Vol. 54 No. 1 (2026): Published March 30, 2025

DOI https://doi.org/10.18799/26584956/2026/1/2074

Digital Social Barometer methodology as a tool for monitoring public perception of the effectiveness of public administration

In the context of the digital transformation of public administration, special importance is attached to the development of tools capable not only of recording quantitative performance indicators but also of reflecting real public sentiments, the level of trust, and citizens’ perception of government activities. The growing role of digital communications and open data calls for new approaches to performance evaluation that are focused on integrating technological and socio-humanitarian dimensions. Aim. To develop and provide a theoretical and methodological justification for the Digital Social Barometer as a tool for the comprehensive monitoring of public perceptions of the effectiveness of public administration in the context of digitalization. Methodology. Based on an interdisciplinary synthesis of the concepts of New Public Management, data-driven governance, and public value management. The study applies system, institutional, and comparative methods, as well as a project-based approach. Results. The article proposes a conceptual model of the Digital Social Barometer, which includes four analytical blocks: digital interaction, public perception, media perception, and social impact. The author has developed the integrated index (DSB Index), making it possible to quantitatively measure the level of public trust and citizens’ satisfaction with the performance of government institutions. The methodology ensures continuous monitoring of public sentiment in the digital environment and the early identification of social risks. The implementation of the Digital Social Barometer makes it possible to move from traditional statistical evaluation methods to a dynamic model of public monitoring based on data and digital feedback. The proposed methodology can be used by public authorities to assess the effectiveness of communication with citizens, increase transparency and evidence-based decision-making, as well as forecast public reactions to governmental initiatives. The Republic of Tatarstan is considered a promising pilot region for testing this methodology, which is due to its high level of digitalization, developed analytical infrastructure, and availability of human and institutional resources. Thus, the Digital Social Barometer serves as an innovative tool for assessing the effectiveness of public administration, combining technological and human-centered approaches and contributing to the formation of a new type of social contract between the state and citizens, based on trust, openness, and data.

For citation: Kurgaeva Z.Yu. Digital Social Barometer methodology as a tool for monitoring public perception of the effectiveness of public administration. Journal of Wellbeing Technologies, 2026, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 141–160. https://doi.org/10.18799/26584956/2026/1/2074

Keywords:

public administration, new public management, digital transformation, digital interaction, public perception, digital social barometer, governance effectiveness, citizen trust, sentiment analysis, digital government, social efficiency, public monitoring

Authors:

Zhanna Yu. Kurgaeva

References:

СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ

1. Moore M. Creating public value: strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. 402 p.

2. Бронников И.А. Цифровое гражданство в Российской Федерации: политические риски и перспективы. Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Серия 4: История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения, 2021, Т. 26, № 3, С. 123−133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2021.3.11. EDN: QCUIZF.

3. Кургаева Ж.Ю. Цифровизация государственного управления и гражданского участия: индикаторы оценки уровня развития, вызовы и перспективы. Вестник Евразийской науки, 2025, Т. 17, № 2, номер статьи 36. EDN: ZVTDMG.

4. El Gibari S., Gómez T., Ruiz F. Building composite indicators using multicriteria methods: a review. Journal of Business Economics, 2019, vol. 89, pp. 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0902-z.

5. Bryson J., Crosby B., Bloomberg L. Public value governance: moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public administration review, 2014, Vol. 74, № 4. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12238.

6. Баранов И.Н. Новый государственный менеджмент: эволюция теории и практики применения. Российский журнал менеджмента, 2012, T. 10, № 1, C. 51−64. EDN: OWRHDL.

7. Тебекин А.В., Тебекин П.А., Егорова А.А. Развитие концепции менеджмента в 2000-е годы и перспективы их использования в современных кризисных условиях. Журнал исследований по управлению, 2020, T. 6, № 2, С. 3–15. EDN: JPZLYG.

8. Алексеева С.Г., Рубцов Д.В. Социальная эффективность государственного и муниципального управления. Системные технологии, 2018, № 1 (26), C. 16−19. EDN: UQGHFA.

9. Евсеев А.Д., Лащёнов М.С. Социальная эффективность государственного управления в системе предоставления государственных услуг. Социально-гуманитарные знания, 2022, № 7, C. 23−26. DOI: 10.34823/SGZ.2022.7.51947. EDN: YBCXCZ.

10. Исупова И.Н. К вопросу об оценке эффективности государственного управления. МИР (Модернизация. Инновации. Развитие), 2010, № 2, С. 37−39. EDN: PACQDN.

11. Glavaš J., Uroda I., Mandić B. Managing digital transformation in public administration. 44th International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO). Opatija, Croatia, 2021. P. 1466–1469. DOI: 10.23919/MIPRO52101.2021.9596775.

12. Gębczyńska A., Brajer-Marczak R. Review of selected performance measurement models used in public administration. Administrative Sciences, 2020, Vol. 10, Iss. 4, Article 99. DOI: 10.3390/admsci10040099. EDN: ORXRKH.

13. How Do Citizens View Digital Government Services? Study on Digital Government Service Quality Based on Citizen Feedback. F. Ye, X. Li, H. Wu, X. Zhou. Mathematics, 2023, Vol. 11, Iss. 14, Article 3122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/math11143122. EDN: CZOFUZ.

14. Big data in the Public Sector: A Systematic Literature Review. C. Fredriksson, F. Mubarak, M. Tuohimaa, M. Zhan. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 2017, Vol. 21, № 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v21i3.11563.

15. Mickoleit A. Social media use by governments: a policy primer to discuss trends, identify policy opportunities and guide decision makers. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, 2014, № 26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxrcmghmk0s-en.

16. Social media analytics – Challenges in topic discovery, data collection and interpretation. S. Stieglitz, M. Mirbabaie, B. Ross, C. Neuberger. International Journal of Information Management, 2018, Vol. 39, P. 156–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.12.002.

17. Mergel I. Social Media in the Public Sector. DOI: 10.1081/E-EPAP3-120051204.

18. Feldman R. Techniques and applications for sentiment analysis. Communications of the ACM, 2013, Vol. 56, Iss. 4, P. 82–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2436256.2436274.

19. Starostina A., Dobrolyubova E. Assessment of the performance and efficiency of the digitalization of public administration. 2020. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3862498.

20. Вершинина М.А. Цифровые каналы взаимодействия власти и общества: новые практики коммуникации и отбор технологий. Государственное управление. Электронный вестник, 2021, № 87, C. 61−71. DOI: 10.24412/2070-1381-2021-87-61-71. EDN: GKTLCJ.

REFERENCES

1. Moore M. Creating public value: strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1995. 402 p.

2. Bronnikov I.A., Karpova V.V. Digital citizenship in the Russian Federation: political risks and prospects. Science Journal of Volgograd State University. History. Area Studies. International Relations, 2021, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 123–133. (In Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2021.3.11. EDN: QCUIZF.

3. Kurgaeva Zh.Yu. Digitalization of public administration and civic participation: indicators for assessing the level of development, challenges and prospects. The Eurasian Scientific Journal, 2025, vol. 17, no. 2, article number 36. (In Russ.) EDN: ZVTDMG.

6. Baranov I.N. New state management: the evolution of theory and practice of application. Russian management journal, 2012, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 51–64. (In Russ.) EDN: OWRHDL.

7. Tebekin A.V., Tebekin P.A., Egorova A.A. Development of the management concept in the 2000s and prospects for their use in modern crisis conditions. Journal of Management Studies, 2020, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3–15. (In Russ.) EDN: JPZLYG.

8. Alekseeva S.G., Rubtsov D.V. Social effectiveness of state and municipal government. System technologies, 2018, no. 1 (26), pp. 16–19. (In Russ.) EDN: UQGHFA.

9. Evseev A.D., Laschenov M.S. Social efficiency of public administration in the system of providing public services. Socio-humanitarian knowledge, 2022, no. 7, pp. 23–26. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.34823/SGZ.2022.7.51947. EDN: YBCXCZ.

10. Isupova I.N. On the issue of evaluating the effectiveness of public administration. MIR (Modernization. Innovation. Development), 2010, no. 2, pp. 37–39. (In Russ.) EDN: PACQDN.

11. Glavaš J., Uroda I., Mandić B. Managing digital transformation in public administration. 44th International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO). Opatija, Croatia, 2021. pp. 1466–1469. DOI: 10.23919/MIPRO52101.2021.9596775.

12. Gębczyńska A., Brajer-Marczak R. Review of selected performance measurement models used in public administration. Administrative Sciences, 2020, vol. 10, Iss. 4, Article 99. DOI: 10.3390/admsci10040099. EDN: ORXRKH.

13. Ye F., Li X., Wu H., Zhou X. How do citizens view digital government services? Study on digital government service quality based on citizen feedback. Mathematics, 2023, vol. 11, Iss. 14, Article 3122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/math11143122. EDN: CZOFUZ.

14. Fredriksson C., Mubarak F., Tuohimaa M., Zhan M. Big data in the public sector: a systematic literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 2017, vol. 21, no. 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v21i3.11563.

15. Mickoleit A. Social media use by governments: a policy primer to discuss trends, identify policy opportunities and guide decision makers. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, 2014, no. 26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxrcmghmk0s-en.

16. Stieglitz S., Mirbabaie M., Ross B., Neuberger C. Social media analytics – challenges in topic discovery, data collection and interpretation. International Journal of Information Management, 2018, vol. 39, pp. 156–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.12.002.

17. Mergel I. Social media in the public sector. DOI: 10.1081/E-EPAP3-120051204.

18. Feldman R. Techniques and applications for sentiment analysis. Communications of the ACM, 2013, vol. 56, Iss. 4, pp. 82–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2436256.2436274/.