Karen M. G. Lopes
ABSTRACT
Previous research suggests that institutional factors influence the prioritization of digital government initiatives. This study aims to develop and validate a scale to measure institutional factors’ impact on a specific public value position choice. Based on the public value theory and a conceptual model from a previous qualitative study, this quantitative research was conducted by surveying 451 state public managers from several Brazilian state governments. A questionnaire was developed and validated to test the influence of four institutional factors (political, financial, personnel, and legal) on prioritizing public value positions. Most hypotheses were confirmed through a structural equation model analysis (PLS-SEM). Findings show that political and financial factors are the most influential ones. The former influences the administrative efficiency value, as well as citizen engagement. The latter is also affecting organizational efficiency and service improvement. Personnel factors influence citizen engagement, whereas legal factors influence service improvement. The main contribution is the development and validation of a new public value scale to measure the influence of political, financial, personnel, and legal factors when prioritizing concurrent public value positions.
- Panos Panagiotopoulos, Bram Klievink, and Antonio Cordella, A. 2019. Public value creation in digital government. Government Information Quarterly. 36, 4 (October 2019), 101421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101421Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Panagiota Xanthopoulou. 2020. From e-Government to Public Value creation. International Journal of Science and Research. 9,3 (March 2020), 927-933. https://doi.org/10.21275/sr20316155905Google ScholarCross Ref
- Luca Tangi, Marijn Janssen, Michele Benedetti, and Giuliano Noci. 2020. Barriers and Drivers of Digital Transformation in Public Organizations: Results from a Survey in the Netherlands. In Proceedings of the Electronic Government: 19th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2020, Linköping, Sweden, 42-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57599-1Google ScholarDigital Library
- Keld Pedersen, 2018. E-government transformations: challenges and strategies. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. 12, 1 (April 2018), 84–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/tg-06-2017-0028Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bettina Distel, and Ida Lindgren. 2019. Who are the users of digital public services? A critical reflection on differences in the treatment of citizens as ‘users’ in e-government research. In Proceedings of the Electronic Participation: 11th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2019, San Benedetto Del Tronto, Italy, 117-129. https;//doi.org/:10.1007/978-3-030-27397-2Google ScholarDigital Library
- Karen Lopes, Edimara Mezzomo Luciano, and Guilherme Wiedenhöft. 2022. Intervening Factors in the Prioritization of Rival Public Values in Brazilian Digital Government Initiatives. In Proceedings SEMEAD Conference, São Paulo, BrazilGoogle Scholar
- Jeremy Rose, John Stouby Persson, and Lise Tordrup Heeager. 2015. How e-Government managers prioritise rival value positions: The efficiency imperative. Information polity. 20, 1 (July 2015), 35-59. https://10.3233/IP-150349Google Scholar
- Timo Meynhardt and Anna Jasinenko. 2020. Measuring public value: scale development and construct validation. International Public Management Journal. 24,2 (October 2020), 222-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2020.1829763Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jean Damascene Twizeyimana, and Annika Andersson. 2019. The public value of E-Government–A literature review. Government information quarterly. 36,2 (April 2019), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jeremy Rose, Leif Skiftenes Flak, and Øystein SÆBØ. 2018. . Stakeholder theory for the E-government context: Framing a value-oriented normative core. Government Information Quarterly. 35,3 (September 2018), 362-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.06.005Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel Toll, Ida Lindgren, Ulf Melin, and Christian Ø. Madsen. 2020. Values, benefits, considerations and risks of AI in government: A study of AI policy documents in Sweden. eJournal of eDemocracy & Open Government. 12,1 (July 2020), 40-60. https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v12i1.593Google ScholarCross Ref
- Agneta Ranerup, and Helle Zinner Henriksen. 2019. Value positions viewed through the lens of automated decision-making: The case of social services. Government Information Quarterly. 36,4 (October 2019), 101317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.004Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jeremy Rose, John Stouby Persson, Lise Tordrup Heeager, and & Zahir Irani. 2015. Managing e‐Government: value positions and relationships. Information Systems Journal. 25,5 (September 2015), 531-571. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12052Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark Harrison Moore. 1995. Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard university press.Google Scholar
- Robert B. Denhardt, and Janet Vinzant Denhardt. 2000. The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review. 60,6 (December 2002), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00117Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stuart Bretschneider, and Marla Parker. 2016. Organization formalization, sector and social media: Does increased standardization of policy broaden and deepen social media use in organizations?. Government Information Quarterly. 33,4 (October 2016), 614-628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.09.005Google ScholarCross Ref
- Antonio Cordella, and Carla M. Bonina. 2012. A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government information Quarterly. 29,4 (October 2012), 512-520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jeremy Rose, John Stouby Persson, Pernille Kræmmergaard, and Peter Axel Nielsen. 2012. IT management in local government: The DISIMIT Project. Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
- Ramon Gil-Garcia, and Miguel Á. Flores-Zúñiga 2020. Towards a comprehensive understanding of digital government success: Integrating implementation and adoption factors. Government Information Quarterly. 37, 4 (October 2020),101518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101518Google ScholarCross Ref
- Luca Papi, Michele Bigoni, Enrico Bracci, and Enrico Deidda Gagliardo. 2018. Measuring public value: a conceptual and applied contribution to the debate. Public Money & Management. 38,7 (February 2018), 503-510. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2018.1439154Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sara Hofmann, Øystein Sæbø, Alessio Maria Braccini, and Stefano Za. 2019. The public sector's roles in the sharing economy and the implications for public values. Government Information Quarterly. 36,4 (October 2019), 101399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101399Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marko Sarsredt, Christian M. Ringle, Jörg Hensele, and Joseph F. Hair. 2014. On the emancipation of PLS-SEM: A commentary on Rigdon. Long range planning. 47,3 (June 2014), 154-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2014.02.007Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joseph F. Hair, Marko Sarstedt, Lucas Hopkins, and Volker G. Kuppelwieser. 2014. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European business review. 26,2 (March 2014), 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christian M. Ringle, Dirceu da Silva, and Diógenes de Souza Bido. 2014. Modelagem de equações estruturais com utilização do SmartPLS. Revista Brasileira de Marketing. 13,2 (May, 2014), 56-73. https://doi.org/10.5585/remark.v13i2.2717Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wynne W. Chin. 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling In Modern methods for business research, George A. Marcoulides, Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates. 1998, 295-336Google Scholar
- Claes Fornell, and David F. Larcker. 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. 18,3 (August 1981), 382-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313Google ScholarCross Ref
- Karin Geuijen, Mark Moore, Andrea Cederquist, Rolf Ronning, and Mark van Twist. 2017. Creating public value in global wicked problems. Public Management Review. 19,5 (August 2016) 621-639. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192163Google ScholarCross Ref
- UNPAD. United Nations E-Government Survey 2020, United Nations E-Government Survey. Retrieved Jun 9, 2023 from https://www.un.org/en/desa/2020-united-nations-e-government-surveyGoogle Scholar
- John M. Bryson, Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. 2014. Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review. 74,4 (June 2014). 445-456. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12238Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Alford, Scott Douglas, Karin Geuijen, and Paul't Hart. 2017.Ventures in public value management: Introduction to the symposium. Public Management Review. 19,5 (August 2016), 589-604. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192160Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ines Mergel, Noella Edelmann, and Nathalie Haug. 2019. Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly. 36,4, (October 2019), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jean Hartley, John Alford, Owen Hughes, and Sophie Yates. 2015. Public value and political astuteness in the work of public managers: The art of the possible. Public Administration. 93,1 (September 2014), 195-211. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12125Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark Harrison Moore. 2014. Public value accounting: Establishing the philosophical basis. Public Administration Review. 74,4 (May, 2014), 465-477. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12198Google ScholarCross Ref
Recommendations
Investigating Influencing Factors for Public Service Capacities of Digital Government
ICCSE '21: 5th International Conference on Crowd Science and EngineeringDigital government is a new governance model that emerged in the era of advanced information technology. Digital government has the potential to enhance government capacities. However, it is still unknown to what extent the public service capacities of ...
Public Value Provision: A Design Theory for Public E-services
SRII '12: Proceedings of the 2012 Annual SRII Global ConferenceThis paper addresses the design challenge of providing ICT systems for public e-service provision. Public sector services differ qualitatively from private sector services in that they aim to provide not just value for money but also public value. ...
A Public Value Based Empirical Analysis of E-Government in Sri Lanka
WISM '09: Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Web Information Systems and MiningTremendous investment and significant advances have been made in e-government in Sri Lanka. However, rigorous assessment of the effectiveness of such e-government investment is lacking. This paper presents an empirical study of the public value of e-...
Comments