Information openness in the activities of government bodies. Practice of regulating information openness of public authorities in foreign countries. Ensuring openness of information about the activities of government bodies: regulations and problems

For citizens to truly participate in government, they must have the necessary information.

Openness of management is a concept that enshrines the basic principles of openness of executive authorities, tasks and mechanisms for their implementation and contains a system of strategic guidelines in ensuring transparency, accountability and control of the authorities to civil society, the formation of a dialogue between authorities and citizens, public associations and entrepreneurs.

We have already talked about the need to post information about the activities of government bodies on departmental websites (Federal Law No. 8-FZ). The next step was the introduction of the concept of open management. In 2014, the Government of the Russian Federation established an Openness Standard (Fig. 10.3) federal bodies executive power (federal executive authority).

Rice. 10.3.

The standard is mandatory for implementation by federal agencies. It is designed to ensure increased information openness of government bodies; their accountability; expanding opportunities for public participation in the development and examination of decisions made; development of public control mechanisms.

The concept of openness was developed by the Expert Council and approved by the government. It describes the basic principles and mechanisms of openness.

Principles of openness:

• information openness - timely provision of open, publicly available and reliable information about the activities of the federal executive authority;
• understandability - presentation of the goals, objectives, plans and results of the activities of the federal executive authority in a form that ensures public perception of information;
• involvement - ensuring the possibility of participation of citizens, businesses, public associations in the development and implementation of management decisions;
• accountability - provision of information by government agencies about their activities, taking into account requests and priorities civil society.

Among those installed openness mechanisms include:

• work with reference (target) groups;
• adoption of activity plans and annual public declaration of goals and objectives;
• posting information about activities, including on the department’s website;
• public reporting;
• independent anti-corruption expertise and public monitoring;
• ensuring clarity of legal regulations;
• working with open data;
• interaction with the public council;
• interaction with the media;
• work with appeals from citizens and public associations.

This work should be carried out in every federal department.

The Methodological Recommendations for Implementing the Principles of Openness reveal the content of each mechanism. In turn, the Monitoring and Evaluation Methodology is aimed at studying the results of the implementation of these principles (Fig. 10.4).

Self-examination is carried out in the federal executive authority for each of the openness mechanisms, and all indicators are assessed based on the presence or absence of value. Experts evaluate the effectiveness of openness mechanisms on a 10-point scale, taking into account such criteria as:

• orientation of the department’s work towards the end user (reference groups, citizens, public associations);
• involvement of the expert community and public associations;
• transparency of the work of the federal executive authority.

Rice. 10.4.

Openness monitoring has been carried out by the Government Commission annually since 2014.

Based on the data obtained, they calculate openness indices:

• private index shows the level of openness for a certain parameter;
• composite index reflects the perception of the openness of the federal executive authority by its target audience;
• complex index openness reflects the general level of openness of the federal executive authority.

Based on the complex index, a rating of the openness of federal executive authorities is created, the leaders of which are the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Emergency Situations and the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, and the least open departments are the Ministry of Caucasus, Rosavtodor and the Bailiff Service.

• Order of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 30, 2014 No. 93-r “On approval of the Concept of openness of federal executive authorities.”

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

• Introduction
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Application

Introduction

Relevance of the study. Currently, the sphere of public administration and the sphere everyday life are being modernized under the influence of information and communication technologies (hereinafter referred to as ICT). In turn, both federal and regional authorities are introducing ICT to increase the efficiency of their work and improve the quality of services provided to the population. A consequence of the process of introducing ICT into the sphere of public administration is the emergence of the concept of “electronic state”, within which “electronic governance” mechanisms are built in order to improve communication between government bodies, citizens and organizations.

The concept of “electronic state” affects three branches of government. Thus, under the influence of the introduction of ICT, the formation of “electronic government” is taking place in the executive branch, “electronic parliament” in the legislative branch, and “electronic justice” in the judicial branch.

In turn, this process affects such an important factor as “information openness,” which is one of the foundations of the “electronic state” concept. The lack of information openness leads to a lack of accountability of government authorities to citizens. When easy access to activity information is provided, legislative acts, then we can talk about information openness. When will information about the activities of the body state power is inaccessible to citizens, organizations, the media and other interested parties, this may negatively affect public trust in government authorities. When information is widely disseminated, it facilitates communication, which in turn increases the productivity of subjects. Information openness allows citizens to independently evaluate the activities of subjects, which increases their legitimacy.

Also, in light of cost-cutting measures taken, the publication of information about activities through ICT has the potential to reduce government expenditure on information dissemination. In addition, the publication of information about activities on official websites on the Internet provides an incentive for public authorities to increase the productivity of their activities, since the likelihood of consequences increases if the adopted administrative decisions, initiatives or policies are unsuccessful, since more citizens finds out about the existing problem

However, there are a number of practical problems. According to laws in the field of information, information technology and access to information about the activities of government bodies, government bodies are required to report on their activities on official websites on the Internet. However, despite the regulation of this area, the level of information openness across Russia is not homogeneous.

In turn, it seems relevant to study the factors that influence the implementation of the concept of “electronic state” and “information openness” in particular. The existing analysis of factors influencing the information openness of regional authorities in Russia does not correspond to modern reality due to the constant variability of ICT in public administration, and also does not take into account a number of factors that, hypothetically, could influence this phenomenon.

The object of the study is the information openness of authorities in the constituent entities Russian Federation. The subject of the study is factors influencing the information openness of regional authorities. The degree of scientific development of the problem. The concept of information openness is related to the concept of “electronic state”. The history of the use of the Internet in public administration is discussed in a series of books by D. West, in which he studies various levels of government: federal, regional and local. The main idea of ​​his research is that there are changes in the efficiency of use of the Internet by government authorities, but they are too small and insignificant. He believes the e-government model has not lived up to its potential. Sh. Dawes also writes about the history of electronic technologies in public administration and politics - until the mid-90s, the center of research on electronic government was mainframes and desktop computers. Only at the beginning of 2000 did a discourse about the Internet appear, for example, in the works of M.G. Anokhina, L.L. Resnyanskaya or R. Scott, who raise the question that the open nature of the Internet is promising and makes it possible for various organizations (including government bodies) to interact with the environment.

Authors such as J. Fountain, R. Schwartz and J. Main write that the use of the Internet to improve the productivity of the public sector is being introduced at all levels of government - public authorities are beginning to publish reports on their activities on the Internet, which is simple, But in an important way establishing communication between government and society. Through this communication channel, it becomes possible to inform legislators, stakeholders and the general public on various issues, such as how well various programs are being implemented within the organization. The idea of ​​an electronic state appears in the works of D. Holmes, A.A Tadeev and V.E. Usanov.

Over time, the e-government model has changed. In the beginning, many described it as using the Internet to provide information and services to citizens. For example, J. Melitsky describes e-government as the use of information and communication technologies that allow government to communicate with citizens in order to improve service delivery, openness and productivity. Many authors write about the application of the e-government model in Russia, including L.V. Smorgunov, N.I Glazunova and others.

In turn, the use of ICT in the field of public administration raises a number of problems - one of them is legal regulation, which is considered in their works by A.V. Rossoshansky and A.V. Zakharova. The idea of ​​transparency and openness of government arises. Transparency and openness allow citizens to be more informed, thereby increasing their responsibility and potentially reducing government corruption, write M. Holzer and S. Kim.

A number of works by Russian authors are devoted to the analysis of information openness of government bodies in Russia - A.I. Solovyova, M.N. Gracheva. Their research focuses on the implementation of a model of interaction between government structures and citizens. The main body of work on information openness concerns the executive branch of government - the legislative and judicial branches remain practically unstudied. Thus, the work of V. Ogneva examines the information openness of legislative authorities in the context of effective interaction with the media. Works on the judicial branch of government and its information openness are mainly descriptive in nature.

The study of factors influencing the implementation of the concept of “electronic state” and information openness in particular is mainly devoted to English-language studies by such authors as M. Holzer and S. Kim, J. Sipior and B. Ward, K. Jun and K. Ware and others, which highlight a number of socio-economic and political factors.

It should be noted that work in the field of information openness and analysis of factors influencing information openness in Russia is quite rare. Thus, the Freedom of Information Foundation, the Institute for the Development of the Information Society, the Infometer project, etc., are analyzing the Internet sites of government authorities in Russia. The work of A.N. is devoted to the analysis of a number of factors influencing the level of information openness of official websites of regional executive authorities, in particular, the level of development of information and communication technologies and the level of socio-economic development. Shcherbak. According to the results of the study, as of 2011, information openness was defined as an effect of federal policy.

We can conclude that despite a significant number of works devoted to the analysis of the “electronic state” and information openness in particular, there are a number of research questions that are worthy of attention. In our opinion, the processes of introducing the practice of information openness into the legislative and judicial branches of government in modern Russia. In addition, due to the constant updating of empirical data and the lack of research, it is promising to study the factors that influence the implementation of this practice. This work is intended to partially fill the identified gaps. For this purpose, information openness is considered as part of the concept of “electronic state” and is studied as an innovation. Possible influencing factors are highlighted based on the proposed theoretical framework and the reviewed literature on the topic.

We formulate the research question as follows: What factors influence the information openness of regional government bodies?

At the same time, under information openness in this study understands the possibility of obtaining transparent and accessible information about the activities of government bodies through access to official websites on the Internet. Consequently, the purpose of the study is to identify factors influencing the level of information openness of regional authorities. To answer the question posed and achieve the goal of the study, the following tasks are solved:

1. Analyze the concepts of “electronic state” and “information openness” with the definition of essential characteristics, models and factors for implementing the concept;

2. Consider the innovation adoption model;

3. Analyze the regulation of information openness in regional authorities in modern Russia;

4. Conduct data analysis in order to identify connections between the selected variables;

5. Interpret the nature of the identified connections.

The empirical base of the study is represented by statistical information and documents from government bodies.

The hypotheses are tested at the regional level using quantitative methods, drawing on the concept of innovation diffusion and related literature. In our opinion, the process of innovation adoption is influenced by external and internal social, economic and political determinants. In this work, external factors include: the influence of the center and the influence of nearby regions, and internal factors include: the role of the bureaucracy, the democratic regime of the region and resource provision.

Based on this, the following hypotheses are put forward:

H1: The level of information openness is positively influenced by the Central government.

H2: Bordering regions have a positive influence on the level of information openness.

H3: The level of information openness is negatively affected by bureaucracy. H4: The level of information openness is positively influenced by the democratic regime of the region.

H5: The level of information openness is positively influenced by the resource provision of the region.

Research methods. The study is based on a research design combining statistical analysis and case-study methodology. The main method of data analysis is descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.

Work structure. The study consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, and a list of references.

1. Information openness as an innovation: theoretical aspects

1.1 Growth in the number of Internet users in Russia

Currently, when we talk about new ICTs, we primarily mean the global computer network Internet. It is the Internet that is the factor that has brought the communication environment to a completely different, higher level. New models of social interaction and mechanisms of influence in the social environment are emerging. Thanks to the nature of the Internet, it becomes possible to quickly search and exchange information, entertainment, education, business - time and space are compressed, strengthening connections between various actors, as well as opening up high-tech opportunities for public administration and citizen participation in these activities.

The beginning of the existence of the Internet dates back to the 1960s, when the US government, namely the Department of Defense, needed a flexible means for exchanging data that would be well protected from enemy interference, and thus the predecessor of the Internet appeared - ARPANET (from the English Advanced Research Projects Agency Network). In the 1980s, the idea arose of using such a means of transmitting information not only for military needs, but also for scientific purposes. ARPANET was replaced by NSFNET (from the English National Science Foundation Network), which was designed to unite research organizations into a single network. Subsequently, it was NSFNET that became the “framework” of the modern Internet, the emergence of which is associated with 1989 and the creation of the HTML programming language, which made it possible to provide constant access to information.

Over the time since the advent of the Internet, a general universal definition for this phenomenon has not been identified. In its narrow sense, the Internet is “a union of networks continuously interconnected so that any computer on the network “sees” any other, i.e. can transmit a packet of data to it and receive a response in a split second.” In a broad sense, the Internet is “a self-organizing cybernetic space, an idealistic substance that gives birth to cyberculture with its own way of thinking, its own language and laws of existence and regulation.”

The emergence of the Internet in Russia (or as it is also called - Runet) is associated with 1991, when specialists from the Kurchatov Research Center united several institutes into a single network. Despite its short existence, the number of Internet users in Russia is continuously growing. If in 2000 their number was about 2% of the population (about 3 million people), then by the end of 2015 this number increased to 71.1% of the population (about 101.1 million people) (see Fig. 1.1 ).

Rice. 1.1. Number of Internet users in Russia in the period 2000-2015, %.

information openness of regional authorities

Source: Internet Live Stats Russia Internet Users [Electronic resource] // Internet live stats website. URL: http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/russia/ (date of access: 05/14/2016). Note: drawing by the author.

Despite the fact that the dynamics of Internet penetration have been declining over the past few years, there has been an increase in the number of active audiences - that is, those who go online every day. Thus, since 2010, this figure has almost doubled - from 31% to 57% of the total number of users, which is almost 66.5 million people. In turn, the number of Internet users accessing the Internet at least once a month has increased over last year by 9.2% (see Fig. 1.2).

Rice. 1.2. Dynamics of Internet penetration in Russia in the period 2003-2016, %.

In addition to the fact that in Russia the number of Internet users and the degree of its penetration are changing, the purpose of using the Network is also changing. Thus, according to the Public Opinion Foundation, currently 80% of Internet users use the Internet to search for information (in 2013 this figure was 48%).

In turn, ICTs are beginning to be used to interact with authorities. According to statistical data for 2014 (see Table 1.1), about 10% of those interacting with government authorities and local government do this through the use of official websites and portals on the Internet.

Table 1.1. Share of the population interacting with state authorities and local self-government, by constituent entity of the Russian Federation, % (October-November 2014).

New ICTs are increasingly complementing or replacing traditional methods of interaction between government authorities, citizens and businesses. In the scientific community, there is an opinion that the introduction of new technologies can potentially improve many aspects of both public administration and the social environment. It is believed that in these cases ICT has the following advantages:

* Automate the process of processing large amounts of data through the use of new software and technology that was not available before. Heeks, R. “Reinventing Government in the Information Age” // Reinventing Government in the Information Age: International Practice in It-Enabled Public Sector Reform, Routledge, 1999. P. 9-21.

* Quickly collect and process information.

* Transfer information within a short period of time without data loss between several entities located at a considerable distance from each other.

* Reduce costs, increase efficiency and transparency of public administration processes.

The possibilities of the Internet are almost limitless, and its nature changes and evolves under the influence of the needs of the actors using it. One of the manifestations of this process is the emergence of a new concept of “electronic state”.

1.2 The concept of “electronic state”

The term “electronic government” is a translation from English “electronic government”. The history of the origin of the term is one of the reasons for the problem of its use in Russian-language scientific literature. This is due to the fact that some researchers translate the polysemantic English word government as “government”, which is not entirely correct, since in Russian the term “government” is most often understood as the executive body of government. It should be noted that government, when translated, can be interpreted not only as “government”, but also as “state” in the broad sense of the word, which, in turn, includes all three branches of government - executive, legislative and judicial. That is why in this work we use the term “electronic state” and not “electronic government”. The next problem is that despite the fact that the “electronic state” and the Internet are relatively new subjects for research in modern scientific literature, many works are devoted to them that relate to various fields: social science, economics, technology. Thus, according to the bibliographic and abstract database “SCOPUS”, more than 370 thousand works are devoted to the topic “Internet” and almost 16.5 thousand works are devoted to “electronic government” (see Fig. 1.3, Fig. 1.4)

Rice. 1.3. Number of publications on the topic “Internet” 1950-2016 Source: SCOPUS

Rice. 1.4. Number of publications on the topic “electronic government” 1950-2016 Source: SCOPUS

Consequently, the phenomenon is interdisciplinary in nature, which gives rise to different interpretations of the term, depending on the scientific field in which it is applied (see Table 1.2).

Table 1.2. Definitions of the term “electronic state” in various fields science.

Having examined a number of definitions, we can highlight that the concept of “electronic state” is based on two elements: 1 - ICT as a technical subsystem, 2 - state as a social subsystem. The technical subsystem includes: equipment, software, various programs, the networks themselves, and more. In turn, the social subsystem consists of various variables relating to the structure of the organization and the work process, people and other physical resources. Bellamy C., Taylor J. A. Governing in the information age. Open Univ Pr, 1998, p. 27

Additionally, “electronic” means that technology allows actors to interact with anyone, anywhere, anytime, through the use of computers or other devices, using the Internet or other ICTs. "Government" includes the structure, process, methods and practices of making political decisions, as well as the provision of services to the public sector.

Many researchers, such as R. Silcock, K. Lane and J. Lee, M. Moon and others, considered the phenomenon of “electronic state” as an evolving process occurring in several stages. It should be noted that regardless of whether the “electronic state” is considered as process or organizational process, researchers identify three main stages: information publication, transactions, and integration. However, in addition to the main stages, researchers also identify others (see Table 1.3).

Table 1.3. Stages of development of the “electronic state”.

The model by K. Lane and J. Lee is one of the most famous models“electronic state”, which emphasizes its evolving orientation. So:

· At the first stage, public authorities place information for users, basically we are talking about organizing a rarely updated website or Internet portal without any two-way interaction or providing interactive functions.

· The second stage includes the introduction into websites and Internet portals of mechanisms for interactive interaction between government bodies and other actors. It becomes possible to download data posted on websites.

· The third stage is vertical integration and conducting transactions (for example, paying taxes) through the use of an electronic digital signature.

· The last stage is horizontal integration or interactive democracy, within which the full introduction of ICT into the sphere of public administration occurs. Layne K., Lee J. Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model //Government information quarterly. - 2001. - T. 18. - No. 2. - P. 122-136.

Researchers believe government websites are evolving in a similar way. Website development is progressive and each subsequent stage of development is better than the previous one. The level of development may vary from site to site - some are single page structures with information, others may include additional information, such as contacts and a calendar of meetings with citizens.

In a broad sense, “electronic government” is the continuous optimization of service delivery, public administration and citizen participation by changing internal and external relations through the introduction of new ICTs. Optimizing service delivery means creating websites, specialized portals or centers to improve the efficiency of communication between the government (government, G), business (business, B) and citizens (citizen, C).

In modern research, several options for the interaction between them have been accepted (see Table 1.4). For example, the G2G option mainly involves the exchange of information and services within a government entity. In the “G2B” and “B2G” options, means are being developed for exchanging information between government agencies and business, as well as platforms for government procurement.

Table 1.4. Types of "electronic state"

Optimization of public administration means the introduction of ICT in the activities of government bodies, namely computerization and electronic document management. Involving citizens in the process of public administration involves the creation of new mechanisms for electronic participation in the discussion and adoption of political decisions.

That is, society ceases to be simply a consumer of public services, but becomes their co-producer. The concept of an “open state” is also based on the principle of citizen participation, transparency and cooperation, which presupposes the participation of citizens in the process of making political decisions, as well as free access of citizens to information and data on the activities of public authorities. Some researchers argue that the “open state” is the next stage in the development of the “electronic state”. However, it should be noted that it does not replace the “electronic state”, but is based on it. Based on the studies reviewed, we believe that there are conceptual overlaps in the use of ICT to access information. Currently, one of the manifestations of this is the publication of open data related to government activities and information openness.

Figure 1.5. The relationship between the concepts of “electronic state” and “open state”. Source: drawing by the author.

In some cases, there is confusion between the concepts of “open data” and “information openness”. Although both terms refer in one way or another to the publication of information by government agencies online, there are differences. “Information openness,” in contrast to “open data,” implies not only the publication of information data, but also free access to the public. In addition, the “comprehensibility” of the information for the recipient, that is, the ease of its perception, is important.

Speaking about the information openness of public authorities, there are mainly several components:

· Providing access to information on your own own initiative;

· Providing access to information upon request;

· Involvement of society in the process of making political decisions through open hearings, meetings, etc.;

· Involvement in the process of making political decisions of society through participation in relevant committees and councils. Boserup L. K., Christensen J. P. An Introduction to Openness and Access to Information. - Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2005.

In this work, we explore the information openness of regional authorities in modern Russia and by “information openness” we mean the possibility of obtaining transparent and accessible information about the activities of public authorities through access to official websites on the global Internet.

1.3 Innovation adoption process

The purpose of our research is to understand what influences the level of information openness of regional authorities in modern Russia. As already noted, “information openness” is an integral part of the concepts of “electronic state”, “open state” and one of the determinants of its development. We consider information openness as a technological innovation.

To identify factors influencing the level of information openness, we will use the theory of diffusion of innovations. It is associated with the name of Everett Rogers, who defines the diffusion of innovations as the process by which innovation spreads through certain channels of communication over time between members of a social system. These four elements are found in almost every study of innovation diffusion. For our research project, innovation is the quality of information openness. The communication channel is the Internet. The time frame of the study for the judiciary is 2014-2015, for the executive and legislative branches - 2015-2016. Social systems are regions of Russia. Such a research framework was established due to a time lag of one year - i.e. independent variables influence the dependent variable after a year.

In political science, one of the first studies of the diffusion of innovations belongs to J. Walker and is devoted to the comparison of innovations in public policy. In his work, he reveals that factors such as the initial discussion of an innovation, communication channels, and the actors involved in the policy decision process play special role in the process of adopting innovation. The paper concludes that the causal factors of innovation adoption can be divided into internal and external.

Internal factors are mainly related to the organizational structure, regime of the region, internal actors (business, media), technological support, resource provision, socio-economic indicators and demographic indicators (such as population size, level of urban and rural population, per capita income level ).

It should be noted that in our study we will not consider resource factors, internal factors, socio-economic indicators and demographic indicators, since based on a number of works in the field of innovation adoption, there is an obvious positive correlation between these factors and the fact of innovation adoption. Thus, in their work, M. Holzer and S. Kim assessed the content of 87 websites of regional authorities with the largest population in their territory around the world. A similar study was conducted by R. Schwester, which found that regions with large populations have the most advanced websites compared to regions that are less populated.

A number of other demographic factors are also identified in the research literature. For example, the H. Tillem Study showed that a person's age is an important factor regarding Internet use. Literature examining e-government implementation, such as J. Sipior and B. Ward, suggests that income significantly influences the availability, use and adoption of ICTs. This theory is called the “digital divide” and states that people with low level income are less likely to be able to afford a computer or other digital technology that would allow them to have a channel of communication with other citizens, businesses and governments that have access to a computer or other digital technology.

External factors include the influence of the center, the influence of nearby regions, or the influence of any external organization. Thus, J. Walker in his study argues that government officials, when making any political decision, always rely on the experience of nearby territories - cities, regions, countries. A similar conclusion was reached by K. June and K. Ware, who, as a result of their research, found that municipalities in nearby cities were introducing innovative initiatives regarding official government websites and the Internet along the same principle. In these cases, the incentive to adopt an innovation from the outside is: coercion from the federal center by allocating more funds; the desire of another region to be more competitive compared to neighboring regions; desire to be part of an “information open” community. Considering that the adoption of innovations can depend on both external factors as well as internal ones, cause-and-effect relationships (factors influencing adoption) become interesting. Often, change is initiated by an agent—an individual or group of individuals who influences the decision to innovate. Key to this process is the agent's ability to communicate the need or benefit of the innovation. They can act both inside and outside the organization adopting the innovation.

The process of adoption of innovation associated with the introduction of new technologies or technological changes may be associated with additional factors that influence the adoption of innovation Bingham R. D., McNaught T. P. The adoption of innovation by local government. - Lexington Books, 1976. Applied to innovation, ICT is a design for instrumental change that reduces uncertainty in the cause-and-effect relationships involved in achieving desired outcomes.

Technological innovation can be viewed in terms of "hardware" and " software". The adoption of an innovation that provides a new service can be considered a software innovation. In addition, the creation of a government agency website or portal is a technological solution that uses a new communication channel. The information openness of a government agency website can also be considered component of innovation.

Unlike easily observable hardware innovations, the introduction of ICT into public administration is quite difficult to track. While the implementation of a computer system is a fairly obvious activity, the decision to use a new email system or a new approach to communication within an organization may not provide a very easily observable picture of the material activity. Another example would be the decision to use network technologies such as the Internet for communication between regional authorities and society. This study addresses this issue of innovation adoption by regional governments based on the level of information openness. The level of information openness of a website serves as a surrogate indicator for the possible determination of change or innovation in the process of carrying out activities by public authorities (in this case, innovative approach to the transfer of information).

The process of adopting an innovation is a complex process that has been the subject of many works. However, having considered the main models of the innovation adoption process (see Table 1.3), we can distinguish several main stages of this process: 1) collecting knowledge about the innovation and the principles of its functioning; 2) implementation of innovation; 3) analysis of results and adjustments.

Table 1.3. Innovation adoption process

We have developed a conceptual analysis framework to study the process of adoption of innovation by regional government authorities in modern Russia, based on the cycle of diffusion of innovations by E. Rogers. Particular attention is paid to the relationship between the adoption of an innovation and certain social, economic and political factors, which are considered both external and internal.

2. Information openness of government bodies in Russia

The introduction of new ICTs into the sphere of public administration in Russia expands the capabilities of the state and creates a new model of communication between government and society, which is characterized by its openness in relation to access to information. Following the experience of America and Europe, where the concept of “information openness” of public authorities became increasingly popular Harrison T. M. et al. Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective //Information Polity. - 2012. - T. 17. - No. 2. - P. 83-97. , in Russia its active use began in 2008-2010. However, the foundation for it was laid somewhat earlier.

Back in the 90s, a whole series of regulations were adopted regulating the relationship in the field of information transfer between government authorities and citizens. Thus, in 1993, a Presidential Decree affirmed the right of citizens to receive information about the activities of legislative and executive authorities. Subsequently, the active introduction of ICT in public administration continued in the 2000s, when the leaders of the G8 countries signed the Okinawa Charter for the Global Information Society, the goal of which was to bridge the digital divide.

The main law regulating citizens' access to information about the activities of government bodies was Federal Law No. 149-FZ of July 27, 2006 "On information, information technologies and information protection." It established the citizen’s right to information and free access to information about the activities of state authorities and local governments, which cannot be limited. In turn, authorities and local governments were obliged to create conditions for providing information to citizens, including using information and telecommunication networks (and the Internet), while the citizen was not required to justify the reasons for receiving it.

Subsequently, regulation and standardization of exchange and access to information via the Internet deepened and expanded. However, it has received its greatest development in relation to executive authorities, both at the federal and regional levels.

2.1 Regulation of information openness executive bodies authorities

One of the first attempts to introduce ICT into the work of executive authorities was the state program “Electronic Russia (2002-2010)”, in which the main emphasis was on document automation, as well as communication between government authorities and society through the creation of government websites. However, the results of the program were not impressive. In 2007, to replace “Electronic Russia”, the Concept for the formation of electronic government in the Russian Federation for the period until 2010 was approved, the purpose of which was to improve the quality of information exchange and public services provided.

However, and new Concept proved to be ineffective. In 2010, a new attempt was made - the Information Society (2011-2020) program. The stated goal of the program is to improve the quality of life of citizens through the use of ICT. Prior to this, in 2009, several regulations were adopted affecting the provision of information by government authorities on the Internet. So D.A. Medvedev signed a federal law that placed emphasis on requirements for the authorities regarding the publication of information on the Internet. A little later, a Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation was issued, introducing some standardization and deadlines for publishing information on the Internet by the Government of the Russian Federation and federal executive authorities.

Somewhat later, in 2012, within the framework of the “Information Society (2011-2020)” program, the idea of ​​forming an “Open Government” arose, which is based on the process of introducing mechanisms aimed at increasing the information openness of the executive branch. Implementation mechanisms are regulated by the “Concept of Openness of Federal Executive Bodies”, according to which government authorities must provide complete and reliable information upon requests from citizens, but the implementation of the Concept itself is advisory in nature. In addition, monitoring of the implementation of the Concept does not take place by a third-party body, but within the executive body itself, therefore, we can say that there is no adequate, disinterested control mechanism. In 2013, by Decree of the Government of Russia, amendments were made to the law “On ensuring access to information on the activities of state bodies and local self-government bodies”, aimed at creating a list of publicly available information posted on the Internet by government bodies, including at the regional level) and local self-government , external monitoring is never introduced.

Despite large number regulations on the provision and publication of information on the Internet, most administrations in the region are developing their own standard, taking as a basis “ Methodical recommendations on the introduction of principles and mechanisms of open public administration in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation" and developments in neighboring regions.

2.2 Regulation of information openness of legislative (representative) authorities

The issue of information openness of legislative authorities is especially relevant due to the very nature of this power. Availability of information becomes a factor in the legitimacy of the elected government and trust in it. It is believed that the legislative body is interested in a high level of its information openness for several reasons:

1) Its main function is legislative activity in areas affecting all citizens;

2) Its main feature is popular representation, it acts as a set of opinions of society on certain issues;

3) Is a public institution of power, open for discussion or adoption of government decisions;

4) Regularly re-elected, making it necessary to maintain public confidence in order to be re-elected. Grigorenko N. I., Minaeva L. V. Communication policy of regional legislative authorities // Public administration. Electronic newsletter. - 2014. - No. 42. - pp. 211-212.

However, in addition to external control, there is also internal control. Thus, at the federal level, the emergence of “open parliaments” implies, in addition to the use of the list from the Federal Law “On ensuring access to information on the activities of state bodies and local self-government bodies,” internal Regulations are additionally introduced, implying the publication on the Internet of the official voting results of each deputy, as well as data on attendance at plenary meetings.

At the regional level, in addition to the laws affecting the publication of information about their activities, Parliaments create their own regulations, which prescribe the categories of information published on official websites on the Internet.

2.3 Regulation of information openness judiciary authorities

The principle of publicity is fundamental to the judiciary, as it ensures its transparency, accountability and legitimacy. The publication of information about the work of courts via the Internet was regulated within the framework of the Federal Target Program "Development of the Judicial System of Russia" for 2007 - 2012. and Federal Law No. 262 “On ensuring access to information about the activities of courts in the Russian Federation.”

2.4 Factors of information openness of regional authorities in Russia

This chapter examines regional government bodies and represents an attempt to quantitatively test hypotheses regarding factors in the development of information openness. This type of analysis has several reasons for its existence. First, the regional level presents 83 cases (all regions of Russia except the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol) to test the hypotheses. Secondly, despite the fact that according to the Information Society (2011-2020) program, public authorities are required to have official websites and publish information about their activities on them, their level of development is not homogeneous.

Thus, everything points to the multiplicity of factors in the information openness of government authorities in the regions of Russia, which generally fit into the research hypotheses. Identification of the main factor or their group is possible through quantitative statistical methods: correlation analysis and multiple linear regression.

The study uses three dependent variables (see Table 2.1): “information openness of regional executive authorities”, “information openness of regional legislative authorities” and “information openness of regional judicial authorities”. The variables are operationalized by us using the results of monitoring of the Infometer project for 2015 - 2016. (monitoring of information openness of regional judicial authorities has not yet been carried out in 2016).

Table 2.1. Dependent Variables of the Study

The independent variables (see Table 2.2) correspond to the hypotheses we put forward based on the reviewed theories about the innovation adoption process, as well as the literature on the topic. In our opinion, information openness is influenced by external and internal ones. By external factors we mean external influence - the center and neighboring regions, internal factors - the size of the bureaucratic apparatus, the political regime of the region and resource provision. By the influence of the center we mean financial support to the regions ( intergovernmental transfers). Under the influence of neighboring regions - the fact of having a website with high information openness. J. Walker argues that government officials, when making any political decision, always rely on the experience of nearby territories - cities, regions, countries. A similar conclusion was reached by K. June and K. Ware, who, as a result of their research, found that municipalities in nearby cities were introducing innovative initiatives regarding official websites on the Internet along the same principle.

In addition, we believe that the higher the share of officials, the lower the level of information openness.

This assumption is due to the fact that the larger the size of the organization, the more difficult it is to introduce innovation and the more costs this process incurs.

We also consider such a factor as “the democracy of the region” due to the fact that this indicator characterizes the possibility of open discussion and involvement of actors to implement innovation.

By technical resources of the region we understand the determinants that in one way or another influenced information openness. In this study, we consider such a factor as the duration of the presence of a government agency’s website, based on the assumption that a high level of information openness is a consequence of the gradual stepwise evolution of the website.

The research hypotheses are tested using correlation analysis.

Table 2.2. Independent Study Variables

Similar documents

Legal basis of information openness. Information openness as a principle of government activity. Analysis of the structure of sources of information about the activities of the Administration of the Azov German National Municipal District of the Omsk Region.

thesis, added 05/13/2017


Legislative (representative) and executive authorities in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation: concept, powers, features of rights. The highest official of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, the tasks and functions of his activities. Structure of public authorities in St. Petersburg.

course work, added 05/28/2016


General characteristics of the system of government bodies in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the regulatory framework for the development of management in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug. Criteria for assessing the effectiveness and modernization of government governing bodies.

course work, added 10/21/2010


Determination of the status of a subject of the Russian Federation. The federal treaty establishes the powers of federal and regional authorities. Signs of a republic within the Russian Federation. Specifics of the organization of government bodies of the subjects.

course work, added 08/15/2015


Comparative analysis of the Constitutions of Russia and India. The system of government bodies in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. System of government bodies of the states of India. Legislative branch. Executive power. Interaction between branches of government.

test, added 11/18/2005


Concept and classification of executive authorities. System, structure and main powers of executive authorities. President, government and public administration. Organization of executive power in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

test, added 11/05/2014


Characteristics of the mechanisms for forming a system of state, legislative (representative), executive and judicial authorities in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Analysis of the costs required to carry out the activities of legal authorities.

course work, added 04/02/2015


Review of theoretical aspects of the activities of representative authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Studying the history of the development of the system of organizing representative power in the Udmurt Republic. Analysis of the legislative foundations of regional policy.

course work, added 11/23/2015


Study of the principles and foundations of the activities of public authorities in the Russian Federation. Features of the activities of legislative and executive power in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Powers of the highest official in executive authorities.

course work, added 02/19/2014


Concept and general characteristics executive authorities, features of their activities and subjects. The highest official, his main rights and responsibilities. Law-making activities of executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The President of the Russian Federation is the head of state, the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. In accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, it takes measures to protect the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, its independence and state integrity, and ensures the coordinated functioning and interaction of government bodies.

In Art. 11 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation stipulates that state power in the Russian Federation is exercised by the President of the Russian Federation, the Federal Assembly (Federation Council and State Duma), the Government of the Russian Federation and the courts of the Russian Federation.

According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the President is not a member of any branch of government. Thus, there is no doubt that the President of the Russian Federation is not a member of either the legislative branch or the judicial branch. But to the extent that the President of the Russian Federation directly performs the functions of executive power or determines the content of the activities of the Government, the principle of separation of powers should apply to him.

An analysis of the powers of the President of the Russian Federation gives reason to believe that the President is not only “built-in” into the system of executive power, but actually heads it. This applies not only to the leadership of individual federal executive bodies, but also to the appointment of heads of executive power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Information openness of decisions of the President of the Russian Federation is ensured through two channels. The first is the openness of the decisions of the President himself and the bodies subordinate to him. This, for example, is a presidential message to parliament - an appeal from the head of state to the highest legislative (representative) body of state power of the country with a report on the activities carried out or on legislative and other plans for the coming period. According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 84), the President of the Russian Federation addresses the Federal Assembly with annual messages about the situation in the country, about the main directions of the domestic and foreign policy of the state.

The second is the establishment by legal acts of the President of the Russian Federation of rules of openness, mandatory both for himself and for other government bodies. And here, of course, one cannot help but mention the already mentioned Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 31, 1993 No. 2334 “On additional guarantees of the right of citizens to information”

It should also be noted that Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 24, 1995 No. 1178 “On measures to ensure openness and public accessibility of normative acts”, which was adopted in order to bring the order of publication of normative acts of the President of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation, federal executive bodies, bodies executive power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Law of the Russian Federation “On State Secrets” and Art. 10 Federal Law“On information, informatization and information protection.” This Decree instructed the head of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, within three months, to prepare and submit proposals to ensure, in the prescribed manner, openness and public accessibility of unpublished normative acts of the President of the Russian Federation establishing legal status federal executive authorities, executive authorities of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local governments, organizations, public associations, as well as the rights, freedoms and responsibilities of citizens, the procedure for their implementation, and those contained in secret regulations The President of the Russian Federation information on these issues that do not constitute a state secret.

Speaking about the information openness of the President of the Russian Federation, one cannot help but touch upon the activities in this area of ​​the bodies subordinate to him and officials. Thus, the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation is a state body formed in accordance with clause “and” of Art. 83 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which ensures the activities of the President of the Russian Federation and monitors the implementation of his decisions. Currently, the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation has a very wide range of powers and often actively interferes in the activities of other government bodies, primarily the executive branch.

When considering issues of providing information about the activities of executive authorities, it is advisable to pay special attention to the provisions of Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 12, 2003 No. 98 “On ensuring access to information about the activities of the Government of the Russian Federation and federal executive authorities.” The legal literature rightly notes that the adoption of this Government resolution was an important stage in the development of information openness of government bodies.

By this resolution, in order to ensure the implementation of the rights of citizens and organizations to access information about the activities of the Government of the Russian Federation and federal executive bodies and in accordance with the Federal Law “On Information, Informatization and Information Protection,” the Government of the Russian Federation approved a list of information about the activities of the Government and federal executive authorities required to be placed in public information systems.

At the same time, federal executive authorities were ordered to provide citizens and organizations with access to information about the activities of federal executive authorities, with the exception of information classified as restricted information, by creating information resources in accordance with the list approved by this resolution; timely and regularly place the specified information resources in public information systems, including the Internet; systematically inform citizens and organizations about the activities of federal executive authorities in other ways provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation.

Information on the activities of the Government of the Russian Federation, mandatory for placement in public information systems, contains:

• * in federal laws, decrees of the President of the Russian Federation and other regulatory legal acts that constitute legal basis activities of the Government of the Russian Federation, including Government Regulations, Regulations on the Government Staff;
• * regulatory legal and other acts of the Government;
• * court decisions to invalidate government acts;
• * texts of official speeches and statements of the Chairman and members of the Government;
• * lists and texts of international treaties and agreements of the Russian Federation concluded (signed) by the Government;
• * reviews of appeals from citizens and organizations to the Government, generalized information on the results of consideration of such appeals and measures taken.

This is also information:

• * on the composition, tasks and activities of coordination and advisory bodies formed by the Government;
• * on federal target programs adopted by the Government;
• * on the legislative activities of the Government;
• * about the programs and plans of the Government;
• * on official visits and working trips of the Chairman and members of the Government, as well as government delegations;
• * about events held at the official residence of the Government (meetings, meetings, meetings, press conferences, seminars and briefings, round tables), and other information about daily activities Governments;
• * about materials for the Government meeting (as well as the agenda of the Government meeting);
• * on decisions made at Government meetings and on their implementation;
• * on the interaction of the Government with other government bodies of the Russian Federation, public associations, political parties, trade unions and other organizations, including international ones;
• * on the main indicators of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation and the execution of the federal budget;
• * O public service in the Government Office;
• * about the Chairman and members of the Government, heads of federal executive bodies, deputy heads, heads of structural divisions of the Government Apparatus, as well as heads of organizations and bodies formed under the Government;
• * on the tasks and functions of the structural divisions of the Government Apparatus, organizations and bodies formed under the Government;
• * about the operating procedure of the Government Apparatus, including the operating procedure of the unit for working with citizens’ appeals, as well as telephone numbers and address details (postal address, e-mail address, etc.), telephone numbers of the help desk.

UDC 342.52:342.55:004.738.5:303.028

KOSARETSKY S.N. Information openness

websites of legislative bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation

The author of the article reveals the essence of information openness of the official websites of legislative bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Modern Internet technologies open up new opportunities for multilateral communication between government authorities and citizens. The most effective tool for accessing complete and reliable information about the functioning of the state is the official websites of state authorities.

Key words: information openness, official website, legislative body, degree of information openness.

Today, information openness and the use of interactive technologies are not a right, but a responsibility of government authorities. This is the path to creating a state that is as convenient as possible for its citizens. The Internet often becomes the first source of official information for the average citizen.

Information openness is the possibility of obtaining information about the activities of public authorities through guaranteed access to information media (documents, other auditory and visual media) on which decisions affecting socially significant issues are recorded.

The ability of the public to receive complete and reliable information about the functioning of the state and its bodies simultaneously leads to several socially significant results. Firstly, it contributes to the formation of an active and informed electorate that makes political choices with knowledge of the matter and is less susceptible to emotions and

populist sentiments. The dependence of government bodies on the population is increasing due to an adequate assessment of their activities. In addition, subject to maximum awareness, citizens participate competently in public life and in the discussion of socially significant bills. The population begins to understand and accept the goals set by the deputies, which guarantees the legitimacy of the adopted legislative acts. The more information is available to the public, the fewer rumors and suspicions about the activities of the authorities, the higher the people's trust and support.

The concept of information openness covers general mode circulation of information flows in society and at the same time a special characteristic of the activities of legislative bodies, when most of the information created and used by these bodies is freely available to the public.

The research group led by I.M. Dzyaloshinsky conducted a number of studies to study the public’s awareness of the activities

ties of authorities1. In particular, the information activity of the population was studied. The data obtained indicate that approximately 18% of respondents can be classified as informationally active citizens, who stated that they quite often try to obtain additional information on various issues of interest to them. Another 36% of respondents sometimes try to get additional information.

The principle of information openness of legislative bodies is implemented through coverage of their activities in the press, on radio, television and on the Internet through the official websites of legislative bodies. The function of information coverage of legislative activities, as a rule, is assigned to the information and analytical service under the legislative authority.

Internet communication technologies are becoming increasingly important in matters political management at different levels. President of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev, at a meeting of the Council for the Development of the Information Society in February 2009, noted the need to provide access to information about the activities of state bodies and local governments, introduce mechanisms for the operation of electronic government, and expand the use of information technologies in state and municipal government2.

Currently, the official website of the legislative body is not just an attribute of modern politics, but the most effective means of disseminating official information about the activities of government authorities. Based on the content of official websites, one can judge the level of information openness and closure of each government body and the state as a whole, the transparency of management decisions and procedures, and the ability of the country's citizens to receive information of interest to them. Due to the fact that on January 1, 2010, the Federal Law “On ensuring access to information about the activities of

of state bodies and local self-government bodies", official websites of government bodies are becoming one of the main sources of information, therefore, comparative analysis their information content becomes important.

Experts from the Institute for the Development of Freedom of Information (IDSI)3 have been monitoring the information openness of official websites of government authorities since 2004. Official websites of legislative authorities are assessed by IRSI experts on 80 parameters, in turn, all parameters are divided into subparameters and parameters for evaluation.

The main parameters for assessing the information openness of the website of the legislative body are:

1. General information about the legislative body. This parameter includes the following subparameters: legal status of the legislative body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, information about the leadership, general and contact information.

2. The structure of the legislative body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. This parameter contains such subparameters as information about the structural divisions of the legislative body, information about deputies, information about representatives of the legislative body of state power.

3. Information on the activities of the legislative body in the area of ​​its core competence includes information on legislative activities; about meetings of the legislative body; meetings of its structural divisions, parliamentary hearings; legal regulation of its activities.

4. Work of the legislative body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation with citizens. Its subparameters are: addresses of the locations of the receiving deputies; review of citizens' appeals to the legislative body of state power; interactive opportunity to send an appeal to the legislative body through the website of the legislative body.

5. Additional significant parameters contain such subparameters as registration of the official website of the legislative body; availability of a database of legislation of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation; having your own news feed on the subject of your activity; an indication that this website is the official website of the legislative body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation; the ability to subscribe to news from the official website; presence of a “question-answer” section on the official website.

6. Technical requirements. This parameter includes: the presence of a map of the official website; availability of a site search function; availability of an advanced search function on the website of the legislative body; availability of a search function in the database of regulatory legal acts posted on the official website; indication of document formats available for downloading from the site; indication of the sizes of documents available for downloading from the website of the legislative body, the presence of a “print version” function.

Websites are also assessed in terms of completeness, relevance, and accessibility of the information posted.

In February 2010, IRSI experts published the final consolidated rating of information openness of the official websites of legislative bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for 2009. The website of the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg leads the ranking by a wide margin with a degree of information openness of 80.86%. In second place is the Legislative Assembly of the Kirov Region (70.40%), in third place is the Regional Duma of the Tyumen Region (65.21%). For comparison: the official website of the Oryol Regional Council of People's Deputies is in fifty-third place with a degree of information openness of 38.62%.

In the federal districts of the Russian Federation, according to this rating, the maximum degree of openness of legislative authorities was demonstrated by the Ural Federal District. In second place is the Volga Federal District, in third place is the Siberian Federal District.

federal district, the Far Eastern Federal District is in fourth place, the Northwestern Federal District is in fifth place, the Central District is only in sixth position, and is followed by the Southern and North Caucasian Federal Districts (Fig. 1).

O Degree of information openness, o/o

Rice. 1. The degree of information openness of legislative bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation by federal districts

In Central federal district the most open and information-rich is the website of the Moscow City Duma (59.68%), followed by the websites of the regional Duma of the Smolensk and Yaroslavl regions. The website of the Oryol Regional Council of People's Deputies4 is ranked ninth among 18 regions of the Central Federal District (Table 1).

If we talk about the regions neighboring Oryol, then only the official websites of the Belgorod and Tula regional dumas are ahead of us in terms of information openness (Fig. 2).

To summarize, we can say that information openness of the activities of legislative bodies is the process of creating conditions for effectively meeting the information needs of citizens of the Russian Federation. The official website of the legislative body is one of the main tools for communication with society. His openness and

Central Russian Bulletin of Social Sciences

1 Moscow City Duma http://www.duma.mos.ru 59.68%

2 Smolensk region Regional Duma http://www.smoloblduma.ru 57.71%

3 Yaroslavl region Regional Duma http: //www. adm.yar.ru/duma 57.40%

4 Moscow region Regional Duma http://moduma.ru 49.94%

5 Belgorod region Regional Duma http://duma.bel.ru 49.04%

6 Ivanovo region Regional Duma http://www.ivoblduma.ru 47.69%

7 Tver Region Legislative Assembly http: //www.zsto. ru 43.97%

8 Tula region Regional Duma http://www.tulaoblduma.ru 41.29%

9 Oryol region Regional Council of People's Deputies http://www.oreloblsovet.ru 38.62%

10 Kostroma region Regional Duma http://www.kosoblduma.ru 33.93%

11 Ryazan region Regional Duma http://www.duma.ryazan.net 31.72%

12 Vladimir Region Legislative Assembly http: //www.zsvo. ru 31.62%

13 Voronezh region Regional Duma http://www.vrnoblduma.ru 31.11%

14 Tambov region Regional Duma http: //www.tambov.gov. ru/duma 28.43%

15 Kaluga Region Legislative Assembly http://parl iament.kaluga.ru 27.13%

16 Kursk region Regional Duma http://oblduma.kursknet.ru 26.64%

17 Lipetsk region Regional Council of People's Deputies http://www.oblsovet. ru 25.43%

18 Bryansk region Regional Duma http://duma.bryansk.ru 17.16%

Website of the Belgorod Regional Duma

□ Website of the Tula Regional Duma

□ Website of the Oryol Regional Council of People's Deputies

□ Website of the Voronezh Regional Duma

□ Website of the Tambov Regional Duma

□ Website of the Legislative Assembly of the Kagdo region

□ Website of the Kursk Regional Duma

Rice. 2. The degree of information openness of legislative bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation bordering the Oryol region

to the Website of the Lipetsk Regional Council of People's Deputies □ Website of the Bryansk Regional Duma

accessibility is the first sign of a developed civil society.

Official websites in the near future should take the place of the main source of complete and reliable official information about the activities of the state. The following circumstances allow us to come to this conclusion:

Firstly, government information resources are the most in demand in society;

Secondly, the state is the owner of the largest volume of socially significant information;

Thirdly, the Internet is the most effective modern means dissemination of information;

Finally, the presence of government agencies with their official websites imposes on them not only legal, but also social responsibility for the information posted on these sites.

Other means of disseminating information, including the media, are theoretically independent of government authorities and can only present their own interpretation of the official government point of view, which sometimes does not coincide with the original source. In the flow of information coming from various media, it is sometimes very difficult for an inexperienced citizen to establish the official point of view of his state on specific events that concern the public. The development of state publicly available (electronic) information resources will solve this problem.

Consequently, the development of official websites of legislative bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation - obligatory condition systematic development of information openness of laws

nominative power and constructive interaction with the population, contributing to the economic and social prosperity of our country.

Literature

1. Ivanchenko A.V. Ensuring openness of government bodies for citizens and legal entities. M.: Liberal Mission Foundation, 2007. 328 p.

2. Korchenkova N.Yu. The principle of information openness as a requirement of modern democracy // Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University. N.I. Lobachevsky. Series: Law. 2000. No. 1. P. 124-128.

3. Pavlov I., Shibalova Yu. Information openness of Internet representations of federal executive authorities // Political science. 2007. No. 4. P. 221-236.

4. Rossoshansky A.V. The problem of information openness of public authorities in modern Russia // Power. 2009. No. 11. P. 29-33.

5. Smagin V.A. On the issue of information openness of the Russian political system // Power. 2007. No. 10. P. 47-48.

6. Shusterov D.M. Problems of information openness of authorities as a factor in the formation of the regional information space // Regionology. 2007. No. 1. P. 257-263.

1 Rossoshansky A.V. The problem of information openness of public authorities in modern Russia // Power. 2009. No. 11. P. 33.

2 Meeting of the Council for the Development of the Information Society. Moscow, Kremlin. February 12, 2009. Verbatim report. http://www.kremlin.ru/appears/2009/02/12/ 1555_type63378type63381_212850.shtml

3 http://www.svobodainfo.org

4 http://www.oreloblsovet.ru

Central Russian Bulletin of Social Sciences

Recommendations for organizing monitoring of information openness of state authorities and local governments

The concept of administrative reform in the Russian Federation in 2 years, approved by the Order of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 1, 2001, provides as one of the program objectives of the reform to increase the efficiency of interaction between executive authorities and civil society, as well as ensuring information openness of federal executive authorities, executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments.

To solve this program task in accordance with the Concept, it is planned to implement:

development and adoption of regulations establishing procedures for disclosing information on the activities of government bodies;

introducing mechanisms to increase the openness of state and municipal bodies, as well as improving interaction between executive authorities and society;

development and phased deployment of a system for monitoring the information openness of state and municipal bodies and determining ratings of executive authorities and local governments according to the criterion of openness.

In addition, as emphasized in the Concept, it is necessary to ensure that departmental Internet portals are brought into compliance with the general requirements for posting information about the activities of executive authorities on the Internet.

In accordance with the specified provisions of the Concept of Administrative Reform, below are a number of our proposals on the criteria and system for monitoring the information openness of state authorities and local government bodies of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

Criteria for information openness

In our opinion, three criteria can be identified for determining and comparing the information openness of public authorities, namely:

1. Compliance with the organizational and procedural requirements of the current legislation and the Concept of administrative reform in the Russian Federation.

2. Compliance general requirements on posting information about the activities of executive authorities on the Internet.

3. Assessment of information openness of a public authority by consumers.

Each of the selected criteria presupposes and outlines a group of indicators for a specific measurement and comparison of the level of information openness of public authorities.

Monitoring indicators and procedures

Compliance with organizational and procedural requirements of current legislation and the Concept of Administrative Reform involves the practical implementation of the specified organizational and procedural requirements in the activities of the public authority.

In relation to state and municipal executive authorities Russian legislation establishes special requirements to ensure information openness of public authorities and their interaction with society.

According to the Concept of Administrative Reform in the Russian Federation, in order to improve the interaction between executive authorities and society, the following mechanisms should be developed and implemented:

disclosure of information on the activities of state bodies and local governments;

holding public discussions of prepared decisions;

conducting a public examination of social significant decisions executive authorities;

inclusion of representatives of civil society in the boards of supervisory authorities, working groups, and other structures for the preparation of normative legal acts and other decisions of executive authorities affecting the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations;

creation and activities of public councils under executive authorities with the participation of representatives of civil society.

The draft Federal Law “On ensuring access to information on the activities of state authorities and local self-government bodies in the Russian Federation”, approved by the Government of the Russian Federation, provides for the procedure for disclosing information on the activities of state authorities and local self-government bodies at the request of consumers (citizens and organizations).

Compliance with general requirements for posting information about the activities of executive authorities on the Internet involves posting information in accordance with the list and in the manner established by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 98 of 01/01/01 “On ensuring access to information about the activities of the Government of the Russian Federation and federal executive bodies.” Paragraph 7 of the Resolution reads: “To recommend that the executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments take measures to ensure access for citizens and organizations to information about their activities, taking into account this Resolution.”

Taking into account the Resolution, it can be determined following list information on the activities of executive bodies of state power and local government bodies of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, mandatory for placement in public information systems:

1. Federal and regional laws, other regulations legal acts regulating the scope of activity of the executive authority and defining the tasks, functions, rights, duties and responsibilities of the executive authority.

2. Acts (decrees, orders, instructions, rules, instructions, regulations, etc.) of the executive authority, including:

5. The procedure for the activities of the executive body and organizations subordinate to it to ensure the implementation of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens determined by the legislation of the Russian Federation.

6. Information on the implementation of regional target programs, the customer or executor of which is the executive authority.

7. Information on official visits and working trips of leaders and official delegations of the executive authority.

8. Information about official events organized by the executive authority (meetings, meetings, briefings, seminars, round tables, etc.).

9. Texts of official speeches and statements by the head and deputy heads of the executive authority.

10. Lists and essential conditions contracts of a civil law nature concluded by the executive authority with organizations.

11. Information about international treaties and agreements in the implementation of which the executive authority takes part.

12. Information about draft regional laws, regional target programs and concepts developed by the executive authority.

13. Analytical reports and reviews of an informational nature on the activities of the executive authority.

14. Information on the interaction of the executive body and its subordinate organizations with other government bodies of the Russian Federation, public associations, political parties, trade unions and other organizations, including international ones.

15. Reviews of appeals from citizens and organizations to the executive authority, generalized information on the results of consideration of such appeals and on the measures taken.

16. Information on the main indicators characterizing the situation in the industry within the jurisdiction of the executive authority and the dynamics of its development.

17. Forecasts prepared by the executive authority and its subordinate organizations in accordance with their competence.

18. Official statistical information collected and processed by the executive authority.

19. Information on open competitions, auctions, tenders, examinations and other events conducted by the executive authority and its subordinate institutions, including:

conditions for their implementation;

the procedure for participation of individuals and legal entities in them;

composition of competition commissions created by the executive authority and its subordinate institutions to conduct competitions for the supply of goods (performance of work, provision of services) for state needs;

The recommendations were prepared within the framework of the regional project “Ensuring openness and consumer access to official information of state executive authorities and local governments of the Astrakhan region” in the direction of “Ensuring transparency in the decision-making process.”

The goal of the regional project is to optimize the system of information openness and ensure consumer access to official information (decisions and documents) of state authorities and local governments of the Astrakhan region, using the positive experience of Canada in the field of ensuring the right to access to information.

First of all, this concerns the requirements of federal legislation and the legislation of constituent entities of the Russian Federation regarding the mandatory official publication of legal acts of state authorities and local governments, other official information (Federal Law "On general principles organizations of legislative (representative) and executive bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation" dated 01.01.2001 N 184-FZ as amended on 01.01.2001, Federal Law "On the general principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation" dated 6.10.2003 as amended 02.15.06. It is specifically stipulated that the draft budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, the law on the budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, the annual report on the execution of the budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, quarterly information on the progress of the budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, as well as on the number of civil servants of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation and employees of state institutions of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, indicating the actual costs of their salary, must be subject to official publication.