Ethical dimensions of anticorruption policy

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru

St. Petersburg State University

Ethical dimensions of anticorruption policy

T.A. Kulakova, A.V. Volkova

The goal of this article is to analyze mechanisms for improving anti-corruption policies in contemporary Russia. The apply network public administration, in which the power of integration and solidarity of society form a network of communicative power. Such modern institutions of anti-corruption policy as codes of ethics and anti-corruption expertise, which were offered by the state, do not fully take into account the potential of public sentiments, demands, and network civic activism in the transformation and improvement of anti-corruption institutions and practices of . This article presents results of a 2018 sociological survey on the perception of corruption in St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. The authors proceed from the assertion that in modern Russia, the processes of making and adopting political decisions still remain closed, but the government seeks to delegate some responsibility, involving business in publicity; there is a desire to make the processes more transparent. In the face of declining interest from civil society to participate in public policy processes on the basis of formal mechanisms, and an increase in the activity of forming their own, citizens are actively exploring possibilities of digital communications for cooperation (cooperation platform). An important condition for cooperation is the mutually beneficial interest of the parties, as well as bilateral trust and openness, which implies minimizing corruption. The novelty of the study is also in the formulation of the problem of the digital environment of trust, since formal structures still focus on the technological component and the presence of formal feedback channels with citizens.

Keywords: public policy, anti-corruption policy, code of ethics, citizen participation, responsibility.

Ýòè÷åñêîå èçìåðåíèå ïóáëè÷íîé ïîëèòèêè

Ò. À. Êóëàêîâà, À. Â. Âîëêîâà

Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðãñêèé ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé óíèâåðñèòåò

Îñíîâíîé öåëüþ ñòàòüè áûë àíàëèç ìåõàíèçìîâ ñîâåðøåíñòâîâàíèÿ àíòèêîððóïöèîííîé ïîëèòèêè â ñîâðåìåííîé Ðîññèè. Àâòîðû èñïîëüçîâàëè âîçìîæíîñòè ñåòåâîãî ïóáëè÷íîãî óïðàâëåíèÿ, â êîòîðîì ñèëà èíòåãðàöèè è ñîëèäàðíîñòü îáùåñòâà îáðàçóþò ñåòü êîììóíèêàòèâíîé âëàñòè. Ñîâðåìåííûå èíñòèòóòû àíòèêîððóïöèîííîé ïîëèòèêè (ýòè÷åñêèå êîäåêñû è àíòèêîððóïöèîííûå ïðîãðàììû), êîòîðûå áûëè ïðåäëîæåíû ãîñóäàðñòâîì, íå â ïîëíîé ìåðå ó÷èòûâàþò ïîòåíöèàë îáùåñòâåííûõ íàñòðîåíèé, òðåáîâàíèé è ñåòåâîé ãðàæäàíñêîé àêòèâíîñòè â ïðîöåññå òðàíñôîðìàöèè.  ñòàòüå èñïîëüçîâàíû ðåçóëüòàòû ñîöèîëîãè÷åñêîãî îïðîñà î âîñïðèÿòèè êîððóïöèè â Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðãå è Ëåíèíãðàäñêîé îáëàñòè â 2018 ã. Àâòîðû êîíñòàòèðóþò, ÷òî â ñîâðåìåííîé Ðîññèè ïðîöåññû ïðèíÿòèÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ðåøåíèé ïî-ïðåæíåìó îñòàþòñÿ çàêðûòûìè, íî ïðàâèòåëüñòâî ñòðåìèòñÿ äåëåãèðîâàòü ÷àñòü îòâåòñòâåííîñòè, ñâÿçàííîé ñ ïóáëè÷íîñòüþ áèçíåñà, ñäåëàòü ïðîöåññû áîëåå ïðîçðà÷íûìè. Ñíèæåíèå èíòåðåñà ê ó÷àñòèþ â ïðîöåññàõ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé ïîëèòèêè íà îñíîâå ôîðìàëüíûõ ìåõàíèçìîâ ñîïðîâîæäàåòñÿ àêòèâèçàöèåé ãðàæäàíñêîãî ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâà íà îñíîâå ñåòåâûõ, öèôðîâûõ êîììóíèêàòèâíûõ òåõíîëîãèé ñ öåëüþ ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ àëüòåðíàòèâíîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ïîâåñòêè. Âàæíûì óñëîâèåì ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâà ÿâëÿåòñÿ âçàèìîâûãîäíûé èíòåðåñ ñòîðîí, à òàêæå äâóñòîðîííåå äîâåðèå è îòêðûòîñòü, ÷òî ïðåäïîëàãàåò ìèíèìèçàöèþ êîððóïöèè.  èññëåäîâàíèè çàòðîíóòû ïðîáëåìû öèôðîâîé ñðåäû äîâåðèÿ, ïîñêîëüêó ôîðìàëüíûå ñòðóêòóðû ïî-ïðåæíåìó îðèåíòèðîâàíû íà òåõíîëîãè÷åñêóþ ñîñòàâëÿþùóþ è íàëè÷èå îôèöèàëüíûõ êàíàëîâ îáðàòíîé ñâÿçè ñ ãðàæäàíàìè.

Êëþ÷åâûå ñëîâà: ïóáëè÷íàÿ ïîëèòèêà, àíòèêîððóïöèîííàÿ ïîëèòèêà, ýòè÷åñêèå êîäåêñû, ãðàæäàíñêîå ó÷àñòèå, îòâåòñòâåííîñòü.

Introduction

The theme of corruption is not new in modern theories of public policy. However, this term has a variety of meanings and interpretations; the risks, reasons, mechanisms, possibilities, and solutions to this threat remain relevant for social scientists worldwide. Corruption is considered to be the illegal use of one's employment status, such as “bribery, and accepting a bribe, and other unjustified influence, by giving and receiving benefits. A usual list of corrupt acts includes bribery, extortion, influence peddling, nepotism, fraud, speed money, and embezzlement” [1, p. 51].

Corruption undoubtedly hurts public administration and responsible management and thus the quality of citizens' life and well-being and their trust in public officials and institutions [2-4]. Russian researchers analyzed corruption and noted that this is “the process of transforming the activities and the results into the item of goods, which confessedly has nonmarket nature”. The researchers also emphasized that “first of all, the corruption is the people's actions intended to make profit against the lawful interests of the society and the government” [5, p. 533, 532].

As estimated by the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights, according to Kirill Kabanov, the chair of the standing commission for corruption control, corruption has been around since 1991, when privatization and the rise of a new elite in modern Russia appeared. There is no denying that modern society has made a great step forward concerning a legal framework and “soft laws” that accept a standard and code of conduct not only at the national, but also at the international level. In the last decade governments, international institutions, and organizations developed and officially accepted standards for professional behavior and codes of ethics and acts for officials. For instance, the European Union passed “The European Code for Good Administrative Behaviour” (2001), as well as “The principles of public service for EU civil service” with the help of the European ombudsman. In the same manner, in 2013 the UN passed “Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service, International Civil Service Commission” and in 2015 “Sustainable Development Goals,” which counted on global encouragement to fight against corruption and on building effective and transparent institutes to serve citizens. This is only a small part of European anti-corruption policy, which is understood as a comprehensive set of measures and technologies to form an attitude of intolerance to all forms of corruption. This policy also focuses on creating an anti-corruption climate in civil society, the authorities, and business, and also on designing a certain model of the perception of corruption in the public conscience, i.e. on distribution and rooting of anticorruption organizational culture [6-8].

Despite this activity, questions about mechanisms and means for enhancing national anti-corruption policies and identifying and analyzing both open and “thin” forms of corruption that exist in national institutions are still important for the modern theory and practice of public management. Here we face the problem of sociocultural, political, and cultural contexts, which lead to various treatments and connotations of universal norms. For instance, in many countries there is a general belief that corruption is a part of human nature and is in “one's blood,” while in others it is a question of choice, the rule of law, education, and the transfer from generation to generation of what is right and what is wrong [9, p. 54].

From the practical point of view, the system of meritocratic bureaucracy, grounded in accountability, transparency, availability, and citizens' involvement in public policy, makes it easier to fight corruption and to facilitate high ethical standards and public values. However, this system is not as perfect as it seems [10; 11]. As corruption and ethical values are sensitive to sociocultural context, we should try to understand mechanisms of corruption and to prevent corrupt activity. In addition, we should not forget to encourage strengthening ethical norms in public administration. Reliance on prohibitions governed by mechanisms and relations shall be supported by “a set of legal norms, which would cause upon mechanisms to perform direct moral experience in those individuals to whom they are imputed” [12, p. 340].

Indeed, sociocultural context plays an important role in the fight against such negative phenomena as corruption. Unfortunately, references to Russian political culture and traditions often serve as an excuse for an indulgent and frivolous attitude toward corruption at different levels of public life. In Russia, most commonly, corruption is spoken of in the context of the tradition of “feeding,” as in A. D. Menshikov's decree on bribes -- signed in 1726, he actually legalized bribery and this was not canceled subsequently. It also is reminiscent of a historical joke about Peter, who promised to hang everyone who stole a rope and about Yaguzhinsky the wise, who answered, “Tsar, you will remain alone.” The difference in Russian between “salary” and “emolument” referred to 18th century administrative practice was when the first Russian bureaucrats (college officers) were not paid, and during the periods in between “emoluments” receiving officials had to be fed “from affairs.” It requires time to change this interpretation and to accumulate other social experiences.

From the “governance” point of view, the government is significant, but not the only player in forming a political agenda and public policy management. The government acts as the initiator and developer of anti-corruption policies and demonstrates its attitude to this phenomenon and suggests main courses of action. The activities of government institutions towards forming professional ethical codes in Russia serve as an example. The “tumultuous 1990s” left behind moral pluralism on the most fundamental issues, such as duty, honor, and patriotism. Despite the fact that the necessity of passing the public officer code of ethics in Russia was discussed in the middle of 1990s, the process took more than one decade. The discrepancy in creating a professional code of ethics was connected with two factors. The first was: the process of creating the code was updated by public perception and required levels of development and by the EU anti-corruption agenda with supranational management structures. The second was internal and corporative demands for fixing systems of values and priorities.

For the first time the necessity for a public officer code of ethics was declared during the Yeltsin administration's reforms. A group of RAGS and MSU experts under M. Sokolov developed and in 1997 published the first Russian public officer code of ethics draft. It did not receive formal confirmation, but was widely used as a basis for working on similar codes in a number of Federation subjects and federal departments (especially in the Republic of Sakha-Yakutia and the Republic of Buryatia). In 2001-2003 a group of deputies in the State Duma lobbied for passing the “Code of Russian public officers' behavior” (project no. 85554-3). The document was subjected to criticism for requirements of public officers, for inappropriate style, legal, and for abstract and specific terms such as “inadequate benefit,” “dangerous corruption behavior,” etc. Despite active discussions and corrections, it was rejected in 2003 by the State Duma in its second reading. However, this project promoted the creation of “transitional” and temporary public officer codes of ethics in regions such as Novgorod. Today we can confidently say that this activity promoted an anti-corruption discourse. Such terms as “dangerous corruption behavior” and “corruption risks” are now actively used in public discussions.

The discussion around one project by some deputies induced the group of RANEPA scientists to improve the draft code introduced in 1997 and to create a new document, but this model project was rejected after being introduced in 2004. Attempts to pass this code in the State Duma got no further than the first reading. However, this project remained for a while as a reference for most regional and municipal bodies: they copied the text and approved it in regional parliaments. For this reason, passing public and municipal codes of ethics has had a chaotic and spontaneous character for a decade. The Northwestern Federal District solved the problem of a public officer's activity and ethical principles in a different way. In most cases public authorities embarked on establishing some ethical norms and rules of behavior for duty regulations and instructions. Issues about a public officer's interaction with citizens and mass media are regulated in these documents. Public officer's responsibility to citizens was marked as important, but the most significant part of this was still the government. For instance, the Novgorod region had been most consistently and accurately developing and discussing coded of ethics even before declaring the administrative reform of 2003-2010. The beginning of the code discussion was connected with the appearance of the “Code of Russian public officer's behavior” project, developed by V. N. Yuzhakov and V. A. Ryzhkov in 2001. The region took part in the TASIS program and attracted foreign experts, but the project was finished with the administrative reform of 2003-2010 and in compliance with its purposes.

Even the existence of an impressive set of documents on reform did not solve disagreements. “Kaliningrad officials know how to behave without any codes of ethics. As reported in the government press service, rules for public officer's behavior were stated in many normative acts, particularly in the law `About the Russian Federation public civil service,' in local regulations, and in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As for requirements based on generally accepted moral principles, they were so well known that there was no need for legislating”. In the Vologda region development of administrative reforms of 2003-2010 to establish ethical standards and requirements was not performed and not even planned. Public authorities presumed that “a public officer's general behavior principles approving” the decree was the federal law of direct action and thus did not require any additional developments or bylaws. In the Arkhangelsk region the process of developing and passing a code of ethics began both at the subject level and at the level of municipal units. Thus, after passing the Arkhangelsk region public official's code of ethics, a number of completely identical municipal officials' codes of ethics were passed [13].

A new burst of activity on forming an ethical infrastructure was connected with the events regarding the realization of the 2006-2010 administrative reforms and also with the activity of the RF Presidential Council for the fight against corruption. Thus, in 2010, according to recommendations of the Group of States against corruption (GRECO), “Model code of ethics and public officer's behavior” was developed. Public hearings on the model code organized in RANEPA were an innovation in practice for Russian public management. Recognition of the Russian Federation Constitution as a source of the professional Code and compliance with the basic Constitutional principle “The rights and freedoms of every human being are the supreme value” (Section 1, Foundations of the constitutional system, a.2) has become one of the most significant facets of the new document. More importantly, the main purpose is “Citizens' trust in public authorities and local governments; providing a uniform moral and legal framework of public and municipal officers' behavior,” and the responsibility towards “The government, society and citizens.” This value system corresponds to Presidential Decree no. 885 and to “the letter and spirit” of the Russian Constitution, although the “Trust” category was not mentioned in the Constitution. “The model code of ethics and public and municipal officers' behavior” forms the basis for regional codes of ethics (the Murmansk region, the Republic of Karelia, the Kaliningrad region) and for correcting previously passed documents (ee.g. the Novgorod region).

Nowadays, the basis for ethics and regulation of a public officer's legal activity is Russian Federation Presidential Decree no. 885, August 12, 2002 “About approval of public officer's general behavior principles,” and Federal law of May 27, 2003, no. 58 -- FL “About Russian Federation public service system” also establishes the basic construction and function principles of public service.” The most significant norm is the Russian Federation Presidential Decree no. 147, “About anti-corruption national plan for 20162017”.

Network public management has considerable opportunities both in anti-corruption thinking and in developing civil participation in various forms and civil control [14]. This can be achieved via citizens' engagement and involvement; by providing openness (transparency) of procedures and communicative practices in answerability and controllability of public administration activities; by forming a network culture and ethics on the basis of V. Solovyev's approach to defining society as “an expanded personality”[12]. Specifying the legal framework and passing regulatory legal acts and “soft” laws in the form of behavior standards at the national and international levels is significant. However, across the world it is important to pay more attention to processes of implementation, monitoring, and constant anti-corruption policy upgrading, which becomes a style of thinking in public interactivity. The identification of objective and subjective factors in the corruption and anti-corruption perception by citizens is in the focus of social scientists [15-17]. It makes the analysis relevant to openness of the authority and management websites in aspect of anti-corruption actions and also the content analysis of publications in the media about the corruption facts and illumination of anti-corruption policy.

A number of actions for public discussions of the organization and formation of public values were devoted to development of anti-corruption thinking. In particular, in the Northwest regions, as well as across Russia, since 2000 there have been outreach campaigns with an anti-corruption orientation, followed by active social advertising. However, it turned out that the initial anti-corruption slogans (“Do not risk!”, “It is dangerous!”) did not work, and they were inefficient, first of all because of the risk tradition in Russian culture (“risk is a noble calling”). In 2009 (Year of Youth) the Interregional public fund for the implementation of assistance of programs to support youth was created, i. e. “The world of the youth”, which has been working for ten years on a number of federal sociocultural projects, including “New take” -- the All-Russian competition of social advertising. The organizers achieved success by using not only the official site, but also social networks like Vkontakte and Instagram. The posters' analysis shows us the dynamics of corruption perception as an unwanted phenomenon (“If you know something about corruption actions -- report it”) and involvement and as the responsibility of each and every citizen.

The Northwestern Federal District regions' experience is interesting in the context of implementing various pilot projects, administrative innovations, and ICT policies. St. Petersburg and the Leningrad and the Kaliningrad regions are often spoken of as territories most focused on partnership with countries of Western Europe, and on active communication in culture, education, and business spheres that brings to the forefront questions of anti-corruption policy as aspects of positive image formation that affect investment and tourist attractiveness. The Leningrad region is perhaps the most dynamically and successfully developing territory. For the last few years it has made a number of important steps towards the development of administrative technologies, introduction of IT, and network mechanisms of civil communication. Firstincludes , the agreement on interaction between administrations of municipal districts and representatives of public organizations (“Opora Rossii” across the Leningrad region, employers of regional merging “Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs of the Leningrad region”, “The Leningrad Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry Association”). The Leningrad region was among pilot regions creating a regional portal on the basis of federal sites for public discussion of projects and existing regulations of Legislative assembly, executive authorities of the Leningrad region, and local governments of the Leningrad region. For several years it has held top positions in the rating of regions according to regulatory impact estimation. In 2019 the region will be the pilot for introducing a number of innovative digital economy projects. The involvement of citizens in the Leningrad region in networks and the formation of a community of active and loyal users of the governmental electronic resources operates actively and has a systematic character. “The Leningrad region Electronic Citizen” project under the auspices of the Committee on communication and informatization focused on those who “mastered the computer not so long ago or just want to practice getting electronic public services” is a perfect example of this. It includes a training video “the Leningrad region Electronic Citizen” (55 series) during which presenters and an audience study computer literacy, from the basics and using electronic public services, performing practical tasks, studying “homework”, taking an interactive test about computer knowledge, and getting to know electronic resources. The iGrajdanin.ru project platform created a new level of interaction between the government and citizens on the Internet. It is an independent and free tool for urban environment and rural territories improvement created in 2012 using the grant of the Russian President. In 2017 iGrajdanin.ru was actively promoted in small cities across Russia (it is the unique platform and scaled on the whole territory of Russia). The Leningrad region is an active participant in this program.

As for anti-corruption policy implementation, an analysis of more than 50 official sites of municipal units in the Leningrad region provides conclusions on a rather formalistic approach. All municipal units, city and rural settlements pass the standard plan of work, the committee charter, and a code of public officer's behavior. Similar tables are posted on all the municipalities' websites. “Anti-corruption activities” section is an obligatory part of the information space for both the Russian system of public administration and for the municipal management level system. A number of municipalities was more active in the formal field: city and rural settlements introduced the materials concerning corruption risks management in the Internet space. For instance, “A technique of assessment of efficiency of internal systems of identification and prevention of corruption risks”. The following was included into the list of corruption and dangerous functions of municipal unit administration of the Voyskovitsty rural settlement (Gatchina municipal district of the Leningrad region):

1. Municipal services providing;

2. Control functions realization;

3. Planning and use of budgetary funds;

4. Preparation and decision-making on pricing (tariffs) for services of municipal authorities;

5. Management and order of the property which is in municipal property;

6. Development and municipal legal acts passing;

7. Goods', works' and services' purchases realizing for ensuring municipal needs.

As one can see, this list covers all types of administrative activities and is an example of a formalistic, bureaucratic approach to improving anti-corruption policy, when success is judged by the number of the formal documents, reports, and methodical materials. The relational system pushes bodies of authority and management to the formal nature of participation. Still, this form contributes to anti-corruption discourse. It is noteworthy that after passing codes of ethics during 2011-2013 and later, administrative institutions at the municipal level made the necessary amendments to their documents in 2016-2018, following Federal law no. 131-FL (“About the general principles of the local government in the Russian Federation”), Federal law no. 25-FL (“About municipal service in the Russian Federation”), Federal law no. 273-FL (“About anti-corruption policy”), and Presidential Decree no. 821 (“About the commissions for compliance with requirements to the duty behavior of federal public officer's and resolving the conflicts of interests”), along with methodical recommendations on developing measures for prevention of corruption . Within the framework of openness and transparency of management process, some fears arose regarding the norm of “abstaining from the public utterance, judgment and estimates concerning local government activity..”, and directors' activities, if not included into municipal employee functions, which exists even today in all documents that regulate office behavior of municipal officers. The necessity to put this into effect shows both fears of the governmental and municipal bodies that are trying to use integration and society sympathy mechanisms, but that are also scared to use this resource--the society is always trickier compared to the regulating system. In conditions of computerization and increasing numbers of users of modern ICT devices, a “communicative authority” can affect an administration of any level and threaten their legitimacy.

The research was conducted using resource center equipment from the “Social and Internet research” scientific park at St. Petersburg State University in May -- June, 20 1 8. The analysis found a number of exciting contradictions concerning the anti-corruption climate in the Northwest regions. The majority of respondents (65% in St. Petersburg, 67.8 % in the Leningrad region) recognized corruption as a social and moral problem and supported education in anti-corruption behavior. The main obstacle to an anti-corruption climate inside organizations, according to citizens, was the lack of interest by management (41.1 % in St. Petersburg and 39.4 % in the Leningrad region). About the half of respondents (47.3 % and 59.7 %) recognized powerlessness (“I personally can't do anything about corruption, it simply does not depend on me”). Moreover, the fight against corruption was recognized as dangerous for ordinary citizens by 46.1 % in St. Petersburg and by 53.4 % of residents in the Leningrad region. Only about one third of those interviewed in each area were ready to condemn corruption and to oppose corrupt officials openly.

Passing codes of ethics by various business entities, NPOs and other institutions of civil society in the 1990s was quite active. There following were developed and passed by professional communities: “Code of Banker's honor” (1992), “Management consultant professional code”, “Honor code of Russian realtors' guild members” (1994), “Code of ethics of Russian doctors” (1994), “Code of ethics of professional accountant institute members of Russia” (2003). However, these were to a lesser extent oriented to the Russian Constitution, and to a greater extent to similar codes from foreign countries and restricted professional interests. Further, codes of ethics consideration are one way to obtain profit and to increase effectiveness. The introduction of market mechanisms into public administration, and principles and values that increase motivation and overall performance, had serious negative consequences, such as the predomination of personal economic benefit in the administrative environment that results in illegal, fraudulent activities in state contracts and procurements.

On the one hand, the institutionalization of administrative innovations based on principles of new public management and, on the other hand, the culture and management style of particular people, formed particular relations in the bureaucratic layer (organizational approach) to generate structural deformations in the system of public administration that lead to the growth of corruption. The stability and development of innovations, and their rooting in daily practices of public officials that have direct contact with recipients of public services recipients (businessmen and citizens) and directors whose competence is forming and maintaining subordinates' new cultural patterns, require special motivational administrative practices, with an emphasis on ethics of responsibility.

Organization of monitoring and control of the economic and financial sphere of society activity tools of the economic and tax law enforcement departments aimed at regulating the interactions in society, shall be supplemented with administrative innovations on the basis of information and communication technologies in the sphere of government procurement by forces of the Central Bank of Russia, Audit Chamber and the State Duma of the Russian Federation. This group of contradictions requires an “alignment” of government abilities by efforts in promoting openness and transparency at the expense of the electronic/digital government and the elimination of interdepartmental barriers, etc. Mobilization practices in this sphere have to be balanced to provide the development of the country. Contradictions between the center of the government and management on the one hand, and various communities on the other, which declare the rights for participation in decision-making, are forcing public authorities to look for and find new forms of interaction with the civil organizations, giving vent to social energy (public and private partnership, civil budgeting, city initiatives, etc.).

While official discourse of the last decade is literally oversaturated by anti-corruption themes, state institutions did not manage to maintain a monopoly and leadership in the fight against corruption. There is the question about the use of anti-corruption rhetoric in anti-governmental and opposition activity at the federal and regional levels. For the period of 2016-2018, residents of St. Petersburg actively set the region political agenda and articulated such public values as justice, cooperation, and solidarity. Such civil activity resonated with events in the city (e.g. the transfer of St. Isaac's Cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church, the merger of the largest libraries, etc.), but also with the largest coordinated and uncoordinated protest campaigns in Russia against corruption (07.10.2017, 26.03.2018, 12.06.2018, etc.).

Several thousands of people attendedmeetings in the spring and summer of 2018 in St. Petersburg. Some meetings and protest actions had dramatic endings: clashes with the police, detentions, and injuries. The anti-corruption meetings' slogans showed the definitive and direct connection between corruption and the high echelons of power, leading to the idea that the Russian government is a totally corrupted structure (that, in general, corresponds to the worldwide loss of trust in both executive and legislative branches of power). The topic of petty, local, and thin corruption was not brought up at these meetings, but such corruption jumps out in the idea of the governing layer, which shows the differences in how authority and society perceive this phenomenon.

The topic of government corruption became especially acute in the autumn of 2018, in connection with the unpopular pension reform. This found an expression in offline venues (meetings and pickets) and online sites (bloggers activity, memes, photoshopped images, satiric clips, and videos). In opposition to the beliefs in the Russian public network space (“Anti-Corruption Foundation”, “Peskov's Moustaches”, “Politicana”, etc.), corruption is not a specific characteristic of national administration system, but it can be called a “worldwide problem,” the fight against which, despite innovations in implementing public network administration and despite forming “communicative authority of the civil society” [18] is still far from its end. According to D. Hough, the international anticorruption movement reached an “intersection” rather than a “dead end”: despite decades of hard work, it has more disappointments than clear success [19]. It is difficult to say that the global system or society became considerably less corrupted; despite innovative measurement attempts, there is no way to know general trends. The elite started to act separately and latently much more often, preserving powers and privileges and manipulating laws and public opinion. D. Hough offers a long-term assessment of the movement against corruption and its results, starting from the evolution of thinking about management. His relevant and important thesis is that corruption as a difficult and latent goal-rational action cannot be completely eliminated and excluded entirely from administrative practice, but among mechanisms capable of controlling corruption control “in acceptable limits” (along with improvement of legislation) are public values, institutional ethics, and private (personal) citizens' honesty [9, p. 15-38].

In conclusion, we note that today we are dealing with an essential contradiction that consists of coercive (albeit legalistic) methods that are traditional for the government, and ideas about democracy as a more public rather than bureaucratic management style. Contradictions between the center of power and management, and various communities that champion participation in decision-making, raise an issue about new tools in the hands of citizens to control administrative institutions, about new forms of interaction between the state and the civil organizations that would provide positive results (civil budgeting, city initiatives, interaction platforms, etc.).

Practices of national dialogue and interaction between government bodies and society are in the initial phase of formation. However, civic activists develop their “abilities, by competing in persuasiveness ability to convince the government of the own plans advantage, the need of its connection to their support and realization” [20]. Discussing the phenomenon of Habermas' post-national constellations, M. Castells notes that in the modern world of the governments, constitutions are “national and power sources are more formed in the supranational sphere” [21]. This affects government in and of itself: its role, its structure, and functions changes and “it gradually evolves into a new form of the government... the network government” [20, p. 63].

We admit that civil organizations and citizens' remoteness from the centers and channels of political and governmental decision-making have to be overcome not only by interactions initiated by the state, but also by creation of conditions for the development of local citizens' initiatives contributing to the development of society and multiplication of the public benefit (including using ICT). At the same time, we cannot agree with G. Gref's statement about the decisive importance of digitalization in the fight against corruption, as software and algorithms are developed by people and corporations that are not free of private and corporate interests, and in a modern valuable and ethical context serve them. It is necessary to recognize the stranglehold on national IT (devices and the software) by partner countries. Monopolization trends within the framework of the “digital economy” and digital infrastructure subordinated to interests of the government, rather than to the interests of society, also do not give confidence in the thesis that “if there is a transparent process activity put on figure and with access of the market to this information and when each decision of any public officer can be analyzed by expert community, and assessment of this decision is laid out, corruption as the phenomenon will begin to disappear. I do not see another way of fighting against corruption except for digitalization” .

Conclusions

In conditions of the digitization of society and network public policy, the anti-corruption policy gains new meanings, and the question of ethical infrastructure gains special meaning. Ethical standards are formulated and applied in consent: it is the result of a communication process (consensus evidence) in a certain society, not just in a professional group [22]. By meeting relevant requirements of modern society development, they are designed to give each public official a valuable platform for decision-making according to professional need and public interests (the ideas about the need of oath bringing before taking office hereof).

The purpose of developing an ethical structure is the constitutionalism of public officers' consciousness, and efforts at optimization of corporate ethics. But implementing anticorruption policy cannot be the responsibility only of the state bureaucracy. Today the attention of the Russian government, media, and the public is riveted pn the public and municipal officials, while the formation of an ethical infrastructure assumes equal attention to the efforts of implementing anti-corruption policy both for government and municipal institutions, business, NPOs, and ordinary citizens. The most difficult, demanding, time-consuming, but still the most effective tool is instilling inside of both professional groups and in society an intolerance to unethical corruption, and behavior based on justice, responsibility, and shared human values.

public corruption policy civic

References

1. Tiihonen, S. (2003), “Central Government Corruption in Historical Perspective” in Tiihonen, S., ed., The History of Corruption in Central Government, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 1-36.

2. Maciel, G. G., and de Sousa, L. (2018), “Legal Corruption and Dissatisfaction with Democracy in the European Union”, in Social Indicators Research, 140(2), pp. 653-674.

3. Baklouti, N. and Boujelbene, Y. (2018), “Moderation of the Relationship Between Size of Government and Corruption by Democracy”, in Journal of the Knowledge Economy, vol. 9(4), pp. 1210-1223.

4. Slager, R. (2017), “The Discursive Construction of Corruption Risk”, in Journal of Management Inquiry, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 366-382

5. Aleynikov, A., Gasimagomedov, G. and Strebkov, A. (2018), “`Khirurgiia' i `terapiia' korruptsii: konf- liktologicheskoe izmerenie” [“Surgery” and `therapy” of corruption: the conflict studies dimension], in Vest- nik of Saint Petersburg University, ser. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, vol. 33, is. 4, pp. 528-540

6. Castells, M. (ed.) (2017), Europe's Crises, Polity Press, Cambridge.

7. Okhotsky, Å. V. and Okhotsky, I.E. (2015), “Mezhdunarodno-pravovye standarty protivodeistviia korruptsii i ikh implementatsiia v rossiiskuiu praktiku” [International legal standards for countering corruption and their implementation in Russian practice], in Publichnoe i chastnoe pravo, is. 3(27), pp. 6477. (In Russian)

8. Rose-Ackerman, S. (2010), Corruption and government: Causes, consequences, and reform, Rus. ed., 2nd ed., Logos Publ., Moscow. (In Russian)

9. Caiden, G.E. (2001), “Corruption and Governance”, in Caiden, G.E., Dwivedi, O.P and Jabbra, J., (eds), Where Corruption Lives, Kumarian Press, Bloomfield, pp. 15-37.

10. Nisnevich, Ju. A. (2016), “Korruptsiia: instrumental'naia kontseptualizatsiia” [Corruption: instrumental conceptualization], in Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, no. 5, pp. 61-68. (In Russian)

11. Nisnevich, Ju. A. and Rozhich, P. (2014), “Liustratsiia kak instrument protivodeistviia korruptsii” [Lustration as an anti-corruption tool], in Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniia, no. 1, pp. 109-130. (In Russian)

12. Bistrov, V. and Kamnev, V (2018), “Sud'ba russkoi filosofii i sovremennost'. Transformatsii tsen- nostei i transformatsiia modelei” [The Destiny of the Russian philosophy and modernity. Transformations of values and transformation of models], pt. 1, in Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University, ser. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, vol. 34, is. 3, pp. 333-347,

13. Volkova, A. V (2012), “Konstitutsionnye osnovaniia eticheskikh kodeksov” [Constitutional foundations of ethical codes], in Dudnik, S. I., Osipov, I. D., eds, Aksiologiia rossiiskogo konstitutsionalizma: istoriia i sovremennost', St. Petersburg University Press, St. Peterburg, Russia. (In Russian)

14. Kulakova, T. A. (2018), “Printsip `vovlecheniia v publichnost''' [The principle of “involvement in publicity”], in Sotrudnichestvo vpublichnoipolitike i upravlenii [Cooperation in public policy and management], St. Petersburg University Press, St. Petersburg, pp. 30-35. (In Russian)

15. Martynov, M.Yu. and Gaberkorn, A. I. (2017), “Osobennosti vospriiatiia rossiianami korruptsii” [Peculiarities of perception of corruption by Russians], in Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, no. 6, pp. 79-84. (In Russian)

16. Minina, A. A. and Rizk, O. A. (2014), “Pravovaia aktivnost' grazhdan kak kriterii effektivnosti deiatel'nosti organov gosudarstvennoi vlasti i mestnogo samoupravleniia” [Legal activity of citizens as a criterion of the effectiveness of the activities of public authorities and local self-government], in Adminis- trativnoe i municipal'noe parvo, no. 7, pp. 619-625. (In Russian)

17. Petuxov, R. V (2017), “Doverie rossiiskogo obshchestva k organam mestnogo samoupravleniia kak problema” [Russian society's trust in local authorities as a problem], in Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniia, no. 6, pp. 61-75. (In Russian)

18. Miroshnichenko, I. V. and Morozova, E. V (2017), “Setevaia publichnaia politika: kontury predmet- nogo polia” [Network Public Policy: Outlines of Subject Field], in Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniia, no. 2, pp. 82-102. (In Russian)

19. Hough, D. (2013), Corruption, Anti-Corruption and Governance, Palgrave, Macmillan, UK

20. Solovev, A. I. (2014), “Gosudarstvo kak politicheskii institut: problemy teoreticheskoi identifikatsii” [The state as a political institution: problems of theoretical identification], in Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosu- darstvennogo universiteta, ser. History. Political science. Sociology, no. 4, pp. 124-129. (In Russian)

21. Castells, M. (2010), The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd ed., Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.

22. Volkova, A.V and Kulakova, T.A. (2018), “Etika otvetstvennosti i etika liubvi v razvitii antikor- ruptsionnoi politiki Rossii” [“Ethics of responsibility” and “ethics of love” in development of anticorruption policy of Russia], in Nauka. Obshestvo. Qborona, no. 4 (17)

Ðàçìåùåíî íà Allbest.ru