Russian e-Petitions Portal: Exploring Regional Variance in Use

  • Andrei V. Chugunov
  • Yury KabanovEmail author
  • Ksenia Zenchenkova
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9821)


The paper presents the results of research on factors explaining the level of e-petitioning in Russian regions. The main goal is to reveal socio-economic, technological and institutional problems the regions face, and hence to embed the Russian case into the broad research agenda on online engagement. We concentrate on the federal e-petitions portal – Russian Public Initiative – and use the automated monitoring system to analyse subnational dynamics of online petitions submissions and voting on the aggregate level. The data are used to quantitatively assess the drivers and obstacles for e-participation. Our findings suggest that more active e-petition portal usage in regions is associated with higher socio-economic and technological development, as well as with democratic institutions and better e-government policy. One of the main obstacles to active use of the portal is its institutional design that at the moment provides regions with different opportunities and reinforces participation divides. Future steps, implications for automated monitoring system and some policy recommendations are also discussed.


e-Petitions e-Participation e-Government Russian public initiative Resource model Digital divide Institutions Russian regions Automated monitoring system 


  1. 1.
    Åström, J., Karlsson, M., Linde, J., Pirannejad, A.: Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: domestic and international factors. Gov. Inf. Q. 29, 142–150 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2011.09.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bershadskaya, L., Chugunov, A., Trutnev, D.: e-Government in Russia: is or seems? In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 22–25 October 2012, pp. 79–82. ACM, New York (2012). doi: 10.1145/2463728.2463747
  3. 3.
    Bershadskaya, L., Chugunov, A., Trutnev, D.: Evaluation of e-participation in social networks: Russian e-petitions portal. In.: Janssen, M., Bannister, F., Glassey, O., Scholl, H.J., Tambouris, E., Maria A. Wimmer, M.A., Macintosh, A. (eds.) Innovation and the Public Sector. IFIP EGOV 2014 and EPart 2014, vol. 21, pp. 76–83. IOS, Amsterdam (2014). doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-429-9-76
  4. 4.
    Best, S.J., Krueger, B.S.: Analyzing the representativeness of internet political participation. Polit. Behav. 27, 183–216 (2005). doi: 10.1007/s11109-005-3242-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bimber, B., Flanagin, A.J., Stohl, C.: Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Commun. Theor. 15, 365–388 (2005). doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00340.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brady, H.E., Verba, S., Schlozman, L.: Beyond SES: a resource model of political participation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 89(2), 271–294 (1995). doi: 10.2307/2082425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dumas, C.L., LaManna, D., Harrison, T.M., Ravi, S.S., Kotfila, C., Gervais, N., Hagen, L., Chen, F.: Examining political mobilization of online communities through e-petitioning behavior in we the People. Big Data Soc. 2, 1–20 (2015). doi: 10.1177/2053951715598170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Escher, T., Riehm U.: Petitioning the German Bundestag: Political Equality and the Role of the Internet. Parliamentary Affairs. doi: 10.1093/pa/gsw009. Accessed 10 Mar 2016
  9. 9.
    Finkel, S.E.: Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: a panel analysis. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 29, 891–913 (1985). doi: 10.2307/2111186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Zúñiga, H.G., Jung, N., Valenzuela, S.: Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 17, 319–336 (2012). doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldfinch, S., Gauld, R., Herbison, P.: The participation divide? Political participation, trust in government, and e-government in Australia and New Zealand. Aust. J. Public Adm. 68, 333–350 (2009). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8500.2009.00643.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hale, S., Margetts, H., Yasseri, T.: Understanding the dynamics of internet-based collective action using big data: analysing the growth rates of internet-based petitions. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the UK Political Studies Association, Cardiff, Wales, 25–27 March 2013.
  13. 13.
    Hall, P.A., Taylor, R.C.R.: Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Polit. Stud. 44, 936–957 (1996). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Inglehart, R., Welzel, C.: Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: the Human Development Sequence. Cambridge University Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jho, W., Song, K.J.: Institutional and technological determinants of civil e-participation: solo or duet? Gov. Inf. Q. 32, 488–495 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kabanov, Y., Sungurov, A.: Regional e-governments in Russia: institutional and resource constraints. In: State and Citizens in Electronic Environment: Theories and Technologies of Research, pp. 61–72. ITMO University, St. Petersburg (2015). [in Russian]Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karlsson, M.: Carrots and sticks: internet governance in non–democratic regimes. Int. J. Electron. Gov. 6, 179–186 (2013). doi: 10.1504/IJEG.2013.058405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katchanovski, I., La Porte, T.: Cyberdemocracy or Potemkin e-villages? Electronic governments in OECD and post-communist countries. Int. J. Public Adm. 28, 665–681 (2005). doi: 10.1081/PAD-200064228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kenski, K., Stroud, N.J.: Connections between internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 50, 173–192 (2006). doi: 10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim, B.J.: Political efficacy, community collective efficacy, trust and extroversion in the information society: differences between online and offline civic/political activities. Gov. Inf. Q. 32, 43–51 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim, S., Lee, J.: E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Adm. Rev. 72, 819–828 (2012). doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02593.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee, C., Chen, D., Huang, T.: The interplay between digital and political divides: the case of e-petitioning in Taiwan. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 32, 37–55 (2014). doi: 10.1177/0894439313497470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lindner, R., Riehm, U.: Broadening participation through e-petitions? An empirical study of petitions to the German parliament. Policy Internet 3, 1–23 (2011). doi: 10.2202/1944-2866.1083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lindner, R., Riehm, U.: Electronic petitions and institutional modernization. international parliamentary e-petition systems in comparative perspective. JeDEM 1, 1–11 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lupia, A., Sin, G.: Which public goods are endangered? How evolving communication technologies affect the logic of collective action. Public Choice 117, 315–331 (2003). doi: 10.1023/B:PUCH.0000003735.07840.c7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Medaglia, R.: eParticipation research: moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Gov. Inf. Q. 29, 346–360 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.02.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Min, S.J.: From the digital divide to the democratic divide: internet skills, political interest, and the second-level digital divide in political internet use. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. 7, 22–35 (2010). doi: 10.1080/19331680903109402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Norris, P.: Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge University Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Olson, M.: The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1971)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Petrov, N., Titkov, A.: Rating of Democracy by Moscow Carnegie Center: 10 Years in Service. Moscow Carnegie Center, Moscow (2013). [in Russian]Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Phang, C.W., Kankanhalli, A., Huang, L.: Drivers of quantity and quality of participation in online policy deliberation forums. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 31, 172–212 (2014). doi: 10.1080/07421222.2014.995549 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saglie, J., Vabo, S.I.: Size and e‐democracy: online participation in Norwegian local politics. Scand. Polit. Stud. 32, 382–401 (2009). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.2009.00235.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sanford, C., Rose, J.: Characterizing eparticipation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 27, 406–421 (2007). doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sedova, N.N.: The formats, factors, and social base of civic activism in today’s Russia. Sociol. Res. 54, 284–306 (2015). doi: 10.1080/10610154.2015.1123531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sheppard, J.: Online petitions in Australia: information, opportunity and gender. Aust. J. Polit. Sci. 50, 480–495 (2015). doi: 10.1080/10361146.2015.1049512 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vicente, M.R., Novo, A.: An empirical analysis of e-participation. The role of social networks and e-government over citizens’ online engagement. Gov. Inf. Q. 31, 379–387 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Warren, A.M., Sulaiman, A., Jaafar, N.I.: Social media effects on fostering online civic engagement and building citizen trust and trust in institutions. Gov. Inf. Q. 31, 291–301 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wright, S., Street, J.: Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. New Media Soc. 9, 849–869 (2007). doi: 10.1177/1461444807081230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wright, S.: Assessing (e-)democratic innovations: “Democratic Goods” and downing street e-petitions. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. 9, 453–470 (2012). doi: 10.1080/19331681.2012.712820 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wright, S.: Populism and downing street e-petitions: connective action, hybridity, and the changing nature of organizing. Polit. Commun. 32, 414–433 (2015). doi: 10.1080/10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrei V. Chugunov
    • 1
  • Yury Kabanov
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ksenia Zenchenkova
    • 1
  1. 1.ITMO UniversitySaint-PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsSaint-PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations