CC BY
4
вопросы инновационной экономики
Том 11 • Номер 4 • Октябрь-декабрь 2021 ISSN 2222-0372 Russian Journal of Innovation Economics
>
Первое
экономическое издательство
Digitalization impact on effectiveness
of the urban development policy of Russian cities
in comparative perspective
Morozova S.S. 1, Kurochkin A.V. 1
1 Saint-Petersburg State University, Russia аннотация:
The main goal of the article is to identify and assess the impact of digitalization on the effectiveness of the urban development policy of Russian cities. In this vein, special attention is paid to the coordination component of public administration. This research is based on the study which was held by authors in the format of an expert interview in 2020 in seven Russian cities - centers of digitalization. The current stage of the constitutional reform in the Russian Federation gives particular relevance to the presented study, which implies, among others, the institutionalization of a public power unified system, designed to ensure a higher efficiency level of coordination mechanisms for policy development and its implementation among all government levels, its balance and stability. The comparative analysis revealed certain patterns in the causes of the digitalization positive effects, as well as key obstacles arising in the process of urban development and affecting the strategic stability and the government system efficiency in the face of new global and regional challenges.
ФИНАНСИРОВАНИЕ. The research and publication are funded by the Grants Council of the President of the Russian Federation (Grant №MK-3016.2021.2, Dynamic model formation for optimizing e-government in the Russian Federation in the case of new challenges and risks) (Svetlana Morozova) and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Alexander Kurochkin) (project № 21-01 1-31356, City government and self-government systems transformations study in the context of the constitutional institutionalization of the public authority unified system in the Russian Federation).
ключевые слова: digitalization, public policy, institutionalization, urban development, coordination.
Introduction
After the adoption of amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation in 2020, the transformation of the public power system in Russia acquired a certain vector and ideological content, the key target bases of which were the introduction of an effective system for coordinating the interaction of various levels of government (primarily regional and municipal) and its acquisition of real functional unity.
A special role in this process is played by new digital technologies, which, on the one hand, provide an effective technological infrastructure for the development and implementation of solutions among different government levels, and on the other hand, contribute to the smooth functioning of the feedback system with citizens, which is also a significant factor in the efficiency and unity of the formed system of public authority.
The assessment of the digitalization impact on the formation of a new system of public authority was carried out by the authors based on results of a comparative study conducted in 2020 in seven Russian cities - digitalization centers (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, Kazan, Novosibirsk, Krasnodar and Vladivostok). The choice of these cities for a comparative study was determined by the following factors: the coverage of various federal districts throughout the territory of the Russian Federation, the "capital" status of the cities in question, which are the administrative centers of not only regions, but also federal districts, and, finally, the presence of a powerful scientific and technological base that provides availability of resource potential for the digitalization development in various areas of urban policy.
The main research questions can be formulated as follows: What is the impact of digital technologies on the effectiveness of the urban development policy and on the process of formation of a new system of public authority in general? What are the features of the
abstract:_
The main goal of the article is to identify and assess the impact of digitalization on the effectiveness of the urban development policy of Russian cities. In this vein, special attention is paid to the coordination component of public administration. This research is based on the study which was held by authors in the format of an expert interview in 2020 in seven Russian cities - centers of digitalization. The current stage of the constitutional reform in the Russian Federation gives particular relevance to the presented study, which implies, among others, the institutionalization of a public power unified system, designed to ensure a higher efficiency level of coordination mechanisms for policy development and its implementation among all government levels, its balance and stability. The comparative analysis revealed certain patterns in the causes of the digitalization positive effects, as well as key obstacles arising in the process of urban development and affecting the strategic stability and the government system efficiency in the face of new global and regional challenges.
Acknowledgements. The research and publication are funded by the Grants Council of the President of the Russian Federation (Grant №MK-3016.2021.2, Dynamic model formation for optimizing e-govern-ment in the Russian Federation in the case of new challenges and risks) (Svetlana Morozova) and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Alexander Kurochkin) (project № 21-01 1-31356, City government and self-government systems transformations study in the context of the constitutional institutionalization of the public authority unified system in the Russian Federation).
keywords: digitalization, public policy, institutionalization, urban development, coordination JEL Classification: R12, R13, 031 Received: 08.11.2021 / Published: 24.12.2021
© Author(s) / Publication: PRIMEC Publishers
For correspondence: Morozova S.S. ( s.s.morozova@spbu.ru)
citation:_
Morozova S.S., Kurochkin A.V. (2021) Digitalization impact on effectiveness of the urban development policy of Russian cities in comparative perspective [Digitalization impact on effectiveness of the urban development policy of Russian cities in comparative perspective]. Voprosy innovatsionnoy ekonomiki. 11. (4). - 1773-1786. doi: 10.18334/vinec.11.4.1 13829
вопросы ИННОВАЦИОННОЙ экономики № 4'2021 (Октябрь-декабрь) 1775
digitalization process in terms of the coordination component in the Russian studied regions? What are the reasons for the differences in the pace and quality of new digital technologies implementation for urban development?
Theoretical framework
The problems of the public power system development, the optimal balance of management and self-government in the conditions of the Network society and the digital revolution are considered in detail on the basis of extensive empirical material by a number of foreign political and sociological sources. Among the most significant works on the methodology for analyzing the structural transformation of public power in the Network society and digital economy are works by J. Van Dijk [1] (Van Dijk, 1991), W. Kickert [2] (Kickert, Klijn, Koppenjan, 1997), J. Kooiman [3] (Kooiman (eds.), 1993), et al.
Thus, W. Kickert and his co-authors discuss political networks as a fundamental characteristic of modern society and provide an overview of the strategies for managing these networks, and also illustrate various intervention strategies. Professor J. Van Dijk's study is a synthesis of modern theories of digital modernization. It offers a broad introduction to the Network society in all its aspects. J. Kooiman highlights the theoretical aspect in the relationship among the public and private sectors, as well as in the politics and society interaction. He explores new beginnings in public-private cooperation and attempts to explain them in terms of their coincidence with the dynamics, complexities and diversity of modern society, thus developing the scheme of a new theory of socio-political governance.
Scientific works analysis of the classical school of governance allows us to identify the role of coordination processes in modern government structures and assess their impact on the governance effectiveness. The founder of the coordination theory, the outstanding theorist and practitioner of management H. Fayol [4] (Fayol, 1949), was the first to come to the conclusion that the theory of organization should be applied not only to production, but also to public administration, determined the place of coordination in the governance structure. Thus, H. Fayol developed a fundamentally new approach to the governance process analysis. Coordination, according to Fayol, is one of the main functions of management.
It should be noted that today in the Russian scientific literature there are various approaches to the coordination interpretation, used at the intersection of political, economic
об авторах:_
Морозова Светлана Сергеевна, ассистент кафедры российской политики, Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет (s.s.morozovaBspbu.ru)
Курочкин Александр Вячеславович, профессор кафедры российской политики, Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет ia.kurochkin0spbu.ru)
цитировать статью:_
Morozova S.S., Kurochkin A.V. Digitalization impact on effectiveness of the urban development policy of Russian cities in comparative perspective // Вопросы инновационной экономики. - 2021. - Том 11. - № 4. -С. 1773-1786. doi: 10.18334/vinec.1 1.4.1 13829
and legal sciences. It is considered as a function, a management principle, a method, one of the processes in social organizations. A.A. Maksurov, for instance, notes that "coordination activity implies the existence of specific, namely coordination, ties and relations, which, in turn, presupposes appropriate organizational and institutional forms of cooperation based on the competence of the relevant bodies and officials" [5] (Maksurov, 2007).
A.E. Lunev gives a narrower definition of the coordination concept: as "harmonization and establishment of a reasonable correlation between the actions of various bodies, their structural divisions and employees to achieve certain goals with the least expenditure of manpower and resources" [6] (Lunev, 1974).
A well-known specialist in the field of social management V.G. Afanasyev, emphasizes that in the presence of pronounced coordination relations, a complex interweaving of causes and effects takes place. He defines coordination as "a certain consistency, the fit of the components to each other, that special character of their mutual dependence, which ensures the dynamic equilibrium of the system" [7] (Afanasev, 1968).
In the structure of legislative system of the Russian Federation, the coordination definition is disclosed through the prism of the public authority unified system concept: "Coordination of bodies activities that are part of a single system of public authority is a system of actions and decisions that are aimed at ensuring the coordinated functioning and interaction of bodies that are part of a single system of public authority , are carried out and adopted in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation by the President of the Russian Federation, as well as within the limits of their competence by the Government of the Russian Federation, the State Council, and other public authorities" [8].
In foreign scientific research, there is a more narrow-focus and practice-oriented approach to the analysis of public policy coordination component. Most of them are devoted to the problem of ensuring effective coordination of various institutions and levels of public authority, with an emphasis on finding ways to eliminate gaps and conflicts among them. C. Panara's and M. Varney's study [9] (Panara, Varney, 2013), for instance, aims to offer a detailed introduction to and account of each system of local government in 13 EU Member States, including a critical and contextual analysis of EU-central-local government relations.
To identify the criteria for assessing the effects of new technologies for urban development, special attention should be paid to the dynamics and main directions of information technologies development that contribute to the coordination of public and state interests in the context of the municipal and state administration system development. Thus, Professor A.V. Aleinikov and co-authors analyze the distinctive characteristics of communication in the digitalization process [10] (Aleinikov, Kurochkin, Maltseva, 2018). The authors note the importance of the strategies coordination for developing innovative solutions and the cognitive integration to provide the effectiveness of this process. For the comparative evaluation of coordination technologies, the authors use the communication efficiency concept, which is determined by them as a function of minimizing transaction costs.
S. Jamil, exploring the various issues underlying digital divide, concludes that embracing an integrated and citizen-oriented approach may lead to increase equal opportunities in the
use of ICTs. Moreover, the author recommends harmonizing e-government policies and regulations through mutual consensus between federal and provincial governments in the implementation of consistent and interoperable e-services [11] (Jamil, 2021).
Taking into account the analyzed conceptual apparatus, in this paper, under effective coordination, the authors understand fast and high-quality ensuring the coordination of actions of all participants and stakeholders in the public authority system. Transparency and continuity of the coordination process are equally important parameters of efficiency in the context of the public power digital transformation.
Methods
To form the methodological foundations of the study, the authors turned to the new institutional approach that actualizes the role of institutions in clarifying the social, economic, and political-administrative interactions of various actors in urban policy, the formation and activities of urban communities, and ensuring the effectiveness of the coordination function of government in the digital communications space. The latter is especially important, since it is the coordination function that plays a key role in the digitalization environment in ensuring not only the process of effective coordination of interests, but also streamlining communications, clarifying the content of the urban development agenda for all stakeholder groups, thereby ensuring the communicative efficiency of the government system.
The impact of digitalization both on the coordination capabilities of the government and on the effectiveness of the urban development policy of Russian cities was clearly revealed in the process of comparative analyzing the strategies of interaction among regional (state) and city (municipal) authorities in the cases of Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Kazan, Vladivostok, Krasnodar and Yekaterinburg.
To conduct a comparative study, the authors identified four main problematic spheres:
1. Strategic stability and efficiency of the government system in the case of new global and regional challenges.
2. Anti-crisis response and the use of digital technologies under the conditions of new threats of the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. Socio-economic effects of digitalization.
4. The political effects of the introduction of new government technologies for urban development and management.
Each of the problematic spheres contained a block of questions to which the experts had to answer. Due to the restrictive measures caused by the pandemic, the expert interviews were conducted in two formats. In the virtual format, the experts were asked to choose the answer options indicated in the questionnaire after each of the questions. In the second version of the in-depth interview, the experts had to give their own expert commentary on each of the questions presented, as well as explain their opinion.
From July to November 2020, the working group conducted 135 face-to-face and 115 distance expert interviews. The experts were chosen in advance based on their specialization
and the availability of professional expertise in the field of digitalization. Expert interviews were conducted in higher educational institutions and research centers of the studied regions: Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University, Far Eastern Federal University, Kazan Federal University, Ural Federal University, Kuban State University, etc., as well as in the Administrations and Chambers of Commerce and Industry of the regions.
The combination of the interviewed respondents was determined according to two main parameters:
1. Having of competencies in the development and implementation of digital technologies in the urban management system;
2. Belonging to one of four employment areas: business; non-profit organizations; state and municipal administration; research organizations.
In terms of employment, the research team tried to adhere to the following proportion (Table 1).
Table 1
Percentage of surveyed experts
Percentage Employment sector
40% Research organizations
25% Business (mainly medium and large)
25% State and municipal administration
10% Non-profit sector
Source: compiled by the authors.
Due to the fact that the methodological part of the study goes beyond the permissible scope of the scientific article volume, we considered it possible to present it selectively, focusing on the goal and objectives of this paper. Table 2 partially presents the example of the expert interview toolkit developed with the participation of the authors - a questionnaire with a list of questions that were included in both expert interview formats (online and offline). The table also shows how the interview results are calculated.
Results
The comparative analysis revealed certain patterns in the causes of the digitalization positive effects, as well as key obstacles arising in the process of urban development and affecting the strategic stability and the government system efficiency in the face of new global and regional challenges. Table 3 presents summary indicators of the adaptability and efficiency of the urban development policy in the seven studied regions.
Moscow, St. Petersburg and Kazan are the leaders in both the coordination capacity of government and the effectiveness of urban development policies. This result is confirmed by both the quantitative indicators presented in Table 3 and the comments received from the interviewed experts during the interviews. The first two metropolitan centers fundamentally differ from other cities in their constitutional status (subjects of the Russian Federation -cities of federal significance) and political and administrative resources concentrated here.
Table 2
Expert interview questionnaire
Questions Answer options calculation of results
1. Has the city developed a development strategy (roadmap), in which one of the priorities would be digitalization and the use of new technological approaches to territorial planning management? At the city level, the corresponding national programs of the federal level are being implemented At the city level, a strategy or its analogue, adopted at the regional level, is being implemented The strategy or its analogue is adopted and is being implemented at the level of the city (municipality) The strategy or its analogue is still being developed by the city leadership At the city level, there is no strategy or its analogues, but digital technologies and modern territorial planning are used None of the above 7. Other 1 = 1 2 = 2 3 = 3 4 = 1,5 5 = 2 6 = 0 7 = answer text if it cannot be interpreted by correlating with answers 1-6 Calculation formula (%): sum of answer weights / maximum sum of answers (9.5) * 100
2. How can you characterize the practice of using public-private partnerships in the urban projects implementation? (1 answer option) 1. The use of various forms of PPP in the implementation of urban projects is widely used in various fields 2. The use of various forms of PPP in the implementation of urban projects is used only in certain areas 3. The city has experience of single PPP projects 4. There is no such practice, or these projects have failed. 5. Other 1 = 3 2 = 2 3 = 1 4 = 0 5 = answer text, if it cannot be interpreted by correlating with answers 1-4 Calculation formula (%): sum of answer weights / maximum sum of answers (3) * 100
3. What approach to ensuring the openness of the government bodies' activities is being implemented by the city administration? (1 answer option) 1. Reports and statistics are published on a regular basis, including in a machine-readable form 2. Periodically (no more than 1-2 times a month) reports / statistics are published 3. The city administration mainly only informs about its activities through official communication channels in the most general form 4. None of the above 5. Other 1 = 3 2 = 2 3 = 1 4 = 0 5 = answer text, if it cannot be interpreted by correlating with answers 1-4 Calculation formula (%): sum of answer weights / maximum sum of answers (3) * 100
4. How could you characterize the level of digitalization of interaction with citizens and urban governance in general? 1. Federal and / or regional digitalization projects are being implemented 2. At the city level, targeted projects are being implemented in the field of digitalization of interaction with citizens and business 3. At the city level, targeted projects are being implemented in the field of social, transport and other digital services 1 = 1 2 = 2 3 = 2 4 = 1 5 = 3 6 = 0 7 = answer text if it cannot be interpreted by correlating with answers 1-6
Continuation of table 2
Questions Answer options Calculation of results
4. The city administration is introducing information systems to ensure document flow, etc. 5. The city administration is introducing information systems for city planning and project management. 6. None of the above 7. Other Calculation formula (%): sum of answer weights / maximum sum of answers (9) * 100
5. How would you rate the level and forms of interaction of the city administration with external experts and specialists in the process of city management and preparation / adoption of appropriate decisions? 1. The city administration regularly holds meetings of expert and public councils and uses their recommendations 2. The city administration actively interacts with academic institutions and / or independent experts and uses their recommendations 3. The city administration independently initiates and finances research and development on problems of urban development (expertise / development of strategic development plans / programs, etc.) 4. Representatives of the city administration regularly hold consultations with business and NGOs on the problems of urban development on external communication platforms (business associations, innovation forums, "boiling points", etc.) 5. The city administration, through various communication channels, quickly enough responds to the problems of residents (electronic receptions, social networks) 6. The city administration, through digital services, monitors the quality of the urban environment (implementing applications for the repair of housing and communal services, the quality of roads, etc.) 7. The city administration, through digital target projects and services, engages society in solving urban problems (proactive budgeting, crowdsourcing discussion of initiatives, etc.) 8. None of the above 9. Other 1 = 1 2 = 1.5 3 = 2 4 = 2 5-1 6 = 2 7 = 2.5 8 = 0 9 = answer text if it cannot be interpreted by correlating with answers 1-8 Calculation formula (%): sum of answer weights / maximum sum of answers (12) * 100
6. How would you rate the level of competence of executives and the policy of personnel renewal in the city administration? (rate each criterion) 1. There are open competitions for the appointment of top and middle executives of the city administration 2. Top and middle executives of the city administration have relevant management experience in business structures 3. The top and middle executives of the city administration have experience in leading 1 = (Yes = 2; No = 0; Partially = 1) 2 = (Yes = 2; No = 0; Partially = 1) 3 = (Yes = 1; No = 0; Partially = 0.5) 4 = (Yes = 2; No = 0; Partially = 1)
Final of table 2
Questions Answer options Calculation of results
work in the civil service at the federal / regional level of government 4. Top and middle executives of the city administration have the necessary competencies in the field of digitalization and innovative development Calculation formula (%): sum of answer weights / maximum sum of answers (7) * 100
7. How would you characterize the adaptation of the city's system of government to new risks? 1. The city administration takes into account current and latent risks at the level of strategic instruments or in governance practice 2. The city administration has an operational plan of action and crisis management models 3. The city administration actively interacts with business and society in order to anticipate development risks 4. None of the above 5. Other 1 = 2 2 = 1 3 = 1.5 4 = 0 5 = answer text, if it cannot be interpreted by correlating with answers 1-4 Calculation formula (%): sum of answer weights / maximum sum of answers (4.5) * 100
Source: [12] (Kurochkin, Antonov, Morozova, Maltseva, Dedul, Nikiforov, Volkova, 2020).
Table 3
Assessment of the adaptability and efficiency of the city management system (Calculation formula (%): sum of answer weights / maximum sum of answers * 100)
¡5 The role of digital technologies and new management approaches in strategic planning The role of PPP in urban projects The level of the city administration openness Digital interaction with citizens The level of the expert community involvement in the process of preparing managerial decisions The quality of management employees The adaptability of city government to new risks Total results
Vladivostok 1,79 1,63 1,63 2,16 2,5B 2,63 0,53 12,95
Kazan 2,13 2,25 1,67 4,17 3,92 3,75 1,71 19,6
Krasnodar 2,13 1,B1 1,B2 3,27 3,21 2,65 1,23 16,03
Ekaterinburg 1,47 1,69 1,52 2,95 2,B 3,3 1,09 14,B2
Moscow 2,75 2,35 2,13 4,10 3,9B 4,97 2,04 22,32
Novosibirsk 2,B1 1,56 1,22 3,22 2,39 2,94 0,94 15,0B
St. Petersburg 2,24 2,20 2,00 3,94 3,56 3,0B 1,B9 1B,91
Checksum maximum by indicator 9,5 3 3 9 12 7 4,5 4B
Source: compiled by the authors.
In addition, Moscow also has formal capital functions and the highest political and administrative capabilities among the cities of the Russian Federation, as well as an unprecedented resource base (both material and intellectual). These features provide both competitive advantages and certain problem areas for federal cities. On the one hand, they have a strong budgetary base, as well as political and administrative support from the federal authorities, which makes it possible to develop and implement a wider range of digital smart city technologies than other large cities of the Russian Federation. But on the other hand, both Moscow and St. Petersburg experience a stronger dependence on federal projects and significant competition with the federal political elite. An even more significant obstacle is weak motivation for a sustainable innovative type of development focused on saving limited resources, which also complicates the resulting assessment of the digitalization process effectiveness, which would take into account not only the results, but also the cost of the implemented programs.
St. Petersburg is also disadvantageously distinguished by the significantly slower pace of smart city technologies' implementation in comparison Moscow. Despite the concept for the St. Petersburg smart city development, approved back in February 2018, as of mid-2020, it wasn't implemented, and as a result a significant lag behind the capital was formed.
The positive experience of Kazan deserves special attention, as it does not have a constitutional status comparable to St. Petersburg and Moscow, political, administrative and financial capabilities. The decisive factor for the success in the digitalization processes and the innovative development of Kazan as a whole was the effective structure of city management (taking into account the digitized feedback system), as well as the chosen political strategy for the smart city technologies' implementation. It is also worth noting the balanced nature of relations between urban and republican management systems, which allows the first to pursue an independent pro-active development policy, consistent with the regional innovation development agenda and ensuring the deconcentrated nature of the regional policy for the development and implementation of new technologies (which is facilitated, for example, by the presence in Tatarstan of an alternative Center for Innovative Development Innopolis).
For the other four cities under study, common problem areas that hinder the active and effective implementation of smart city technologies were in order of importance:
a high degree of municipal authorities' dependence on regional government bodies (less often federal), inversely proportional to the level of their legitimacy and political support by the population;
• a shortage of material and, in some cases, intellectual resources;
• a significant digital divide between various socio-demographic groups of the population;
• as well as a poorly developed online feedback system with both citizens and the expert community.
вопросы ИННОВАЦИОННОЙ экономики № 4'2021 (Октябрь-декабрь) 1783
For example, in the case of Vladivostok, all experts unanimously noted as the reasons for the absence of a proactive urban development policy, the extremely low voter turnout in the elections to representative bodies of city self-government, the absence of direct elections of the mayor, which makes the city administration extremely dependent on the regional authorities (which, for example, minimizes independent PPP and MPP projects), an insufficiently effective feedback system with citizens and the absence at the city level of a strategy for increasing citizens' digital literacy.
In the case of Yekaterinburg, to the political components of the weak efficiency of the new technologies introduction for urban development, the existing political split in the city and the active formation of opposition urban communities that don't articulate clear political goals but strictly criticize the decisions of the city and regional authorities are added.
A more balanced and resource-intensive development strategy is being implemented by Novosibirsk and Krasnodar. The degree of political and administrative sustainability of urban management systems is higher here than in Vladivostok and Yekaterinburg, which, nevertheless, does not reduce the influence of such negative factors as: low level of public participation in the development of urban development strategies, lack of qualified staff to create and promote digital products, weak communication with the expert community, lack of economic incentives for the innovation development and a shortage of resources in general.
Conclusion
The results of the presented research convincingly demonstrated the significant role of digitalization tools in the process of urban development, including in terms of an effective coordination component formation among various levels of public authority.
In all seven studied cities-centers of digitalization in Russia (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, Kazan, Novosibirsk, Krasnodar and Vladivostok), individual characteristics of innovative development were identified. The system of public administration, which is transforming under the new conditions of digitalization, is no exception.
Analysis and assessment of the impact and related problems of digitalization on the formation of a public authority new system revealed the need to ensure, among others, such conditions for the strategic stability and efficiency of the government system, as:
• urban communities' ease institutionalization;
• a balanced nature of inter-level interaction among government authorities;
• formation of a space of equal social communication, through various online services, as well as a highly developed feedback system from citizens;
• community planning for the urban ecosystem development.
Only if they are fully taken into account both in the process of assessing the effects of cities' innovative digital development and in such strategies planning, can positive dynamics be achieved in overcoming new social and political challenges to the process of urban governance system formation.
Today, an integral approach to urban development is needed, balanced both in terms of territorial and sectoral principles. Ensuring such integration requires the introduction of a cross-municipal and, more broadly, a cross-regional structure for coordinating interactions. The network structure of coordination, provided by various associations, unions, expert networks and other forms of cooperation, which makes it possible to jointly find a solution to the universal problems of the region and accumulate various resources for it, seems to be optimal.
ИСТОЧНИКИ:
1. Van Dijk J. The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media. - Houten, the Netherlands, 1991.
2. Kickert W., Klijn E. H., Koppenjan J. F. M. Managing complex networks. - Sage, London, 1997.
3. Kooiman J. (eds.) Modern governance: New government-society interactions. - Sage, London, 1993.
4. Fayol H. General and Industrial Management. - Pitman, London, 1949.
5. Максуров А.А. Координация - наиболее перспективный метод построения системы государственной власти в Российской Федерации // Государственная власть и местное самоуправление. - 2007. - № 9. - c. 3.
6. Лунев А.Е. Теоретические проблемы государственного управления. - Москва: Наука, 1974.
7. Афанасьев В.Г. Научное управление обществом. - Москва: Политиздат, 1968.
8. Федеральный закон от 8 декабря 2020 г. № 394-Ф3 «О Государственном Совете Российской Федерации». Гарант. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://base.garant. ru/75016707/ (дата обращения: 19.11.2021).
9. Panara C., Varney M. Local Government in Europe: The "Fourth Level" in the EU Multi-Layered System of Governance. - Routledge, London, 2013.
10. Aleinikov A.V., Kurochkin A. V., Maltseva D. A. The Information Efficiency of New Knowledge Production in the Era of Network Communications // Scientific and Technical Information Processing. - 2018. - № 45(1). - p. 22-27.
11. Jamil S. From digital divide to digital inclusion: Challenges for wide-ranging digitalization in Pakistan // Telecommunications Policy. - 2021. - № 45 (8). - doi: 10.1016 / j.telpol.2021.102206.
12. Курочкин А.В., Антонов Г.К., Морозова С.С., Мальцева Д.А., Дедуль А.Г., Никифоров А.А., Волкова А.В. Оценка эффективности новых технологий городского развития в современной России: сравнительный анализ. / Коллективная монография. - СПб.: Издательство Русской христианской гуманитарной академии, 2020.
REFERENCES:
Afanasev V.G. (1968). Nauchnoe upravlenie obshchestvom [Scientific management of the society] (in Russian).
Aleinikov A.V., Kurochkin A. V., Maltseva D. A. (2018). The Information Efficiency of New Knowledge Production in the Era of Network Communications Scientific and Technical Information Processing. (45(1)). 22-27.
Fayol H. (1949). General and Industrial Management
Jamil S. (2021). From digital divide to digital inclusion: Challenges for wide-ranging digitalization in Pakistan Telecommunications Policy. (45 (8)). doi: 10.1016 / j.telpol.2021.102206.
Kickert W., Klijn E. H., Koppenjan J. F. M. (1997). Managing complex networks
Kooiman J. (eds.) (1993). Modern governance: New government-society interactions
Kurochkin A.V., Antonov G.K., Morozova S.S., Maltseva D.A., Dedul A.G., Nikiforov A.A., Volkova A.V. (2020). Otsenka effektivnosti novyh tekhnologiy gorodskogo razvitiya v sovremennoy Rossii: sravnitelnyy analiz [Evaluation of the effectiveness of new technologies of urban development in modern Russia: comparative analysis] (in Russian).
Lunev A.E. (1974). Teoreticheskieproblemy gosudarstvennogo upravleniya [Theoretical problems of public administration] (in Russian).
Maksurov A.A. (2007). Koordinatsiya - naiboleeperspektivnyy metodpostroeniya sistemy gosudarstvennoy vlasti v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Coordination is the most promising method of building a system of state power in the Russian Federation]. State power and local self-government. (9). 3. (in Russian).
Panara C., Varney M. (2013). Local Government in Europe: The "Fourth Level" in the EU Multi-Layered System of Governance
Van Dijk J. (1991). The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media
