State in Context of Dataism: Swarm of Political Agents and Data Management in Russia and the World
https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2023-13-6-30-37
Abstract
The article analyzes the transformation of the state in context of dataism. Dataism is a paradigm that (1) recognizes the crucial role of data in policy preparation and evaluation, (2) considers all systems as a structures of data exchange between decentralized agents for coordination and collective decision-making. In context of dataism the state implements information incentives through data policy to receive feedback from citizens and businesses in the form of engagement in management, value creation, production of local innovations. Dataism transforms the state in a swarm of political agents, where collective decision-making becomes possible through data exchange. The swarm model requires effective data management as the creation of organizational, regulatory and infrastructural conditions for the use of the data in policy implementation. The article presents a comparison of the data management results in Russia and different groups of countries within the framework of the global data management map. Russia has significant results in regulatory and structural measurements of data management, but additional solutions are needed in participatory and accountability/transparency measurements. The directions of improving data management in Russia include open data policy, transparency of automated systems, crowdsensing; intersectoral data exchange.
Keywords
About the Author
D. R. MukhametovRussian Federation
Daniyar R. Mukhametov — research associate, Institute of Humanitarian Technologies and Social Engineering; assistant professor, Department of political Science.
Moscow
References
1. Mari L., Petri D. Measurement, Dataism and Post-Truth Ideology: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine. 2022;25(7):3–6.
2. Adamczyk C. L. Communicating dataism. Review of Communication. 2023;23(1):4–20.
3. Mazzucato M. The value of everything: Makers and takers in the global economy. London: Allen Lane-Penguin; 2018. 384 p.
4. North D., Wallis J., Weingast B. Violence and social orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. Cambridge University Press; 2009. 308 р.
5. Dalakoglou D. The road: An ethnography of (im)mobility, space and cross-border infrastructures in the Balkans. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 2016. 216 p.
6. Mann M. The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results. European Journal of Sociology. 1984;25(2):185–213.
7. Mukhametov D. R. Digital government as exponential organization: new technologies of communication. The World of the New Economy. 2022;16(2):6–18. (In Russ.).
8. Mukhametov D. R. Tools to stimulate open innovation for urban spaces. Russian journal of innovation economics. 2023;13(3):1327–1338. (In Russ.).
9. Mihelj S. Platform nations. Nations and Nationalism. 2023;29(1):10–24.
10. Kovrigin D. E. Formation of the institution of “sovereign Internet” in the Russian Federation. Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2022;12(2):153–158. (In Russ.).
11. Mukhametov D. R. Smart state between globalization and deglobalization: features of e-residents and digital nomads. Vlast’. 2023;31(5):146–152. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Mukhametov D.R. State in Context of Dataism: Swarm of Political Agents and Data Management in Russia and the World. Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2023;13(6):30-37. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2023-13-6-30-37