© Media
Watch 11 (1) 177-190, 2020
ISSN
0976-0911 | E-ISSN 2249-8818
DOI:
10.15655/mw/2020/v11i1/49755
Dialogue as a Problem Area of Communication
between the
Authorities and the Public
Ludmila Viktorovna Orlova1,
Zinadbanu Mukhanovna Musina2,
& Balganym Talapovna Dzhanikesheva3
1Medical
University “REAVIZ,” Russian Federation
2,3West
Kazakhstan University of Engineering and Technology, Kazakhstan
The study discusses the role of dialogue
communication in the interaction of the state, business, and civil society. The
results are aimed at creating favorable conditions for the development of a
business climate not only for a single region but also for the entire Russian
economy. The study uses methods of system analysis, a sociological expert
survey, an in-depth interview, methods for analyzing
statistical data, which together revealed the substantive essence of
communication barriers in the space of dialogue between the authorities,
business and the public. The results of studies are aimed at identifying the
role of dialogue communication in the interaction of the state, business, and
civil society as an essential element of the socio-economic development of the
country’s business climate. The research results can be used in practical
activities of the authorities to improve the effectiveness of dialogue between
the authorities, business structures and civil society in the context of the
socio-economic development.
Keywords: Authorities, business, civil society, communication,
dialogue, public
The concept of dialogue attracts the complex of means that help to
indicate and regulate the moral tension in public relations, the tension that
exists at the boundary between client interests and public or audience
interests (Pearson, 2016). Since the 1990s, the local level of governance, as
well as its whole-state variant, has become increasingly important in
addressing the challenge of sustainable development (Wittmayer
et al., 2016). There is a need to develop the basic theories and principles
involved in the practice of public relations and explore how public relations
functions in adapting an organization to its social, political, and economic
environment (Nolte, 2016).
In modern Russia, when new economic
relations are being formed, and its economy is becoming increasingly integrated
into the world community, there is an urgent need for structural changes and
closer interaction between the state, business, and civil society. The process
of constructing communications between the authorities, business, and society
as a whole is currently the decisive factor for the effective development of a
regional business climate.
The need to establish a dialogue between
civil society and the authorities, as well as business and the authorities are
determined by socio-economic problems, since the absence of a public and open
discussion of these problems may lead to their aggravation (Kolmakov
et al., 2019; Mishchuk et al., 2019). Today, the
quality of life of the population and the stable development of Russian regions
depend on the effectiveness of partnership relations between the authorities,
business, and civil society in all areas. It should be emphasized that a
constitutional state, business, and civil society are equal and interacting
partners, not rivals. Therefore, the effective interaction between them
contributes to the harmonious development of a business climate of the
country’s regions, as well as the sustainable development and improvement of
the quality of life of the population.
In this regard, in the process of
studying the dialogue between the authorities and civil society, this paper
focuses on the interpersonal relations of the participants in the interaction,
on how these participants perceive and evaluate each other’s behavior in
certain contexts, and on how they design their interaction.
Following the theory of communicative
action by J. Habermas (1991), the effective
communication between the authorities and civil society is possible only in the
case of the mutual understanding of the parties and the consistency of their
interests, which in turn contribute to social change. Shinyaeva
(2014) believes that the process of interaction between the authorities and the
public is a dialogue in the sense of an exchange of thoughts and assessments,
in the presence of discussions on various issues. Schukina
(2016) and Nikovskaya (2017) actualize the topic of
identifying a spectrum of diverse formats of dialogical interactions, including
the authorities and the public, as well as the role of civil society in shaping
civic identity and consolidating Russian society. Against the background of
transformation processes taking place in Russia, the process of interaction between
the structures of public authority and civil society is in the formative stage.
In this regard, it is particularly important to consider the social component
of the communicative space used by society and the state.
The purpose of this article is to identify
and analyze the features of the process of constructing the communication
between the authorities, business, and civil society. The objectives are to
explore the main reasons hindering the development of dialogue between the
authorities, business community and civil society, and to propose measures to
eliminate them to improve the mechanism of state and public partnership. The
scientific novelty of this work is determined by the formulation of the problem
and the definition of the most significant difficulties in the process of
constructing the communication between the authorities, business, and civil
society.
Literature Review
The problem of communicative relationships between the authorities,
business, and society is constantly in the focus of the attention of many
social scientists and practitioners. Public relations practice is situated at
precisely that point where competing interests collide. Indeed, public
relations problems can be defined in terms of the collision, or potential
collision, of these interests. Serving client and public interests
simultaneously is the seemingly impossible mission of the public relations practitioner
(Pearson, 2016).
Since the current study revolves around
dialogue as a means of communication, researches pertaining to this area
demands deliberations. Matheny, Poe, Fisher, and Warren (2018) explore that
audiences were emotionally attached to the speech. Going to unravel the various perspectives of
speech; Kalinina, Yusupova,
and Voevoda (2019) claim that speech can be
manipulated in the process of communication, especially in dialogues which are
politically driven. Such kind of dialogue potentially influence and shape up
public opinion. Gellner (1994), Dahrendorf
(1998), Clark (1995), Lasswell (2006), Touraine
(1992), Shils (1997), Habermas
(2016), Payne and Calton (2017), Connell (2007) have
contributed immensely to the development of ideas about the mechanism and
constituent elements of social and political communications. Payne and Calton (2017) explore some examples of multi-stakeholder
dialogues and the criticisms that have been raised concerning the corporate
governance processes. It shows that interactions must be explored and developed
to realize a corporate citizenship practice based on reciprocal engagement
between managers and stakeholders.
Kedar Uttam and
Caroline Le Lann Roos
research the problem of dialogue usage in the context of so-called green public
procurement. The authors recommend contracting authorities to implement a
competitive dialogue procedure solution to identify sustainable public
procurement preferences. Dialogue sessions with contractors should involve
discussions regarding sustainable public procurement to ensure consistency
between the weight for environmental considerations and respective preferences
(Uttam & Roos, 2015).
Petra Saskia Bayerl and Lachezar Stoynov propose another way of dialogue practice used
within the framework of cooperation between the public and authorities. The
authors are interested in the role digital memes in the form of pictures play
in the framing of public discourses about police injustice, and what it is that
makes memes successful in this process (Bayerl & Stoynov, 2016).
Wittmayer, Steenbergen, Rok, and Roorda (2015) pay
attention into the importance of dialogue within public communication process
and conclude that governing sustainability should be about finding creative
ways for opening spaces for participation, change, and experimentation, that
is, for creating alternative ideas, practices, and social relations. All this
becomes possible while attractive the dialogue functions (Wittmayer
et al., 2015). Butenko and Kolesnichenko
(1996), Golenkova (2000), Shinyaeva
and Kayumova (2014), and Yadova
(2004) examined the problems of social policy in the context of the social
structure transformation and the interaction of the authorities and the public.
The specificity of the sociological approach
to the study of communication is that it allows us to reveal various aspects of
social life and the many contradictions in its development through the prism of
social interactions. The modern view on the structure of communication,
including emerging communication barriers, is most fully represented in the
works of Russian researchers T. Z. Adamyants
(2005), N. N. Verkhovtseva (2015), M. N. Grachev (2004), N. N. Lamskova
(2017), L. I. Mukhamedova (2007), V. V. Silkin (2006), and L.N. Timofeeva
(2018).
All the above researchers describe the
relationship between the authorities, business, and society from different but
synonymous points of view. They describe the main characteristics of the
authorities, business, and civil society, and analyze the contradictions
between the authorities and business, as well as specific facts and events from
various points of view.
Materials and Methods
This sociological
study focused on the assessment of communicative factors influencing regional
development on the part of the authorities, business, and civil society was
based on:
(i) Annual studies
conducted by the all-Russian non-governmental organization of small and medium
business “OPORA RUSSIA” (2012-2016);
(ii) Information
and analytical materials of various aspects of the communication process of the
authorities and the business community, as well as the authorities and civil
society in the activities of the regions;
Besides,
this research includes a secondary analysis of the following sociological
studies:
(i) Data from a mass
survey, focus groups and expert interviews in St.
Petersburg (2017);
(ii) Questionnaires of SME representatives (Nizhny
Novgorod, 2015, N=502);
(iii) An in-depth interview “Sociological analysis
of state support for small businesses in the Belgorod region” (2016, N=20); and
(iv) An in-depth interview with business leaders
and city authorities of the Volga Federal district and the Central Federal
district (2016, N=19).
Results
The results of sociological studies of entrepreneurs conducted in the
regions of the Russian Federation, “The Business Climate in Russia: the OPORA
Index” (2012-2016) showed the problem of designing a business and government
communication process. Despite the existence of laws on the protection of
business rights, their activities at the level of practice were directly
dependent on bureaucracy and criminality. The post-Soviet period of development
of the Russian business was characterized by a number of negative trends:
corruption relationships between businessmen and representatives of
bureaucratic structures; criminalization of business due to forced contacts
with organized criminal groups; priority of informal, non-institutional norms
and rules in behavioral and ideological attitudes of a significant number of
entrepreneurs (Giallourakis, 2017).
Table 1 is the indicative in this respect and the answers of the interviewed
entrepreneurs on the topic: “How do the authorities treat business in reality?”
Table 1. How do the authorities treat business in
reality? (%)
Years
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
As a wallet 46 46.3 42.0 48 43.0
As a junior partner 28 27.2 40.3 36.8 28.9
As a driver of economic and social development 18 21 19.9 17.1 21.1
As a breeding ground for corruption 24 17.3 15.9 15.8 16.2
As an equal partner 15 19.1 14.8 12.5 14.1
As a competitor in the struggle for influence in
society 14 5.6 5.7 4.6 9.9
As an object of constant support and protection 1 8 7.4 8.6 8.5
As a competitor in the economic sphere 5 1.2 2.8 2.0 4.2
Almost half of the business
representatives (43%) replied: “as a wallet.” According to 28.9% of the
respondents, the authorities see business as a junior partner. 21.1% of the
organizations believe that the authorities treat the business as a driver of
economic and social development, and 16.2% of the respondents are convinced
that the authorities perceive business as a breeding ground for corruption.
Based on the
results of a nationwide survey conducted in the framework of the project “On
the State of the Business Climate in Russia” (2016), 35% of the companies rate
the level of corruption in the country in 2016 as “high,” and 21.9% “average;”
while 43.1% of the respondents consider the level of corruption “low”. About
the 2008 assessment of corruption, the share of the answer “high corruption”
fell by 22.8%- from 57.8% to 35% through the 2011 intermediate value of 51%. At
the same time, the share of the option “corruption at an average level” remains
almost unchanged during all the years of the study (approximately 21-23%). If
we take into account the short-term dynamics (from 2012 to 2016), we will have
to state some “conservation” of the indicators– 44% of the respondents in 2012 and 43.1% in 2016 said that the level
of corruption was low (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The level of power corruption in the
opinion of business representatives (%)
Of particular
interest are the results of a survey of entrepreneurs regarding the most
corrupt authorities (Figure 2). Law enforcement agencies have been in the first
place in this regard for the past five years.
Figure 2. The most corrupt authorities in the
opinion of business representatives (%)
Based on the 2014 sociological survey,
91% of the respondents consider personal contact, as well as public and
collective interaction, to be the most effective way for small and medium-sized
businesses to interact with local government bodies. However, they consider the
use of business associations and third-party organizations in the protection of
their interests to be unproductive. The third part of the interviewed OPORA
heads of small and medium-sized enterprises considers administrative barriers
to be “a burden so heavy that it is impossible to adapt to it” (Petrakov & Glebov, 2013).
To complete the analysis of the problems
of regulating the business climate, we turn to the expert data on what hinders
entrepreneurship most of all. The 2014 expert survey “Sociological analysis of
state support for small businesses in the Belgorod region” conducted among the
leading specialists of the Belgorod region in the area of state support for small businesses (N=16)
and the results of an in-depth interview conducted among the participants of
the Belgorod Interregional Forum in 2016 (N=20) showed the following results.
It was proposed to evaluate 13 factors on a 7-point scale (1- does not hinder
at all, 7- hinders as much as possible). Here follows the ranked number of factors.
Lack of effective legal support 5.0
Arbitrariness
of tax authorities 4.9
Unequal
conditions of entrepreneurship 4.6
Lack of
moral support from society 4.5
Arbitrariness
of regulatory agencies 4.5
Mess in the
legislation 4.4
Arbitrariness
of government representatives 4.0
Lack of
effective financial support from the state 4.0
Lack of
social responsibility of business 3.9
Insecurity
of small business 3.7
Lack of
partnerships with the authorities 3.7
Corruption 3.6
Pressure from criminal structures 3.2
The respondents
noted the factors that have become the greatest obstacles to the development of
entrepreneurship in the Belgorod region. They include the lack of effective
legal support, arbitrariness on the part of tax authorities, as well as unequal
conditions compared with large and medium-sized businesses. The rating of the
negative significance of such factors as “lack of moral support from society,”
“arbitrariness on the part of regulatory
agencies,” and “mess in the legislation” is
also quite high. Such factors as “arbitrariness of government
representatives” and “lack of effective
financial support from the state” also hinder the development of small
businesses. Based on the data of the
sociological survey, there is a lack of “fair competition.” Experts point to
the vulnerability of small and medium-sized businesses and the lack of
partnerships with the authorities.
Currently, Russia
is on the threshold of a qualitatively new relationship between business and
the authorities. Business is now seeking to design a process of communication
with the authorities. Now the goal is to create new forms of communication
between business structures and government bodies.
The 2014-2016 research showed that the
structure of the regional business space of an SME entrepreneur is
significantly biased towards institutional business relations in the
communication space, i.e., the modern model of the communication construct of
entrepreneurs and government bodies in the Russian Federation is based on
existing business associations (Orlova, 2015). In
2016, a survey was conducted in the form of in-depth interviews with heads of
enterprises, representatives of business associations and government bodies (19
respondents from the cities of the Volga Federal district and the Central
Federal district were interviewed). The state is a regulator that actively
regulates business. Today, there is quite a positive trend in general
regulation and legislative consolidation of norms. At the regional level, the
interaction between the authorities and business is exacerbated by the uneven
development of the regions and the different time of formation in the social
structure of entrepreneurs, the heterogeneity of the business community as well
as its weak institutionalization.
Based on the respondents’ answers, the
extreme dependence of business on federal and regional authorities was
revealed. The character of this dependence, on the one hand, is natural;
business cannot be independent, because the state has a regulatory function. On
the other hand, the dependence can be excessive and is not always within the
framework of regulatory and legal provisions, manifesting itself in the form of
corrupt interest including “fighting competitors” with the support of
individual officials” (Respondent N: an entrepreneur, medium business, 7
years’ experience).
As part of the survey, the respondents
were asked about favorable or unfavorable conditions for business development
in Russia. Their answers demonstrate that the opinion about favorable and unfavorable
conditions for doing business in Russia is divided as follows: favorable 29%;
unfavorable 48%; I don’t know 23%.
Respondent A (an entrepreneur having small business
and four years’ experience) says, “Depending on the type of business, they may be
different, but in general, of course, the problem is to reduce the zone of
adverse factors.” If we talk about unfavorable conditions, their essence is
that today, government bodies have created a very high degree of uncertainty.
The business is “in fear” and cannot carry out long-term planning, as there are
no clear frameworks, conditions, and laws which would allow it to do so. The
process of communication between the authorities and business has not been
built.
Respondent R (a representative of the authorities)
says, “The conditions for doing business in Russia are becoming more and more
attractive every year. The development of state strategy creates prerequisites
for industrial development, as well as the introduction of new technologies and
the latest achievements of science. The authorities are doing everything
possible to create a favorable business environment, which contributes to the
positive dynamics of Russia’s investment development. But the business
community needs to learn how to establish a dialogue with the authorities.” The
problem is that today, there is a question of compliance with the already
established norms and laws.
Respondent B (an entrepreneur having small business
and three years of experience) says, “The main issue consists of
implementation. The head of state says the right thing, but implementation is
very lame. Conceptually everything is correct; they began to adopt new laws. We
are talking about the economy, but everything depends on the fundamental
things: the corruption system, the judicial system, the bureaucracy. Whatever
one may say, you first need to change it. The authorities need to be closer to
the people, business, and to be interested in their problems not on paper, but
in the process of communication.”
An important element in the system of
communication between business structures and government bodies are business
associations. According to the results of the study, an assessment was made of
the scale of participation of entrepreneurs in business associations, and the
effectiveness of business associations for establishing a dialogue with
government bodies.
Respondent K (an entrepreneur and a representative of
the Public Association of Entrepreneurs) gives a concrete example illustrating
why enterprises are merging: “Based on common interests, based on the tasks
facing businesses, often, the issues that should be solved by the authorities
are left unsolved for various reasons, and the business is forced to unite to
remind and push to the solution of the necessary issues, and to engage in
dialogue with the authorities.”
The impressions of entrepreneurs from
interactions with government bodies show that there are difficulties, and their
tonality is predominantly negative. Three central indicators in the interview
materials united the majority of the surveyed employers: “corruption,”
“bureaucracy,” “desire to crush business.” Entrepreneurs note frequent
inspections, fines, high taxes, problems with customs and police intervention,
as well as lack of professionalism of public service workers. Most employers
want to adapt and adjust to the situation. There are very few of those who are
aware of the possibility of creating contractual, partnership relations in the
communication space.
The state should adjust and maintain rational
mutual expectations, the integrity and balance of the entire system, as well as
build a constructive dialogue with the business community. However, in reality,
the situation is quite opposite. SMEs connect almost all their problems with
the state, not seeing it as a partner and assistant, unwilling to build a
dialogue with business representatives and representatives of civil society.
The state, in turn, practically distanced itself from the regulation of social
and labor relations in this area, pinning hopes on the direct participants and
market regulation. In this regard, both employees and employers lose confidence
in government bodies that could help them. This is well illustrated by the
example of state employment services, to which neither of them addresses.
Consider the position of SME employees
(by the example of Nizhny Novgorod) (questionnaire, 2015, N=502). SME employees
are practically excluded from direct contact with the state. In the Nizhniy
Novgorod survey, the question of employees’ appeals to government services was
examined. The distribution of their answers is given in Table 2.
Table 2. Personal appeals of SME employees to
government services (%)
Government services Respondents
Pension fund 42
Tax inspectorate 40
I did not have to appeal personally 30
Social insurance fund 25
Employment service 16.5
Migration services 13.5
Court (for resolving labor disputes) 8
Labor
inspection 3
The results show that the largest number
of the surveyed employees (about 40%) appealed independently to the tax
inspectorate, as many, to the pension fund, and a quarter to the social
insurance fund. Only 8% appealed to the state court for resolving labor
disputes, and 3% went to the labor inspection with complaints about the
employer. About a third of the respondents never personally appealed to
government services. Thus, generally, employees rarely resort to the help of
government bodies to protect their rights (courts and labor inspections), and
in a third of cases they do not contact the state at all.
The main reasons for appeals are not
directly related to employment, but rather to support outside of it. This is
confirmed by the data on the intensity of the impact of government bodies on
the working life of SME employees. In the study, it was evaluated based on the
respondents’ opinions expressed on a 10-point scale (where 1- does not affect
and 10- critically affect). The results are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. The impact of the state on the working
life of the employee (% of the respondents)
Figure 3 show that most of the
respondents assess this impact neutrally with a certain downward shift in the
direction of its absence. The majority of the employees (65%) defined their
ratings in the range from 1 to 5. Accordingly, the cumulative ratio between them
can be represented as neutral-negative if it is implemented. In this case, the
employees prefer a personal visit or a call (65%), less often the Internet
portals of government services are used (20%), and about 10% of the respondents
try to use informal ties. In Nizhny Novgorod, SME employees identified the main
problems of interaction with government bodies, presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Problems of interaction with government
services (%)
Problems of interaction Respondents
Queues 54
A large number of papers 50
Long-time to consider and make a decision
on the problem 38
The indifference of government officials 33
Unclear structure– it is difficult to
understand who to contact 31
It is difficult to reach the needed
official 23
Corruption 17.5
It is found that infrequent
communications are complicated by citizens’ poor access to government agencies,
as well as the bureaucratization of relations. A third of the respondents noted
the difficulties in understanding the communication channels (it is difficult
to understand who to contact), which forms a deliberately negative attitude
towards possible assistance and participation of the state in this area.
Mutual expectations of employees and the
state fit into the pattern of industrial relations, much relates to
paternalistic relations that are traditional for the Russians, while the state
itself imposes liberal labor relations. Employees expect the state to control
employers, and if their rights are violated, to take responsibility for the fate
of employees and maintain social guarantees. The interests of the state, on the
contrary, lie in the area of
law-abiding employees as taxpayers and the desire to stimulate the
self-responsibility of employees in the labor market and about employers. Such
a difference in the expectations of the parties does not contribute to solving
the urgent problems of employment regulation.
In general, all three subjects
(employees, employers, and the state) are localized in their needs and
expectations, and the communication channels between them are very difficult or
blocked. To a greater degree, the development of relations is possible at the
level of state interactions with employers subordinate to the need to develop
rules and methods for observing the rights of employees. State pressure on
employees is carried out indirectly (through the employer) and causes
counter-resistance and even solidarity from these parties. The negative-neutral
attitude towards the state is expressed in sabotaging the rules and maintaining
informal ties in the authorities and regulatory agencies.
Currently, the task of establishing a
business partnership and the process of constructing communications, i.e.,
stable cooperation of small, medium and large businesses with the authorities,
is becoming urgent. The principle of partnership requires the formation of a
new type of relationship between business entities and the authorities.
An analysis of the findings of the mass
survey focus groups, and expert interviews (2017) allows us to determine the
overall level of satisfaction with the communication between the authorities
and representatives of civil society in St. Petersburg as conditionally
“acceptable.”
During the mass
survey, one of the key themes was the issue of topics and models of interaction
between government bodies and civil society actors. Based on this survey,
“parallel” and “partnership” models of interaction between the authorities and
civil society have become the most common in St. Petersburg.
The respondents’
answers to the question “How can you characterize the relations of public
organizations and city authorities in St. Petersburg?” are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Characteristics of the Relations of Public
Organizations and City Authorities (% of respondents)
The results of expert interviews can be
analyzed in the same aspect. They characterize the climate for interaction
between the authorities and civil society in St. Petersburg as having
significant problems, but, nevertheless, fundamentally favorable: “With the advent
of new technologies, it can be stated that the authorities have become much
more open; however, decisions in many important areas are still being made in
private, without public comment”.
Particularly relevant under these
conditions is the creation of highly efficient forms of communication between
regional government structures and representatives of civil society. It is the
highly efficient, open and regular interaction between regional authorities and
representatives of civil society that can identify urgent social problems at
the early stages, prevent their growth, relieve the symptoms of discontent as
well as develop solutions that suit all parties to the greatest extent. In this
context, the modern Russian government substantially activates its policy
towards closer interaction with civil structures. As shown by the results of
the study, both representatives of the authorities and civil society believe
that without this, it will hardly be possible to restore communications between
the authorities and society, as well as mutual trust between them.
These opportunities are based on using
the partnership model of communication in the conditions of open public policy.
It is this model that seems optimal and, therefore, most desirable to establish
an effective “government-society” dialogue.
Discussion
The study revealed not only a certain
dynamics of positive results in the development of communication of government
structures with civil society and the business community but also revealed
several problems and contradictions in this complex process. In conformity to
the identified problems of communication among the authorities, society, and
business in the Russian Federation, Afonin and Orlova (2015), Lamskova (2015),
and Schukina (2013), in their studies, emphasize the
importance of dialogue between the authorities and the public in the context of
stabilizing society and receiving systematic feedback. The authorities have to
master new forms and ways of interacting with society, using- although
contradictory- the mechanisms of transparency in their activities, without
which it is impossible to effectively complete the processes of constructing
the communication between the authorities, business, and society as a whole.
The more developed a civil society, the
more urgent the topic of establishing a dialogue between the authorities and
society. What prevents the creation, establishment, and strengthening of such a
dialogue? What should it be at the present stage of development of civil
society? All these questions are most fully represented in the works of both
foreign (Ellinor, 1998; Hawes, 1999; Isaacs, 1999)
and Russian (Nikovskaya & Skalaban,
2017) researchers and clearly reflect the importance of the problem facing
civil society and the business community, which cannot be solved without close
interaction with government structures.
A full-fledged dialogue of the
authorities, business, and society is also needed for the maximum number of
citizens to be involved in a conversation, in a discussion of certain issues.
The movement towards civil society should be carried out by expanding and
deepening the dialogue between society and the authorities. Such a dialogue
will provide both the dynamics of the development of the state and the
opportunity to find the optimal solution in the interests of the authorities,
civil society and business.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the problem of
communication among the authorities, business, and civil society, it is
advisable to formulate some practical recommendations and make adjustments to
the partnership mechanisms, including the creation of a favorable economic and
regulatory environment, such as: the development of modern mechanisms and the
widespread introduction of dialogue models of communicative interaction.
The
widespread use of modern communication channels in teaching citizens dialogue
and partnership with the dissemination of programs to actively inform citizens
about all planned and implemented tasks, affecting public or private interests.
The
development of the concept and the implementation of a system for monitoring
the effectiveness of the process of communication between government structures
of all levels, civil society and the business community; the improvement of
transforming the mechanisms of interaction between the authorities and society
in modern Russia, in order to identify the factors of its slowdown and the
conditions for improving the effectiveness of the “government-civil society”
and “government-business” dialogue.
The expansion of the area of
expert-analytical cooperation of the authorities, the business
community, and civil structures, the formation of new channels of civic
activity, primarily at the regional business level, the modernization of
interaction formats based on modern digital technologies.
And
finally, the opportunities to improve the regional business space can be
successfully realized only in the context of the constant involvement of civil
society and the business community in the state-public dialogue.
The
proposed recommendations will generally enhance the effectiveness of the
process of constructing communications of the authorities, business, and civil
society, and can also be applied in the course of organizational improvement
and regulatory development of civil society development processes in the Russian
Federation, including in the activities of state and municipal authorities.
References
Adamyants, T. Z. (2005). Social
communication. Moscow: IS RAS.
Afonin, Y. A., & Orlova, L. (2015). The Tactic of Strengthening One’s
Influence and Intercepting the Initiative. Japanese Educational and
Scientific Review, 1(9), 282-285.
Bayerl, P. S., & Stoynov, L. (2016). Revenge by photoshop:
Memefying police acts in the public dialogue about
injustice. New Media & Society, 18(6), 1006-1026.
Butenko, A. P., & Kolesnichenko, Yu. V. (1996) Russian mentality and Eurasianism: Their essence and socio-political meaning. Sociological
Studies, 5, 21-27.
Clark R.
J., & Ray, D. W. (1995). Democracy: State and society.
Moscow.
Connell, R. (2007). Southern Theory:
The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Dahrendorf, R. (1998). After
1989. Morals, revolution, and civil society. Moscow.
Ellinor, L.,
& Gerard, G. (1988). Dialogue: Rediscover the Transforming Power of Conversation.
London: Wiley.
Gellner, E. (1996). Conditions of liberty:
Civil society and its rivals. Moscow.
Gellner, E. (1994). Conditions of liberty:
Civil society and its rivals (p. 113). London: Hamish Hamilton.
Glebov, S. N., & Petrakov, M. A. (2013). Place and role of small
and medium business objects in Russian economy. Russian
Entrepreneurship, 9(231), 63-68.
Golenkova, Z. T. (2000). Transformation
of the social structure and stratification of the Russian society.
Moscow: IS RAS.
Grachev, M. N. (2004). Political communication:
Theoretical concepts, models, development vectors. Moscow: Prometei.
Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural
Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a
category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (2006). Moral
consciousness and communicative action. St. Petersburg: Nauka.
Hawes, L. C. (1999). The dialogics of conversation: Power, control, and
vulnerability. Communication Theory, 9, 229-264.
Isaacs, W.
(1999). Dialogue and
the Art of Thinking Together: A Pioneering Approach to Communicating in
Business and in Life. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.
Kalinina, A. V., Yusupova, E. E., & Voevoda, E. V. (2019). Means of Influence on Public Opinion in Political Context: Speech
Manipulation in the Media. Media Watch, 10(2), 309-322.
Kolmakov, V., Polyakova,
A., & Polyakov, S. (2019). A
valuation approach to the Russian liberal establishment consolidation. Administratie si
Management Public, 32, 93-107.
Lamskova, N. N. (2015). Regional
practices of dialogue of the power and civil society in the field of social
policy. Vestnik of Volzhsky University after V.N. Tatishchev,
4(19), 214-219.
Lamskova, N. N. (2017). Building a dialogue between the
authorities and the public in the official discourse. Vestnik of Eastern Economics and Law Humanities
Academy, 6(92), 144-150.
Lasswell, H. D. (2006). Language
of power. Political Linguistics, 20, 12-19.
Matheny, T., Poe, P., Fisher, M., &
Warren, S. (2018). Chaos and stability in Donald Trump’s
acceptance speech. Media Watch, 9(3), 260-266.
Mishchuk, H., Samoliuk,
N., & Bilan, Yu. (2019). Measuring social justice
in the light of effectiveness of public distributive policy. Administratie si
Management Public, 32, 63-76.
Mukhamedova, L. I. (2007). Social
communication in a transforming society. Moscow: RAGS.
Nikovskaya, L. I. (2017). The role of civil society
in shaping social identity and the consolidation of Russian society:
Politics-managerial aspect. Proceedings of Voronezh State
University. Series: History. Political science.
Sociology, 4, 28-39.
Nikovskaya, L. I., & Skalaban,
I. A. (2017). Civic
participation: Features of discourse and actual trends of development. Polis. Political Studies, 6, 43-60.
Nolte, L.W. (2016). Fundamentals of
Public Relations: Professional Guidelines, Concepts, and Integrations.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Giallourakis A. (2017). On the
state of the business climate in Russia in 2016: Report, Moscow.
Retrieved from
https://www.business-sweden.se/contentassets/b458f6ba6a634f8bb236bd74093fae85/business-sweden-russia-2016—business-climate-survey-final-report.pdf
Orlova, L. (2015). The
structure of the regional business space of modern Russia. Japanese
Educational and Scientific Review, 1(9), 473-478.
Payne,
S.L., & Calton, J.M. (2017). Towards a Managerial Practice of
Stakeholder Engagement Developing multi-stakeholder
learning dialogues. In: Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking. Theory,
Responsibility, and Engagement (ed
by. J. Andriof, S. Waddock,
B. Husted, S. Sutherland Rahman, pp. 15-47).
London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351281881
Pearson, R. (2016). Beyond Ethical
Relativism in Public Relations: Coorientation, Rules,
and the Idea of Communication Symmetry. In: Public Relations Research Annual
(ed. by J.E. Grunig, L.A. Grunig,
pp. 20-56). New York: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203812952
Roshayani, A., Hisham,
M. M, Ezan, R. N., Ruhaini,
M., & Ramesh, N. (2018). Desired board
capabilities for good governance in non-profit organizations. Administratie si
Management Public, 30, 127-140.
Schukina, N. P. (2013). Potential and problem
field of public sociology in the interaction with power and society. Vestnik
of Samara University. History, pedagogics,
philology, 8, 211-218.
Schukina, N. P. (2016). Argumentative
strategies in interaction between the authority and the public in the field of
public hearings. Vestnik of Eastern
Economics and Law Humanities Academy, 4, 129-136.
Shils, E. (1997). The Virtue of Civility:
Selected Essays on Liberalism, Tradition, and Civil Society. Indianapolis:
Liberty Fund.
Shinyaeva, O. V., & Kayumova
L. Kh. (2014). The dialogue of authority and population in the
context of the civil society formation. University
proceedings. Volga region. Social sciences, 1(29), 80-90.
Silkin, V. V. (2006). Information
and communication in the public service system. Saratov.
Timofeeva, L. N. (2018). Political
communication. Trends and problems in the development of Russian
political science in the global context: Tradition, reception and innovation.
Moscow: Politicheskaya entsiklopediya.
Touraine, A. (1992). Critique
de la modernite. Paris: Fayard.
Uttam, K., & Le Lann Roos,
C. (2015). Competitive dialogue procedure for sustainable public procurement.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 86, 403-416.
Verkhovtseva, N. N. (2015). The
formation of interaction between government and society in the space of
communication. Azimuth of Scientific Researches: Pedagogy and
Psychology, 3(12), 74-77.
Wittmayer, J. M., Van Steenbergen,
F., Rok, A. & Roorda,
C. (2016). Governing
sustainability: a dialogue between Local Agenda 21 and transition management. Local
Environment, 21(8), 939-955.
Yadov, V. A. (2004). Russia
in the world space. Sociological Studies, 3, 45-52.
http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/997/150/1217/004Yadov.pdf
Ludmila Viktorovna Orlova (Ph.D., Ogarev Mordovia State University,
Russia 2011) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Humanities and the
Head of the Department of Internal Assessment of the Quality of Educational
Activities at Medical University “REAVIZ,” Russian Federation. Her areas of
research interest include socio-economic problems of regional development,
entrepreneurship development in the countries of the European Union Customs
Union, personnel management, organization conflict management technologies,
mediation in educational activities, and digital economy.
Zinadbanu Mukhanovna Musina (Ph.D., Ogarev Mordovia State University,
Russia 2015) is an Associate Professor of the Department of Economics and
Management in West Kazakhstan University of Engineering and Technology, The Republic
of Kazakhstan. Her areas of research interest include the sociology of small
and medium-sized businesses, the development of female entrepreneurship of the
Republic of Kazakhstan, the structure of social information communications, the
development of the economy of Kazakhstan in the context of digitalization.
Balganym Talapovna Dzhanikeshevais is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics and
Management and the Head of the Department of Academic Affairs at West
Kazakhstan University of Engineering and Technology, the Republic of
Kazakhstan. Her areas of research interest include development of
entrepreneurship in the Republic of Kazakhstan, the structure of social
communications, the development of the economy of Kazakhstan in the context of
digitalization.
Correspondence
to: Ludmila Viktorovna Orlova, Department of Humanities, Medical University
“REAVIZ”, Chapaevskaya St., 227, Samara-443001,
Russian Federation.