CC BY
4DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2022-23-3-4 EDN: BLERCX JEL classification: H41, L88, D78
Ella M. Lebezova Donetsk Academy of Management and Public Administration
at the Head of Donetstk People's Republic, Donetsk, Donetsk People's Republic
Lyudmila A. Ovcharenko Donetsk Academy of Management and Public Administration
at the Head of Donetsk People's Republic, Donetsk, Donetsk People's Republic
A model of citizens' digital participation in the Smart Environment
Abstract. The trend towards an increasing role of citizens in public governance suggests that the interaction between population and the state should be refined. The paper aims to build a conceptual model of the functioning of digital participation channels in the Smart Environment. Methodologically, the study rests on the systems theory and the concept of smart governance; applies methods of systematic field coverage and structuring as well as the graphical method. To create the said model, describe its structural elements and their conceptual limitations in the smart environment the paper used the principles of domain model. The literature review exposes a growing interest to the subject under study, and proves that the tools and channels of e-Participation require improvement to ensure the quality development of digital democracy and public governance. As a result of the study, the authors construct a conceptual model as a tool for researching and optimising the channels and technologies of digital participation. Using this tool in the projects to develop information platforms for digital interaction of society and government authorities will allow perfecting their design and increasing quantity and quality of the digital participation.
Keywords: Smart Governance; digitalisation; e-Government; e-Participation; digital participation.
For citation: Lebezova E. M., Ovcharenko L. A. (2022). A model of citizens' digital participation in the Smart Environment. Journal of New Economy, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 62-85. DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2022-23-3-4. EDN: BLERCX. Article info: received December 23, 2021; received in revised form January 10, 2022; accepted February 18, 2022
Introduction
Since the advent of Web 2.0, the interaction of citizens with each other and with
the state has significantly moved online, where the possibilities are practically unlimited. A striking example of this was given by the restrictive measures introduced in most countries of the world in response to the Covid-19 pandemic that provide for a transition to working, training and receiving services online, as well as digital interaction with government authorities. The surge in demand for basic e-Services has exposed the imperfections and limitations of many traditional forms of governance. At present, the prerequisites for a shift to a more advanced management paradigm -Smart Governance - have fully formed [Bradul, Lebezova, 2020, p. 146], which allows not only overcoming such challenges without conflict, but also to appreciably change the foundations of the state in favour of cyberdemocracy [Lebezova, 2020] and increase "digital participation"1 [Glushchenko, 2020, p. 29].
The purpose of the research is to expand the tools for studying the properties of digital interaction through conceptual modelling. This involves identifying modelling opportunities to study the stated properties, finding out about alternative channels for digital interaction and overcoming obstacles to introducing them.
To achieve the purpose, the following objectives are to be accomplished:
• to describe the domain of digital (electronic) participation, as well as its relationship with other management concepts (Smart Governance, etc.);
• to review the critical aspects of digital participation and identify the reasons behind the failure of its implementation;
• in accordance with the approaches of the system modelling theory, to create a basic conceptual model for the functioning of digital participation channels in the Smart Environment (hereinafter referred to as the conceptual model);
• to choose the terminology for describing the components of the specified model and, if necessary, introduce new semantic elements that expand the semantic core of the phenomenon under consideration;
• to make recommendations on the use of the conceptual model in related areas connected with the management and design of digital platforms, and outline the prospects for its application and further research in this field.
The arguments given in the article are based on sources found by searching the Scopus and RSCI databases using the keywords "e-Participation", "digital participation" and others similar in semantics. Additional references are obtained by scanning
1 The term "digital participation" is a semantic change of the term "electronic participation" (e-Partici-pation) and generally means the active participation of an individual in the activities of the digital society through the use of modern information and communication technologies (ICT) [Literat et al., 2018, p. 402].
the bibliography of the selected publications. In total, we reviewed about 100 articles, the study only refers to the most relevant and substantial ones.
The article is structured in line with the objectives. The review of the literature considers various definitions and goals of e-Participation, its channels, mechanisms and tools, as well as identifies the key problems of its sustainable growth. Further sections provide the substantiation of the methodology for constructing a conceptual model based on the systems theory, determine methods for constructing this model, present the graphical representation of the model and its detailed description. In conclusion, recommendations are formulated on the use of the conceptual model in areas related to the management and design of digital platforms.
Literature review
There are various definitions of digital/e-Participation. Most of them are based on the basic concept of using information and communication technologies (ICT) to involve citizens in decision-making processes and receive public services [Macintosh, 2004; Saeb0, Rose, Flak, 2008]. Less often, the phenomenon is defined as a component of e-Government with an emphasis on citizen participation in discussing and choosing decisions [Welch, 2012]. According to the definition used by the UN, digital participation is "engaging citizens through ICTs in policy, decision-making, and the design and delivery of services to make these processes collaborative, inclusive and deliberative"1. This interpretation wholly correlates with the principles of Smart Governance described in various scientific sources.
According to researchers, the strategic goal of Smart Governance is the full-scale digitalisation of management mechanisms, production processes and the provision of public services based on the centralised infrastructure and equal participation of citizens in all management processes [Scholl, Scholl, 2014]. Smart Government is an adaptive evolution of e-Government in response to rapid digital technological changes in innovative mechanisms allowing for more effective citizen engagement, monitoring and interaction, which, in turn, will ensure the democratic self-government of society [Gil-Garcia, Zhang, Puron-Cid, 2016]. Smart Government is defined as the era of big data and personalised algorithms to empower citizens and ensure their active participation in public governance [Guenduez, Mettler, Schedler, 2017]. In most publications, Smart Government and Smart Governance are described as integral parts of Smart Society, in which a special role is assigned to the organisation of digital interaction between government and citizens, i.e., the concept of digital participation is used.
1 United Nations. (2014). E-Government for the Future We Want, E-Government Survey. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
The results of studying digital participation as a socio-political phenomenon are widely presented in the foreign scientific literature. The main areas of the focus are:
• ensuring active digital participation of citizens as a way to grade up the quality of legislation and existing policies [Bindu, Sankar, Kumar, 2019; Naranjo-Zolotov et al., 2019];
• improving the forms of communication between the population and the state with the aim of sustainable development of direct democracy and sovereignty of the people [Mellouli, Luna-Reyes, Zhang, 2014; Guenduez, Mettler, Schedler, 2017; Güler, 2020];
• expanding opportunities for government-citizen interaction to co-create public services [Gil-Garcia, Zhang, Puron-Cid, 2016; AlEnezi, Almeraj, Manuel, 2018];
• restoring trust in state institutions, increasing their legitimacy and engaging citizens in democratic processes in the face of growing indifference to political life [Macintosh, 2004; Kalampokis, Tambouris, Tarabanis, 2008];
• ameliorating the mechanisms for the provision of basic digital services by the state/business [Medaglia, 2012; Kankanhalli, Charalabidis, Mellouli, 2019];
• stimulating digital citizen participation and the growth of digital media platforms in the Smart Governance environment [Alarabiat, Sá Soares, 2016; Gil, Cortés-Cediel, Cantador, 2019; Alcaide Muñoz, Rodríguez Bolívar, 2021].
A significant part of the papers is devoted to the choice of digital solutions for the implementation of digital participation platforms. They consider a wide spectrum of possibilities ranging from relatively unstructured platforms with no pre-established links to formal decision-making [Feilner, 2016] to more structured systems that hold a distinct place in the formal structure of public governance, such as e-Petitions [Jungherr, Jürgens, 2010; Asher, Leston-Bandeira, Spaiser, 2019].
The researchers actively discuss end-to-end digital technologies for the implementation of individual stages, noting that wireless and IoT ("Smart Things") technologies are best suited for data collection [AlEnezi, Almeraj, Manuel, 2018; Chatterjee, Kar, Gupta, 2018], neurotechnologies and artificial intelligence are good for their processing [Lin, 2018], distributed registry systems fit in for data storage [Benítez-Martínezab, Hurtado-Torresa, Romero-Fríasb, 2021], whereas virtual and augmented reality technologies [Yusuf et al., 2020; Fegert et al., 2020], gamification [Hassan, Hamari, 2019], components of robotics and sensors [Porwol, Ojo, 2018] are for the presentation of information.
Analysing digital participation as a way to improve digital governance from a technological viewpoint [Yusuf et al., 2019; Allen et al., 2020], researchers define it as a global integration process in the development of Smart Cities and Smart Society [Hofmann, Münster, Noennig, 2020].
In Russia, the issue of digital participation, especially within the Smart Governance paradigm, is poorly studied, although an analysis of the flow of scientific publications indexed in the RSCI (Figure 1) shows a noticeable increase in those articles where the term "e-Participation" is included in the keywords.
10 20 30
Number of publications
40
50
Fig. 1. Distribution of publications indexed in the RSCI with the keyword "e-Participation"
by year, 2012-2020
Starting from 2019, a number of government programs have begun to bring to the fore the tasks of creating digital participation portals. For example, the first event of the "Smart City" standard1 is "Digital platform for involving citizens in solving urban development issues ("Active citizen")". Thus, ensuring interactive digital communication between government and citizens was pronounced a component of the state policy in Russia, which led to the entry of relevant issues into scientific discourse.
Researchers consider the problems of motivating citizens to electronic participation and joint governance [Pogodina, Manokhin, 2020]; the necessary conditions for the formation and functioning of cyberdemocracy in the modern world [Glushchen-ko, 2020]; the issues of gamification of platforms for public participation of citizens in public administration [Pogodina, Avdeev, 2020]. Debates on Internet platforms are interpreted as a form of electronic participation in politics [Volkovskiy, Filatova, 2019].
1 Basic and additional requirements for Smart Cities (Smart City standard). Ministry of Construction of the Russian Federation (approved on March 3, 2019). https://minstroyrf.gov.ru/docs/18039/. (In Russ.)
The studies identify the most popular channels of institutional interaction [Vidi-asov, Vidiasova, 2021], and discuss approaches to building and developing an ecosystem of digital interaction in a particular urban environment [Begen, Rybalchenko, Chugunov, 2020].
Digital participation is often viewed as a set of methods, rules and tools that ensure digital interaction between citizens and authorities in order to monitor and take into account the opinions of citizens and use their creative potential in public administration when making political and managerial decisions at various levels [Chugunov, 2019].
Most interpretations of the term "e-Participation" contain the idea of a certain role of the government (as an initiator, moderator or recipient) in the relevant phenomenon. Thus, scholars understand e-Participation as a social activity involving digital interaction between citizens, public administration and politicians, emphasising the importance of all sides of this "triangle" [Saeb0, Rose, Flak, 2008]. It is noteworthy that researchers usually do not apply this concept to digital civic initiatives or online political discussions that take place without the participation of the government. This is, to say the least, short-sighted, given the growth in their number in recent years [Omar, Stockdale, Scheepers, 2014; Bohman, Hansson, Mobini, 2014]. Their connection with the formal processes of public governance, in our opinion, should be the subject of discussion as one of the key elements of e-Participation.
Considering the problematic aspects of this phenomenon, it is first necessary to identify the nature of the following paradox: despite the rapid increase in the availability of online services, there is no increase in this participation. Moreover, some developed countries (France, Austria, Italy, etc.) demonstrate its decline. In general, in the European Union, between 2014 and 2019, the participation of citizens in national or local electronic consultations and voting remained almost unchanged and very low, at approximately 10 % of the population (Figure 2).
Even countries that have made significant progress in the field of e-Government and consider it a priority element of their development, such as Estonia, report failures in e-Participation projects. For example, researchers assess the osale.ee platform as unsuccessful, supporting their opinion by the reference to government reports [Toots, 2019].
There is no single point of view on this problem in the academic environment. Various reasons for failures are cited, including:
• lacking adequate government response to citizens' initiatives and appeals (trust in public institutions quickly declines if it is found that participation mechanisms do not influence government decision-making; so-called 'participation fatigue' arises)
a
o £
3
Oh O
<D
0
oî
1 O
a
CO
<u
•s
V-, £ bO
c
a o
a o u
<L>
c
o a
a o
£
t; as
Oh
40
50 60 70 80 90
Share of basic and other services that can be provided online
100
Fig.
2. Availability of online services and participation in online consultations and voting in
European countries, 2014-20191
[Panopoulou, Tambouris, Tarabanis, 2010; Peixoto, Fox, 2016; Asher, Leston-Bandei-ra, Spaiser, 2019];
• a technology-driven approach to digital participation (creating the necessary platforms is not enough to stimulate it) [Sœb0, Rose, Flak, 2008; Medaglia, 2012];
• failure to properly analyse stakeholders' motivations and incentives for digital participation (reduces the ability to use citizens' skills for the joint production of public services, creativity and innovation, participation in political debates) [Distel, Lindgren, 2019];
1 Source: based on the data given in the research by Le Blanc [2020].
• lacking broad democratic and public governance reforms (the desire of the political elite and political institutions to maintain control over the agenda and political debate also hampers the expansion of e-Participation) [Pàivàrinta, Saeb0, 2006; Wakabi, Gronlund, 2015];
• growing citizens' concerns about cybersecurity and data privacy (privacy breaches in private databases and social media platforms, cases of state surveillance of citizens through their social media accounts and other issues cause distrust in digital channels of interaction) [Porwol, Ojo, Breslin, 2018];
• lacking public administration's capacity to manage digital activity processes (since the government does not have clear goals for e-Participation, appropriate regulatory framework is not formed, which creates obstacles for the population) [Ne-whart, Brooks, 2017];
• high costs of financing digital participation processes under insufficient resources (the European digital strategy is focused on the single digital market, and not on e-Democracy and e-Participation [Lironi, 2018; Anggraeni, Gupta, Verrest, 2019], which explains the minimal funding of the latter);
• digital gap between different social groups (lack of access to the Internet and low level of digital literacy cause inequal access to technologies and even exclusion of some social groups from e-Participation processes) [Epstein, Newhart, Vernon, 2014].
Even a cursory examination of the reasons behind the failure of digital participation demonstrates that we are talking about a complex socio-technical phenomenon, which cannot be analysed using one-sided, for example, technological (digital) or organisational, approach. To study such issues, it is necessary to implement a systemic interdisciplinary vision, which involves the simultaneous development of complementary solutions, principles, standards of technological, managerial, legal, social and human origin, which prescribes to consider digital participation as institutional relations1 based on a conceptual model. The model as an abstract replica of the real world will make it possible to more clearly define the structure of the system being modeled, the properties of its elements and the cause-and-effect relationships inherent in the system and essential for achieving the goal of modelling.
1 Institutional relations are relations between people, social groups, classes and the state regarding the origin, formation, functioning, change and abolition of the institutions of society. All of the listed subjects are interested in institutions that would ensure a sustainable growth in the welfare of the population and reduce overall transaction costs, i.e., would realise a common institutional interest. The existence of a unified institutional order that systematically implements public interests and ensures sustainable growth lies in the interest of society as a whole (or at least its majority) [Golovin, 2011, pp. 65-70].
Research methodology
Based on the foregoing, we assume that the basic conceptual model1 will be appropriate to examine the digital participation of an individual in the Smart Governance. This model, as a replica of the phenomenon under study, will allow displaying the essential elements and properties of the digital participation process in terms of the purpose of the study and fulfilling the following tasks:
• to use a single methodology and a semantic core when formulating a set of research hypotheses and stages of empirical research;
• to improve the quality of the problem statement due to a clearer representation of the structure of the object, the identification of relationships between objects, the description of structural elements and their conceptual limitations in the domain;
• to decompose an object most productively in order to create a basis for computer simulation of the interaction of various factors of the model using multi-level channels.
Thereby, the subject of this study is a conceptual model of the functioning of digital participation channels in the Smart Environment as a tool for improving this process.
According to the systems theory2, a conceptual model as a special case of a systems model can be described using various methods and/or combinations of them. In general, system modelling methods are divided into two large classes: methods of formalised representation of systems (analytical, statistical, methods of discrete mathematics, mathematical logic, etc.) and methods aimed at activating intuition and expert experience ("scenarios", "brainstorming", structuring, morphological approach, etc.).
At the initial stage of describing the model, a combined approach was implemented, which implies the use of the following methods:
• method of systematic field observation, which is used to search for possible solutions to the problem based on a limited number of knowledge bases3 and a sufficient number of principles of thinking (including various proximity measures);
• methods of formalisation and abstraction through the specification when building a domain model;
1 In general, the term "conceptual model" denotes an abstract model of a domain consisting of a list of interrelated concepts used to describe it, as well as their properties and characteristics, classifying these concepts by types, situations, attributes in this domain and the laws regulating the processes in it.
2 Systems theory is a dynamically developing scientific theory that combines human and natural scientific methods of cognition to describe and study various systems. The system is considered as "a certain set of interrelated elements that form a stable unity and integrity, with integral properties and patterns" [Klir, Elias, 2011].
3 The knowledge bases are knowledge in the area under study: theoretical points, empirical facts, currently known components of a complex system, open laws governing various processes, etc.
• graphical method that allows visualising the processes occurring in the system and facilitating its analysis;
• method of structuring contributing to the search of relationships between the elements of the system.
In the human-machine control system, a good conceptual model provides the researcher with a holistic picture of the domain and an opportunity to relate different parts of the process to the whole of it, which means to act most effectively. Therefore, conceptual models are often used to build expert systems and knowledge-based systems. Accordingly, to create these models, it is necessary to operate with reliable and consistent knowledge about the studied domain.
To isolate the knowledge bases from the existing knowledge in the field of e-Par-ticipation and public administration, we applied a binary classification approach that takes into account important and insignificant factors. As a result, the following basic factors (knowledge bases) were identified:
• the presence of three classical groups in public governance: political institutions, commercial social institutions, non-commercial (public) social institutions;
• emergence of new entities: Smart Government (power), Smart Business (business), and Smart Society (society);
• the use of the characteristics of Smart Government1 presented in the paper Conceptualization of Smart Government: A scientometric approach [Bradul, Lebezova, 2020, p. 40]
• the presence of three main actors, namely users of government, commercial and public digital resources;
• the existence of multi-level communication channels of actors and institutions;
• strengthened role of citizens' digital participation in the state governance and agenda setting;
• increased importance of transnational digital interaction.
Conceptual model of digital participation in the Smart Governance paradigm
The application of the described approach resulted in a basic conceptual model, according to which digital participation tools ensure the relationship of society (citizens, public organisations, businesses) with authorities through various communication channels (Figure 3).
1 Smart Government is an advanced e-Government based on open governance that uses the opportunities provided by ICT, connecting and integrating physical, digital, public and private environments to passively and actively interact and collaborate with citizens to better understand their needs and creative, to efficiently and flexibly provide services anywhere and anytime, including predictively.
Legal regulations
(regulation and intervention)
traditional form
digital form
Supreme power Legislative power Executive power Judicial authority
Regional authorities, local government, entities in charge
>
-5 Ö
lH
<U
S -a
'00
S
Performance reports, open data (accountability)
digital form
Appeals, petitions, written requests, voting (cooperation, monitoring, consulting)
-Gontrol-
Smart Governance
slon-politica
ECOSYSTEM
Smart Government
B2G
Government IS 4-1 G2G
<s(]
Digital
government services
C2G
S2G
ECOSYSTEM
Government IS user
G2C
Commercial IS user
Digital public services (KT
Public IS S2S <-1
B2C
I information
K consultation
C cooperation
R rights
S2C
Public IS user
N2N Interstate data exchange
-Feedback-
traditional form
"Apr.
Fig. 3. Conceptual model of the functioning of digital participation channels in the Smart Environment
A graphical representation of this model in the form of structural organogram was created using the HTML5 cloud-based diagramming application gliffy.com.
On the left side of the organogram (Figure 3), there are institutions of power, which include the supreme, legislative, executive, judicial power and regional authorities, as well as local governments and entities in charge. The list of these objects may vary depending on the specificities of the governance systems in different states.
On the right, the organogram lists other social structures (non-political institutions represented by commercial and non-profit public associations, including those that are a form of social self-organisation that constitute the basis of civil society). An example of this type is socially oriented non-profit organisations (SONPOs) that are involved in the activities aimed at the development of civil society, the solution of social, environmental and other problems affecting the whole society.
Within this group, three roles of an individual by the interaction with information systems (IS) of different types are distinguished.
1. User of the government IS, i.e., IS registered in the Register of Federal State Information Systems. These include the Unified Portal of State Services, the Unified Network of Citizens' Appeals, etc.
2. User of the commercial IS, i.e., systems created by non-state actors. These include legal support systems, such as ConsultantPlus, reference and information systems, training systems, etc.
3. User of the public IS, i.e., systems created by public associations to address the problems of monitoring and communication as well as for informing citizens, such as for instance "World of Harmony", the project of IT volunteers.
In the central part of the scheme, there are three groups of digital smart entities: Smart Government, Smart Business, Smart Society combined into the enlarged Smart Governance group. These entities are complex systems that require decomposition and detailing in the future. This study focuses specifically on their digital components:
• the digital environment with the Smart Governance infrastructure;
• a set of information systems and platforms for the provision of basic services and interdepartmental interaction;
• information resources of digital participation (electronic portals of various origins, including public organisations and movements, social networks, digital media and other resources).
Objects from the Smart Governance group are considered as an integral ecosystem (ecosystem is a platform for sustainable and flexible development based on open governance and active participation of all citizens in the governance processes) with a variety of interconnected elements, tools and digital channels for interaction between government institutions and various actors.
These channels are designated by generally accepted in business and the scientific community abbreviations G2G, G2C, C2G, C2C, G2B, B2G, B2B, where G stands for Government, B is Business, C means Citizen. Public entities such as the media, social networks, global public digital platforms and other components of civil society are denoted by the letter S (Society). As a result, the following new channels of interaction arise: G2S, S2G, C2S, S2C, S2B, B2S.
In each group of digital entities (Smart Government, Smart Business, Smart Society), three types of electronic interaction channels were identified with a set of business rules, structural elements and their conceptual restrictions, norms, with their target audience and other parameters inherent in each of them. A detailed study and analysis of channel characteristics is a separate task, here we provide only a general description.
The first channel maintains internal interaction (for example, interdepartmental interaction G2G and civil interaction without state's interference S2S). The importance of the G2G interaction is high, especially in the implementation of government programmes and projects aimed at improving the quality of public services, the consistent eradication of corruption, ensuring the effectiveness and transparency of the public sector. Equally important is the S2S channel, which allows, without the participation of the state, running, for example, educational programmes to promote the civic literacy and the sustainable involvement of citizens in political processes.
The second channel represents basic services of various origins (state, federal, municipal, commercial and civil) in both digital and traditional forms. We should emphasise that there is a tendency for groups of actors to abandon the traditional scenario of interaction with government institutions in direct and reverse order in the sequence "actor - digital public services - government platforms - electronic / digital / smart government - government institutions". Increasingly, actors fulfil their tasks more efficiently in the sequence "actor - superservices - digital platforms - banking - actor". We also can see that the traffic of transactions of nonstate services is far higher and constantly growing. A three-year analysis of users' digital participation on the Internet presented in Figure 4 makes this regularity clearly visible.
On the other hand, within the framework of the Smart Governance concept, the distinctions between state and non-state services are gradually blurring facilitated by their integration into a common digital ecosystem (ecosystem on Figure 3), which forms superservices (comprehensive online services). For example, a service for enrolling an applicant in a university may include a pool of services related to obtaining
Blogging
Publication of opinions on social and political issues on the websites
Participation in voting or consultations on public and political issues
Sale/purchase of goods and services
Communication using instant messaging systems
Implementation of banking operations Participation in social networks
Fig. 4. Analysis of digital participation by purpose, % of the population aged 15-74 who used the Internet in the last three months, 2017-20191
a loan, renting accommodation, etc. The main characteristics of such services are accessibility, predictability, and inclusiveness [Bradul, Lebezova, 2020, p. 38].
At last, the third channel is associated with digital participation of citizens in the functioning of all types of smart entities (interaction with authorities, business structures and the public sphere). The importance of dividing digital participation channels into three groups (government, business, society) should be emphasised, since the degree of legitimacy of the channel, a set of regulatory permissions and restrictions that significantly affect the level of its functional efficiency depend on belonging to one or another group.
In the conceptual model (Figure 3) objects of digital participation are presented in rhombuses, at the tops of which there are letters corresponding to the four-component architecture of this phenomenon. Classically, the gradation of digital participation is three-component [Macintosh, 2004], which is used, among other things, in
1 Source: own representation based on the data from the statistical collections "Digital economy indicators: 2020/2019/2018", section "Purposes of using the Internet by the population". https://www.hse.ru/primarydata/ ice2020. (In Russ.)
UN analytical reports: 1) digital information that creates a precedent for participation by providing citizens with socially important information; 2) digital consultation (government consults with citizens on policy or service delivery at various stages of the process and possibly provides them with feedback that engages people more deeply in the discussion); 3) joint managerial decision-making.
However, according to the analytical opinion that we share, three components are not enough to assess the quality of civic engagement and digital participation in modern conditions [Le Blanc, 2020]. The gradation should be four-component: 1) providing information; 2) consultations; 3) cooperation (in which state and non-state actors work together in the course of decision-making or the provision of public services); 4) empowerment (citizen setting the agenda). The latter means that citizens, not just the government can suggest what actions should be taken. In the context of digital participation, this is a key difference between initiatives such as policy consultations, where citizens have the opportunity to submit comments and suggestions in the policy development process, and digital petitions, through which citizens can influence the agenda of politicians and various institutions. In Figure 3, these components are indicated by circles with the letters "I" (information), "K" (consultation), "C" (cooperation), "R" (rights).
As noted, the lines between public and private digital participation initiatives have become more blurred over the past decade. This is confirmed by a number of facts. Firstly, with regard to the choice of IT solutions, e-Participation platforms are increasingly using components of private corporations when implementing their own functionality: social networks (Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, etc.), GPS (global positioning systems), GIS functions (geographic information systems) and maps such as Google Maps or OpenStreetMap that are integrated with other components using mobile technology. Secondly, in order to participate and involve citizens, business and nonprofit organisations create their own platforms, such as I Paid A Bribe (India) for informing about corruption, change.org for filing petitions, mirgar.ga for monitoring living spaces, etc.
The mutual influence of digital participation tools of various origins is shown in Figure 3 by dotted lines forming a closed triangle.
Web 2.0 functionality (including social media) has already led to a dramatic increase in one-to-many traffic and many-to-many communication between citizens. Moreover, it is public platforms (which attract more visitors than government platforms and are not moderated by the state) that are able to generate most of the ideas that citizens would like to see on political agendas [Pàivàrinta, Saeb0, 2006]. In this regard, the task of government authorities is to use these platforms to study the
aspirations of the population, that is, to monitor trends in the views, identify the problems and respond promptly to them.
According to the presented model, government authorities should have constant, stable feedback (horizontal arrows at the bottom, pointing to the right) with non-political structures that monitor the work of legislative and executive structures. This demonstrates government openness and accountability as an important feature of smart governance [Peixoto, Fox, 2016]. Adequate open channels of accountability strengthen the legitimacy of government and citizens' trust in public institutions, as they increase the level of public service responsiveness to citizens' needs and improve the quality of policies and legislation.
In turn, non-political structures use a variety of feedback channels (horizontal arrows at the bottom that go from non-political institutions to the left to political institutions), including digital participation channels of various origins. These include electronic appeals and petitions, blockchain voting, electronic participatory budgeting, crowdsourcing, digital citizen monitoring platforms, application portals for solving various problems, open government channels: open budget, social media platforms, civic forums, electronic receptions, talkathons (as a form of innovation competitions), etc.
As for the political institutions, they influence all the processes taking place in each of the groups of digital entities. The horizontal arrows at the top of the diagram show the controlling influence of political structures on non-political structures. The functional typology of these impacts covers all socially significant aspects of the life of the state: legal regulation, measures of controlling and repressive influence (monitoring of compliance with norms, prevention of offenses, court decisions), implementation of permissive policies (licensing, registration, certification), security and much more.
The model provides for the interaction of non-political structures with political ones both through traditional offline channels and indirectly by using the mechanisms and channels of Smart Governance. The combination of online and offline activity is a widespread global practice. There are some empirical studies highlighting the importance of traditional events to support online events in various areas such as e-Rulemaking [Epstein, Newhart, Vernon, 2014], environmental impact and climate change monitoring [Sinclair, Peirson-Smith, Boerchers, 2017; Pina, Torres, Royo, 2017], participatory budgeting [Falanga, 2018; Ertio, Tuominen, Rask, 2019] and others. Examples of traditional activities are promoting digital participation initiatives, developing outreach plans, alternating between electronic and physical meetings, providing educational materials on topics discussed, establishing links with other programs or initiatives. In general, the institutionalisation of digital participation
initiatives within organisational processes is a key factor in their success [Steinbach, Sieweke, Süß, 2019; Volkovskiy, Filatova, 2019].
Despite the fact that these initiatives mainly come from the national and sub-national levels, a supranational level of interaction is also introduced into the conceptual model (the vertical arrow at the bottom, showing digital interstate interaction). This level demonstrates the possible significant role of international cooperation in matters of digital participation. Unfortunately, the current state of global digital participation is characterised as deeply in crisis. Thus, European funding for digital participation has reached a minimum in recent years. The European digital strategy focuses more on the digital single market than on digital democracy and digital participation [Lironi, 2018], although the European Union was one of the first and significant sponsors of early e-Participation initiatives [Panopoulou, Tam-bouris, Tarabanis, 2010]. The reason for this is the rapid pace of digitalisation of the world economy and the loss of interest in e-Participation by many states. However, the use of the global information space and the fundamental changes in all spheres of the life of the state (including due to the pandemic, privacy violations, cyber threats and the polarisation of political discourse), to which no country is able to adapt on its own, determine the priority of the development of global digital interaction.
In our opinion, the primary task of countries transitioning to the principles of Smart Governance is to ensure the possibility of sharing information by building a communication structure for the interaction of digital governments and civil associations.
Handling this problem requires effective and harmonious interaction of national information platforms, digital tools and channels and cross-border interaction of state information resources. The latter was implemented, for example, in Estonia, which, using the X-Road network and API interaction, created an interstate data exchange with Finland, thereby strengthening its digital capabilities in ensuring a high degree of integration into the global information society. In the organogram, it would be logical to designate such interaction as G2G (Government-to-Government). Taking into account the emerging ambiguity, it was called N2N (Nation-to-Nation), in accordance with the word "nation" meaning people, country, state, which is consistent with the context of the study. This channel allows us to talk about transnational digital participation as a completely new entity.
To sum up, according to most researchers and international organisations, the level of influence of non-governmental institutions on the development of the state is the main criterion for the success and efficiency of the functioning of the entire system [Macintosh, 2004] and Smart Government as its component, in which the social
element is the highest priority. In this regard, the conceptual model (with selected objects and channels of digital participation) can be an additional tool for studying and developing digital interaction between a citizen and the state in the Smart Governance paradigm.
In the process of describing the model, a number of popular but little-studied areas were identified for further research and refinement. Thus, some aspects of digital democracy are relevant, in particular, initiatives aimed at involving citizens in the construction of political discourse, and the mechanisms of functioning of electronic petitions. It is also necessary to choose or develop a method for assessing the provision of digital participation opportunities to citizens and its quality. Finally, there is a need to measure its results. Thus, of particular interest are measurements of the difference in the quality of declared policy principles and decisions taken, as well as measurements of the costs and benefits of digital participation.
A 2019 review study found that articles that talk about the benefits of e-Partic-ipation are three times more common than articles about costs; costs and benefits (or values) are rarely considered together; scientific sources do not specify how costs should be calculated and budgeted [Anggraeni, Gupta, Verrest, 2019].
The lack of information of this kind in the academic literature is a major obstacle to better understand the conditions under which the government would be motivated to invest more in specific digital participation mechanisms. Understandably, measuring these costs is conceptually and empirically difficult. Benefits are even more difficult to measure given the widespread lack of clear goals and performance indicators for specific e-Participation initiatives. However, the costs and benefits can be more adequately measured as e-Participation is institutionalised (for example, when new units/positions are created in organisations/structures to manage e-Participation initiatives with appropriate resources).
Conclusion
The optimistic expectations that civil and political activity will revive that underpinned many e-Participation initiatives in developed countries in the early 21st century generally have not materialised. Digital citizen participation remains low, as does trust in public institutions.
The study proves the need for careful analysis of the broader political, social, technological and administrative context of digital participation. Given the emphasis on digital transformation we believe that more attention should be paid to the structural changes in public administration in response to technological changes, i.e., to switching to the use of models of Smart Governance and digital democracy.
In order to handle the problems of e-Participation and remove obstacles to its quantitative and qualitative growth, we have attempted to expand the area of consideration of digital participation by creating a conceptual model of this phenomenon. This model is an integration of the 'supply side' of digital participation and the 'demand side' of participation through smart mechanisms. During its creation, it became clear that electronic/digital participation can be much more diverse than the options that are currently used. The main value of the presented model is the ability to identify additional channels of digital participation and determine the organisational and legal context in which these channels operate by detailing and modelling participation processes.
Based on the results of the study, the following recommendations can be made.
1. The conceptual model is recommended to be considered as a basic one for studying and developing digital participation tools and channels, establishing clear links between its mechanisms and decision-making processes.
2. The model is proposed to be used as a basis for conducting comprehensive studies of digital participation and the mechanisms of interaction between the state and an individual in such sociotechnical structures as "Smart Citizen", "Smart Government", "Smart Society", "Smart City".
3. The applied use of the model in projects for the development of information services for digital interaction between society and authorities will improve the design of these platforms, and as a result, increase the quantity and quality of digital participation.
References
Begen P. N., Rybalchenko P. A., Chugunov A. V. (2020). Improving the system of electronic interaction between citizens and authorities using artificial intelligence technologies: Experience of the "Our Saint Petersburg" portal, 2019-2020. Informatsionnye resursy Rossii = Russia's Information Resources, no. 4 (176), pp. 30-36. (In Russ.)
Bradul N. V., Lebezova E. M. (2020). Conceptualization of Smart Government: A scientometric approach. Upravlenets = The Manager, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 33-45. DOI: 10.29141/2218-5003-2020-113-3. (In Russ.)
Vidiasov E. Yu., Vidiasova L. A. (2021). The digitalization of citizen participation in city governance: A study of citizen communication channels in St. Petersburg. Zhurnal issledovaniy sotsial'noy politiki / Journal of Social Policy Studies, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 115-128. DOI: 10.17323/727-0634-202119-1-115-128. (In Russ.)
Volkovskiy D. V., Filatova O. G. (2019). Internet discussions as a form of e-participation in politics: Regional aspect. PR i reklama v izmenyayushchemsya mire: regional'nyy aspect = PR and Advertising in the Changing World: A Regional Aspect, no. 20-21, pp. 6-16. (In Russ.)
Glushchenko Ya. A. (2020). The conditions of transition to cyberdemocracy in the modern world. Meridian = Meridian, no. 13 (47), pp. 27-29. (In Russ.)
Golovin S. V. (2011). The nature of economic and institutional interests. Vestnik KGU = Vestnik of Kostroma State University, no. 4, pp. 65-70. (In Russ.)
Lebezova E. M. (2019). Analysis transforming e-government to smart government. Vestnik Donetskogo natsionalnogo universiteta. Seriya B. Ekonomika i parvo = Bulletin of Donetsk National University. Series С. Economics and Law, no. 3, pp. 136-149. (In Russ.)
Lebezova E. M. (2020). The need for transition to smart governance as overcoming the systemic shortcomings of e-government. Vek kachestva: elektronnyy nauchnyy zhurnal = Age of Quality, no. 3, pp. 30-46. (In Russ.)
Pogodina I. V., Manokhin V. S. (2020). Platforms of government authorities as instruments of electronic participation: The foreign experience. Gosudarstvennaya vlast i mestnoe samoupravlenie = Government Authority and Local Government, vol. 12, pp. 57-60. DOI: 10.18572/1813-1247-202012-57-60. (In Russ.)
Pogodina I. V., Avdeev D. A. (2020). Gamification of platforms for public participation of citizens in public administration. Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsipal'nogo upravleniya = Public Administration Issues, no. 4, pp. 84-110. (In Russ.)
Chugunov A. V. (2019). The "smart city" concept: Feedback mechanisms in the context of electronic participation. Informatsionnye resursy Rossii = Russia's Information Resources, no. 6, pp. 21-27. (In Russ.)
Alarabiat A., Sá Soares D. (2016). Electronic participation through social media. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance ICEGOV '15-16 (pp. 191-194). https://doi. org/10.1145/2910019.2910109.
Alcaide Muñoz L., Rodríguez Bolívar M. P. (2021). Different levels of smart and sustainable cities construction using e-Participation tools in European and Central Asian Countries. Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 6, 3561. DOI:10.3390/su13063561.
AlEnezi A., Almeraj Z., Manuel P. (2018). Challenges of IoT based smart-government development. 21st Saudi Computer Society National Computer Conference (NCC) (pp. 155-160). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/NCG.2018.8593168.
Allen B., Tamindael L. E., Bickerton S. H., Cho W. (2020). Does citizen coproduction lead to better urban services in smart cities projects? An empirical study on e-participation in a mobile big data platform. Government Information Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j. giq.2019.101412.
Anggraeni M., Gupta J., Verrest H. J. L. M. (2019). Cost and value of stakeholders participation: A systematic literature review. Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 101, pp. 364-373. DOI: 10.1016/j. envsci.2019.07.012.
Asher M., Leston-Bandeira C., Spaiser V. (2019). Do parliamentary debates of e-Petitions enhance public engagement with parliament? An analysis of Twitter conversations. Policy & Internet, vol. 11, pp. 149-171. DOI: 10.1002/poi3.194.
Benítez-Martínezab F. L., Hurtado-Torresa M. V., Romero-Fríasb E. (2021). A neural blockchain for a tokenizable e-Participation model. Neurocomputing, vol. 423, pp. 703-712. DOI: 10.1016/j.neu-com.2020.03.116.
Bindu N., Sankar C. P., Kumar K. S. (2019). From conventional governance to e-democracy: Tracing the evolution of e-governance research trends using network analysis tools. Government Information Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 385-399. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.02.005.
Bohman S., Hansson H., Mobini P. (2014). Online participation in higher education decisionmaking. Journal of eDemocracy and Open Government, vol. 6, pp. 267-285. DOI: 10.29379/jedem. v6i3.247.
Chatterjee S., Kar A. K., Gupta M. P. (2018). Success of IoT in Smart Cities of India: An empirical analysis. Government Information Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 349-361. DOI: 10.1016/j. giq.2018.05.002.
Distel B., Lindgren I. (2019). Who are the users of digital public services? 11th Int. Conf. on Electronic Participation (ePart), San Benedetto Del Tronto, Italy (pp. 117-129). DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-27397-2_10.
Epstein D., Newhart M., Vernon R. (2014). Not by technology alone: The "analog" aspects of online public engagement in policymaking. Government Information Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 337-344. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.001.
Ertiö T.-P., Tuominen P., Rask M. (2019). Turning ideas into proposals: A case for blended participation during the participatory budgeting trial in Helsinki. In: Electronic Participation. ePart 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11686 (pp. 15-25). Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-27397-2_2.
Falanga R. (2018). The national participatory budget in Portugal: Opportunities and challenges for scaling up citizen participation in policymaking. In: Dias N. (org.) Hope for democracy: 30 years of participatory budgeting worldwide (pp. 447-466). Faro, Portugal: Oficina.
Feilner M. (2016). One year at Luxembourg's citizen participation platform Vosidees. eParticipa-tion and Voting. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/ eparticipation-and-evoting/document/one-year-luxembourgs-citizen-participation-platform-vosidees.
Fegert J., Pfeiffer J., Peukert C., Golubyeva A., Weinhardt C. (2020). Combining e-Participation with augmented and virtual reality: Insights from a design science research project. Proc. 41st Int. Conf. on Information Systems (ICIS 2020), Online, December 13-16, 2020.
Jungherr A., Jürgens P. (2010). The political click: Political participation through e-Petitions in Germany. Policy & Internet, vol. 2, issue 4, pp. 131-165. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1084.
Gil O., Cortés-Cediel M. E., Cantador I. (2019). Citizen participation and the rise of digital media platforms in Smart Governance and Smart Cities. International Journal of E-Planning Research, vol. 8, issue 1, pp. 19-34. DOI: 10.4018/IJEPR.2019010102.
Gil-Garcia J. R., Zhang J., Puron-Cid G. (2016). Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative and multi-dimensional view. Government Information Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 524-534. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.03.002.
Güler §. (2020). Political participation and subjective well-being: Individuals' e-Participation activities on twitter in terms of life satisfaction. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 354-372.
Guenduez A. A., Mettler T., Schedler K. (2017). Smart Government - Participation and empowerment of citizens in the era of big data and personalized algorithms. HMD Praxis Der Wirtschaftsinformatik, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 477-487. DOI: 10.1365/s40702-017-0307-4.
Hassan L., Hamari J. (2019). Gamification of e-Participation: A literature review. Proc. 52nd Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Science (pp. 3077-3086). DOI: 10.24251/HICSS.2019.372.
Hofmann M., Münster S., Noennig J. R. (2020). A theoretical framework for the evaluation of massive digital participation systems in urban planning. Journal of Geovisualization and Spatial Analysis, vol. 4, 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41651-019-0040-3.
Kalampokis E., Tambouris E., Tarabanis K. (2008). A domain model for eParticipation. Third Int. Conf. on Internet and Web Applications and Services (pp. 25-30). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/ICIW.2008.69.
Kankanhalli A., Charalabidis Y., Mellouli S. (2019). IoT and AI for Smart Government: A research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 304-309. DOI: 10.1016/j. giq.2019.02.003.
Klir G. J., Elias D. (2011). Architecture of systems problem solving. Springer. 349 p.
Le Blanc D. (2020). E-participation: A quick overview of recent qualitative trends (DESA Working Paper no. 163). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 33 p.
Lin Y. (2018). A comparison of selected Western and Chinese smart governance: The application of ICT in governmental management, participation and collaboration. Telecommunications Policy, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 800-809. DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2018.07.003.
Lironi E. (2018). Harnessing digital tools to revitalize European democracy. https://carnegieeurope. eu/2018/11/28/harnessing-digital-tools-to-revitalize-european-democracy-pub-77806.
Literat I., Kligler-Vilenchik N., Brough M., Blum-Ross A. (2018). Analyzing youth digital participation: Aims, actors, contexts and intensities. The Information Society, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 261-273, DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2018.1463333.
Macintosh P. A. (2004). Characterizing e-Participation in policy-making. 37th Annual Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences (pp. 5-8). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265300.
Medaglia R. (2012). eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006-2011). Government Information Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 346-360. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.02.010.
Mellouli S., Luna-Reyes L. F., Zhang J. (2014). Smart government, citizen participation and open data. Information Polity, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1-4. DOI: 10.3233/IP-140334.
Naranjo-Zolotov M., Oliveira T., Casteleyn S., Irani Z. (2019). Continuous usage of e-participa-tion: The role of the sense of virtual community. Government Information Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 536-545. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.009.
Newhart M., Brooks J. (2017). Barriers to participatory eRulemaking platform adoption: Lessons learned from RegulationRoom. Cornell e-Rulemaking Initiative Publications, 19. https://scholarship. law.cornell.edu/ceri/19/.
Omar K., Stockdale R., Scheepers, H. (2014). Social media use in local government: An Australian perspective. International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 37, pp. 666-675. DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2014.903270.
Päivärinta T., Sœbo 0. (2006). Models of e-Democracy. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 17, pp. 818-840. DOI: 10.17705/1CAIS.01737.
Panopoulou E., Tambouris E., Tarabanis K. (2010). eParticipation initiatives in Europe: Learning from practitioners. In: Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., Glassey, O. (eds.) Electronic Participation. ePart 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6229 (pp. 54-65). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15158-3_5
Peixoto T., Fox J. A. (2016). When does ICT-enabled citizen voice lead to government responsiveness? Digital dividends: background paper for the World Development Report 2016. World Bank. 26 p. DOI: 10.19088/1968-2016.104.
Pina V., Torres L., Royo S. (2017). Comparing online with offline citizen engagement for climate change: Findings from Austria, Germany and Spain. Government Information Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 26-36. DOI: 0.1016/j.giq.2016.08.009.
Porwol L., Ojo A. (2018). VR-Participation: The feasibility of the virtual reality-driven multimodal communication technology facilitating e-Participation. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance ICEGOV '18 (pp. 269-278). DOI: 10.1145/3209415.3209515.
Porwol L., Ojo A., Breslin J. G. (2018). Social software infrastructure for e-Participation. Government Information Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 88-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.01.002.
Sœb0 0., Rose J., Flak S. L. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly vol. 25, pp. 400-428. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.007.
Scholl H. J., Scholl M. C. (2014). Smart governance: A roadmap for research and practice. ICon-ference 2014 Proceedings (pp. 163-176). DOI: 10.9776/14060.
Sinclair A. J., Peirson-Smith T. J., Boerchers M. (2017). Environmental assessments in the Internet age: The role of e-Governance and social media in creating platforms for meaningful participation. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 148-157. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2016.1251697.
Steinbach M., Sieweke J., Süß, S. (2019). The diffusion of e-Participation in public administrations: A systematic literature review. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 61-95. DOI: 10.1080/10919392.2019.1552749.
Toots M. (2019). Why e-Participation systems fail: The case of Estonia's Osale.ee. Government Information Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 546-559. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.giq.2019.02.002.
Wakabi W., Grönlund Â. (2015). Citizen-to-Citizen vs. Citizen-to-Government eParticipation in Uganda: Implications for research and practice. In: Electronic Participation. ePart 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9249 (pp. 95-107). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22500-5_8.
Welch E. W. (2012). The rise of participative technologies in government. In: Shareef M. A., Archer N., Dwivedi Y. K., Mishra A., Pandey S. K. (eds.) Transformational Government through EGov Practice: Socioeconomic, Cultural, and Technological Issues. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Yusuf M., Alamsyah N., Syarif M., Muntasa A., Muzakki H. (2019). A novel framework of e-participation for smart cities. Bulletin of Social Informatics Theory and Application, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 45-55. DOI: 10.31763/businta.v3i2.213.
Yusuf M., Sophan M. K., Muntasa A., Alamsyah N., Nakkas H., Sari P. P. (2020). E-government learning media through augmented reality technology. Bulletin of Social Informatics Theory and Application, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 12-20. DOI: 10.31763/businta.v4i1.258.
Information about the authors
Ella M. Lebezova, Sr. Lecturer of Information Technologies Dept. Donetsk Academy of Management and Public Administration at the Head of Donetsk People's Republic, Donetsk, Donetsk People's Republic. E-mail: ellis54@rambler.ru Lyudmila A. Ovcharenko, Dr. Sc. (Econ.), Associate Prof., Associate Prof. of Tourism Dept. Donetsk Academy of Management and Public Administration at the Head of Donetsk People's Republic, Donetsk, Donetsk People's Republic. E-mail: taponi-dhidas2012@yandex.ua
© Lebezova E. M., Ovcharenko L. A., 2022
