Conceptualization and mechanisms of digital citizen engagement in local development: from electronic participation to contractual-participatory relations.

doi:10.26565/1684-8489-2025-2-11

Larysa Velychko Education and Research Institute of Public Administration of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, 4 Svobody Sq., Kharkiv, 61022, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3029-4719
Lina Ignatenko Education and Research Institute of Public Administration of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, 4 Svobody Sq., Kharkiv, 61022, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1628-1244

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26565/1684-8489-2025-2-11

Keywords: digital citizen engagement, contractual-participatory relations, local development, digital governance, electronic democracy, Diia platform, five-dimensional assessment model, crisis-adaptive dimension

Abstract

This article examines the conceptual foundations and mechanisms of digital citizen engagement in local development through the lens of transition from traditional forms of electronic participation to contractual-participatory relations. The study systematises the evolution of scholarly approaches to digital citizen engagement from philosophical origins of democratic participation
(J. Dewey, J. Habermas) to contemporary concepts of digital governance. The author substantiates an original definition of contractual-participatory relations as mutual obligations between government and citizens formalised through digital platforms regarding participation in local development processes.
A five-dimensional analytical model for assessing digital engagement mechanisms has been developed, integrating technological, social, economic, political, and legal dimensions whilst incorporating a crisis-adaptive component. Unlike existing e-governance classifications, the proposed typology accounts for the specifics of functioning under martial law conditions, mass population displacement, and destruction of traditional infrastructure.
The international experience of platforms such as Decidim (Barcelona), Decide Madrid, vTaiwan, and the Ukrainian case of the Diia platform serving over 19 million users has been analysed. The findings reveal that hybrid models combining private sector technological innovations with democratic guarantees of state institutions demonstrate the highest effectiveness. The Ukrainian experience has demonstrated the possibility of successful adaptation of digital systems to extreme challenges of martial law through rapid deployment of new services, cloud technologies, and data decentralisation.
The determinants of effectiveness of digital engagement mechanisms in the Ukrainian context have been identified: technological adaptability, inclusiveness, citizen trust, economic viability, and resilience to crisis challenges. Prospects for integrating blockchain technologies, artificial intelligence, and Web 4.0 to create new forms of democratic participation at the local level have been substantiated.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Larysa Velychko , Education and Research Institute of Public Administration of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, 4 Svobody Sq., Kharkiv, 61022, Ukraine

Doctor of law, professor,
head of the Department of Law, National Security and European Integration,
Education and Research Institute of Public Administration, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

Lina Ignatenko, Education and Research Institute of Public Administration of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, 4 Svobody Sq., Kharkiv, 61022, Ukraine

senior lecturer at the Department of Law, National Security and European Integration,
Education and Research Institute of Public Administration, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

References

Vakulenko, V.M., & Orlaty, M.K. (Eds.). (2010). General principles of local self-government in Ukraine: Study guide. NADU Publishing House [in Ukrainian]

Knyazev, V.M. (Ed.). (2003). Public administration: Philosophical, worldview and methodological problems: monograph. NADU Publishing House; Millennium [in Ukrainian]

Kvitka, S.A. (2015). The principle of subsidiarity and decentralization processes in Ukraine. Public Administration Aspects, 3. https://doi.org/10.15421/151530 [in Ukrainian]

Kovalova, T. (2022). Legal institutionalization of public administration in conditions of social transformations. Pressing Problems of Public Administration, 1(60), 77–90 https://doi.org/10.26565/1684-8489-2022-1-05 [in Ukrainian]

Sychova, V., & Honiukova, L. (2022). Gender analysis in social development management under conditions of Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine. Pressing Problems of Public Administration, 1(60), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.26565/1684-8489-2022-1-09 [in Ukrainian]

Gil-Garcia, J., Dawes, S., & Pardo, T. (2018). Digital government and public management research: Finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 20(5), 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181

Goncalves, J., Slingerland, G., et al. (2025). Process first, tools second: A conceptual framework to embed digital participation in planning processes for citizen empowerment.

http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5290801

Tseng, Y.-S. (2022). Algorithmic empowerment: A comparative ethnography of two open-source algorithmic platforms – Decide Madrid and vTaiwan. Big Data & Society, 9(2), 1–14.

https://doi.org/10.1177/205395172211235

Bianchi, C., Nasi, G., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2021). Implementing collaborative governance: Models, experiences, and challenges. Public Management Review, 23(11), 1581–1589. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1878777

Royo, S., Bellò, B., Torres, L., & Downe, J. (2024). The success of e-participation. Learning lessons from Decide Madrid and We asked, You said, We did in Scotland. Policy & Internet, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.363

Fountain, J. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. URL: https://surl.li/podsqe

Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 10–20.

United Nations. (2020). E-participation: A quick overview of recent qualitative trends. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. URL: https://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2020/wp163_2020.pdf

Decidim. (2024). Barcelona participatory democracy platform statistics. URL: https://www.decidim.barcelona

Just Governance Group. (2019). Co-responsibility in digital governance. Co-Praxis Working Paper Series, 10(1), 15–32.

Noveck, B.S. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Brookings Institution Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.003

Coleman, S. (2017). Can the Internet strengthen democracy? Polity Press.

OECD. (2024, June). Governing with AI: Are governments ready? OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers No. 20. URL: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/06/governing-with-artificial-intelligence_f0e316f5/26324bc2-en.pdf

Ølnes, S., Ubacht, J., & Janssen, M. (2017). Blockchain in government: Benefits and implications of distributed ledger technology. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.09.007

Scholl, H.J., & Scholl, M.C. (2014). Smart governance: A roadmap for research and practice. iConference Proceedings, 163–176. https://doi.org/10.9776/14060

Karamyshev, D., & Dziundziuk, V. (2023). Digital services as tools for implementing the “public participation 2.0” concept in Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Pressing Problems of Public Administration, 2(63), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.26565/1684-8489-2023-2-06 [in Ukrainian]

EC. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Act: Implementation guidelines for democratic processes (Official Journal of the European Union, L123/45). URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689

Shin, B., Floch, J., Rask, M., et al. (2024). A systematic analysis of digital tools for citizen participation. Government Information Quarterly, 41(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101954

EC. (2025). Drive the evolution of the internet towards open and interoperable Web 4.0 and virtual worlds. URL: https://cordis.europa.eu/programme/id/HORIZON_HORIZON-CL4-2025-03-HUMAN-16

Kvitka, S., Korsun, V., & Mahylias, Y. (2024). Digital transformation of public administration: Prospective research directions. Public Administration Aspects, 12(3), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.15421/152437 [in Ukrainian]

Kud, A.A. (2022). Methodological approach to forming a mechanism for modernizing the public administration system based on decentralized information platforms. Bulletin of Postgraduate Education, 21(50), 160–220. https://doi.org/10.32405/2522-9931-2022-21(50)-160-220

[in Ukrainian]

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.361990

Weidener, L., & Laredo, F. (2025). Delegated voting in decentralized autonomous organizations: A scoping review. Frontiers in Blockchain, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2025.1598283

Brookings Institution. (2024). Ukraine: Digital government is central to resilience. URL: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ukraine-digital-government-is-central-to-resilience/