Network, procedural and cognitive components of digital public governance implementation designs: Тhe experience of European countries

Abstract

The authors of the article aimed to study institutional designs for implementing digital public governance in the context of the problem of state governance. It was revealed that digital designs act as ways to ensure the implementation of the rules laid down in the system. They are focused on the development of communication skills, on preventing or minimizing conflicts in public policy, but do not exclude the risks of developing dysfunctions and serious contradictions. The article presents the results of a comparative study of the digitalization policy of European leaders in this area, Estonia and Germany, where there is a tendency to “slow down” innovations: uneven implementation of digital technologies in business and public governance, a wary attitude of citizens, a stable number of political and cultural attitudes and a focus more on regulation rather than coordination in Internet management. Contradictions between the network, procedural and cognitive components of digital public governance implementation designs appear. The authors believe that the gap with practically implemented technologies increases due to the existence of organizational and institutional barriers that need to be overcome in various ways (process, cognitive, etc.). Organizational barriers can be removed directly by state managers, while institutional barriers are the subject of policy initiatives. The novelty of the study lies in the recognition of the mobilization effect of “coercive digitalization”. In the context of the pandemic, this mobilization was based on stable (stereotypical) interaction practices. According to the authors, as the forms of cooperation deepen, mutual long-term obligations become the main requirement and the state should create incentives for it. This is what prompts the demand for mutual responsibility of the digitalization “apostles”, users and the state.

Keywords:

digitalization, institutional designs, public policy, civil participation, conflicts, co- ordination, “smart regulation”, ethics, trust, “coercive digitalization”