Public Internet Governance Institutes: Comparative Analysis of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan
Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan are among the highly developed countries in the UN e-Government Development Index. With a high rate of digitalization of public administration, solving the problems of citizens' access to the Internet and developing the electronic services sector, these countries...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
North-West institute of management of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
2021-02-01
|
| Series: | Управленческое консультирование |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.acjournal.ru/jour/article/view/1588 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850077387343003648 |
|---|---|
| author | L. V. Smorgunov |
| author_facet | L. V. Smorgunov |
| author_sort | L. V. Smorgunov |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan are among the highly developed countries in the UN e-Government Development Index. With a high rate of digitalization of public administration, solving the problems of citizens' access to the Internet and developing the electronic services sector, these countries differ from each other in the design of a digitalization policy. The structure of digitalization projects in these countries includes all the necessary components — strategy, coordination, evaluation, intervention, but it is distinguished by a focus on digital change and a political infrastructure that ensures technology interference in the public sphere. Among the significant factors of digitalization policy in the described cases, the idea of sovereignty related to the Internet and digital technologies stands out. The general policy of the countries included in the Eurasian space of cooperation is expressed by the principle of “digital sovereignty”. The article analyses the general understanding of the principle of “digital sovereignty” and the various strategies for its implementation — “multilateral interaction”, “stakeholdercooperation” and “centralized management”, as well as the institutions of management that provide them. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-ee2d273d36df4a77b62ec24001fae8f5 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 1726-1139 1816-8590 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2021-02-01 |
| publisher | North-West institute of management of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Управленческое консультирование |
| spelling | doaj-art-ee2d273d36df4a77b62ec24001fae8f52025-08-20T02:45:49ZengNorth-West institute of management of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public AdministrationУправленческое консультирование1726-11391816-85902021-02-01012243910.22394/1726-1139-2020-12-24-391388Public Internet Governance Institutes: Comparative Analysis of Russia, Belarus and KazakhstanL. V. Smorgunov0St. Petersburg State UniversityBelarus, Russia and Kazakhstan are among the highly developed countries in the UN e-Government Development Index. With a high rate of digitalization of public administration, solving the problems of citizens' access to the Internet and developing the electronic services sector, these countries differ from each other in the design of a digitalization policy. The structure of digitalization projects in these countries includes all the necessary components — strategy, coordination, evaluation, intervention, but it is distinguished by a focus on digital change and a political infrastructure that ensures technology interference in the public sphere. Among the significant factors of digitalization policy in the described cases, the idea of sovereignty related to the Internet and digital technologies stands out. The general policy of the countries included in the Eurasian space of cooperation is expressed by the principle of “digital sovereignty”. The article analyses the general understanding of the principle of “digital sovereignty” and the various strategies for its implementation — “multilateral interaction”, “stakeholdercooperation” and “centralized management”, as well as the institutions of management that provide them.https://www.acjournal.ru/jour/article/view/1588digital sovereigntyinternet governanceinstitutionsmultilateral interactionstakeholder cooperationcentralized management |
| spellingShingle | L. V. Smorgunov Public Internet Governance Institutes: Comparative Analysis of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan Управленческое консультирование digital sovereignty internet governance institutions multilateral interaction stakeholder cooperation centralized management |
| title | Public Internet Governance Institutes: Comparative Analysis of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan |
| title_full | Public Internet Governance Institutes: Comparative Analysis of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan |
| title_fullStr | Public Internet Governance Institutes: Comparative Analysis of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan |
| title_full_unstemmed | Public Internet Governance Institutes: Comparative Analysis of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan |
| title_short | Public Internet Governance Institutes: Comparative Analysis of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan |
| title_sort | public internet governance institutes comparative analysis of russia belarus and kazakhstan |
| topic | digital sovereignty internet governance institutions multilateral interaction stakeholder cooperation centralized management |
| url | https://www.acjournal.ru/jour/article/view/1588 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lvsmorgunov publicinternetgovernanceinstitutescomparativeanalysisofrussiabelarusandkazakhstan |