Smart governance through the prism of responsible urban development concept

The goal of this article is to develop an authorial definition of ‘smart governance’ of urban development within the framework of the concept of ‘responsible development’, developed by  the IMEMO RAS scientific school. The priorities of this concept are the use of intangible development resources, achieving a balanced growth model, and creating conditions for dialogue between development actors. The author relies on the identity and actor approach, the theory of communicative action by J. Habermas; methods of content analysis, comparative method, and in-depth interviews are used. The scientific discourse in the field of smart governance has been analyzed, and three main directions of conceptualizing the concept have been identified. The main characteristics (principles) of the author’s vision of smart governance within the framework of the concept of responsible development are formulated: 1) reliance of governance on scientific and expert interdisciplinary knowledge, as well as on  the principles of evidence-based public policy; 2) formation of an understanding of the requests and interests of various development actors, ensuring correct communication, dialogue, and feedback;  3) formation of a positive development identity; 4) focus on the development of human potential and innovation culture based on intangible development resources, such as digital technologies. Using these principles as a basis for a matrix of analysis of managerial practices, the author studies a case from  managerial practice – the project “Leaders of Digital Transformation”. The purpose of the analysis is  to identify the presence or absence of signs of smart governance in the project, and, if they are present, to determine the main factors of the project’s success in this context. To do this, tasks were set to identify the key narratives of the project, setting the framework for the interaction of its participants, as well as to identify the development actors involved in the project, the formats of their participation in the project, and models of their interaction. The study concluded that the analyzed managerial practice contains all the main characteristics of smart governance for the purposes of responsible development, and  the main factors of its success in the context of this concept are the formation and development of a sustainable community, the construction of a space for informal dialogue and strengthening interpersonal ties, and providing opportunities for personal development through participation in the life of  the city and its business ecosystem. 

1. Semenenko I. S. Horizons of responsible development: from discourse to governance. Polis. Political

2. Studies. 2019; 3: 7-26. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.03.02

3. Voloshinskaya A.A. Urban concepts evolution: an analysis of the main trends. Gosudarstvennoye upravleniye. Elektronnyy vestnik. 2017; 63: 99-115. (In Russ.)

4. Semenenko I.S., Khaynatskaya T.I. Social and political development: out of conceptual mazes and into political agenda-setting. Polis. Political Studies. 2024; 6: 54-74. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.06.05

5. Sennet R. The Uses of Disorder. Personal identity and city life. London, New York: Verso, 2021. 198 p. 5. Dudikhin V. V., Shevtsova I. V. Smart management using artificial intelligence. Public Administration. E-journal (Russia). 2020; 81: 49-65. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24411/2070-1381-2019-10078

6. Boykova M., Ilina I., & Salazkin M. The smart city approach as a response to emerging challenges for urban development. Foresight and STI Governance. 2016; 10(3): 65-75. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459X.2016.3.65.75

7. Tikhonov A.V., Bogdanov V.S. From «Clever Regulation» to «Clever Management»: social problem of digitalization of feedbacks. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2020; 1: 74-81. In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250008325-0

8. Vitálišová K., Vaňová A., Vavrúšová M., Turečková K., Nevima J. Principles of smart governance in cities. Administratie si Management Public. 2024; 42: 173-189. https://doi.org/10.24818/amp/2024.42-11

9. Kostko N.A., Pecherkina I.F. Urban identity and perception of the city in management discourse. Sociologicheskaja nauka i social’naja praktika. 2024; 12(1):136-161. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.19181/snsp.2024.12.1.7

10. Habermas J. Moralbewusstsein und Kommunikatives Handeln. (Russ. ed.: Habermas J. Moral’noe soznanie i kommunikativnoe deistvie, 2001. St. Petersburg: Nauka).