Assessment of Digitalization of Interaction Between the State and Citizens

The purpose of this paper is to develop a comprehensive approach to evaluating digitalization of interaction of the state and citizens in the sphere of providing state services. The objectives of the study include the analysis of current Russian and foreign approaches to assessing the digitalization of interaction between the state and citizens; development and testing of a composite indicator methodology for conducting such an assessment in the provision of public services.
Materials and methods. When preparing the paper, the authors studied Russian and foreign theoretical and practical approaches to evaluating digitalization of interaction between the state and citizens. The approbation of the digitalization index of interaction between the state and citizens proposed in the article was carried out on the basis of data from a selective federal statistical observation of the Federal State Statistics Service on the use of information technologies, information and communication networks by the population, as well as the data from the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation. To achieve the objective, theoretical methods (comparative analysis, synthesis, and generalization), modelling, and correlation analysis were used.
Results. Based on the analysis of foreign and Russian approaches, their advantages and limitations, the article substantiates the methodology for calculating the digitalization index of interaction between the state and citizens, taking into account the immediate results (the availability of state and municipal services in the electronic form), intermediate results (the demand for the electronic form of service provision) and the final results of digital transformation in the provision of public services (satisfaction of citizens with the quality of services provided in the electronic form), as well as the risks of digital interaction (the level of digital trust of citizens in the interaction with the state). Approbation of the digitalization index of interaction between the state and citizens in the regional context was carried out. To assess the applicability of the proposed index, the correlation dependence of its values and the values of the index components on the level of education of the population, employment, income and urbanization, as well as differences in the availability of information and communication technologies infrastructure was investigated. At the same time, the level of digitalization correlation of interaction between the state and citizens with social factors is higher than with infrastructural ones. This means that to solve the problem of digital inequality in Russian regions, it is not enough to provide universal access to the Internet; factors of human capital development also play an important role in promoting digital channels of interaction.
Conclusion. Assessing the digitalization of interaction between the state and citizens requires taking into account various indicators that reflect the immediate, intermediate and final results of such an interaction, as well as the risks associated with the transition to “digit”. In terms of the provision of public services for such an assessment, it is advisable to use the digitalization index of interaction between the state and citizens. Further promising areas of research in the field of assessing the digitalization of interaction between the state and citizens are related to the study of the influence of citizens’ trust in government bodies on the level of digitalization of interaction between the state and citizens, as well as taking into account the interaction of citizens and the state within the framework of other types of state functions (development and implementation of state policy, regulation, control and supervisory activities). The implementation of these directions will require the expansion of the currently available information base.

1. World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends. Washington, DC: World Bank. 2016; 346 p. DOI: 10.1596/978-1-4648-0671-1/.

2. Janssen M., Estevez E. Lean government and platform-based governance -Doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly. 2013; 30: 1–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.11.003.

3. Cordella A., Paletti A. ICTs and value creation in public sector: Manufacturing logic vs service logic. Information Polity. 2018; 23(2): 1-17. DOI: 10.3233/IP-170061.

4. UN. United Nations E-Government Survey Report. 2020. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/publication/2020-united-nations-e-governmentsurvey.

5. Aleksandrov O.V., Klochkova Ye.N., Minashkin V.G., Sadovnikova N.A. Metodologiya formirovaniya sistemy statisticheskikh pokazateley effektivnosti razvitiya sfery informatsionnokommunikatsionnykh tekhnologiy monografiya = Methodology for the formation of a system of statistical indicators of the effectiveness of the development of the sphere of information and communication technologies monograph. Moscow: MESI, 2012. 181 p. (In Russ.)

6. Minekonomrazvitiya Rossii. Rezul’taty monitoringa kachestva perevoda gosudarstvennykh uslug v elektronnuyu formu v 2019 godu = Ministry of Economic Development of Russia. Results of monitoring the quality of the transfer of public services into electronic form in 2019 [Internet]. Available from: https://ar.gov.ru/ru-RU/document/default/view/575. (In Russ.)

7. Kabanov YU.A., Panfilov G.O., ChugunovA.V. Monitoring of e-participation resources: methodology and some results. Gosudarstvo i grazhdane v elektronnoy srede = State and citizens in the electronic environment. 2020; 4: 61-72. (In Russ.)

8. Pérez-Morote R., Pontones-Rosa C., Núñez-Chicharro M. The effects of e-government evaluation, trust and the digital divide in the levels of e-government use in European countries. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. 2020; 154. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119973.

9. Leont’yeva L.C., Kudina M.V., Voronov A.S., Sergeyev S.S. Formation of national digital sovereignty in the context of differentiation of spatial development. Gosudarstvennoye upravleniye. Elektronnyy vestnik = Public Administration. Electronic bulletin. 2021; 84: 277-299. (In Russ.)

10. Bylina S.G. Regional features and determinants of the use of electronic services by the rural population. Problemy razvitiya territorii = Problems of territory development. 2018; 5(97): 84–98. (In Russ.)

11. Dobrolyubova Ye.I., Yuzhakov V.N. Monitoring i otsenka rezul’tativnosti i effektivnosti tsifrovizatsii gosudarstvennogo upravleniya: metodicheskiye podkhody = Monitoring and Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Digitalization of Public Administration: Methodological Approaches. Moscow: Publishing house «Delo» RANEPA; 2020: 154 p. (In Russ.)

12. Zhigun L.A., Pokrovskaya T.I. Problems of dissatisfaction of the population with state electronic services. Problemy teorii i praktiki upravleniya = Problems of theory and practice of management. 2021; 1: 148-167. (In Russ.)

13. Bannister F., Connolly R. ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly. 2014; 31(1): 119-128. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002.

14. Le Blanc D. E-participation: a quick overview of recent qualitative trends [Internet]. Available from: www.un.org/development/desa/publications/working-paper/wp163/.

15. Australian Bureau of Statistics [Internet]. Available from: www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/Home/Assuring%20Census%20Data%20Quality.

16. Independent Report on E-Voting in Estonia [Internet]. Available from: estoniaevoting.org/.

17. EC. The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2020 [Internet]. Available from: ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi.

18. Nguyen T.T., Phan D.M., Le A.H., Nguyen L.T.N. The determinants of citizens’ satisfaction of E-government: An empirical study in Vietnam. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business. 2020; 7(8): 519-531. DOI: 10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.519/.

19. Weerakkody V., Irani Z., Lee H., Hindi N., Osman I. Are U.K. Citizens Satisfied With E-Government Services? Identifying and Testing Antecedents of Satisfaction. Information Systems Management. 2016. № 33(4). S. 331-343. DOI: 10.1080/10580530.2016.1220216.

20. Singapore. Digital Government Blueprint [Internet]. Available from: www.tech.gov.sg/digitalgovernment-blueprint/.

21. OECD. Digital Government Index: 2019 results. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2020. 68 p.

22. Ivanova M.V. Systems for assessing the digital transformation of public administration: a comparative analysis of Russian and foreign practice. Gosudarstvennoye upravleniye. Elektronnyy vestnik = Public Administration. Electronic bulletin. 2020; 79: 246-270. (In Russ.)

23. Kosarin S.P., Mil’kina I.V. Assessment of the attitude of Russian citizens to the processes of digitalization of public services. E-Management. 2019; 2(4): 51-63. (In Russ.)

24. Rey-Moreno M., Felício J.A., MedinaMolina C., Rufín R. Facilitator and inhibitor factors: Adopting e-government in a dual model. Journal of Business Research. 2018; 88: 542-549. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.11.015.

25. Abu-Shanab E. Predicting trust in e-government: Two competing models. Electronic Government. 2019; 15(2): 129-143. DOI: 10.1504/EG.2019.10015730.

26. Yuzhakov V.N., Interaction of Citizens with Control and Supervisory Bodies of the State: State and Main Trends. Upravlencheskoye konsul’tirovaniye = Management Consulting. 2020; 11: 24-42. (In Russ.)

27. Federal’naya sluzhba gosudarstvennoy statistiki = Federal State Statistics Service [Internet]. Available from: gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/business/it/fed_nabl-croc/index.html. (In Russ.)

28. Sanmukhiya C. Predicting e-government use in Mauritius: Non-parametric procedures. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering. 2019; 8(2): 535-549. DOI: 10.37200/IJPR/V24I8/PR280234.