children's

grants, and filling of receipts for payment of penalties for infringement of traffic rules. In 2015 4.2

thousand state and municipal services were available on the Internet. However, the monitoring of the

Ministry of Communications, only about 50% of these services are operating.

Accordingly to the conception of the GPs the system of portals of the public services is

considered as a productive and effective means of delivering the public services from the point of

view both authorities and citizens. For citizens first of all it is a uniform source of the actual, full,

consistent and exact information on the public services, and also possibility of reception of the

public services on a principle of "one window». For the executives and the their organizations GP is

a factor of perfection of a control system in the field of productivity and efficiency of delivering the

public services, and also the mechanism of the organization of interdepartmental interaction and

most effective utilization of an information resources.

The purposes of the GPs are:

• Increase of an information openness and transparency of activity of the executives and the

Government of the Russian Federation;

• Increase of awareness of citizens and the organizations about delivering services and

executed functions of the authorities;

• Increase of convenience and comfort (decrease of financial and time expenses) for the

citizens and for the legal bodies at reception of the state and municipal services according to the

requirements fixed in administrative regulations of corresponding service (function);

• Increase of efficiency of an interdepartmental information exchange and interaction of the

governmental departments regarding providing and delivering the public services and executions of

the public functions by different authorities.

Analysis of implementation of the program and the introduction of e-government in the activities

of the central state authorities, public authorities of the federal and local government shows that this

process was uneven and met a number of objective and subjective difficulties. We agree with the

fact that e-government ideology has not become an integral part of the reform of public

administration and civil service in Russia, which limited the ability of both directions of the

administrative policy.

Today can be called a number of state and public portals, the creation of which is aimed at

achieving the objectives of creating a new e-government. Researchers already marked that "Public

services" vastly expanded its capacity to deliver public services and provide feedback to the public.

Portal "Regionalochka” (regionalochka.ru) - network for cooperation of state authorities of the

Russian Federation - is the goal of creating community professionals in the field of information

technology for state and municipal government in the regions , which should encourage and assist in

the implementation of e-government. Federal portal management training (www.rezerv.gov.ru) not

only publishes information about the state reserve public personnel, but also considers the

interaction of civil servants, professionals, experts, citizens in discussions on development of human

potential. A notable phenomenon of Russian political life was also attended by politicians and civil

servants in social networks (Twitter) for interactive discussion with the citizens of their concerns.

All this allowed Russia to take in the ranking UN E-Government in 2012 is quite high 27th place,

and on e-participation index value even join the leaders (8th place). However, analysis of the

ranking shows that Russia is far behind the most significant indicator of e-participation - impact on

the decision-making process.

In Russia in 2011 under the State program of the Russian Federation "Information Society (2011-

2020)" was also launched network of experts on public administration «GosBook»

(http://www.gosbook.ru) uniting civil servants and experts into discussion on the topical problems of

modern public policy. According to the developers of the portal, it provides professionals involved

in the governance important for the state and its citizens processes, comfortable and functional

interactive tools that allows discussing any matter in real time. It represented 20 thousand

documents and there are more than 10 thousand publications. Its activities are organized into 74

working groups in 32 communities. This project includes such basic features: join in closed working

groups and communities of interest; participate in discussion forums and comment threads lead a

lively dialogue with colleagues and specialists in other fields; organize collective work on the

development and discussion of draft documents; quickly find topics of interest , community working

groups , publications, blogs , and other participants in this network; initiate a discussion of the issues

by placing publications, building communities and working groups; upload and download graphics

and text documents in electronic format; communicate with other project participants using personal

messages, files; keep tape publications (blog) and free for personal positioning in the expert

community.

Intensive introduction of various government portals and websites are often seen as only dummy

or imitation forms of the Russian government activities. However, the gradual expansion of the

networking opportunities, offered by electronic means to communicate with the citizens and their

associations, leads to the formation of such a belief in the necessity of networking the bureaucracy

and the citizens. Particularly intense process of mutual learning and sharing of knowledge is in

networking. Just open government in Russia is showing potential network learning, because it forms

gradually institutions (i.e. rules and sustainable practices of interaction), which determine the

intensity and direction of cooperation.

So, during realization of two main public programs the base for new stage was built. New stage

of electronic government in Russia was started in 2011 when the platform of “Bolshoe Pravitelstvo”

(Big Government) in demonstrative version was put in the Internet. The idea „Big Government‟ was

equal „Open Government‟. The whole system of open government in Russia started to form in

2012, which took civil- centered approach as the basis of his work. The decree of the President D.

Medvedev “On the working group for preparing proposals for the formation of „Open Government‟

in the Russian Federation” on February 8, 2012 was a pushing point for an implementation.

RUSSIAN CONCEPT OF OPEN GOVERNMENT

This presidential decree set the ambitious goal of creating a system in Russia "Open government"

based on the analysis of a wide range of public authorities, as well as their interaction with the

citizens and their public associations, movements and expert organizations. The working group

carried out in the following areas: (1) an analysis of the effectiveness of the public councils under

the public authorities; (2) study of the implementation of priority government programs and

participation of associations, movements and expert organizations in this implementation; (3) public

discussion and expert analysis of the patterns of interaction between civil society and executive

authorities; (4) the improvement of tools of public control over the activities of executive bodies; (5)

the involvement of public associations, movements and expert organizations in the discussion of

priority directions of executive power policy; (6) ensuring transparency in decision-making

[President…, 2012].

The result of the working group was the report in which concept of "open government", its

economic, social and political effects, as well as the introduction of its technological parameters

were described. Conceptually the group argued, “that in today's world the hierarchical model of

decision-making and information transmission are not able to cope with the ever increasing

complexity of social and economic processes. The norm for the major developed countries, with

which Russia competes on the global stage, is to build a matrix or network structures for horizontal

flow of information and actually blurs the line between elected politicians, a professional

bureaucracy, the expert community and civil society” [The final…, 2012, p. 3].

The report stated that the system of "Open Government" is a modern and constantly evolving

system of governance, with the following objectives:

• ensure a high level of transparency of the executive and other branches of government and the

free exchange of information between the state and society;

• ensure the active participation of society in the preparation and implementation of the decisions

of the authorities;

• improve the quality and accessibility of public services to meet the needs of the population;

• develop civilian control of the authorities.

The system of "Open Government", it was argued, should be based on four fundamental

principles:

1) Openness and Transparency of information: (a) access to information provided by the public

authority, must be equal and free to all members of society; (b) the format of the information

provided should permit to analyze the data available, it should be very precise and clear, with the

necessary explanations and interpretations; (c) operation of the "Open Government" and its elements

and institutions, the public should be as open and transparent.

2) Dialogue and involvement of the subjects of the "Open Government": (a) constant interaction

of state authorities and society to improve the quality of public administration and public services;

(b) active and regular participation of government representatives in discussions with the public

issues raised within the framework of "Open Government".

3) Mutual responsibility of government and society:

• On the side of the authorities: (a) binding reaction to the demands of society; (b) mandatory use

of the "Open Government" to search for optimal solutions; (c) public discussion of the society's

proposals.

• From the society: (d) formulating proposals or examination at the request of the executive.

4) Continuous improvement of the system: (a) continuous improvement of the "Open

Government" to take account of the changing needs of society and the government; (b) constant

search for more effective mechanisms of "Open Government", including through the use of

international practices and proposals society.

The concept includes an understanding of all structural components of the "Open Government" as

an innovation requiring new approaches to their implementation. The subjects of the open

government are public authorities and organizations carrying out public services, civil society, the

media, organizations and institutions that exercise public control. The system of open government

based on two interrelated levels - federal and regional.

In reality system of relations between state authorities and citizens on the basis of "Open

Government" is more complex than expected. Along with the formal defined system of "Open

Government" a number of other institutions were joint to the implementation of its functions; they

have already carried out some of its tasks. First of all, it refers to the existing system of the Public

Chamber which was implemented since 2006. Some analysts argue that the Public Chamber of the

Russian Federation has its own segment or cluster of open government in Russia. Network analysis

154 online structures related to movement of open government and open data shows this

complexity.

THREE CLASTERS OF RUSSIAN OPEN GOVERNMENT

Open Government, launched by the President of the Russian Federation in 2011-12, includes a

number of segments that allow us to speak about his systematic and complete character. As a

platform, it includes such parts as open data, open region, blogs, polls, expert soviet and information

about events. The idea of open government has received support in the community, although there

were many ironic and skeptical opinions. Developing as an independent project, open government

originally included a number of related electronic platforms. In recent years, however the center of

the project of open government began to shift toward the other important component of the

relationship of the government and citizens. We are talking about the Public Chamber of the Russian

Federation and regional public chambers. If the idea of open government included a dialogue with

civil society associations determined their own priorities for cooperation and the basis of activity,

the shift towards public chambers led to the fact that independent civil society associations have

been pushed out of the project. They were replaced by organized pro-government funds and

organizations. It clearly captures our analysis of the network structure of government and pro-

government platforms and organizations associated with the idea of open government in the new

edition (see: Figure 1).

Figure 1. The clusters of “open government” in Russia

The picture shows the clusters of key actors of open government in Russia. There are the

following main actors: the cluster 1 (denoted by triangles) is Open (big) government (N 6), the

cluster 2 (marked boxes) the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation (N 3) jointly three related

structures to ensure the inclusion of citizens in the activities of the government: the Agency for

Social Information (N 8), the human rights movement "Resistance" (N 14) and the platform

"Conservatory of social technologies." (N 7), and the clusters 3 (marked by circles) of partly

independent institutions of civil society, which consist of online blogs and associations.

In order to define the possibilities of clustering we use some network metrics, which show not so

big cohesion between different actors: average degree, density, betweenness centralization, and

closeness centralization. The PAJEK tool has been used for calculation these values. The average

degree of all „open government‟ network is 3,28, that means network actors has this average number

of related actors. The highest value of degree was 25, and the lowest score was 1. Density is a

measure of a number of lines in a simple network, expressed as a proportion of the maximum

possible number of lines in network [Nooy de et al., 2011, p. 73]. In studied network this proportion

is small. That means there are not so many ties between actors. Betweenness centralization shows

how many times an actor is a go-between actors in comparison with maximum variation in the

whole network. Russian „open government‟ network has 0,085 score of betweeness centralization

All main vertices/actors have low scores of betweenness centrality from 0.02 to 0.09. Closeness

centralization also gives us not so impressive scores about the amount of variation in the closeness

centrality of the vertices/actors. Only 0.2; this is not enough to say on the big concentration of ties in

the network. But clustering coefficient (0.191) demonstrates possibility to divide this network on

subgroups. For this aim we use NetDraw program, and the result was quite reasonable, when we

used the qualitative parameters of differentiation. The value of fitness was – 0.579.

Table 1. The metrics of the Russian „open government‟ network

Metrics Scores Number of vertices 144

Number of ties 382

Average degree 3.28

Density 0.012

Betweeness centralization 0.085

Closeness centralization 0.2

Clustering coefficient 0.191

It is clear that the actual platform "Open Government" does not occupy the leading position in the

graph. Its score of betweenness centrality is only 0,02. The main players are other structures. Of

these, the most important unifying function is performed by the Public Chamber of the Russian

Federation (N 3). Its score of betweenness centrality is 0,058. It should be said about the great work

of organizing citizens around government policy, which these structures make. However, this

activity is largely subjected to mobilization, rather than coordination of civil society [see: Vigoda,

2002]. The fig. 1 doesn‟t denote the social communities on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other

social networks.

The study shows that between these structures are virtually strong network connections (see:

Figure 2). One can observe the concentration of bonds around the Public Chamber of the Russian

Federation (PCRF) and of communicating closely with her Social Information Agency (ASI) and the

Human Rights Movement "Resistance" (RES). They are responsible for a greater amount of forward

and backward linkages. The most active in the network structure of the Public Chamber of the

Russian Federation are also structures such as the "Russian public initiative" (on the Figure 2 N 3),

"Actual comment" (N 5), "Portal NGO" (N 10). Electronic portals of these organizations are pro-

government and pro-presidential funds for direct solution state structures. These organizations carry

out mobilization and coordination functions in various areas of public policy.

Figure 2. RF Public Chamber network

These networks of governmental structures of open government is clearly separated from the

movement for open government in Russia, which includes many civil society actors. Network of

movement for an open government is more structured and interrelated (see: Figure 3). If you use the

division of modern civil society associations in Russia on patriotic and liberal, then the network is

more closely related to the liberal wing of the movement for open government.

This network is noticeable that the platform "Open Government" is not part of the core network

nodes (marked large squares). In this network, the central position occupied by the Open data

movement (OpGuvD) Journalism data (JD), the Russian branch of “Open Knowledge Foundation

Russia" (OKNF), blogs of Ivan Begtin (Begtin), Irina Radchenko (Radch) and Catherine Aksenov

(Gov-gov), the Committee for Civil Initiatives (KGI), the platform "Declarator" (Declarator).

The cluster included the Agency of social information (ASI), which refers to the previous cluster

in the sense of activity and orientation, but performs a specific function of relations between the two

clusters. As in the previous network central place is occupied by the communities in the social

networks (denoted by circles). Small squares represent related basic units of association and

information groups.

Of course, the split between the two sectors of public policy reduces the capacity of civil

inclusion in the process of policy formulation and implementation. In fact, the cluster of civil

movement for open government has less potential for political influence. Its main function is just an

institutional learning and public debate than influence. That is why it is here focused on the learning

tools – conferences, public debates, webinars, public networking, and public actions.

Figure 3. Civil movement for open government in Russia

As for the government and government-supported cluster, its effect is limited, as a rule, sectorial

objectives. Here, too, there is a process of institutional learning interaction between the state and

civil society, but it is more organized and direct. To some extent, this sector is the one through

which the state is trying to solve the problem of "engaging in publicness" on the basis of public

(government) values [Smorgunov, 2013].

OPEN GOVERNMENT AS NETWORK FOR CIVIL INVOLVEMENT

Open government in Russia is formed as a network of diverse participants whose interaction is

resourced (by power, information, cognitive factors, and legitimation). The following participants in

the network communication system of open government build the different groups. They have

different effects on institutional learning. Marked earlier division into three clusters (government,

chamber, and civil society) split here into groups depending on the specific impact on public

involvment.

First, there are integrated numerous government agencies, provided by the new means of

delivering public services, information and feedback. These include ministries and agencies

represented in the structures of e-government. In this regard, the State services platform, Gosbuk,

Government website, the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, the Open Data Platforms are

the important participants in open government. Government agencies carry out a lot of activities for

training of civil servants at various levels to work in the context of the new electronic means of

communication and the provision of public services. Seminars, conferences, webinars, etc., which,

of course, change officials attitudes to e-government in general, and open government in particular.

However, all these measures do not take into account the need for communication between public

officials, experts and citizens, users of public services. That why an integrative learning lack

understanding of common problems when growing importance of shared values, interests and

meanings [Knight, 2002]. Data about the popularity of government portals can be seen in table. 2. It

is clear that in the first place will be the portal of public services. Although its activity requires its

own development, but learning citizens interact with public authorities is a necessity here. These

data also confirm the priority of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation in relation to the

Open Government platform.

Second, open government itself provides an integrated platform consisting of four main segments

- expert, information, deliberation and crowdsourcing. E-democracy presented here by petition

opportunity for participation in decision-making. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed

in December 2013 a decree approving the concept of openness of the federal authorities, introducing

a number of institutional conditions for ensuring the activities of open government. The concept was

developed by the Government Commission for the coordination of open government, together with

the Expert Council under the Government to provide a qualitative change of information

transparency of ministries and departments; accountability; expanding opportunities for public

participation in the development and review decisions of the authorities; development of mechanisms

of public control over their activities. Concept of openness complements guidelines on the

implementation mechanisms of openness, as well as a methodology for monitoring and evaluation of

the openness of government agencies. These documents constitute the Standard of openness.

Table 2. Popularity of government portals in Russia (May 2015)

Portal Global

rank*

Rank in

Russia*

*

Daily

Pageviews

per Visitor

Daily

Time

on

Site

Total

Sites

Linking

In

Portal of

governmental

services

www.gosuslugi.ru

6829 252 8.50 7:24 5712

Government of the

RF

government.ru

89309 5153 2.20 2:18 3817

Public Chamber of

the RF

www.oprf.ru

242967 13378 2.30 2:12 870

Open Government

open.gov.ru

883353 - 1.20 1:30 57

Govbook

www.gosbook.ru

1036570 61944 3.00 1:57 258

Open data in Russia

data.gov.ru

1107997 - 4.00 2:18 53

The Standard identifies 10 mechanisms (tools) openness, which will be implemented according to

the specificity of the departments, and may be supplemented by the ministries. It should be noted that

the government's strategy of openness ministries accompanied by a very active discussion of this

strategy in the media and civil society. Institutionally, strategies and standards play an important role

in the civil learning, clarifying the options and prospects of open government.

Thirdly, an important structural component of the open government is his websites in social

networks, demonstrating opportunities to inform and receive feedback. Open government is present

in all major social networks and blogs (see Table. 3). The most active it is presented in Google +,

Twitter and Facebook. Direct participants in the network of open government are Facebook

communities such as Conservatory of Social Technologies, the Development of Open Data in Russia,

Open Data. The number of participants in these communities is small, but their life is expanding and

activating. The number of the communities which collaborate with the Open Government in the

social networks is limited. Such presence of open government in social networks is mainly due to the

informational function, not a discussion, expert or crowdsourcing. This naturally weakens the

conditions for integrative learning associated with common network structure and network practices.

Table 3. Russian Open (Big) Government in Social networks (June 2014 – April 2015)

Social networks: Data on activity June 2014 Data on activity April 2015

Google+ 65541 subscribers 99214 subscribers (+ 51%)

Twitter 45082 readers 58800 readers (+ 30%)

Facebook 9654 likes 10360 likes (+7 %)

VKontakte 1968 records 2114 records (+ 7 %)

YouTube 535 subscribers 694 subscribers (+ 30%)

Related communities in Facebook:

Conservatory of Social Technologies 3897 likes 7161 likes (+ 84%)

Open Data 1151 likes 1175 likes (+ 2 %)

Movement for Open Data 359 likes 495 likes (+ 38 %)

Fourth, open government is supported by the civil society through the formation of social

networks in the special online communities aimed at uniting citizens to participate in the promotion

of various aspects of government [Emerson et al., 2012]. Although there may be marked by

numerous network structures, which are aimed at the environment, education, transportation,

emergencies, etc., but there are however relatively isolated structures in the network of the Internet,

which are active on issues of open government. It is, as a rule, the structure of the second cluster of

the movement for open government. It is, as a rule, community, aimed both at promoting open data,

and the participation of citizens in public affairs. The former include the Foundation "Institute for

Development of Freedom of Information," Center for the Development of information transparency

"Monitor", the Open data movement in Russia, Journalism data, Social Information Agency, and

others. The second group consists of the Conservatory of social technologies, the Committee for

Civil Initiatives and other. Analysis of the interaction government sites with the civilian sites shows a

lack of direct links between them. Although government and civil sites have their representation in

social networks, but here they practically do not overlap. There is one thing that should also be

considered in the study of these two clusters of sites. Government and civilian sites have often the

different participants of social networks. So, the comparison of two groups VKontacte (Open

Government and Informational Russia) shows that more than 90% of the participants were different.

Sometimes these communities try to make some base for activation of the citizen participation in the

governmental structures of open government. They build the integrative data sites (Gov-gov.ru;

Declarator.org) or the platform for crowdsourcing and public discussion (the Committee for Civil

Initiatives; the Conservatory of social technologies; Social Information Agency). Some of them make

the great work of citizen education for electronic democracy (see for example: Journalism Data;

Open Knowledge Foundation Russia). Lack of trust institutions to governmental activities in the

fields of governmental transparency and open data creates some oppositional networks with radical

policy.

At the end of 2013 VSIOM conducted a survey on the evaluation of discussion and expert

support of activities of the three ministries - the Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Health and the

Ministry of Transport. Opinion of the experts, the government officials and the public was studying

with four indicators: awareness, involvement, satisfaction, and understanding the work. The results

showed that the estimates of the population were below than the estimates of experts and

government officials. So, government officials knew nothing of public discussions in the Ministry of

Labour - 37%, in the Ministry of Health - 41%, in the Ministry of Transport - 51%; population

characterized by the following parameters, respectively 64%, 70%, 65%. Assessments of influence

of public and expert opinions on decision-making were higher in the Ministry of Health. Here, 44%

of experts believed that their opinion counts always, 22% - sometimes; 20% of civil servants

believed that public opinion is always taken into account, 45% - sometimes; population was more

skeptical - only 6% reported that opinion counts always and 58% - sometimes [Assessment…,

2014].

Speaking of these four clusters, creating a space of open government in Russia, it should be

stressed to some extent anticipatory role of the government in the formulation of public problems of

e-democracy, openness and participation. There is even a certain shift of emphasis on the idea of

open government in Russia. To some extent, the idea of open government has become the base of

operations for the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation and the Public Chamber in the regions.

The All-Russian Popular Front is also no stranger to the ideas of crowdsourcing, public debate and

influence on the government decisions. This is the result of a special government management of

open government development and its relationship with citizens. These structures are filled with

more integrative learning processes than yet disparate and often uncoordinated efforts of the

Government and civil society for network cooperation.

The history of open government in Russia has only three years. During this time, however, there

have been significant transformations in the mind and activities of both public officials and citizens.

Government's desire to make its activities accessible to the citizens sometimes is skeptically

evaluated, but step by step growing understanding of the importance of such policies improves

institutions and joint learning methods of collaborative work of open government.

CONCLUSION

Construction of the Russian open government goes through three main stages. First stage (2002-

2010) is the step involvement of public authorities in electronic space. Second stage (2011-2020) is

the step involvement of population in using electronic public services. Third stage (2012-present)

which overlapped with the second one is directed to cooperation of government and society in

policy. This process is the important condition of overcoming an inefficiency of governmental

activity in Russia. Governability means to be responsible and effective. For the government the

responsible behavior is extremely significant. But today this quality of the government must be

overlapped with transparency, participation, and collaboration. The idea of open government is

congruent to this aim. In last years a number of measures of the economic, politiko-legal and moral

plans for increase of responsibility, transparency, participation, and collaboration of public

authorities and civil servants were used in different countries. However still rupture between

requirement of a society for the responsible state and level of its realization actually is not

overcome. An indicator of this rupture is the data of polls which testify to low level of trust of the

population in public authorities. More intensive participation of the citizens in policy-making

through the open government platforms and into evaluation of public services and governmental

activities can radically transform public trust in the government and ability of the state to be

responsible.

In Russia, the platforms of open government and the institutions, that develop cooperation, create

the conditions for more responsible state. While this process of cooperation is limited and often

imitative, but emerging networks create conditions for learning and sharing knowledge. Analyzed

clusters of networks within the Russian Open Government demonstrate various capacities for civil

involvement. However, all three clusters give evidence about the potential of the emerging

cooperation and an increasing trend of responsible government. There are many new directions of

study this process in Russia. Comparing implementation of foreign institutions and practices and

studying country experience we can receive more evidence and data on the issues of national policy

of building open government and perspective of civic involvement.

REFERENCES

All Russian Center of Public Opinion Study [online] (2010) „Press-relies 13100 “How Russian Evaluate

Electronic Services?”2010‟ (http://www.wciom.ru/archive/tematicheskii-arkhiv/item/single/13100.html) (Accessed 3

June 2014)

Ansel, C., Gash, A. (2008) „Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice‟, Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 18 № 4, pp.543-571.

Assessment of public comments and expert support of plans for activities of federal executive bodies, (2014)

Site Open Government [online] (http://open.gov.ru/upload/iblock/700/7002303708bdbd3346fcf3a1a594611b.pdf)

(Accessed 15 June 2014) (in Russian).

Bell, St., Hindmoor, A. (2009) Rethinking Governance: The Centrality of the State in Modern Societies.

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., Balogh, St. (2012) „An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance‟,

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 22 № 1, pp.1-29.

Gnedash, A., Morozova, E. (2012) „Modernization potential of networking in social policy‟, Politex.

Politicheskaya ekspertiza. Vol. 8 № 3, pp. 183-199 (in Russian).

Government of the RF (2010). The Governmental program "Information Society (2011-2020)»

(http://government.ru/docs/3369/) (Accessed 15 June 2014)

Harrison, T., Guerro, S., Burke, B., Cook, M., Cresswell, A., Helbig, N., Pardo, T. (2011), „Open Government

and E-Government: Democratic Challenges from a Public Value Perspective‟ in: The Proceedings of the 12th

Annual

International Digital Government research Conference, ACM, New York, the US, pp.

Johnston, E., Hicks, D., Nan, N., Auer, J. (2011) „Managing the Inclusion Process in Collaborative Governance‟,

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Vol. 21 № 4, pp. 699-721.

Kernaghan, K. (2009) „Moving Towards Integrated Public Governance: Improving Service Delivery through

Community Engagement‟, International Review of Administrative Science, Vol. 75 № 2, pp. 239-254.

King, Ch., Cruickshank, M. (2012) „Building Capacity to Engage: Community Engagement or Government

Engagement?‟, Community Development Journal, Vol. 47, № 1, pp.5-28.

Knight, L. (2002) „Network learning: Exploring learning by interorganizational networks‟, Human Relations,

Vol. 55 № 4, pp. 427-454.

Kooiman, J. (2010) Governing as Governance, Sage, London et al.

Miroshnichenko, I. (2013) Network landscape of Russian public policy. Prosveshenie-Yug, Krasnodar (in

Russian).

Nooy de, W, Mrvar, A., Batagelj, V. (2011) Exploratory Social network Analysis with Pajek, 2nd

ed., Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Open Government Partnership (2011) Open Government Declaration, 2011

(http://opengovpartnership.org/about/open-government-declaration) (Accessed 3 June 2014).

President of the RF. The Documents (2012). The decree # 150 on February 8, 2012 “On the working group for

preparing proposals for the formation of „Open Government‟ in the Russian Federation”

(http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/bank/34772). (Accessed 12 April 2015).

Scassa, T. (2014) „Privacy and Open Government‟ Future Internet, Vol. 6 № 2, pp. 397-413.

Smorgunov, L. (2013) „Postsocialism and state: mobilization vs coordination‟, Politex. Politicheskaya

ekspertiza. Vol. 9 № 2, pp. 62-70 (in Russian).

Teisman, G., Klijn, E.-H. (2002) „Partnership Arrangements: Governmental Rhetoric or Governance Scheme?‟,

Public Administration Review, Vol. 62 № 2, pp. 197-205.

The legal information portal “Garant” [online] (2002), The Federal program "Electronic Russia (2002-2010)"

(http://base.garant.ru/184120/) (Accessed 3 June 2014).

The final report of the Working Group for preparation of the proposals to build the system in the Russian

Federation "Open Government" for the President of the RF (2012), Site Open Government [online]

(http://open.gov.ru/upload/iblock) (Accessed 15 June 2014) (in Russian).

Verheijen, T., Coombes, D. (eds.) (1998) „Innovations in Public Management. Perspectives from East and West

Europe‟, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA.

Vigoda, E. (2002) „From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of

Public Administration‟, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62 № 5, pp. 527-540.

Walker, P., Shannon, P. (2011) „Participatory Governance: Towards a Strategic Model‟, Community

Development Journal, Vol. 46 № 2, pp. ii63-ii82.

Warren, M.E (2009) „Governance-Driven Democratization‟, Critical Policy Studies, Vol. 3 № 1, pp. 3-13.