Advertisement

The Level of Readiness for Electronic Governance: Comparative Analysis of Armenian and Russian Societies

  • Anna AletdinovaEmail author
  • Ruben Elamiryan
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 947)

Abstract

The development of electronic governance in any country is determined by cultural features, the level of education and information-communication infrastructure. The article comprehensively researches the readiness potential of Armenian and Russian societies for electronic governance. This choice is reasoned by the fact that, first of all, Russia and Armenia are members of the Eurasian Economic Union, which currently harmonizes digital transformation policies of the member-states. In this context the application of Hofstede’s model and Inglehart-Welzel’s cultural map allows to reveal that both Armenians and Russians are oriented towards struggle for survival at the expense of self-expression and strive to stability. The complex evaluation demonstrates low level for Power distance and Uncertainty. For Armenia it is 0.19 and for Russia - 0.06. This means that the level of technological conditions in a country does not necessarily lead to comprehensive technological penetration into a society. For instance, both Armenian and Russian societies have serious cultural barriers which impede the development of network interactions. The authors have calculated the readiness potential of the societies for electronic governance according to ICT access, ICT use, Government’s online service, E-participation, grand coefficient of the coverage of population with higher education, Power distance and Uncertainty avoidance for the above mentioned period. Their values are fluctuating in the range of 36.40–38.57% for Russia and 22.39–27.71% for Armenia. Thus the readiness potential of the societies for electronic governance has serious potential to develop in the future.

Keywords

Society Information and communication technologies Electronic governance Hofstede’s culture model 

References

  1. 1.
    Kim, B.J., Park, S.: Why digital government not e-government? The paradigm shift of D. gov in Korea. In: Proceedings of The 17th International Digital Government Research Conference on Digital Government Research 2016, pp. 530–531. ACM (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2912160.2912233
  2. 2.
    Jun, C.N., Chung, C.J.: Big data analysis of local government 3.0: focusing on Gyeongsangbuk-do in Korea. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 110, 3–12 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Veiga, L.: Digital government and administrative burden reduction. In: 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV2016) 2016, pp. 323–326. Montevideo (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khalil, O.E.M.: E-government readiness: does national culture matter? Gov. Inf. Q. 28(3), 388–399 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koh, C.E., Prybutok, V.R., Zhang, X.: Measuring e-government readiness. Inf. Manage. 45(8), 540–546 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Al-Omari, A., Al-Omari, H.: E-government readiness assessment model. J. Comput. Sci. 2(11), 841–845 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garant Homepage. https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/71708158/. Accessed 01 Apr 2018
  8. 8.
    Platonova, I., Martynov, A., Bundin, M.: Trust in digital government as a result of overcoming knowledge access inequality and dissemination of belief in e-democracy. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research 2015, pp. 309–311. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shareef, M.A., Dwivedi, Y.K., Laumer, S., Archer, N.: Citizens’ adoption behavior of mobile government (mGov): a cross-cultural study. Inf. Syst. Manage. 33(3), 268–283 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carter, L., Weerakkody, V., Phillips, B., Dwivedi, Y.K.: Citizen adoption of e-government services: exploring citizen perceptions of online services in the United States and United Kingdom. Inf. Syst. Manage. 33(2), 124–140 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aletdinova, A., Koritsky, A.: The relationship of ICT with human capital formation in rural and urban areas of Russia. In: Alexandrov, D., Boukhanovsky, A., Chugunov, A., Kabanov, Y., Koltsova, O. (eds.) DTGS 2018. CCIS, vol. 859, pp. 19–27. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02846-6_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hofstede, G.: Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context. Online Readings Psychol. Cult. 2(1), 8 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Minkov, M., Hofstede, G.: The evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine. Cross Cult. Manage. Int. J. 18(1), 10–20 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hofstede, G., Minkov, M.: Long-versus short-term orientation: new perspectives. Asia Pacific Bus. Rev. 16(4), 493–504 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mkoyan, G.S.: National culture and ways of its preservation in a transforming society. Izvestiya of the St. Petersburg State Econ. Univ. 2(98), 103–106 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. Hofstede’s model. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/russia/. Accessed 04 June 2018
  17. 17.
    Paturyan, Y.J., Gevorgyan, V., Badalyan, T., Grigoryan, N., Kojoyan, A.: Civic activism as a novel component of armenian civil society: new energy and tensions. Turpanjian Center for Policy Analysis (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gorshkov, M.K., Tikhonova, Ye, N.: Sotsiokul’turnyye faktory konsolidatsii rossiyskogo obshchestva: Informatsionno-analiticheskiy byulleten’ Instituta sotsiologii Rossiyskoy akademii nauk=Information-analytical bulletin of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences 1, 54 (2013). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bowser, D.: Corruption, Trust, and the Danger to Democratization in the Former Soviet Union. Routledge, Berlin (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Inglehart, R.: Postmodernization brings declining respect for authority but rising support for democracy. In: Norris, P. (ed.) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Inglehart, R., Welzel, C.: Changing mass priorities: the link between modernization and democracy. Perspect. Politics 8(2), 551–567 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., Wunsch-Vincent, S. (eds.): The Global Innovation Index 2016: Innovation Feeding the World. Johnson Cornell University, Ithaca (2017)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., Wunsch-Vincent, S. (eds.): The Global Innovation Index 2016: Winning with Global Innovation. Johnson Cornell University, Ithaca (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., Wunsch-Vincent, S.: The Global Innovation Index 2015. Effective Innovation Policies for Development. World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., Wunsch-Vincent, S.: The Global Innovation Index 2014: The Human Factor in Innovation. WIPO, Geneva (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dutta, S., Lanvin, B.: The Global Innovation Index 2014: The Local Dynamics of Innovation. WIPO, Geneva (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shalanov, N.V., Aletdinova A.A.: Algorithm of taxonomy: method of design and implementation mechanism. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1015 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1015/3/032004Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Elamiryan R.: Network society as the key factor for effective functioning of the Eurasian union. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia (EGOSE 2016), pp. 83–92.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3014087.3014114

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Novosibirsk State Technical UniversityNovosibirskRussia
  2. 2.Russian-Armenian (Slavonic) University, Public Administration Academy of the Republic of ArmeniaYerevanArmenia

Personalised recommendations