|
Safiya Prysmakova, University of Central Florida, Orlando, United States, Elena Gladun, Tyumen State University, Tyumen, Russia, Andrey Larionov, Tyumen State University, Tyumen, Russia, Dmitry Teplyakov, Tyumen State University, Tyumen, Russia, Olga Teplyakova, Tyumen State University, Tyumen, Russia, Natalia Nosova, Tyumen State University, Tyumen, Russia
|
Abstract
|
Understanding public participation and civic engagement dynamics requires knowledge of specific context. Though there are specific tools of public participation that serve multiple functions, the manner in which these tools are implemented and the feasibility of implementation to achieve desired results relies heavily on local political culture, administrative culture, and citizen trust, efficacy, and competence. In the Soviet Union, for example, tools of public participation in the state management were totally different from those used in democratic states. The Russian Federation, in the period of democratic reforms, has borrowed the experience of active civic engagement and public participation from developed democratic countries. In this country most forms of citizen participation appeared not so long ago and even now citizens are hardly involved in public governance. This happens only when federal laws set obligatory requirements (public hearings on the budget, municipal charter, city planning issues) or when there is a need to legitimize decisions on disputes between the municipality and commercial companies (citizens surveys and public hearings on issues related to the construction of objects). At the same time, across contexts, including authoritarian and democratic regimes, centralized and decentralized governance structures, and urban and rural communities, the interests and values pertaining to the role of citizens to help enhance the quality of life are similar. Issues of public participation are on the rise now in Russia and involvement of the citizens in discussing and regulating their general affairs increase the effectiveness of municipal practice.
This paper explores commonalities and differences pertaining to middle town and hamlet communities within the context of two institutionally, politically, and structurally different societies: Russia and the United States. As such, the comparison is both internal, withn country, and external, across countries.
Specifically, we examine in each country two “middle towns” (population size 10,000 to 150,000) and two hamlets. In Russia, these four places are: (1) Tobolsk, Tyumen region (population approximately 102,000) (2) Zavodoukovsk, Tyumen region (population approximately 26,000), (3) Kuliga, Tyumen region (population approximately 10,000), and (4) Kamenskoye, Tyumen region (population approximately 1700). In the United States, these four places are: (1) Spring Hill, Florida (population approximately 99,000) (2) Saint Augustine, Florida (population approximately 14,000), (3) Cedar Key, Florida (population approximately 700), and (4) Ponce de Leon, Florida (population approximately 800). Locations are selected for convenience as well as theoretical interest, given different population sizes and geographic locations.
The research will follow parallel tracks, consisting of interviews and focus groups with local government leaders, NGO leaders, and business owners. Questions will be based on the framework developed by Cooper, Bryer, and Meek (2006) for understanding public participation and civic engagement. Specifically, five dimensions of civic engagement will be explored: (1) Who is involved? (2) Who initiatives the engagement? (3) Why are citizens involved, or not involved? (4) How are citizens involved? (5) Where does the engagement happen?
Theoretically, we will consider implications of findings for theories of political power, citizen efficacy, government efficiency, and governance.
|
