Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Policy makers’ perceptions on the transformational effect of Web 2.0 technologies on public services delivery

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The growing participation in social networking sites is altering the nature of social relations and changing the nature of political and public dialogue. This paper contributes to the current debate on Web 2.0 technologies and their implications for local governance, identifying the perceptions of policy makers on the use of Web 2.0 in providing public services and on the changing roles that could arise from the resulting interaction between local governments and their stakeholders. The results obtained suggest that policy makers are willing to implement Web 2.0 technologies in providing public services, but preferably under the Bureaucratic model framework, thus retaining a leading role in this implementation. The learning curve of local governments in the use of Web 2.0 technologies is a factor that could influence policy makers’ perceptions. In this respect, many research gaps are identified and further study of the question is recommended.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this paper, Web 2.0 should be viewed as a networked platform, spanning connected devices to encourage collaboration, in terms of the creation, organization, linking and sharing of content [3]. Thus, it is related to the technical platform on which social media applications are built to create and exchange user-generated content.

References

  1. Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2009). Information disclosure and control on Facebook: Are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes? CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12(3), 3411–3450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in government: Why? and How? Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

  3. O’Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications and Strategies, 65, 18–37.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Johnston, E., & Hansen, D. (2011). Design lessons for smart governance infrastructures. In D. Ink, A. Balutis, & T. Buss (Eds.), American governance 3.0: Rebooting the public square? (pp. 197–212). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Graells-Costa, J. (2011). Administración colaborativa y en red. El profesional de la información, 20(3), 345–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cromer, C. (2010). Understanding Web 2.0’s influences on public e-services: A protection motivation perspective. Innovation, 12(2), 192–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Curras-Pérez, R., Ruiz-Mafé, C., & Sanz-Blas, S. (2013). Social network loyalty: Evaluating the role of attitude, perceived risk and satisfaction. Online Information Review, 37(1), 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chang, A.-M., & Kannan, P. K. (2008). Leveraging Web 2.0 in government. Washington, DC: E-Government/Technology Series, IBM Center for the Business of Government.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. (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), S72–S81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaylor, C., Deshazo, R., & Van Eck, D. (2001). Gauging egovernment: A report on implementing services among American cities. Government Information Quarterly, 18(4), 293–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Taylor, J. A. (2012). The Information Polity: Towards a two speed future? Information Polity, 17(3–4), 227–237.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Commonwealth Network of Information Technology for Development Foundation (COMNET-IT). (2002). Country profiles of E-governance. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  13. McDermott, P. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Noveck, B. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Washington, DC: Brookings Institutions Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Hansen, D. (2012). The impact of policies on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 30–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mintz, D. (2008). Government 2.0—Fact or fiction? The Public Manager, 36(4), 21–24.

    Google Scholar 

  17. E-Government Academy. (2006). E-Government actions in Europe. Best European e-practices. Project part-financed by the European Union, Tallinn

  18. European Commission. (2009). Public services 2.0. Web 2.0 from the periphery to the centre of public service delivery. Report from the ePractice workshop. Brussels: European Commision.

  19. Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2013). Government innovation through social media. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 319–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen co-production in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nam, T. (2012). Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 12–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. The White House. (2009). The Open Government Initiative. From http://www.whitehouse.gov/open.

  23. Dunleavy, P., & Margetts, H. Z. (2010). The second wave of digital era governance. Paper presented at American Political Science Association Conference 2010 Annual Meeting Papers, Washington, DC.

  24. Meijer, A. (2011). Networked co-production of public services in virtual communities: From a government-centric to a community approach to public service support. Public Administration Review, 71(4), 598–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Span, K. C. L., Luijkx, K. G., Schols, J. M. G. A., & Schalk, R. (2012). The relationship between governance roles and performance in local public interorganizational networks: A conceptual analysis. American Review of Public Administration, 42(2), 186–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Argote, L., & Epple, D. (1990). Learning curves in manufacturing. Science, 23, 920–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Baum, J., & Ingram, P. (1998). Survival-enhancing learning in the Manhattan hotel industry, 1898–1980. Management Science, 44(7), 996–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Plaza, M., Ngwenyama, O. K., & Rohlf, K. (2010). A comparative analysis of learning curves: Implications for new technology implementation management. European Journal of Operational Research, 200, 518–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fedorowicz, J., Oz, E., & Berger, P. D. (1992). A learning curve analysis of expert systems use. Decision Sciences, 23(4), 797–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Choi, J., Nazareth, D. L., & Jain, H. K. (2012). Information technology skills management strategies for implementing new technologies in organizations: A case of service oriented architecture. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Part A, 42(4), 838–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Christiaens, J. R. (1999). Financial accounting reform in Flemish municipalities: An empirical investigation. Financial Accountability & Management, 15(1), 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Berry, J., Portney, K., & Thomson, K. (1993). The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Peters, B. G. (2001). The future of governing. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Torres, L., Pina, V., & Acerete, B. (2005). Gauging e-government evolution in EU municipalities. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 3(6), 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Cegarra, J. G., Córdoba, J. R., & Moreno, J. L. (2012). E-government and citizen’s engagement with local affairs through e-Websites: The case of Spanish municipalities. International Journal of Information Management, 32(5), 469–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gallego, R., & Barzelay, M. (2010). Public management policymaking in Spain: The politics of legislative reform of administrative structure, 1991–1997. Governance, 23(2), 277–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bastida, F. J., & Benito, B. (2006). Financial reports and decentralization in municipal governments. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72(2), 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Orange Foundation. (2013). eEspaña. Informe anual 2013 sobre el desarrollo de la sociedad de la información en España. Madrid: Fundación Orange.

    Google Scholar 

  42. IAB Spain Research (IAB). (2013). IV Estudio Anual de Redes Sociales. Madrid: IAB.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Spanish National Statistics Institute. (2013). Internet document. Retrieved June 1, 2013, from http://www.ine.es/inebmenu/mnu_padron.htm.

  44. Picazo-Vela, S., Gutiérrez-Martínez, I., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2012). Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 504–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gomes, R., & Sousa, L. (2012). Contributions to the development of local e-government 2.0. Future Internet, 4(4), 882–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Oxley, A. (2011). A best practices guide for mitigating risk in the use of social media. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Government of Canada. (2011). Guidelines for secure external use of Web 2.0. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Retrieved April, 1, 2012, from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?section=text&id=24835.

  48. Emerson, T. L. N., Conroy, S. J., & Stanley, W. (2007). Ethical attitudes of accountants: Recent evidence from a practitioners’ survey. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(1), 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Russell, C. J., & Bobko, P. (1992). Moderated regression analysis and Likert scales: Too coarse for comfort. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 336–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hodge, D. R., & Gillespie, D. (2003). Phrase completions: An alternative to Likert scales. Social Work Research, 27(1), 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  52. Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study I: Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31(3), 657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology, 140, 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bertram, D. (2007). Likert scales. Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary. Retrieved June 28, 2014, from http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~kristina/topic-dane-likert.pdf.

  55. Criado, J. I., & Ramilo, M. C. (2003). E-government in practice. An analysis of web site orientation to the citizens in Spanish municipalities. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 16(3), 191–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Blank, G., & Reisdorf, B. C. (2012). The participatory web. Information, Communication & Society, 15(4), 537–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 524–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. García-Martín, J., & García-Sánchez, J. N. (2013). Patterns of Web 2.0 tool use among young Spanish people. Computers & Education, 67, 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Bryer, T. A., & Zavattaro, S. M. (2011). Social media and public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33(3), 325–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Weinberger, D. (2002). Small pieces loosely joined: A unified theory of the web. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Gulati, G. J., Yates, D. J. & Tawileh, A. (2010). Towards E-participation in the Middle East and Northern Europe. In C. Reddick (Ed.), Comparative E-government. Integrated series in information systems (Vol. 25, pp. 71–90). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  62. Gibson, A. (2010). Local by social. How local authorities can use social media to achieve more for less. London: NESTA.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  64. Mergel, I. (2013). Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the U.S. Federal Government. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 123–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Jennings, M. K., & Zeitner, V. (2003). Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(3), 311–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. UNPAN (United Nations Public Administration Network). (2010). Spain ranks third in the ranking of E-Participation prepared by United Nations. Internet document Retrieved October, 2011, from http://www.unpan.org.

  67. Meijer, A., & Thaens, M. (2013). Social media strategies: Understanding the differences between North American police departments. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 343–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. MacKinnon, R. (2008). Flatter world and thicker walls? Blogs, censorship and civic discourse in China. Public Choice, 134, 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. MacKinnon, R. (2009). China’s censorship 2.0: How companies censor bloggers. First Monday, 14(2), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Edelenbos, J., Klijn, E. H., & Steijn, B. (2011). Managers in governance networks: How to reach good outcomes? International Public Management Journal, 14(4), 420–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ferro, E., Loukis, E. N., Charalabidis, Y., & Osella, M. (2013). Policy making 2.0: From theory to practice. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 359–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was carried out with financial support from the Regional Government of Andalusia (Spain), Department of Innovation, Science and Enterprise (Research Project Number P11-SEJ-7700). The author would like to thank the referees of this paper and the editors of the special issue for their insights and valuable suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Business Studies, University of Granada, C/Campus Universitario de Cartuja, s/n, 18071, Granada, Spain

    Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar

Authors
  1. Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P. Policy makers’ perceptions on the transformational effect of Web 2.0 technologies on public services delivery. Electron Commer Res 17, 227–254 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9196-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9196-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation