CC BY
178
ВОПРОСЫ УПРАВЛЕНИЯ
СРАВНИТЕЛЬНЫМ АНАЛИЗ СИСТЕМ ЭЛЕКТРОННОГО ПРАВИТЕЛЬСТВА В РОССИИ И США
Йюни Ким
Ph.D., доцент кафедры политических наук, Восточно-Каролинский Университет (США), 27858, США, Greenvill,
East Fifth Street, 4353, A-115, Nikitinaa15@ecu.edu
Никитина А. С.
кандидат социологических наук, старший преподаватель кафедры управления персоналом Уральского института управления - филиала, Российская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте Российской Федерации (Россия), 620990, Россия, г. Екатеринбург, ул. 8 Марта, д. 66, alena.nikitina@uapa.ru
УДК 303.446:32
ББК 66.07
Цель. Целью данной статьи является сравнительный анализ механизмов функицонирования электронного правительства в России и Америке, а также изучение готовности российских и американских граждан к электронным инновациям в сфере государственных услуг.
Методы. Структура статьи основывается на теоретическом анализе американских и российских научных источников. В добавление, статья содержит статистические данные ООН о состоянии электронного правительства в мире, результаты анализа федеральных и региональных нормативно-правовых актов обеих стран. Эмпирическая часть включает в себя анализ американских и российских вторичных социологических анкетных данных.
Результаты. В заключении статьи формулируются основные проблемы и векторы развития электронного правительства в России и США.
Научная новизна. Данное исследование позволяет проанализировать и сравнить две системы электронного правительства в России и США - не только на уровне механизмов функицонирования, законодательной базы, но и с позиции гражданской реакции на внедряемые инновации. Настоящее межкультурное исследование играет большую роль в дальнейшем укреплении межнациональных сравнительных научных исследований в сфере государственного управления.
Особо хотелось бы поблагодарить кафедру политических наук и библиотеку Джоинера Университета Восточной Каролины (США) за предоставленные данные.
Ключевые слова: электронное правительство, государственное управление, инновации, Россия, Америка.
о см
о
S?
а t
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF E-GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS IN RUSSIA AND THE USA
Younhee Kim
Ph.D of Department of Political Science East Carolina University, East Carolina University (USA), A-115, 4353, East Fifth Street,
Greenville, USA, 27858, Nikitinaa15@ecu.edu
CO
s
I Nikitina A. S.
a *
a I
Candidate of Sociology, senior lecturer of the Personnel Management Department of the Ural Institute of Management - branch, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (Russia), 66, 8 Marta str., Ekaterinburg, Russia,
620990, alena.nikitina@uapa.ru
Purpose. This paper will introduce what is e-government in Russia and the USA, will focus on main problems and © prospects of E-government in both countries.
Йюни Ким, Никитина А. С.
Methods. The structure of paper bases on theoretical background about E-government. In addition it contains the analysis of UN statistic data and federal laws about E-government in both countries. Data about sociological survey of Russian and American citizens.
Results. In conclusion paper provides main problems and prospect of E-government in Russian and the USA.
Scientific novelty. This multicultural study provides comparative analysis between Russia and the USA in case of implementation of E-government. This paper in addition contains the citizens' reaction on E-government. This study is unique for deeply understanding of international E-government factors.
Key words: E-government, public administration, innovations, Russia, USA.
Information and communications technologies (ICTs) are playing an increasingly vital role in the daily lives of people, revolutionizing work and leisure and changing the rules of doing business. In the realm of government, ICT applications are promising to enhance the delivery of public goods and services to citizens not only by improving the process and management of government, but also by redefining the traditional concepts of citizenship and democracy [1, pp. 24-27].
The effects of ICTs on societies are both far-reaching and uneven. On the one hand, ICT is fueling the transition from industrial-based economies to knowledge-based societies. On the other hand, ICT still has little or no impact in the lives of people in many countries. This wide disparity in the impact of ICT around the world today underscores the uneven progress of economic development. It also highlights the critical role of government in the information age.
Definition of E-government
What is exactly e-government? E-government is defined as a way for governments to use the most innovative information and communication technologies, particularly web-based Internet applications, to provide citizens and businesses with more convenient access to government information and services, to improve the quality of the services and to provide greater opportunities to participate in democratic institutions and processes.
Theresa A. Pardo outlined its functions as follows:
Citizen access to government information. Providing access to government information is the most common digital government initiative. Facilitating general compliance. E-government can also mean providing electronic access to services that facilitate compliance with a set of rules or regulations.
Citizen access to personal benefits. Electronic benefits transfer and online application for public assistance and worker's compensation are examples of services that provide the citizen with electronic access to personal benefits.
Procurement including bidding, purchasing, and payment. Procurement applications allow government agencies to reap the benefits being realized in the private sector
through electronic commerce applications. Electronic vendor cataloging, bid submissions and tabulations, electronic purchasing, and payment are government-to government and government-to-business transactions that serve both the needs of government agencies as well as their private trading partners.
Government-to-government information and service integration. Integrating service delivery programs across government agencies and between levels of government requires electronic information sharing and integration.
Citizen participation. Online democracy includes access to elected officials, discussion forums, "town meetings," voter registration, and ultimately online voting. These services are intended to serve the community at large [2].
Ultimately, e-government aims to enhance access to and delivery of government services to benefit citizens. More important, it aims to help strengthen government's drive toward effective governance and increased transparency to better manage a country's social and economic resources for development with the advent of government reforms in a number of countries, ICTs are fast becoming an essential vehicle for public sector accountability, which forms the bedrock of e-government initiatives on the continent [3, pp. 29-42]. E-government presents a tremendous impetus to move forward in the 21st century with higher quality, cost-effective, government services and a better relationship between citizens and government.
United Nations Surveys and E-Government Development Index (EGDI): case of Russia and the USA
The main driver of the United Nation's e-Government Development Index is the basic requirement for human and social development [4]. That is, the United Nation believes that effective use e-government is a vehicle for human and social development. The E-government Development Index, therefore, measures the capacity and willingness of the public sector to deploy ICT for improving knowledge and information in the service of the citizen.
In the rating successful "E-government model", prepared by the UN in 2014 [5], Russia takes 27th place
Йюни Ким, Никитина А. С.
meanwhile the USA has 7th (Table 1). Russian rank has changed compared to 2010 (59th rank) and 2008 (60th rank). Therefore E-government leaders are still South Korea, the US and Canada.
Nevertheless, Russia is in the high EGID group (between 0,5-0,75), while there are only 25 countries (13 per cent) ranked as very-high-EGDI (more than 0.75), the majority falls in the middle range, with 62 countries (32 per cent) ranked as high-EGDI (between 0.5 and 0.75) and 74 countries (38 per cent) ranked as middle-EGDI (between 0.25 and 0.5).
Based on an assessment of e-participation features in national portals and social networking sites, a global ranking of government provisions was established. Russia is on this ranking. Russia is an active participator of the social network web-sites.
Table 2 shows lists of the social platforms used globally in deferent countries. Obviously, Russian favorite social web sites are vkontake.com, odnoklassniki.com, yandex.ru.
Statistic data demonstrate the numerous growth up of Russian people using the internet. Figure 1 shows that since 2000 the quantity of Russian internet users has been increasing dramatically.
Figure 1. Change in percentage of people using the internet, selected countries
Table 1. E-government system ranking in different countries (2008-2014 rn)
Country 2008 2010 2014
Rank scores Rank scores Rank scores
Sweden 1 0,9157 12 0,7476 14 0,8225
Denmark 2 0,9134 7 0,7476 16 0,8162
Norway 3 0,8921 6 0,8020 13 0,8357
USA 4 0,8644 2 0,8510 7 0,8748
Netherlands 5 0,8631 5 0,8097 5 0,8897
South Korea 6 0,8317 1 0,8785 1 0,9462
Canada 7 0,8172 3 0,8448 11 0,8418
Australia 8 0,8108 8 0,7863 2 0.9103
France 9 0,8038 10 0,7510 4 0,8938
The UK 10 0,7872 4 0,8147 8 0,8695
Spain 20 0,7228 9 0,7516 12 0,8410
Ukraine 41 0,5728 54 0,5181 87 0,5032
Russia 60 0,5120 59 0,5136 27 0,7296
Йюни Ким, Никитина А. С.
Table 2. List of social media channels (order by general popularity)
Facebook | Google+ | Youtube | Twitter | LinkedIn | | Myspace | Pinterest| USA
Qzone | Sina Weibo | Tencent | Youku | Tudou | RenRen (China only)
Vkontakte | Odnoklassniki (Russian Federation only)
Sonico (South American countries only) Mig33 (Indonesia only) Tuenti (Spain only)
Nate Connect | me2Day (Republic of Korea only)
Mxit (South Africa only)
Copains d'Avant (France only)
mixi (Japan only)
Hyves (Netherlands only)
studiVZ | meinVZ (Germany only)
Table 3. Disparity in Internet content and language
Speaking about Language and content barriers we could say, that only 6 % of Russian language content in internet has used instead of English language which is almost 56 %>.
Therefore, the statistical data of UN shows us that Russian E-government system is growing up but still has small rating in comparing with other countries.
The legal and theoretical aspect of E-government in both countries
To understand Russian and American E-government system, we must understand administrative development and previous administrative reforms on government in Russia and USA in 2006-2014.
In the United States, research on E-government was mainly fueled from two sources. Between 1998 and 2007, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) encouraged and funded information technology (IT) research projects with a government focus [6, pp. 434-444], which led first to a stream of purely technical and later also sociotech-nical research projects in digital government. NSF's Digital Government Program, along with other crosscutting NSF programs, funded a total of 200 EG-related research projects with an overall volume of $74.7 million with single awards ranging from just under $10,000 to as much as $3.6 million [7, pp. 21-32] until the foundation discontinued soliciting research proposals with an explicit digital government focus in 2008. Since 2000, research from this stream of funding has predominantly been presented at the annual dgo conferences and later found its way into various disciplinary and interdisciplinary journals. Applied research and practitioner- researcher collaborations at local and state government levels have provided the other important source of research in E-government. For example, New York State has funded and used its University at Albany-based Center for Technology in Government (CTG) to consistently and systematically support EG-related projects at state agencies using CTG's academic advice and guidance. Founded in 1993, CTG has produced a plethora of research reports, academic papers, and practitioner-oriented guides and instruments. Much of CTG's academic output directly emanated from practical projects in New York and other states (ctg.albany.edu). However, beyond such strong institutional commitments as in New York, in both Europe and North America, numerous less institutionalized practitioner- researcher collaborations have been formed, as the E-government literature reveals. Government agencies, for example, directly contracted academic and commercial consultants to help with or even lead practical E-government projects [8].
Of particular interest to this study is the United States E-Government Act of 2002. This key piece of legislation has had a significant impact on the role and usage of e-government services at the federal level in the United States [9, pp. 8-10]. Title III of the E-Government Act of 2002 known more commonly as the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) provides security requirements for federal agencies employing e-government services. This study will focus on the "Security Protocols to Protect Information" as required by Section 207 of the E-Government Act of 2002. Currently, only federal agencies are required to comply with the E-Government Act of 2002 and its provision to provide security protocols to protect information [10, pp. 476-481]. State and municipal government agencies are not subject to this federal act. This study uses the federal approach to e-government security as a benchmark that municipal agencies should seek to attain. Federal agencies are required to comply
Language % of Internet users by language % of content on the Internet
English 27 56
Chinese 25 4
Spanish 8 4
Portuguese 4 2
German 5 6
Arabic 3 1
French 3 4
Russian 3 6
Йюни Ким, Никитина А. С.
with the security requirements of the act by following the guidance set forth by the NIST SP800-44 document published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST is a recognized authority that publishes security guidelines, policies, standards and procedures used by government and private agencies.
Russian E-government initiatives are complex change efforts intended to use new and emerging technologies to support a transformation in the operation and effectiveness of government derived from government reinvention. New challenge of Russian public administration in 21st century is to create an e-government.
In November 2008, the Council of the development of information society and E-government under the President of the Russian Federation was established.
In 2009 was approved "Plan of transition of federal executive bodies in the provision of public services and performance of public functions in electronic form." It includes 73 basic public services, which in 2015 converted into electronic form. [11].
In 2011 Long-term target federal program "Information Society 2011-2018" was established, which replaced the federal target program "Electronic Russia (20022010 years)" as the main financing mechanism of transition processes to "e-government" [12].
Nowadays annually amended the Russian legislation to the requirements of "electronic government". Adopted two important federal laws. Federal Law of 9 February 2009 No 8 "On ensuring access to information about the activities of state bodies and local self-government" [13] and the Federal Law of July 27, 2010 No 210-FZ "On the organization of public and municipal services" [14]. These laws regulate the provision of public and municipal services in electronic form.
However, this does not mean that essential for the functioning of "e-government" legal framework is finally formed. For example, in the domestic legislation is still lacking the basic concept of "electronic paper." On the other hand the establishment of "electronic government" is definitely moving forward. In the further future we are waiting for the federal law about "electronic digital signature". The Russian Federation's Government Order No. 583 of 10 July 2013 [15] set out the rules for classifying public sector information as open data, the timeframe for updating this information, as well as other requirements concerning the publication of information as open data.
At a meeting of the Commission for Modernisation and Technological Development Russian President Vladimir Putin instructed to step up efforts to introduce universal electronic card (UEC), a Russian citizen. The President said that this card "will be the second most important identification document in the country" [16].
Simultaneously with the formation of the legal framework is being created structures of "electronic
government". Since December 2009, was created the federal web-site www.gosuslugi.ru, allowing through the "My Account" receive public federal services. Web-portals public services are formed at the regional level too, although they mainly provide a few quantity of public services.
Thus, the first web-site of public and municipal services of the Sverdlovsk region (Yekaterinburg) starts to provide such public services as doctor's appointment, call for public applications, registration and enrollment of children in kindergartens, providing compensation for the payment of housing and Community Services and others.
Thus, in the field of state and municipal Russian public services in electronic form defined some progress. However, as international experience shows, it is not enough to provide just a technical offer of electronic services. It is required to form corresponding demand from Russian citizens. The approach of "let them, and they will take" in the field of "electronic government" is not working. Therefore we need a clear understanding of which segments of the Russian population is already ready to use e-services.
Citizens' reaction toward E-government in the USA and Russia
This study is leading to analysis the reaction of American and Russian citizens toward E-government.
Data source about American citizens bases on sociological survey. A questionnaire was administered to 356 American citizens who regularly accessed the internet and who were major users of ISTD and DVLD's services, to obtain their perceptions about e-government adoption. Purposive sampling was used in the current study. This kind of sample is used when the purpose is to gain information from particular target groups [17, pp. 207-216].
Data source about Russian citizens bases on sociological survey of the E. Dyakova and A. Trahtenberg in Urals Federal District (Russia) in June, 2013 [18]. The study identified three main groups of users by their relation to the "electronic government": 1. "Active supporters." This group of respondents states that they are ready now to cooperate with the authorities in electronic form. 2. "Followers." Respondents who reported that they were ready to work with governments in both electronically and in person, depending on the specific situation. 3. "Enemies". Respondents who indicated that they prefer to interact with public authorities only in person.
USA: Of the respondents, 64.9 % were males and 35.1 % were females. Of the sample, 3.9 °%> were less than 20 years old, 36 °%o were in the age group of 20-29 years old, 30.1 % were in the age group of 30-39 years old, 21.6 °%o were in the age group of 40-49 years old, and % were over 50 years old. Among respondents, 71.3 °%o resided in urban areas in USA, while 27.2 °%o of respondents resided
Йюни Ким, Никитина А. С.
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
3,9
36
30,1
21,6
7,9
71,3
(J £ £ ^
Figure 2. Demographic Characteristics of Survey's Participants
in remote areas. The majority of respondents were generally employees: 33.4 % were employees in government services and 37.4 %% were employed in the private sector. Most of the respondents (52.8 %o) held a bachelor degree level of education. Internet usage at home and work recorded the highest percentage, 45.5 °% and 30.9 °% respectively. Of the respondents, 32.8 °% used the internet for email and chatting purposes, 5.9 %% used it for shopping, 22.7 %% used it for homework or checking educational study results, 41 %% used it for reading news, and 31.2 %% used it for obtaining information from government websites and downloading forms. Most of the respondents (48.9 %%) accessed the internet one to three hours per week. Figure 2 shows a graphical presentation for some demographic characteristics of the current study's participants.
The internal reliability of the main components of factor analysis was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Table 4 introduces the major components of the exploratory factor analysis and the reliability analysis.
This section discusses the following significant factors as presented in Table 2: trust in the internet, religious beliefs, website design, internet and computer skill confidence, word of mouth, resistance to change, perceived usefulness, relative advantage and complexity. The results related to trust in the internet showed that it is essential to incorporate the concerns of citizens in the developing country of US with regard to the privacy and security of
their personal details and to consider their willingness to engage with e-government. This study's findings are in the line with previous research [19, pp. 473-482] in the developed country of the USA as trust in the internet showed a strong loading in the factor analysis. This research paper showed the necessity of exploring this factor in relation to e-government adoption in developed and developing
Table 4. Reliability analysis of variables
Construct Number of items Cronbach's, a
Trust in the internet 3 0,807
Website design 8 0,899
Religious beliefs 3 0,917
Internet and computer skill confidence 4 0,879
Word of mouth 5 0,783
Resistance to change 5 0,804
Perceived usefulness 4 0,804
Relative advantage 5 0,806
Complexity 4 0,838
Adoption 5 0,77
Йюни Ким, Никитина А. С.
countries. The factor, religious beliefs, was measured using different scale items which described different religious beliefs and views toward the internet, for example, immorality issues and adult themes. Although there is a lack of research on the role of religious beliefs in e-government adoption, the substantial body has leveraged a knowledge base in order to explain this role.
Website design emerged as a significant component of e-government adoption in the USA. Different evaluation studies denoted the effect of government websites including adequate features to ensure users' satisfaction [20, pp. 109-118]. These studies provided a base for the present study in its design of the main scale items for measuring website design: an example of these items is the availability of clear directions for navigating e-government websites. In terms of the factor, internet and computer skill confidence, this study presents the importance of considering the fundamental role of technical skills, that is, internet and computer skills, when researching the factors that influence people's intentions to use e-government services. The varied purposes of using the internet, such as reading news and online shopping, mentioned by survey respondents indicated their different skill levels in interacting with the internet. This study is in line with the literature as it reports on the need to discuss the variation in citizens' technical skill level and their enthusiasm for using e-gov-ernment services. The nature of the survey respondent population, who were mostly employees, explained the strong loading in the factor analysis in terms of the resistance to change factor. Most of the scale items used to measure this factor reflected the changes that would occur with the introduction of e-government services. Employees would be concerned about different kinds of changes related to e-government as a technological innovation such as losing their jobs as they might be replaced by technology. On the other hand, word of mouth recorded a strong loading in the factor analysis. The way in which this factor was measured showed how people would socialize and network about e-government. Jordan is one of the Arabic societies that are collectivist in nature [21, pp. 97-122].
Russia: The distribution of the main groups of users is shown in Table 5.
As you can see, active supporters of the transition to "e-government" is a distinct minority. The young respondents have higher demand to E-government, and they would like to receive government services electronically. We note also that the man is a great users of the Internet public service instead of woman.
Particular interest is the distribution of supporters and opponents of the transition to "electronic government" among different social groups (Table 6).
As can be seen from Table 6, the highest readiness for transition for public services in electronic form is characteristic of top-managers. In this group, the proportion
Table 5. The distribution of the main groups of users in the Urals Federal District
Main groups The percentage of respondents
Active supporters 16,5
Followers 30,3
Enemies 48,2
Undecided respondents 5,0
of active supporters was about one-third of the total number of respondents, two-fifths are followers, while opponents are in the vast minority. Sufficiently high level of preparedness was also recorded in the groups of specialists (managers) engaged in intellectual work (one fifth of the active supporters, and two-fifths of followers). These two groups of students are adjacent: In this segment, the share of active users of supporters and followers also exceeds the share of opponents of the "electronic government".
On the contrary, the retired group is clearly opposite to E-government, their share is about four-fifths of the total number of respondents, while the active supporters of this group was slightly more than 5 %. Another group, where opponents are clearly more active than the active supporters and followers - a group of factory labors. More than half of the respondents in this group said that they prefer to contact the authorities in person, without using any technological inventions.
Thus, a high level of preparedness for the "electronic government" showed the most socially adapted and successful members of society. These groups include top-managers with high education and high income. The lowest level of readiness is typical for such members of socially groups as the retired pensioners with low incomes.
Table 6. Distribution of supporters and opponents of the transition to "electronic government" among different social groups
Social groups
d
s s
Topmanager er Ml se I Public ci servants Factory workers Retired Students o "ft S e a
Active supporters 34,7 22,6 17,9 14,3 5,8 16,3 14,1
Followers 45,3 42,7 31,3 25,7 7,5 40,7 30,8
Enemies 18,9 32,6 46,8 54,3 78,8 38,2 46,2
Undecided 1,1 2,1 4,0 5,7 7,9 4,9 8,9
respondents
Йюни Ким, Никитина А. С.
This situation is typical for the so-called "digital split" which is division of society into "information-rich" and "information-poof' and the emerging "Digital Divide". In the transition to "e-government" tendency innovations circulate in the community from the "top-down" part of elite society (educated and affluent society) to all other [22].
However, this does not mean that the emerging demand for electronic services do not need to adjust the state. Representatives of socially vulnerable people objectively need public services is not less than the representatives of elite groups. To change this situation, it is necessary to involve the purposeful work in the sphere of "electronic government" of pensioners, persons engaged in physical labor, etc. This conclusion confirms the position expressed by the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Vladimirov-ich Putin at a meeting of the Commission for Modernisation and Technological Development of Russia's Economy. The Russian president stressed that the need to work with the fears and uncertainties of citizens, involving them in the scope of "electronic government" [16].
Some work in this direction in the Ural Federal District has underway. So, since 2006 in Khanty-Mansi Autonomous District - Yugra, the project "e-Citizen", aimed at training disadvantaged sections of the population computer literacy standard of the European Union. In the Tyumen region since the beginning of 2010 it has been working on the social program of the governor computer literacy "Expanding Horizons", whose main aim is the successful functioning of the "e-Government". Training is conducted similar programs in other federal entities that make up the Urals District.
However, it is clear that some regional initiatives are not enough. Needed federal program of training citizens to move to the "e-government". Such a program should be aimed not only at eliminating computer illiteracy, but also to actively explaining the advantages of "electronic government", as well as a constant assessment of applied solutions tailored to the needs of citizens. As international experience shows, really becomes effective such a program only in the case of joint efforts of government, business and civil society institutions.
Next step of this study is to analyze the readiness of public civil servants to E-government.
Conclusion
Analysis of E-government in the USA showed us that trust in the internet, religious beliefs, website design, internet and computer skill confidence, word of mouth, resistance to change, perceived usefulness, relative advantage, and complexity are the main factors related to e-govern-ment adoption.
The research paper has highlighted that the government in the USA should be sensitive to the dynamics of social
and cultural life in Jordan in formulating the response needed from citizens when introducing e-government services as a new channel of interaction with government.
Basing on the results of investigation we can formulate conclusion about E-government in Russia. We divided it into the several groups:
1. Computer and data security. This problem contains different components such as: control security program; access control; monitoring the development and replacement of software; the clarity of the division of responsibilities for operational control; fraud and misuse of data.
2. The low level of information about the E-government program among Russian citizens. The
lowest level of readiness is typical for such members of socially groups as the retired pensioners with low incomes [23].
3. Psychological resistance to innovation. It is very important in the implementation of e-government to take into account the experience of ordinary employees, which, in fact, will provide services in electronic form. As international experience shows that exists in a particular organ of power culture adoption and implementation of the decisions may in certain circumstances to completely block the transition to e-government, especially if the performers the impression that the new rules will lead to the fact that they will lose power and influence. The situation is complicated in the conditions when the transition to the "many departments - one state" will require an active interagency cooperation and information exchange.
Литература:
1. Marchionini G., Samet H., Brandt L. Digital Government // Communications of the ACM. 2003. 46(1). Pp. 24-27.
2. Pardo Theresa A. Realizing the Promise of Digital Government: It's More than Building a Web Site // Information Impact. 2000. October.
3. Almarabeh T., AbuAli A.. A General Framework for E-Government: Definition, Maturity Challenges, Opportunities, and Success // European Journal of Scientific Research. Vol. 39. 2010. № 1. Pp. 29-42.
4. E-government Survey 2012. E-Government for the People [e-resource]. http://www.unpan.org/egovkb/global_ reports/08report.htm (date of references 12.10.2015)
5. E-government Survey 2014. E-Government for the People. [e-resource].http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/en-us/ Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2014 (date of references 12.10.2015)
6. Ho, A.T.-K. Reinventing Local Governments and the E-Government Initiative // Public administration review. 2002. № 62(4). Pp. 434-444.
7. Eglesias S.a.a.J.C. Towards a More Effective and Efficient E-government: The Importance of Shared Service //
Йюни Ким, Никитина А. С.
Book Towards a More Effective and Efficient E-govern-ment: The Importance of Shared Service. 2010. Pp. 21-32.
8. Scholl Hans J. E-Government: Information, Technology, and Transformation: Information, Technology, and Transformation. NY: M. E. Sharpe Inc., 2010.
9. Levack K. The E-Government Act of 2002: A Stab at Cyber Security // Econtent. 2003. № 26(3). Pp. 8-10.
10. Seifert J. W., Relyea H. C. E-Government Act of 2002 in the United States / Encyclopedia of Digital Government,. Hershey: Idea Group Reference, 2007. Pp. 476-481.
11. План перехода федеральных органов исполнительной власти на предоставление государственных услуг и исполнение государственных функций в электронном виде. Утвержден Распоряжением Правительства Российской Федерации от 17 октября 2009 г. No 1555-р [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://pravo.fso. gov.ru/cms/per_uopi/per_uopi/acts/1002_0.html. (дата обращения 15.11.2009).
12. Концепция формирования в Российской Федерации «электронного правительства» до 2010 года [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.ifap.ru/ofdocs/rus/ egovconc.pdf (дата обращения 15.07.2010).
13. Об обеспечении доступа к информации о деятельности государственных органов и органов местного самоуправления: Федеральный закон от 09.02.2009 № 8-ФЗ (ред. от 04.11.2014) // Собрание законодательства РФ. 16.02.2009. № 7. Ст. 776.
14. Об организации предоставления государственных и муниципальных услуг: Федеральный закон от 27.07.2010 № 210-ФЗ (ред. от 13.07.2015) [Электронный ресурс]. Доступ из справ.-правовой системы «КонсультантПлюс».
15. Об обеспечении доступа к общедоступной информации о деятельности государственных органов и органов местного самоуправления в информационно-телекоммуникационной сети «Интернет» в форме открытых данных: Постановление Правительства РФ от 10 июля 2013 г. № 583 // Собрании законодательства Российской Федерации. 29.07.2013. № 30 (часть II). Ст. 4107.
16. Путин В. В. Вступительное слово на заседании президиума Совета при Президенте Российской Федерации по развитию местного самоуправления по вопросу «О мерах по повышению качества предоставления государственных и муниципальных услуг населению». Оренбург, 28 января 2011 г. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.parlcom.ru/index. php?p=MC83&id=35616 (дата обращения 05.03.2011).
17. Alomari M. K., Woods P, & Sandhu K. Predictors for E-government Adoption in Jordan: Deployment of an Empirical Evaluation based on a Citizen-Centric Approach // Information Technology & People. 2012. № 25 (2). Pp. 207-216.
18. Дьякова E. Г., Трахтенберг А. Д. «Электронное правительство» и граждане: результаты комплексного
социологического исследования в Уральском федеральном округе. Екатеринбург, 2010.
19. Carter L., Weerakkody V. "E-Government Adoption: A Cultural Comparison // Information Systems Frontiers. 2008. № 10(4). Pp. 473-482.
20. Dugdale A., Daly A., Papandrea F., Maley M. Accessing E-Government: Challenges for Citizens and Organizations // International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2005. № 71(1). Pp. 109-118.
21. Hung S. Y., Chang C. M., Yu T. J. Determinants Of User Acceptance Of The E-Government Services: The Case Of Online Tax filing And Payment System // Government Information Quarterly. 2006. № 23(1). Pp. 97-122.
22. Norris P. A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge, 2000.
23. Никитина А. С. Инновации и традиции в деятельности социально-профессиональной группы современных государственных гражданских служащих: диссертация на соискание ученой степени кандидата социологических наук. Екатеринбург, 2014.
References:
1. Marchionini G., Samet H., Brandt L. Digital Government // Communications of the ACM. 2003. 46(1). Pp. 24-27.
2. Pardo Theresa A. Realizing the Promise of Digital Government: It's More than Building a Web Site // Information Impact. 2000. October.
3. Almarabeh T., AbuAli A.. A General Framework for E-Government: Definition, Maturity Challenges, Opportunities, and Success // European Journal of Scientific Research. Vol.39. 2010. № 1. Pp. 29-42.
4. E-government Survey 2012. E-Government for the People [e-resource]. http://www.unpan.org/egovkb/global_ reports/08report.htm (date of references 12.10.2015)
5. E-government Survey 2014. E-Government for the People. [e-resource].http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/en-us/ Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2014 (date of references 12.10.2015)
6. Ho, A.T.-K. Reinventing Local Governments and the E-Government Initiative // Public administration review. 2002. № 62(4). Pp. 434-444.
7. Eglesias S.a.a.J.C. Towards a More Effective and Efficient E-government: The Importance of Shared Service // Book Towards a More Effective and Efficient E-govern-ment: The Importance of Shared Service. 2010. Pp. 21-32.
8. Scholl Hans J. E-Government: Information, Technology, and Transformation: Information, Technology, and Transformation. NY: M. E. Sharpe Inc., 2010.
9. Levack K. The E-Government Act of 2002: A Stab at Cyber Security // Econtent. 2003. № 26(3). Pp. 8-10.
10. Seifert J. W., Relyea H. C. E-Government Act of 2002 in the United States / Encyclopedia of Digital Government,. Hershey: Idea Group Reference, 2007. Pp. 476-481.
Йюни Ким, Никитина А. С.
11. Plan for the transition of federal executive bodies in the provision of public services and performance of public functions in electronic form. Approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 17 2009 № 1555-r [e-resource]. URL: http://pravo.fso. gov.ru/cms/per_uopi/per_uopi/acts/1002_0.html. (date of reference 15.11.2009).
12. The concept of the formation of the Russian Federation "electronic government" until 2010 [e-resource]. URL: http://www.ifap.ru/ofdocs/rus/egovconc.pdf (date of reference 15.07.2010).
13. On providing access to information about the activities of state bodies and local self-government: The federal law from 09.02.2009 N 8-FZ // Collection of the legislation of the Russian Federation. 16.02.2009. № 7. Art. 776.
14. On the organization of public and municipal services: The federal law from 27.07.2010 N 210-FZ [e-resource]. Access from ref.-legal system "KonsultantPlus".
15. On ensuring access to public information on the activities of government bodies and local authorities in the information and telecommunications network "Internet" in the form of open data: Government Decree of 10 July 2013 N 583 // Collection of the legislation of the Russian Federation. 29.07.2013. № 30 (Part II). Art. 4107
16. Putin V. Opening remarks at meeting of the Presidium of the Presidential Council of the Russian Federation on development of local self-government on the issue "On measures to improve the quality of public and
municipal services to the population." Orenburg, January 28, 2011 [electronic resource] URL: http://www.parl-com.ru/index.php?p=MC83&id=35616 (date of reference 05.03.2011).
17. Alomari M. K., Woods P, & Sandhu K. Predictors for E-gov-ernment Adoption in Jordan: Deployment of an Empirical Evaluation based on a Citizen-Centric Approach // Information Technology & People. 2012. № 25 (2). Pp. 207-216.
18. Dyakova E., Trachtenberg A. "E-government" and citizens: the results of complex sociological research in the Urals Federal District. Ekaterinburg 2010.
19. Carter L., Weerakkody V. "E-Government Adoption: A Cultural Comparison // Information Systems Frontiers. 2008. № 10(4). Pp. 473-482.
20. Dugdale A., Daly A., Papandrea F., Maley M. Accessing E-Government: Challenges for Citizens and Organizations // International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2005. № 71(1). Pp. 109-118.
21. Hung S. Y., Chang C. M., Yu T. J. Determinants Of User Acceptance Of The E-Government Services: The Case Of Online Tax filing And Payment System // Government Information Quarterly. 2006. № 23(1). Pp. 97-122.
22. Norris P.A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge, 2000.
23. Nikitina A. Innovation and tradition in the work of social and professional groups of modern civil servants: dissertation... the candidate of sociological sciences. Ekaterinburg, 2014.
