Digital Government as Exponential Organization: New Technologies of Communication

The article explores the exponential transformation of the digital government. Exponential organizations are the common model of management that characterized by the use of the informatized environment, third-party resources and digital platforms to scale processes and create new markets. The digital government is a complex of institutions for structuring social relations and conflicts in a network environment. The coupling of exponential organization and digital government models is realized through the focus on technologies of communication that allow the exchange and integration of surrounding knowledge into the system of management. The article presents the typology of technologies of communication with external and internal communities depending on the type of environment (internal/external) and options of access (inclusive/exclusive). The typology systematizes technologies of communication and demonstrates its capabilities for solving various tasks, including involving new agents in the field of public policy, organizing access to institutions, creating/extracting value, reducing the cost of information exchange between management structures. Technologies of communication allow the government to move to the policy of identifying and interacting with the diversity of the environment. The effects of the introduction of these technologies are evaluated on the example of Estonia. In conclusion, it is possible to consider the digital government as the exponential organization due to the information connectivity of the system, but it is difficult to unambiguously conclude the explosive growth of the value creation/extraction due to the functioning of the state as a non-equilibrium adaptive system.

1. Denning P., Lewis T. Exponential laws of computing growth. Communications of the ACM. 2017;60(1):54–65. DOI: 10.1145/2976758

2. Ismail S., Malone M., van Geest Y. Exponential organizations: Why new organizations are ten times better, faster, and cheaper than yours (and what to do about it). New York: Diversity Books; 2018. 328 p. (Russ. ed.: Ismail S., Malone M., van Geest Y. Pochemu eksponentsial’nye organizatsii v desyatki raz produktivnee vashei (i chto s etim delat’). Moscow: Alpina Publisher; 2020. 440 p.).

3. Coelho D. A., Nunes F., Vieira F. L. The impact of crowdsourcing in product development: an exploratory study of Quirky based on the perspective of participants. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation. 2018;6(1–2):114–128. DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2016.1216331

4. Cosenz F., Qorbani D., Yamaguchi Y. An exploration of digital ride-hailing multisided platforms’ market dynamics: Empirical evidence from the Uber case study. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 2021;70(4):725–742. DOI: 10.1108/IJPPM-10–2019–0475

5. So K. Kim H., Oh H. What makes birbnb experiences enjoyable? The effects of environmental stimuli on perceived enjoyment and repurchase intention. Journal of Travel Research. 2021;60(5):1018–1038. DOI: 10.1177/0047287520921241

6. Balanagarajan K., Kabaly P. Exponential organization: Paytm — A review. Global Journal of Enterprise Information System. 2018;10(3):34–40.

7. Subramanian K., Balanagarajan K. Exponential entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurs achieving exponential growth through digital technology and innovation — A review. International Journal on Recent Trends in Business and Tourism. 2018;2(4):14–18.

8. Diamandis P., Kotler S. Bold: How to go big, create wealth and impact the world. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2015. 336 p.

9. Dahlberg L. Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four ‘positions’. New Media & Society. 2011;13(6):855–872. DOI: 10.1177/1461444810389569

10. Asenbaum H. Rethinking digital democracy: From the disembodied discursive self to new materialist corporealities. Communication Theory, 2021;31(3):360–379. DOI: 10.1093/ct/qtz033

11. Zotov V. V., Zakharov V. M., Sapryka V. M. Digitalization of public administration: Electronic democracy vs electronic government. NOMOTHETIKA: Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Pravo = NOMOTHETIKA: Philosophy. Sociology. Law. 2021;46(2):250–262. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.52575/2712–746X-2021–46–2–250–262

12. Fourcade M., Gordon J. Learning like a state: Statecraft in the digital era. Journal of Law and Political Economy. 2020;1(1):78–108. DOI: 10.5070/LP61150258

13. Lyon D. Surveillance culture: Engagement, exposure, and ethics in digital modernity. International Journal of Communication. 2017;11:1–18. URL: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/5527/1933

14. Olson M. Power and prosperity: Outgrowing communist and capitalist dictatorships. New York: Basic Books; 2000. 272 p. (Russ. ed.: Olson M. Vlast’ i protsvetanie. Pererastaya kommunisticheskie i kapitalisticheskie diktatury. Moscow: Novoe izdatel’stvo; 2012. 212 p.).

15. Mazzucato M. The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private myths in risk and innovation. London: Anthem Press; 2013. 261 p.

16. Mazzucato M. The value of everything: Makers and takers in the global economy. London: Allen Lane-Penguin; 2018. 384 p.

17. Dolfsma W. Government failure — Four types. Journal of Economic Issues. 2011; 45(3):593–604. DOI: 10.2753/JEI0021–3624450304

18. Graeber D. The utopia of rules: On technology, stupidity, and the secret joys of bureaucracy. New York: Melville House; 2015. 261 p. (Russ. ed.: Graeber D. Utopiya pravil. O tekhnologiyakh, gluposti i tainom obayanii byurokratii. Moscow: Ad Marginem; 2016. 224 p.).

19. Scott J. Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT; London: Yale University Press; 1998. 464 p. (Russ. ed.: Scott J. Blagimi namereniyami gosudarstva. Pochemu i kak provalivalis’ proekty uluchsheniya uslovii chelovecheskoi zhizni. Moscow: Universitetskaya kniga; 2005. 576 p.).

20. Dean M. Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage; 2010. 304 p. (Russ. ed.: Dean M. Pravitel’nost’: vlast’ i pravlenie v sovremennykh obshchestvakh. Moscow: Delo; 2016. 592 p.).

21. Mossberger K., Tolbert C. J., McNeal R. S. Digital citizenship: The Internet, society and participation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2007. 240 p.

22. Brodovskaya E. V. Digital citizen and digital citizenship. Vlast’ = The Authority. 2019;27(4):65–69. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31171/vlast.v27i4.6587

23. Sierzputowski B. The data embassy under public international law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 2019;68(1):225–242. DOI: 10.1017/S0020589318000428

24. Prause G. E-Residency: A business platform for Industry 4.0? Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues. 2016;3(3):216–227. DOI: 10.9770/jesi.2016.3.3(1)

25. Mukhametov D. R. Collective data governance for development of digital government. In: 2021 International Conference on Engineering Management of Communication and Technology (EMCTECH). (Vienna, 20–22 Oct. 2021). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2021:1–5. DOI: 10.1109/EMCTECH53459.2021.9619164

26. Lember V., Kattel R., Tõnurist P. Technological capacity in the public sector: The case of Estonia. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2018;84(2):214–230. DOI: 10.1177/0020852317735164

27. Kassen M. Open data and e-government — related or competing ecosystems: A paradox of open government and promise of civic engagement in Estonia. Information Technology for Development. 2019;25(3):552–578. DOI: 10.1080/02681102.2017.1412289

28. Goede M. E-Estonia: The e-government cases of Estonia, Singapore, and Curaҫao. Archives of Business Research. 2019;7(2):216–227. DOI: 10.14738/abr.72.6174

29. Mukhametov D. R., Simonov K. V. “Smart government”: Prospects for introduction of digital technologies in public administration in Russia. Mir novoi ekonomiki = The World of New Economy. 2021;15(3):17–27. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.26794/2220–6469–2021–15–3–17–27