Governmentality in the context of digitalization: cross-country analysis

Capa

Citar

Texto integral

Acesso aberto Acesso aberto
Acesso é fechado Acesso está concedido
Acesso é fechado Acesso é pago ou somente para assinantes

Resumo

Digitalization affects all aspects of public and personal life, changing biological and social scenarios of people’s life. This allows to talk about a new stage in the development of the information society, which affects political processes. The purpose of this study is to adapt M. Foucault’s concept of managerial mentality (governmentality) to assess the impact of digitalization on the socio-political landscape. In the future, this will allow a comprehensive assessment of the decision-making and control system in society. The applied research task is to analyze the possibilities and limitations of using digital tools in managing society. The relationship between the spread of information technologies (the number of Internet users) and public administration performance indicators was determined for the largest possible sample of states for 2008 and 2021. It is shown that the share of Internet users as the main metric of digitalization significantly correlates with indicators characterizing the managerial mentality in the public sphere. The degree of digitalization sufficient for the development, stability and security of society has been determined.

Texto integral

Acesso é fechado

Sobre autores

Dmitry Kaminchenko

Lobachevsky Research and Information Agency, Institute of International Relations and World History, National Research Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod

Autor responsável pela correspondência
Email: dmitkam@iee.unn.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3193-3423
Rússia, Nizhny Novgorod

Igor Komarov

Lobachevsky Research and Information Agency, Institute of International Relations and World History, National Research Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod

Email: komarov@imomi.unn.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0348-0471
Rússia, Nizhny Novgorod

Maria Gorbunova

Institute of Economics, National Research Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod

Email: gorbunova@iee.unn.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0003-2733-568X

Department of International Economics and Customs Affairs

Rússia, Nizhny Novgorod

Bibliografia

  1. Аутсорсинг политических суждений: проблемы коммуникации на цифровых платформах (2021)/ Под ред. Л.В. Сморгунова. М.: РОССПЭН. 2021. 310 с. Outsourcing of Political Gudgments: the Challenges of Communication on Digital Platforms. (2021) Ed. L.V. Smorgunov. Moscow: ROSSPEN. 310 p. (In Russ.)
  2. Игнатьева О.А. (2020) Цифровая управленческая ментальность: партисипаторное управление vs биополитика // Политическая экспертиза: ПОЛИТЭКС. Т. 16. № 4. С. 462–473. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu23.2020.403 Ignatjeva O.A. (2020) Digital Governmentality: Participatory Governance vs. Biopolitics. Politicheskaya ekspertiza: POLITEKS, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 462–473. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu23.2020.403 (In Russ)
  3. Кравченко С.А. (2020) Пандемия COVID-19: вызовы здоровью населения мира – возможна ли гуманистическая глоболокальная биополитика? // Полис. Политические исследования. № 6. С. 91–102. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.06.07 Kravchenko S.A. (2020) COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges to Global Health – Is a Humanistic Global Biopolitics Possible? Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya, no. 6, pp. 91–102. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.06.07 (In Russ)
  4. Модели диалога власти и общества в интернет-коммуникациях (2016) / Под общ. ред. Л.А. Василенко, Е.В. Тарасовой. М.: Проспект. 112 с. Models of Dialogue between the Authorities and Society in Internet Communications. (2016) Eds. L.A. Vasilenko, E.V. Tarasova. Moscow: Prospekt. 112 p. (In Russ)
  5. Сморгунов Л.В. (2021) Три стратегии политики цифровизации: государственное управление и трансформационный потенциал цифровых технологий // Мозаичное поле мировой и российской публичной политики. Политическая наука: Ежегодник 2020–2021. Российская Ассоциация политической науки; Томский государственный университет. Томск. С. 9–33. Smorgunov L.V. (2021) Three Strategies of Digitalization Policy: Public Governance and the Transformational Potential of Digital Technologies. In: Mozaichnoe pole mirovoi i rossiiskoi publichnoi politiki. Politicheskaya nauka: Ezhegodnik 2020–2021. Tomsk. Pp. 9–33. (In Russ.)
  6. Фуко М. (1999) Надзирать и наказывать: рождение тюрьмы. М.: Ad Marginem. 480 c. Fuko M. (1999) Supervise and Punish: The Birth of Prison. Moscow. Ad Marginem. 480 p. (In Russ.)
  7. Armstrong Ch. (2010) Emergent democracy. In: Open government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. Ed. D. Lathrop and L. Ruma. USA. O`Reilly Media. Pp. 167–176.
  8. Chumaceiro Hernandez А.С., Hernandez G. de V. J.J., Perez Prieto M.E. et al. (2024) Analysis of the e-Government development index in the regions. In: Procedia Computer Science. The International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Future Networks (ISFN 2023). November 7–9, 2023, Almaty, Kazakhstan. Pp. 559–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.12.250
  9. Coleman St. (2017) Can the Internet Strengthen Democracy? Cambridge. Polity Press. 142 p.
  10. Cortes-Cediel M.E., Segura-Tinoco A., Cantador I., Bolivar M.P.R. (2023) Trends and Challenges of e-Government Chatbots: Advances in Exploring Open Government Data and Citizen Participation Content. Government Information Quarterly, vol. 40, is. 4, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101877
  11. Dean M. (2010) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. Second Edition. London: SAGE Publication Inc. 304 p.
  12. Eaves D. (2010) After the collapse: Open Government and the Future of Civil Service. In: Open government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. Eds. D. Lathrop and L. Ruma. USA. O`Reilly Media. Pp. 139–151.
  13. Flyverbom M., Madsen A.K., Rasche A. (2017) Big data as Governmentality in International Development: Digital Traces, Algorithms, and Altered Visibilities. The Information Society, is. 33 (1), pp. 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2016.12486
  14. Foucault M. (1988) The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom. In: The Final Foucault. Eds. J. Bernauer and D. Rasmussen. Boston: MIT Press. Pp. 1–20.
  15. Foucault M. (1997a) Security, Territory, and Population. In: M. Foucault. The Essential Works 1954–1984. Vol. 1. Ethics: Subjectivity and truth. Ed. P. Rabinow. New York: The New Press. Pp. 67–71.
  16. Foucault М. (1997b) The Essential Works 1954–1984. Vol. 1: Ethics: Subjectivity and truth. Ed. P. Rabinow. New York: The New Press. 334 p.
  17. Foucault M. (1997c) Birth of Biopolitics. In: M. Foucault. The Essential Works 1954–1984. Vol. 1: Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. Ed. P. Rabinow. New York: The New Press. Pp. 73–79.
  18. Lemke T. (2002) Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique. Rethinking Marxism, is. 14(3), pp. 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/089356902101242288
  19. Merry S.E. (2011) Measuring the world: Indicators, Human Rights, and Global Governance. Current Anthropology, vol 52, is. 3, pp. 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1086/657241
  20. Noveck B.S. (2010) The single point of failure. In: Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. Eds. D. Lathrop and L. Ruma. USA. O`Reilly Media. Pp. 49–69.
  21. O`Reilly T. (2010) Government as a Platform. In: Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. Eds. D. Lathrop and L. Ruma. USA. O`Reilly Media. Pp. 11–39.
  22. Reich B. (2010) Citizens` View of Open Government. In: Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. Eds. D. Lathrop and L. Ruma. USA. O`Reilly Media. Pp. 131–138.
  23. Schacht S. (2010) Democracy, under everything. In: Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. Eds. D. Lathrop and L. Ruma. USA. O`Reilly Media. Pp. 153–165.

Arquivos suplementares

Arquivos suplementares
Ação
1. JATS XML
Baixar

Declaração de direitos autorais © Russian Academy of Sciences, 2024