Towards More Participatory Governance? Comparative Analysis of Georgia and Ukraine

• Název práce v češtině: Směrem k více participativnímu vládnutí? Komparativní analýza Gruzie a Ukrajiny
• Název v anglickém jazyce: Towards More Participatory Governance? Comparative Analysis of Georgia and Ukraine
• Klíčová slova anglicky: Deliberative public participation, deliberation, citizen engagement, governance, participatory governance, Ukraine, Georgia, Open Government Partnership
• Akademický rok vypsání: 2018/2019
• Typ práce: diplomová práce
• Jazyk práce: angličtina
• Ústav: Katedra evropských studií (23-KZS)
• Vedoucí / školitel: prof. Mgr. Tomáš Weiss, M.A., Ph.D.
• Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem
• Datum přihlášení: 21.09.2019
• Datum zadání: 21.09.2020
• Datum a čas obhajoby: 23.09.2021 09:30
• Místo konání obhajoby: Pekařská 16, JPEK106, 106, Malá učebna, 1.patro
• Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: 17.06.2021
• Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 23.09.2021
• Oponenti: Maxine David, Dr.

Seznam odborné literatury

Primary sources- Government publications, official documents:
• Administration of the Government of Georgia, the Decentralization Strategy of Georgia 2020-2025, 2019
• Administration of the Government of Georgia Policy Planning Unit, ‘Policy Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Handbook’ 2019
• Administration of the Government of Georgia, The Strategy for the Reform of Policy Planning System 2015-2017, 2014
• Association Agreement between the European Union and Georgia, Official Journal of the European Union, 30.8.2014
• Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine, Official Journal of the European Union, 29.5.2014
• Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, OGP Action Plan Ukraine2012-2013
• Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, OGP Action Plan Ukraine 2014-2015
• Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, OGP Action Plan Ukraine 2016-2018
• Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine OGP Action Plan Ukraine 2018-2020
• Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, The Resolution 996 On Ensuring Public Participation in the Formulation and Implementation of Public Policy, 2010
• Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, The Resolution 976 On the Procedure of Civic Expertise of the Activities of the Executive Bodies’2008
• Open Government Partnership OGP Handbook, Rules + Guidance for Participants, February 2019
• Ministry of Justice of Georgia, OGP Action Plan Georgia 2012-2013
• Ministry of Justice of Georgia, OGP Action Plan Georgia 2014-2015
• Ministry of Justice of Georgia, OGP Action Plan Georgia 2016-2017
• Ministry of Justice of Georgia, OGP Action Plan Georgia 2018-2019
• Parliament of Georgia, The Constitution of Georgia, 1995
• Parliament of Georgia, the Law of Georgia on Local Self-Government, 2005
• Parliament of Georgia, the Law of Georgia General Administrative Code of Georgia 1999
• Parliament of Georgia, the Organic Law Georgia Self-Government Code, 2014
• Parliament of Ukraine, the Constitution of Ukraine, 1996
• Parliament of Ukraine, the Law on Public Associations in Ukraine, 1992
• Parliament of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine on Access to Information, 2011
• Parliament of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine on the Appeals of the Citizens, 1996
• Parliament of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine on Local Self-Governance, 1997
• The Aarhus Convention, 1998
• The Rio Declaration 1992

Reports, policy briefs:
• Asian Development Bank, Civil Society Brief Georgia, 2020
• Asian Development Bank, Civil Society Brief, Georgia, 2011
• Bernatskyi, B., and Kovalenko, O., ‘Participatory Budgeting in Ukraine’, briefing paper, Democracy Reporting International, February 2020
• Biermann, Rafael, Härtel, A., Kaiser, A., Zajaczkowski, J., ‘Ukrainian Civil Society after the Maidan: Potentials and Challenges on the Way to Sustainable Democratization and Europeanization’ report, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 2014
• Council of Europe ‘Georgia Handbook on Transparency and Citizen Participation’, 2017
• Council of Europe ‘Georgia Handbook on Transparency and Citizen Participation’, 2020
• Council of Europe ‘Ukraine Handbook on Transparency and Citizen Participation’ 2017
• Council of Europe ‘Ukraine Handbook on Transparency and Citizen Participation’, 2020
• Gemma Piñol Puig, ‘Situation analysis of civil society in Georgia’ Full Report, Europe Foundation, 2016
• Gogidze L., ‘Overview: Georgia-Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM): Georgia Progress Report 2014–15’
• Gogidze L., Georgia: ‘Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) 2014-2016 End of term Report’
• Gogidze L., Gzirishvili, T., Sikharulidze, M., ‘Overview: Georgia- Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM): Georgia End-of-Term Report’ 2016−2018
• Georgian Institute of Politics, International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy, ‘Georgia’s Implementation of 20 Eastern Partnership Deliverables for 2020’ assessment by civil society; 2020
• Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI) ‘General Engagement Practice Assessment in Municipalities of Georgia’, 2017
• International Centre of the Civic Culture, ‘Local Self-Government in Georgia 1991-2014’, 2015
• Khutkyy, D., Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) Ukraine End-of-Term Report 2016–2018
• Melashvili, I., Kipiani, D., Apkhazava, N., Popiashvili, M., Born, L., ‘A Guide to Participatory Budgeting’, GIZ, 2020
• Nodia, G. ‘Civil Society Development in Georgia: Achievements and Challenges’, Policy Paper, Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy, and Development, 2005
• Strengthening and Sustaining Public Engagement- A Planning Guide for Communities’, Public Agenda 2017
• Transparency International Ukraine‘Open Governance in Ukraine: Challenges and Proposals for Change’ 2014
• Turashvili, T., ‘Youth Participation in Electoral Processes and The Role of Political Elites’ Georgian Institute of Politics report, 2016
• Urushadze, E., Reforming Georgia’s Access to Information Law, Policy Brief, Open Society Georgia Foundation, 2016
• USAID, Ukraine Annual Report, 2017
Academic articles, books
• Aasland, A., and Lyska, O., ‘Local democracy in Ukrainian cities: civic participation and responsiveness of local authorities’, Post-Soviet Affairs, 32:2, 152-175, 2016
• Abdullah, N., and Rahman M., ‘The Use of Deliberative Democracy in Public Policy Making Process’, Public Policy and Administration Research, Vol.5, No.3, 2015
• Agarin, T., ‘Introduction to the special issue: Citizens' participation in post-communist Europe’ Communist and Post-Communist Studies, N49, 201-206, 2016
• Abelson, J., Forest, J., Eyles J., Smith, P., Martin, P., Gauvin, F., ‘Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes’, Social Science & Medicine 57, 239–251, 2003
• Arnstein, Sherry R., ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35:4, 216-224, 1969
• Baccaro, L., ‘‘Aggregate’ and ‘Deliberative’ Decision-Making Procedures: A Comparison of Two Southern Italian Factories’, Politics &Society, 2001
• Bilan, Y., and Bilan, S., ‘The Formation of Civil Society in Ukraine after the Orange Revolution’, Economics & Sociology, Vol. 4 (1), 2011
• Beissinger, Mark R., ‘Mechanisms of Maidan: The Structure of Contingency in the Making of the Orange Revolution’ Mobilization: An International Journal 16(1), 25-43, 2011
• Bessette, J. ‘The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government’ University of Chicago Press, 1994
• Bobbio, L., ‘Designing effective public participation’ Policy and Society, 38:1, 41-57, 2019
• Börzel, T. A., ‘Governance with/out Government. False Promises or Flawed Premises?’ SFB-Governance Working Paper Series, No. 23, 2010
• Bryant, C., ‘Government versus Governance: Structure Versus Process’, EchoGéo, 43 | 2018
• Buckwalter, Neal D. ‘The Potential for Public Empowerment through Government-Organized Participation’ Public Administration Review, Vol. 74, Issue. 5, pp. 573–584, 2014
• Callahan, K., ‘Citizen Participation: Models and Methods’ © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC; Intl Journal of Public Administration, 30: 1179–1196, 2007;
• Carothers, T., and Barndt, W., ‘Civil Society’, Foreign Policy, Winter, 1999-2000, No. 117, pp. 18-24+26-29, 1999-2000
• Cram, L., ‘In the Shadow of Hierarchy: Governance as a Tool of Government’ ‘‘The ‘Community Method’’ R. Dehousse (ed.) Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, 2011
• Creighton, James L, ‘The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement’ John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005
• Crosby, N., Kelly J. M., and Schaefer, P., ‘‘Citizen Panel A New Approach to Citizen Participation’’ Public Management Forum 1986
• Ekiert, G., and Foa, R., ‘Civil Society Weakness in Post-¬Communist Europe: A Preliminary Assessment’ Carlo Alberto Notebooks, No. 198 January 2011
• Fishkin, J., Luskin, R., ‘Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal-Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion’, Palgrave Macmillan 2005
• Fung A., ‘Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future’ Public Administration Review, Vol. 75, Issue 4, pp. 513–522, 2015
• Fung, A., ‘Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance’ Public Administration Review, Special Issue, December 2006
• Gaber, J., ‘Building ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 85:3, 188-201, 2019
• Gollagher, M., and Hartz-Karp, J., ‘The Role of Deliberative Collaborative Governance in Achieving Sustainable Cities’, Sustainability Journal, 5, 2343-2366, 2013
• Hajer, M., Wagenaar, H., ‘Deliberative Policy Analysis- Understanding governance in the Network Society’ Cambridge University Press 2003
• Hellman, Joel S., Jones G., and Kaufmann, D., ‘Seize the State Seize the Day- State Capture, Corruption, and Influence in Transition’ Policy Research Working Paper 2444; September 2020
• Hisschemöller, M., and Cuppen, E., ‘Participatory assessment: tools for empowering, learning and legitimating?’ a chapter in a book ‘The Tools of Policy Formulation-Actors, Capacities, Venues and Effects’ edited by Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2015
• Hoppe, R. ‘Institutional Constraints and Practical Problems in Deliberative and Participatory Policymaking’. Policy & Politics, 39(2), 163–186, 2011
• Howard, M., ‘The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe’ Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2003
• Innes, J., and Booher D., ‘Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century’, Planning Theory & Practice, 5:4, 419-436, 2004
• Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., and Borgatti, S. P. ‘A General Theory of Network Governance: Exchange Conditions and Social Mechanisms’ the Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 4 pp. 911-945, 1997
• Kettl, Donald F. ‘The Transformation of Governance: Globalization, Devolution, and the Role of Government, Public Administration Review, Vol. 60, No. 6 November/December 2000
• King, C., Feltey, K.M., and O'Neill Susel, B., ‘The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration’ Public Administration Review, Jul. - Aug. 1998, Vol. 58, No. 4 pp. 317-326, 1998
• Klijn, E., and Skelcher, C., ‘Democracy and Governance Networks: Compatible or not? Four Conjectures and their Implications for Theory and Practice’ Public Administration · September 2007
• Koliba, Christopher, J., ‘Serving the Public Interest across Sectors: Asserting the Primacy of Network Governance’ Administrative Theory & Praxis, Dec. 2006, Vol. 28, No. 4 pp. 593- 601, Dec. 2006
• Khutkyy, D., and Avramchenko, K., ‘Impact Evaluation of Participatory Budgeting in Ukraine’, 2019
• Lasswell, H.D. 'The developing science of democracy.' The Future of Government in the United States: Essays in Honor of Charles E. Merriam (L.D. White, ed.) pp. 25-48. The University of Chicago Press, 1942
• Leighninger, M., and Nabatchi, T., Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy, Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2015
• Lennon, O., ‘Six Reasons the “Opposition Platform” Won in Eastern Ukraine’, Kennan Cable, Wilson Centre, No 45, December 2019
• Lewis, C., and Marsh, D., ‘Network Governance and Public Participation in Policy-Making: Federal Community Cabinets in Australia’ The Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 6–19, 2012
• Ljubownikow, S., Crotty, J., Rodgers, P. W., ‘The state and civil society in Post-Soviet Russia: The development of a Russian-style civil society’ Progress in Development Studies 13, 2, pp. 153–166, 2013
• Lukensmeyer C.J., ‘Learning from the Past, Committing to the Future: A Practitioner’s View of Our Democracy, Public Administration Review, 2010
• Lutsevych, O., ‘How to Finish a Revolution: Civil Society and Democracy in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine’ Chatham House, January 2013
• Mann, M. The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results, European Journal of Sociology 25 (2) 185-213, 1984
• Michels, A., and Graaf, L., ‘Examining Citizen Participation: Local Participatory Policy Making and Democracy’ Vol. 36, No. 4, 477–491, August 2010
• Miller-Rushing, A., Primack, R., Bonney, R., ‘The History of Public Participation in Ecological Research’, the Ecological Society of America, 2012
• Minakov, M., ‘Euromaidan and civil protests’ Panel papers, Danyliw Seminars, 2014
• Peters, G., and Pierre, J., ‘Governance without Government? Rethinking Public Administration’ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 223-243, Apr. 1998
• Provan, K., G., and Kenis, P., ‘Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness’ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · April 2008
• Puglisi, R., ‘A People’s Army: Civil Society as a Security Actor in Post-Maidan Ukraine’ Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) 15, July 23, 2015
• Quick K. S., and Bryson, J. M., ‘Theories of public participation in governance’ Edward Elgar Press, 2016
• Reisinger, W. M., ‘Public Behavior and Political Change in Post-Soviet States’ The Journal of Politics, 57:4, 1995
• Rhodes, R. A. W. ‘Understanding Governance: Policy Network, Governance, Reflexivity, and Accountability’ Organization Studies 28(08): 1–22, 1997
• Risse, T., ‘Governance Under Limited Sovereignty’, Paper Prepared for Marty Finnemore/Judith Goldstein (eds.), ‘Back to Basics: Rethinking Power in the Contemporary World’; Presented at the Annual Convention of the American Political Science Association, Sept. 1 – 5, 2010
• Rivto, R. A., ‘NGOs in Ukraine: Growing amid growing concern’ International NGO Journal, Vol 9 (2) February 2014
• Rowe, G., and Frewer, L. J., ‘Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation’ Science, Technology, & Human Values, Winter, 2000, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 3-29, 2000
• Scharpf, F. ‘Games real actors could play: Positive and negative coordination in embedded negotiations’ Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, 27-53, 1994
• Scharpf, Fritz W., ‘Games Real Actors Play- Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research’ Taylor & Francis 1997
• Shapovalova, N., and Jarabik, B., ‘How Eastern Ukraine Is Adapting and Surviving: The Case of Kharkiv’ Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2018
• Sissenich, B., ‘Weak States, Weak Societies: Comparing New and Old Member States of the European Union’ Paper prepared for the Eleventh Biennial International Conference of the European Studies Association, Los Angeles, California, April 23-25, 2009
• Smagily, K., ‘A Wake-up Call for Ukraine’s Civil Society’ Kennan Cables N25, August 2017
• Stefes, C. H., ‘Understanding Post-Soviet Transitions Corruption, Collusion, and Clientelism’ Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York, 2006
• Stepanenko, V., ‘Civil Society in Post-Soviet Ukraine: Civic Ethos in the Framework of Corrupted Sociality?’ East European Politics and Societies, Vol. 20, No. 4, pages 571–597, 2006
• Taylor, A., ‘Hollowing out or filling in? Taskforces and the management of cross-cutting issues in British government’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 2, No. 1, April 2000, pp. 46–71
• Tilly, C., ‘Contention & Democracy in Europe, 1650 – 2000’, Cambridge University Press, 2004
• Toqcuiles, A., ‘Democracy in America’ Francis &Co, Boston, 1876
• Vigoda, E., ‘Rethinking the Identity of Public Administration: Interdisciplinary Reflections and Thoughts on Managerial Reconstruction’ Public Administration and Management · January 2003
• Wachhaus, A., ‘Governance Beyond Government’ Administration & Society Vol. 46(5) 573–593, 2014
• Weller, P., Bakvis, H., and Rhodes R. A. W. ‘The Hollow Crown: Countervailing Trends in Core Executives’ ed., Palgrave Macmillan, London 1997,
• Williamson, A., and Fung, A., ‘Public Deliberation: Where We Are and Where Can We Go?’ National Civic Review, 23 February 2005
• Zaloznaya, M., Reisinger, W. M., Claypool, V. H., ‘When civil engagement is part of the problem: Flawed anti-corruptionism in Russia and Ukraine’ Communist and Post-Communist Studies 51 (3): 245–255, 2018
Electronic sources- newspapers, websites, opinion polls:
• CRRC-Georgia, Knowledge and Attitudes of the Population of Georgia towards Judiciary, 2018, accessible at: https://caucasusbarometer.org/en/emc2018ge/TRUNGO/ <last visited on 15.05.2021>
• Declarations: about the project, https://declarations.com.ua/en/ <last visited 6.06.2021>
• ‘Georgian Civil Society Sustainability Initiative’, The European Union for Georgia, at https://eu4georgia.ge/georgian-civil-society-sustainability-initiative/ <last visited 5.06.2021>
• Gordiienko, T., ‘A Ukrainian Investigative News Team Fights for Media Freedom’ Global Investigative Journalism Report’ June 15, 2020 <last visited on 15.05.2021>
• IAP2 ‘Spectrum of Public Participation’ at https://www.iap2.org/page/pillars <last visited on 15.05.2021>
• Liubarets, A., ‘5 Ukraine’s public anti-corruption initiatives that can inspire you’ Ukraine World, July 2018 https://ukraineworld.org/articles/reforms/5-ukraines-public-anti-corruption-initiatives-can-inspire-you <last visited on 15.05.2021>
• Lasocki, J., ‘The cost of five years of war in Donbas’, September 2019, New Eastern Europe, <last visited 6.06.2021>
• Lomtadze, G., Kevkhishvili, S., ‘Open Contracting Data Standard - Data Disclosure at Its Best’, Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI), 2016 at https://idfi.ge/ge/open_contracting_standard_data_formation_excellent_base <last visited 6.06.2021>
• National Democratic Institute 2020 poll, ‘Public Attitudes in Georgia Results of December 2020 telephone survey’, Carried out for NDI by CRRC Georgia https://www.ndi.org/georgia-polls <last visited 6.06.2021>
• National Democratic Institute 2019 poll, Public Attitudes in Georgia Results of December 2019 survey, carried out for NDI by CRRC Georgia https://www.ndi.org/georgia-polls <last visited 6.06.2021>
• Official website of Prozorro- an e-procurement system https://prozorro.gov.ua/en <last visited 6.06.2021>
• Official website of the petition portal of Georgia www.ichange.ge <last visited 5.06.2021>
• Official website of the Zugdidi Municipality www.zugdidi.gov.ge <last visited 6.06.2021>
• Open Contracting Data Standard Documentation https://standard.open contracting.org/latest/en/ <last visited 5.06.2021>
• Opinion poll, Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, 2019 also, at https://dif.org.ua/en/article/european-integration-of-ukraine-the-dynamics-of-public-opinion <last visited 6.06.2021>
• Partnership for Good Governance (PGG) 2015-2017, Council of Europe, at https://www.coe.int/en/web/congress/european-union-council-of-europe-partnership-for-good-governance <last visited 5.06.2021>
• Ukraine ‘Transparent Cities’ Project at https://ti-ukraine.org/en/project/transparent-cities/ <last visited 6.06.2021>
• ‘What is Ukraine’s Perception in the EU?’ New Europe Centre, 2020, also available at Ukraine Crisis Media Centre https://uacrisis.org/en/ukraine-vs-eu <last visited 6.06.2021>
• YanukovychLeaks, Група дослідників документів, знайдених у Межигір'ї https://yanukovychleaks.org/ <last visited 6.06.2021>

Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce

The primary task of the research is to uncover how the process of establishing participatory governance has advanced in Georgia and Ukraine and whether it brought any significant results. At the same time, the main focus of the research is the deliberative elements of public participation, such as the representativeness of the people in policymaking process, inclusiveness, informativeness, and the method of the communication of the people with the state. Moreover, the thesis concentrates on the determinants of the establishment of deliberative public participation and identifies the factors that hindered the process.
In order to define whether Georgia and Ukraine managed to achieve the formation of deliberative public participation, the thesis will study and analyse the established practices of citizen engagement in both countries, discuss the legislative frameworks to identify the legal basis for citizen engagement and the instruments that regulate the aspects of the public involvement in the policy-making process. The research will concentrate on how the informativeness of the public, their fair inclusion in governance, and the effective citizen-state communicative mode are guaranteed by the institutionalized practices in Georgia and Ukraine.
The thesis consults the respective legislative frameworks of Georgia and Ukraine, and the initiatives, mainly in the framework of the Open Government Partnership as primary sources of data to identify the main citizen engagement platforms. More specifically, The General Administrative Code of Georgia, the Organic Law of Georgia Self-Government Code, the resolutions 996 and 976 of the Cabinets of the Ministers of Ukraine, Law on Citizens’ Appeal of Ukraine, etc., and OGP initiatives will be discussed to outline the major mechanisms of citizen engagement. These laws together with the other legislative acts e.g., the Law on Access to Information of Ukraine and the e-government tools will be utilized to identify how and in what manner they guarantee the information provision to the citizens, their inclusion in the policy-making, and how they define the communication between the public and the state.
To define the level of deliberative public participation, the research will offer and utilise the evaluation framework consisting of the four components of legitimacy, competence, inclusiveness/fairness, and the mode of communication/influence. These components will evaluate 1. the legislative bases in the country and the official authorization and empowerment of the people to participate in policymaking; 2. the informativeness of the society regarding the issues that are discussed, the projects to be implemented, etc.; i.e., to what extent the people are informed and edified regarding the political matters? 3. the systems of the selection of the people that defines the inclusiveness of the people, representativeness of the ideas and opinions; 4. The methods that are established es the primary mode of the communication between the public and the state. Each of the citizen engagement platform will be evaluated by these components and the general picture for the each of the countries will be outlined. The incentives and limitations of the deliberative components of such citizen engagement platforms will be identified.
Furthermore, the respective environments in Georgia and Ukraine will be discussed to understand how the ground for creating deliberative participation was prepared and which factors hindered the process. To find the answers to these objectives, the following data will be utilized: the secondary sources, such as the reports and academic articles, expert opinions regarding the established practices of citizen participation in Georgia and Ukraine, the data regarding the countries’ main political courses, Europeanisation and democratization aspirations, civilian activism, the civil societies’ attitude and their ambitions (e.g., the polls regarding the civil society’s support for the EU integration).