Dolores E. Luna
Luis F. Luna-Reyes
ABSTRACT
Digital government has been a key component on government reform strategies during the last years. Unfortunately, few research exists reporting on the impacts of electronic government in terms of the final outcomes. By using a model that links inputs to impacts, this paper explores the impacts of electronic government on competitiveness, efficiency, and transactions. We used panel data analysis to test eighteen hypotheses. Results support 5 of the 18 hypotheses, however three of the supported hypothesis resulted in the opposite direction. Results suggest that citizens use digital government mainly to complete electronic transactions with government, and also that they need simple portals to accomplish these tasks. Additionally, our results suggest that, at least at the initial stages, having two delivery channels have a negative impact on government efficiency. Finally, it appears that the relationship between digital government and more general impacts in the competitiveness of a region is not directly linked, at least on the short term.
- 6, P. 2001. E-governance. Do Digital Aids Make a Difference in Policy Making? Designing E-Government. On the Crossroads of Technological Innovation and Institutional Change. J. E. J. Prins, ed. Kluwer Law International. 7--27.Google Scholar
- Accenture 2004. eGovernment Leadership: High Performance, Maximum Value. Accenture.Google Scholar
- Andersen, D. F. and Dawes, S. S. 1991. Government Information Management. A primer and Casebook. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Beck Jørgensen, T. and Bozeman, B. 2007. Public Values An Inventory. Administration & Society. 39, 3 (Jan. 2007), 354--381.Google Scholar
- Bozeman, B. 2002. Public-Value Failure: When Efficient Markets May Not Do. Public Administration Review. 62, 2 (2002), 145--161.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brynjolfsson, E. and Saunders, A. 2013. Wired for innovation: how information technology is reshaping the economy. MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dawes, S. S. 1996. Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 15, 3 (1996), 377--394.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dawes, S. S. and Prefontaine, L. 2003. Understanding new models of collaboration for delivering government services. Communications of the ACM. 46, 1 (2003), 40--42. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Donker-Kuijer, M. W. et al. 2010. Usable guidelines for usable websites? An analysis of five e-government heuristics. Government Information Quarterly. 27, 3 (Jul. 2010), 254--263.Google Scholar
- Esteves, J. and Joseph, R. C. 2008. A comprehensive framework for the assessment of eGovernment projects. Government Information Quarterly. 25, 1 (Jan. 2008), 118--132.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fountain, J. E. 2001. Building the Virtual State. Information Technology and Institutional Change. Brookings Institution Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fountain, J. E. 2003. Prospects for improving the regulatory process using e-rulmaking. Communications of the ACM. 46, 1 (2003), 43--44. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gant, D. B. et al. 2002. State Web Portals: Delivering and Financing E-Service. The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for The Business of Government.Google Scholar
- Gil-Garcia, J. R. and Helbig, N. 2006. Exploring Egovernment Benefits and Success Factors. Encyclopedia of Digital Government. Idea Group Inc.Google Scholar
- Gil-García, J. R. and Luna-Reyes, L. F. 2006. Integrating Conceptual Approaches to E-Government. Encyclopedia od E-Commerce, E-Government, and Mobile Commerce. Idea Group Reference. 636--643.Google Scholar
- Harrison, T. et al. 2011. Delivering Public Value Through Open Government. Center for Technology in Government.Google Scholar
- Jukić, T. et al. 2013. Ex-ante evaluation: Towards an assessment model of its impact on the success of e-government projects. Information Polity. 18, 4 (Jan. 2013), 343--361. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kaisara, G. and Pather, S. 2011. The e-Government evaluation challenge: A South African Batho Pele-aligned service quality approach. Government Information Quarterly. 28, 2 (Apr. 2011), 211--221.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Karunasena, K. and Deng, H. 2012. Critical factors for evaluating the public value of e-government in Sri Lanka. Government Information Quarterly. 29, 1 (Jan. 2012), 76--84.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kum, H.-C. et al. 2009. Supporting self-evaluation in local government via Knowledge Discovery and Data mining. 26, (Apr. 2009), 295--304.Google Scholar
- L. F. L. Reyes, J. R. G.-G. and R. Sandoval 2011. Ranking estatal 2011 de Portales .gob. Política Digital. 63 (Ago-Sep), (2011), 36--39.Google Scholar
- Luna, D. E. et al. 2013. Improving the performance assessment of government web portals: A proposal using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age. 18, 2 (2013), 169--187. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Luna, D. E. et al. 2012. Indice de Gobierno Electrónico Estatal: Comparativo de las mediciones 2011 y 2012. Technical Report #273. Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, DAP,.Google Scholar
- Luna-Reyes, L. F. et al. 2009. Hacia un Modelo de los Determinantes de Éxito de los Portales de Gobierno Estatal en México. Gestión y Política Pública. XVIII, 2 (2009), 307--340.Google Scholar
- Luna-Reyes, L. F. et al. 2012. Towards a multidimensional model for evaluating electronic government: Proposing a more comprehensive and integrative perspective. Government Information Quarterly. 29, 3 (Jul. 2012), 324--334.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Luna-Reyes, L. F. and Gil-Garcia, J. R. 2013. Understanding the Co-evolution of Institutions, Technology, and Organizations: The Enactment of the State Government Portal of Puebla. Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (New York, NY, USA, 2013), 214--223. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Meynhardt, T. 2009. Public Value Inside: What is Public Value Creation? International Journal of Public Administration. 32, 3--4 (2009), 192--219.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mitra, R. K. and Gupta, M. P. 2008. A contextual perspective of performance assessment in eGovernment: A study of Indian Police Administration. Government Information Quarterly. 25, 2 (Apr. 2008), 278--302.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Moon, M. J. et al. 2005. What Drives Global E-Governance? An Exploratory Study at a Macro Level. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2005. HICSS '05 (Jan. 2005), 131--131. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Sandoval-Almazán, J. R. G.-G. 2008. Construyendo un Índice de funcionalidad para el gobiern electrónico: una primera evaluación de los portales estatales en México. Espacion Públicos. 11, (Feb. 2008), 8--19.Google Scholar
- R. S. Almazán, D. E. L. and J. R. Gil-García, L. F. L.-R. 2012. Ranking Estatal 2012 de portales .gob. Política Digital. 69 (Ago-Sep), (2012), 16--19.Google Scholar
- Sandoval-Almazan, R. and Gil-Garcia, J. R. 2012. Are government internet portals evolving towards more interaction, participation, and collaboration? Revisiting the rhetoric of e-government among municipalities. Government Information Quarterly. 29, Supplement 1, (Jan. 2012), S72--S81.Google Scholar
- Stoker, G. 2006. Public Value Management A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration. 36, 1 (Jan. 2006), 41--57.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stowers, G. 2004. Measuring the Performance in E-Government. IBM Center for the Business of Government.Google Scholar
- Stufflebeam, D. L. 2003. The CIPP Model for Evaluation. Annual Conference of the Oregon Program Evaluators Network (OPEN), (Portland, Oregon. Estados Unidos, 2003).Google Scholar
- UNPAN 2012. E-Government Survey 2012: E-Government for the People. United Nations Publication.Google Scholar
- Verdegem, P. and Verleye, G. 2009. User-centered e-government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Government Information Quarterly. 26, 3 (2009), 487--497.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Weiss, C. H. 1991. Investigación Evaluativa: Métodos para Determinar la Eficiencia de los Programas de Acción. Trillas.Google Scholar
- West, D. M. 2008. Improving Technology Utilization in Electronic Government around the World, 2008. The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Assessing the impacts of digital government in the creation of public value
Recommendations
From Technology to Social Development: Applying a Public Value Perspective to Digital Government in Local Governments in Mexico
dg.o '17: Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government ResearchThe main goal of any digital government initiative is to create public value [34]. Although this sentence represents a powerful idea, there is no clear evidence about the causality route from technology to the creation of public value for citizens and ...
Digital government transformation: a case illustrating public e-service development as part of public sector transformation
dg.o '18: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data AgeDigital government is often seen as an enabler or even driver of transformation of public administration, with the objective of creating public value. Such transformations are complex, requiring a long process of change; often, digitalization of public ...
Open government and e-government: democratic challenges from a public value perspective
dg.o '11: Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging TimesWe consider open government (OG) within the context of e-government and its broader implications for the future of public administration. We argue that the current US Administration's Open Government Initiative blurs traditional distinctions between e-...
Comments