See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/306361340

Technological change in the public sector: redefining control, power and

authority in traditional bureaucracies

Conference Paper · July 2015

CITATIONS READS

4 3,025

1 author:

Piret Tõnurist
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
42 PUBLICATIONS 572 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

System thinking and systemic innovation by the public sector: from theory to practise View project

Systems approaches for the creation of public value on the city level View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Piret Tõnurist on 22 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Paper for the International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP), Milan, Italy, July 1 – July 4
Panel T17P03 “Public Policy Management and New Technologies”

Technological change in the public sector: redefining control, power and authority in
traditional bureaucracies1
First draft
Piret Tõnurist*
*
Tallinn University of Technology, Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance, Akadeemia street 3,
12618 Tallinn, Estonia. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Tõnurist).

Abstract
Information and communication technology (ICT) has the potential to change public policy
making considerably by creating the possibility to collect and analyse data quickly, make it
available to different stakeholders and also increase citizens’ participation in both co-creating
policies and co-producing services. While mostly in these processes the possibility to evaluate
policy and provide immediate feedback by citizens is emphasized, these changes can also
make citizens more accountable for their decisions. Thus, under the auspices of increasing
democratic participation, bureaucracies implementing new technological solutions can also
become stronger in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and also control over their policy fields.
Thus, control and authority can be important drivers of technological diffusion and innovation
in the public sector even if the technological possibilities are not realised or intended from the
start. These can change dynamically in accordance with the possibilities created by different
technological solutions. In the paper we analyse these dynamics through three in-depth case
studies of ICT developments from the city of Tallinn: the development of the spatial planning
registry, the city’s internal property registry and the operative information database for closing
streets and planning road works. The cases are analysed through a participatory action
research design to identify how and why public sector goals and citizen engagement have
changed throughout the development process and the effect technological functionality has
had on the bureaucracy and the policy field.
Key words: ICT; technological change; public sector; control; power; accountability

1. Introduction
Technology has never been a central topic of discussion in public administration literature
(Pollitt 2010). Yet, technology seems intrinsic to what governments do: from constructing
roads and large-scale infrastructure, regulating waste, safety and health to digital signatures it
is difficult to imagine government acting outside technological advances. It is accordingly
safe to assume to that applying technology within public sector and its activities has to have
some form of impact on the very basic features of publicness: such as power, how it is
generated, maintained and legitimized. In e-government literature, there has been a lot of
emphasis given to empowerment of citizens through ICT. What has come up short so far is
1
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework
Programme (grant No. 320090; LIPSE, http://www.lipse.org), the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research
(grant IUT 19-13); and the Estonian Science Foundation (grants 8418 and 9395).

1
the question how ICT solutions and innovations influence issues of power (such as control,
accountability) between public sector organizations: does applying technology change power
relations within public sector? This is the main question this article attempts to answer.
As is well known by now, quite some voices among digital and e-government researchers
assert that information and communication technology (ICT) has a transformative effect on
public administration. Berry (2007), for one, argues that governments are moving past
incremental chances towards more transformative reform in the process of letting go of the
industrial, mass production era organizational style (typically associated with Taylor 1914 and
Fayol 1916 and sometimes with Max Weber 1915 as well). The industrial era organization
was described by vertical hierarchy with command and control oriented mechanisms
(Halachmi and Greiling 2013). Margetts and Dunleavy (2013) have described the new age of
‘digital-era governance’ which puts ‘human–computer interaction’ at the centre of
government. With the opportunities created by ICT to collect and process information public
administration is changing towards less hierarchical management (ibid.). Northrup and
Thorson (2003, 2) assume that with the decentralization of information networks, it will lead
towards non-hierarchical decentralization of political power and authority as well. These
transformative changes influence business processes, organizational design and modes of
operation both in private and public sectors; thus, these changes will likely challenge also
policy development, governance, process design and the idea of democratic engagement
(Bertot et al. 2010a). Mostly this has been discussed through the lenses of increased
transparency and empowering citizens (e.g. Bonsón et al. 2012; Bertot et al. 2010b; 2012b).
Foremost, ICT seems to enforce transparency as a mechanism to allow citizen participation
(Bertot et al. 2010b; Cerillo-i-Martinez 2012). Consequently, change in the relationship
between citizens and government is often the goal of deploying digital solutions in the public
sector (e.g. Coursey and Norris 2008; Chadwick 2009). Thus, ICT is expected to increase also
government transparency and accountability by allowing citizens better access to public
information (Aikins and Krane 2012, 87). However, deploying ICT solutions is far from
value-free (Bannister and Connolly 2014). In recent literature, there is an overemphasis on the
technical aspects of ICT, while looking at greater responsiveness, transparency, accountability
and effectiveness together of new e-solutions has remained far less explored (see in the case
of Germany Lenk 2012). Furthermore, ICT-enabled innovations seem to have different effects
in specific contexts and policy domains (Misuraca and Viscusi 2015). Thus, using an ICT-
based solution does not a priori mean that citizen participation will increase or that
government will become more responsive. However, e-government and similar literatures
seem to have paid less heed to how ICT solutions influence interactions – power relations,
issues of control, etc. – within public sector. Thus, creating a new way of gathering and
processing data in one agency might enforce another agency not only to adopt its own
technical practices, but also change its organizational and policy practices.
The goal of this article is to, first, discuss what are the expectations and models of application
of ICT-led innovation in public sector and how ICT has in waves (from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0
technologies) influenced power, control and accountability relationships in public
administration; and second, through the participatory research understand how these processes
are actually happening inside the public sector. For the latter, the authors have followed three
in-depth case studies of ICT developments from the city of Tallinn: spatial planning registry,
city’s internal property registry and operative information database for closing streets and
planning road works. The cases are analysed through a participatory action research design to
identify how and why public sector goals and citizen engagement have changed throughout
the development process and the effect technological functionality has had on the bureaucracy
and the policy field. Tallinn, and Estonia in general, can be viewed as one of the globally
2
leading examples of implementing ICT solutions in public sector; accordingly, the cases
studies should be of wider scholarly and practical interests.

2. ICT-led change in the public sector

Governments are searching ways to improve information sharing and interoperability, to cut
bureaucracy and increase operational and financial efficiency (Khayyat 2010; Luna et al.
2013). Technology has been seen as the way to deal with financial constraints and changing
environments (Reddick and Turner 2012; Gil-Garcia et al. 2014). Recent academic debate has
concentrated around concepts of Web 2.0 and government 2.0 (see Criado et al. 2013) and the
last has raised very high expectations connected to its implementation in the public sector.
2.1 Expectations of government 2.0
As a term, Web 2.0 was originally coined by O’Reilly (2005) and it denotes the trend that the
use of information technologies assumes a participation characteristic (Noveck 2009; Nam
2012a; Veljković et al. 2012). New Web 2.0 technologies change how information is publicly
created, increase peer-to-peer or many-to-many interaction and also engender culture of ‘need
to share’ rather than the ‘need to know’ (Mergel et al. 2009; Bertot et al. 2012ab). Web 2.0
applications allow speedy exchange of information, collaboration and joint earning (Bonson
et al. 2012, 123). While there is a tendency to equate Web 2.0 technologies with social media,
it is not entirely correct (Picazo-Vela et al. 2012): the first denotes the technological platform
(e.g. O'Reilly 2007), while the second builds on the former with internet-based applications
that allow for user-generated content (Kaplan and Haenlein 2010, 61). Open data portals,
crowdsourcing and idea ranking tools, blogs and wikis are all examples of relevant Web 2.0
applications that can be used to increase citizen participation (Mossberger et al. 2013). Web
3.0 is the next step with the intelligent web, i.e. semantic web technologies (Hendler 2009).
Web 2.0 applications have also reached the public sector; although, these new e-government
applications are found to be highly citizen-centric and market-driven (Mergel 2013b).
Government 2.0 is believed to be more inclusive, joined-up, transparent and accountable (e.g.
Osimo 2008). There are various expectations to the implementation of Web 2.0 technologies
in the public sector ranging from efficiency and productivity gains (Eggers 2007) to
heightened awareness and increased policy feedback from e-participation processes (DiMaio
2009; Anttiroiko 2010; see also the overview in Nam 2012b). Both the government and the
citizens involved are expected to learn through the process. Citizens partake in the creation of
content usually by first creating a public profile within a defined system and connecting to
others (Mergel and Greeves 2012; Johnson and Sieber 2013). Thus, also the co-production of
services should become more prevalent (Bovaird 2007). With increased user engagement and
collaboration also a boost in public sector innovation is anticipated (Ferro and Molinari 2009;
Hartley et al. 2013). This also means that innovation in the public sector is more linked to
participation, collaboration and transparency (Bertot et al. 2010ab). With new ways to manage
government openness and transparency, governance and government processes are expected
to be transformed (Yong and Koon 2005; Anttiroiko 2010; Meijer et al. 2011). As such, the
belief is that Web 2.0 technologies will lead to a more open and user-driven governance in the
public sector with more open engagement with a variety of stakeholders, intermediaries and
channels, while also calling for change in public sector operations and back-offices (Millard
2009). Consequently, applying new technologies to administrative processes can possibly
have a considerable impact (Jin and Lee 2013).

3
Having a user-driven focus, Web 2.0 technologies could be used to deliver value to citizens
(Ferro and Molinari 2009) not only in terms of co-production, but also equity, ethos, trust,
legitimacy and accountability (see Misuraca and Viscusi 2015). Some researchers even claim
that the spread of Web 2.0 solutions in government has an overall democratizing effect
(Gladwell and Shirky 2011; Ahn and Bretschneider 2011).2 On the whole, the expectation is
that the adoption and implementation of these technologies will lead to a more resilient and
smarter government (Gil-Garcia 2014). However, there is a gap between the broad vision of
how these technologies could be used in the public sector and how they are actually used
(Meijer and Thaens 2010). For instance, recent studies have shown that the positive effects of
transparency on trust in government are more limited than expected (Tolbert and Mossberger
2006; De Fine Licht 2011; Grimmelikhuijsen 2013; see also arguments in Grimmelikhuijse et
al. 2013).

2.2. Models of ICT application

It is clear that through ICT – and the bi- and multi-directional connections it introduces –
citizen-government relationship is changing to at least some degree (Nam 2012b); we can
assume that same applies for intra-organizational (public servants vs office), inter-
organizational (ministerial departments, agencies, etc.) and inter-sectoral (NGOs and
government, etc.) levels. But the question is how and to what degree. There are various
models of how afore-described technologies are applied in the public sector, which also
influence how transformative the effects in a broader democratic system will be.
First of all, most broadly, government websites or other ICT applications can be both
internally or externally oriented and further, they can concentrate on specialist or non-
specialist (‘average’ user) target audiences (Mussari and Steccolini 2006). This initial level
can be seen as the basics for ICT application models in the public sector, as depicted on
Figure 1 below. Looking at stakeholders in e-government uniformly as agency-citizens is not
justified as many different stakeholders are involved in these initiatives (Axelsson et al.
2013). In specialist areas usually the interested parties are selected out and much more active
recruitment and more information/education may be needed for engagement. This in case of
new application may be true for also non-specialist applications (see e.g. Bryer and Zavattaro
2011; Leighninger 2012).

2
In contrast, e-Government initiatives are also been associated with running the public sector as a private
business and equating citizens with ‘customers’ (Heeks 2005; see also Chan and Pan 2008).

4
 Figure 1. Models of ICT application in the public sector based on boundaries and
communication flows

Communication
One-way Reciprocal
Administrative, control based Specialist system
Internal
function (G) (G2G)
Boarders

Onestop shopping, self-service E-participation

External

– managerial system (C2G2C)

Consultation – passive citizen
sourcing
(C2G; G2C)

Source: Author.

Secondly, from the perspective of communication flows between citizens and government
Reddick (2011) differentiates between managerial, consultation and e-participation models of
e-government. The first being the most passive and the last being the most active in terms of
citizen interaction and participation. Consequently, online self-service points – e.g. e-tax
forms, licences, service billing and filing for fees – would be the examples of the basic
managerial model (Norris and Moon 2005). In this entrepreneurial, customer-oriented
approach citizens can use ‘onestop shopping’ for information and services (Tolbert and
Mossberger 2006, 357), but these are usually one-way information channels (Tapscott et al.
2008), built on the concept of ‘self-service’ (Eriksson and Vogt 2012, 7). Usually the fre-
quency of use is the only feedback the government gets from citizens in the latter model.
Consultation model is usually used through social media (Facebook, Twitter etc.) and the web
to get input for improving service quality (e.g. sentiment analysis of comments etc. (e.g.
Hicks 2010)) creating the possibility for more citizen interaction, although, still no two-way
communication with the government. In the last model – e-participation – citizen interaction
becomes critical to policy improvement with a more complex flow of information between the
citizen and the government. Technological solutions create the potential for real time dialogue
(Bertot et al. 2012a). A form of the former could be two-way interaction through online
comments, live chats and message dreads between government and citizens (Nam 2012ab).
Lastly, Mergel (2013a) looks at public sector Web 2.0 strategies – especially in the context of
social media – from the government’s perspective and divides the former into three
approaches: representation, engagement and networking. The first denotes a social media
presence with a centralized agency mission – a ‘push’ strategy. The second, engagement
model, describes a ‘pull’ or ‘push and listen’ strategy meaning that the government actually
invites and uses feedback from citizens. The networking strategy is described more in line
with the e-participation model with open dialogue with some possible ground rules or topics
for discussion set the government. While the general assumption in the latter approach is that
the government should not be responsible for the resulting citizen-based activity (Linders
2012), it does put the pressure on the government to increase public value based on the
dialogue.
Put in another way, Web 2.0 technologies from the perspective of citizen co-production
initiatives can be divided into citizen sourcing (citizen to government – C2G), government as

5
platform (government to citizen – G2C; also government to firms – G2F) and do-it-yourself
government (citizen to citizen – C2C) approaches (see overview in Linders 2012, 449). As an
additional form Cavallo et al. (2014) introduce the citizen-to-government-to-citizen (C2G2C)
communication. The first falls under the consultation label (citizens report to government),
the second can been seen as a form of informing and nudging (open book government) and
the last where we can talk already about self-organisation (self-monitoring) (ibid.) which is
outside of the matrix presented in Figure 1.

2.3. ICT adoption and its boundaries

As the models of technology use are different, ICT-enabled innovations can change
governance processes in a variety of ways. While governments were usually the first adopters
of IT solutions in the 1990s, they engaged with digitalisation back-end operations (Grönlund
and Horan 2005). Thus, in most cases new emerging technologies are adopted in a traditional
government environment. In effect, traditional hierarchies and also the ‘government 1.0’
context interferes with the next generation solutions. Therefore, not all IT systems are
integrated and information cannot be actively shared in an efficient way (Brewin 2008).
Adding components of Web 2.0 technologies into the mix may, thus, overwhelm public
organisations (Mergel et al. 2009; Mergel 2013a).
Usually, ICT applications have been focussed on service or program delivery (Lindgren and
Jansson 2013). Thus, ICT developments so far in the public sector have been highly supply
oriented and usually the service supply ‘maturity’ is evaluated rather than the demand side
effects. Consequently, technological issues and quick adoption can override concerns over
function or need (Bertot et al. 2012ab). As such, Gil-Garcia and Martinez-Moyano (2007)
have previously found that public employees tend to succumb to solutionism when designing
technological platforms, while citizens themselves may want more sophistication and
interactive service models. Consequently, using Web 2.0 technologies in government may be
an uphill battle as Web 2.0 applications do not concentrate enough on the managerial function
or efficiency of government – the main focus of the prior wave of ICT applications in
government (Criado et al. 2013). Consequently, in many cases technological solutions may
succeed technologically, but fail in terms of implementation can also lead to sub-optimal
service delivery, increased control and low flexibility (Aagesen and Krogstie 2011).
Furthermore, there is also little evidence that these promised productivity gains have been
achieved (Misuraca et al. 2013; Savoldelli et al. 2014). Nevertheless, while IT investment
alone may not improve efficiency measures, complementary organizational measures may
increase productivity of government (Garicano and Heaton 2010), creating value to the
organizations or the end-users themselves (e.g. Lenk 2012).
The question is if these technologies are ‘transformative’ from both an organizational and
institutional perspective and do they affect public concerns connected to communication,
transparency, accountability and collaboration (Mergel et al. 2009). There is little consensus
in what actually ‘transformation’ in government means (Bannister and Connolly 2011, 138).
Thus, in many cases the adoption of ICT in the public sector has been led under the auspices
of productivity rather than making the governments adaptive to the information society or
changing consciously citizens’ behaviour (Northrup and Thorson 2003; Bannister and
Connolly 2014). Thus, often ‘transformative’ changes through technology adoption in
government turn out to be incremental (Bannister and Connolly 2011; 2014). Misuraca and
Viscusi (2015) provide a spectrum of various ways ICT can influence governments by
introducing:

6
  technical, incremental change through the automation of administrative routines;
 organizational change through the improvement of governance mechanism (e.g. using
social computing to directly connect citizens to decision makers);
 transformative/disruptive change by using technology to create new policy making or
service delivery mechanisms (e.g. providing direct access to all information to all
individuals);
 radical change by which the recognised institutional setting or policy making
mechanisations will be radically altered.
As outlined above, the first two types – changes in internal governance processes – are still
more prevalent in the public sector, although, social computing and uses of mobile ICTs are
slowly introducing some disruptive changes (e.g. in mobilizing protest) into the policy
making context (Misuraca and Viscusi 2015). Thus, online platforms facilitating dialogue or
discussion are not that frequently used in government websites (see overview of relevant
literature in Mossberger et al. 2013). Thus, there is little concrete evidence that government
2.0 has changed government radically (Dixon 2010, 444). For some, ICT and Web 2.0
applications are just a means to an end and no significant changes will be made in government
itself (DiMaio 2009). As outlined by the expectations in section 2.1., this is clearly not a
shared belief by all e-government and digital government writers. Whatever the case, ICT
creates the opportunity for the government to disseminate information effectively (as been
shown in the case in political campaigns and addressing constituents and advocacy groups
(Dixon 2010, 434)), co-produce and collaborate with citizens on a larger scale sourcing for
innovative solutions (Johnston and Hansen 2011; Bertot et al. 2012ab). Different question is if
it is actually been used in this regard to the fullest by the public sector.
Nevertheless, we should stress that public sector organizations, who have moved ahead with
e-government solutions are those who are first adopters, who in general seem to have more
resources and institutional capacity for IT (in the context of states in the US see Tolbert et al.
2008). Furthermore, the bureaucratic context is found to be a significant factor in adoption of
technology (Wong and Welch 2004). Wong and Welch (2004, 289) argue that e-government
solution “often only exacerbates the existing nature and attributes of public bureaucracies,”
thus bureaucrats have a tendency to control information to consolidate power. One can argue
that acceptance of transparency by government bureaucracy needs to undergo a larger cultural
change (e.g. Jaeger and Matteson 2009). Essentially public administrations in Europe and
elsewhere are at their core still operating under the 19th Century model of Weberian
bureaucracy, because this allows to fulfil the high demands of assigning responsibility and
accountability that is associated with the public sector (Misuraca and Viscusi 2015). Indeed,
this is what we can call transparency in a Weberian system: predictability. Consequently,
adoption and implementation of ICT solutions can depend on the prior institutional structure
that will also influence substantive governance issues such as transparency, accountability etc.
(e.g. La Porte et al. 2002). Hence, both the governance system, administrative culture and the
level of existing technological capabilities are important factors in creating a more open
government (Bertot et al. 2010a; Bonsón et al. 2012).

2.4. Transformation in power, control and accountability

Starting from the concept of ‘open book government’ (Dunleavy and Margetts 2010), e-
government increases the scrutiny of different agents within a polity (Tolbert and Mossberger
2006). Through technology it has become a less expensive and practical possibility to access
and disseminate data. With the additional Web 2.0 applications the roles of citizens (and in

7
some cases also the government) are blurred: they both provide and consume information. In
any case, the impact of ICT in regards to transparency and citizens’ trust in government is
widely discussed (West 2004; Wong and Welch 2004; Tolbert and Mossberger 2006;
Halachmi and Holzer 2010; Lathrop and Ruma 2010; Bertot et al. 2010a; Bannister and
Connolly 2011; 2014; Reddick 2011; Garcia-Murillo 2013). For many e-government authors
this also affects government accountability (Ala-Mutka et al. 2009; Huijboom et al. 2009) – a
key concept of democracy (Bovens 2005, 182).
Accountability relies on the power relationship between the party that asks for proof of
conduct (accounting) and the one that needs to provide it (Halachmi 2011). In a networked,
multi-actor setting it is important to look at how government creates space for discretion of
other actors while evoking joint responsibility (Hill and Hupe 2014). As hinted above, ICT-
based applications through Government 1.0 and 2.0 can both enforce individual or collective
power. Individualizing interactions with government through Web 1.0 technologies put the
focus on individual subjectivity which also created the need for more personalized services
(Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2002). Different technological solutions support individualized
access to government (citizen-government link) or wider, group based feedback to
government. These approaches produce different outcomes and problems in terms of power,
accountability and control. Nevertheless, as described in the previous section, the most
dominant model of citizen participation is through the managerial or a one-way representation
model meaning that government web-sites are mostly used for informational purposes and
much less for two-way interaction (see Norris 2007; Reddick 2011; Mergel 2013b). Prior
research has shown that municipalities tend to record civic information or feedback (rather
than information on participation) as usually citizens’ input is a one-way affair (Welch,
Hinnant and Moon 2005; Norris and Moon 2005; Andersen et al. 2010; Brainard and Derrick-
Mills 2011; Hand and Ching 2011). In this setting, one can see the ‘responsibilization’ of
citizens and the creation of a self-service democracy (Eriksson 2012; Eriksson and Vogt
2012) as citizens themselves are responsible for the information they give to the government,
they need to self-asses their needs and ultimately they become responsible for the outcomes
(for the case of taxes see Henman 2010, 77-79). These kinds of developments are far from
what we imagine from participatory democracy; they put less strain on the administrative
bureaucracy and in effect entice less change in the functioning of government.
At the same time, the spread of ICT in the public sector is also associated with the creation of
(digital) civic identity of citizens. With empowerment of citizens greater trust is placed with
the former to be more actively involved with the functioning of government (Linders 2012).
Access to information broadens steps citizens can take against corruption (DiRienzo et al.
2007; Bertot et al. 2010b; Garcia-Murillo 2010; Elbahnasawy 2014).3 It is furthermore
possible to use data mining or follow the digital audit trail to detect fraud more efficiently
(e.g. Cleary 2011). The main component of the former is the real-time processing of
information that helps to change citizens from passive observers to real-time monitors of
processes – this also means that ‘time’ itself may become a critical resource for governments
(Halachmi and Greiling 2013). One of the factors influencing the substantive effects of ICT in
the public sector, is citizens’ demand for these solutions. However, there is very little research
regarding this (Thomas and Streib 2005). Usually those with more successful experience and
demand for e-government – believing that government is more open and accessible and
perceive value in e-government – , are more willing to also participate in policy making (e.g.
Dimitrova and Chen 2006) and continue doing so (Carter and Belange 2005; Wangpipatwong
3
While the transparency debate has been a global discussion point, anti-corruption research has been especially
prevalent in third world countries (Selke et al. 2008; Hanna 2010; Quah 2011). However, evidence of the direct
link between e-government and corruption is still missing (Abu-Shanab 2013).

8
et al. 2008). Thus, citizens continued use of e-government websites are closely connected to
perceived usefulness and ease of use (Wangpipatwong et al. 2008). For users government
responsiveness as well as regular use and updates by officials becomes an important issue for
citizens (Fink 2010), which also requires constant engagement and input from the
government. As such, the information quality of importance for user satisfaction in e-
government initiatives (Wang and Liao 2008). As such, some authors find that e-participation
can improve (process based) trust in government (Cho and Choi 2004; Shim and Eom 2009),
seeing it as more responsive to citizens’ needs (Welch, Hinnant, and Moon 2005; Tolbert and
Mossberger 2006; Kolsaker and Lee-Kelley 2008).4
On a more critical note, more citizen engagement and transparency may help mission oriented
public agencies ‘socialize’ the public (Wong and Welch 2004). Consequently, implementing
these new ICT-based solutions may also be a case of marketing strategy of governments to
increase legitimacy with the pretext of transparency (Johnson and Sieber 2012; Elbahnasawy
2014). The government may just not be seen as a distant adversary (Nam 2012a) and through
participation legitimacy and political support for novel solutions and objectives can be gained
(Shkabatur 2011, 11). However, it does not mean that legitimacy, relevancy and meritocracy
of different ICT developments will be explicitly discussed (ibid.). In conditions of perceived
‘total’ openness and access issues can be come depoliticized through ‘technologizing’ which
silences questions of power, exclusion and inequality (Mackenzie 2010, 183). On the one
side, increased transparency should help to strengthen citizens’ trust in government (Hood
2006, 217), but on the other side, too much information and details (also in the number of
performance indicators) can curtail public interest by increasing artificially the pretence of
complexity – it can become difficult to see the trees behind the forest (Halachmi and Greiling
2013). With personalized access points – having access and control over personal information
about the data government hold – it becomes more difficult to detect structural problems that
the system itself might be causing (Eriksson and Vogt 2012). Thus, result- or outcome-
oriented debates – as long as they are not to do with person-specific effects – can become very
difficult. At least for now the use of ICT and interpreting open data is always subject to the
human element and ‘information overload’ (Eppler and Mengis 2004, 326). This is dependent
on both how ICT is used (e.g. additional or substitutive source) and the competences of the
information provider and recipient (Halachmi and Greiling 2013). Thus, appearances of
openness and transparency may come to dominate over the value of these technological
solutions.
On another note, organizational transparency might in reality enforce bureaucratic behaviour
as agencies become more concentrated on rules rather than efficiency and public sector values
and allow for political gaming (Bovens 2005; Lin et al. 2011).5 In the end government
controls what is put online, thus, controlling the one-way interaction with citizens (Pina et al.
2010). The main things to be aware of here are connected to control over agenda setting and
prioritizing problems (Lukensmeyer and Torres 2008, 228). Thus, under high political
preference for confidentiality and seclusion collaborative networks for innovation do not work
(Torfing et al. 2012). Consequently, e-participation can be also subject to political will and

4
At the same time, citizens’ perceptions are closely tied to their attitudes towards what good governance
traditionally for them means (see e.g. Waheduzzaman 2010 in the developing context). Thus, some have found
that only operations based improvements do not elicit greater trust in government (e.g. Morgeson et al. 2010).
55
Electronic communication can even slow down response-times as compared to face-to-face interaction for
example just calling a civil servant (Jaeger and Thompson 2003; see also Rose and Grant 2010). This makes also
traditional citizen participation modes very important (Furlong and Kerwin 2005).

9
risk (e.g. Scott 2006).6 As stakeholders can be interlinked, it also means that organisations
need to react and respond to multiple interlinked stakeholders (Chan and Pan 2008). Thus,
governments need to mitigate unforeseen use patterns and risks associated with implementing
Web 2.0 technologies (Picazo-Vela et al. 2012; Mergel 2013ab). This implies that there are
information coordinating, managing and controlling costs to the government.
Greater government accountability is dependent on also factors outside of the adoption of ICT
including the growth or decline of the more educated and vocal middle class, but also the
retrenchment of the welfare state, i.e. governments’ ability to be more responsive to public
needs (Halachmi 2002). The primary use of ICT due to economy or instrumental rationality
can lead to e-exclusion (or e-inclusion) (Ebbers et al. 2009; Millard 2006) and thus, be the
subject of the digital divide (van Dijk 2005).7 This can also lead to a ‘democratic’ divide as
there may be people who choose not to use digital channels to engage in public life (Norris
2001, 4). Consequently, the impact of e-government solutions vary across socio-demographic
sections of society (Niehaves and Becker 2008). Furthermore, as there are costs to the use of
citizen’s time and limits to the extent to which a largely untrained, often voluntary group of
actors can replace professional experts and administrators, there are also limits to their actions
(Pestoff et al. 2012).
To sum up the previous discussion the following can be noted:
 Applications of ICT in the public sector allow for variety of models of internal-
external orientation and communication with stakeholders. However, we cannot a
priori assume that this communication is two- or multi-way between citizens and
government.
 While Web 2.0 technologies and increased openness of governments seem to
empower citizens, their ability to use this power, control the government and make it
accountable is dependent on the interests and capacity of citizens, but also the quality
of information that is made available to them.
 What is, however, under-researched is how introduction of ICT solutions influences
power and control issues within the public sector.
 The ‘responsibilization’ through ICT is not only one way – government becoming
more responsive to citizens – but it can go both ways: through personalized service
accounts and self-service mentality (also in terms of providing accurate data) citizens
are becoming also more accountable for the information they provide and actions they
take towards the government. Thus, can enforce both individual and collective power
among citizens.
 The implementation of new technological solutions is context specific meaning that
the changes in power, control and accountability are subject to the specific public
administration culture and structure. Thus, in different settings public administration
systems may be more or less open to taking risks associated with more e-participation.
Internal efficiency goals may be preferred, when the issues are more politically

6
Political representation can be in danger through these processes. The danger lies in the fact that the ease of use
of informal horizontal and vertical information sharing might stimulate grassroots mobilizations – self-regulation
and self-organisation – outside the direct control of the government (Mergel et al. 2009; Noveck 2009).
7
The digital divide – both in terms of internet access and access to particularly online government information
and services – has been thoroughly discussed before (Belanger and Carter 2009; Reddick 2011), but in essence
the former describes the privilege technological solutions create for those already technologically savvy (e.g.
Belanger and Carter, 2009; Mackenzie 2010). Preference for non-digital forms of interaction with the
government has been shown in prior research, although this effect diminishes with education (Streib and Navarro
2006; Ebbers et al. 2009). With time, presumably, this is diminishing.

10
 sensitive and enforcing traditional control and accountability relations may make the
use of new web-based applications more subject of bureaucratic.

In the following case studies we will analyse the prior points from public sector perspective:
how has the city government of Tallinn intended to change power, control and accountability
relations in three recent e-government initiatives.

3. Methodology
To analyse the processes connected to processes to ICT-based development inside the public
sector we will look at the dynamics of in-depth case studies of ICT developments from the
city of Tallinn. Doing so, the goal of this study is to analyse the motivation of government
behind different e-government developments, and interactions engendering from such
developments but not specifically effects. The municipal level for the analysis was chosen due
to the citizen-centric focus of recent web 2.0 technologies and the fact that prior research has
indicated that governments are more responsive to citizens’ needs on the local level (see
argumentation in Gil-Garcia and Martinez-Moyano 2007). The cases were selected to include
both real-time developments (spatial planning registry, property registry) and retrospective
analysis of implemented changes (operative info) with different level of engagement with
citizens and private bodies (high: spatial planning registry, operative info; and low, with a
control function only: property registry). The cases are analysed through a participatory action
research design to identify how and why public sector goals and citizen engagement have
changed throughout the development process and the effect technological functionality has
had on the bureaucracy and the policy field. Consequently, as part of the research (in addition
to document analysis and over 25 interviews with stakeholders), we have followed the
activities of the city of Tallinn between December 2013 and June 2015: participated in their
development meetings (among them the e-service working group) and followed the
management meetings of the aforementioned and ongoing ICT developments. Most of the
interviews were recorded depending on the preference of interviewee; for the internal
meetings the author relies on written notes.

4. The case of the city of Tallinn

The city of Tallinn is at the forefront of implementing electronic services in Estonia. In the
recent 5-7 years, the city has taken a service-specific focus in developing its ICT capabilities.
The city has by now categorized 581 different services in 20 different policy fields. Close to
200 of the former exist electronically only in the form of description (1st level e-services)
while 21 are semi-automated and 58 are fully automated e-services. For the other electronic
forms can be downloaded or the request for a service. Mostly the success of various services
is measured by the number of visitors on their websites. Tallinn has also creates a self-service
portal for an onestop access point to the offered e-services. As a rule, the city of Tallinn
procures software developments and tries to licence the former and not buy it for themselves
to insure that the IT developer has the interest to continue developing the former. The
developments we look more specifically below – the spatial planning registry, the city’s
internal property registry and the operative information database for closing streets and
planning road works – were the city’s biggest development projects of 2014. All of the above
have also a geographic component to them and be described as geospatial web – GeoWeb –
solutions (Cinnamon and Schuurman 2012). The document trail showed that all of the
developments can be traced back to the recommendations of internal audits to increase

11
transparency, user-friendliness and accountability in the specific fields they were initiated in.
The initiatives are briefly described below.
Spatial planning registry
The new spatial planning registry is by far the biggest development of the three cases. It is
built on the pre-existing electronic system for planning, building projects and architectural
conditions created in 2005. The prior registry allowed for a semi-automated planning process,
alphanumeric and spatial data was not integrated and it was not easy to change or configure to
match internal processes nor to use the map interface. However, the civil servants were used
to working with the system. It was also very well-known that the system was not user-friendly
and very confusing for the average user, nevertheless, as frequent external users of the system
– architects, developers etc. – had learnt to use the system, no concrete plans to change the
registry were planned. In 2011 the internal audit reviewed the system and severely critiqued
the lack of speed, control and transparency of special planning processes in the city and
recommended that the process should be fully automated and a new registry for it developed.
In effect this gave the Urban Planning Department (UPD) the justification to ask for
additional funding to start planning the development. Thus, following the audit the city
changed its building decree in November 2012 and started the procurement process for 4-step
development process of the new registry which included the analysis of the process, legal
framework, composition of the initial assignment and the software development process.
Compared to the other two cases the role of the central IT department of the city was more
consultative and the development process was led by the Urban Planning Department. The
registry was supposed to be ready on April 30, 2014, but the delivery of the registry was
postponed for more than a year to March 2015. The goal of the development was to make the
planning process fully electronic and shorten the time processing spatial plans – both detailed
and general plans – and make the information and access to the process more simple and
intuitive by also increasing the user-friendliness of the new interface.

Property registry
The development of the property registry started already in 2009 and as of yet it has not been
finished. Following audit procedures, the central City Property Department was created
created in 2009 which created a need to centralize city property information of the city. Data
on Tallinn city property has been stored in various datasets in city departments and district
offices and the city owns more than 17 thousands different objects. The latter did not follow a
uniform structure (the most common form was to collect the data in excel worksheets) nor
was it possible to link the data to other registries. The system was, thus, not very transparent.
The property registry was meant to increase internal efficiency and create an overview of the
land, real-estate and other city property management (incl. care, renting and other business
processes etc. connected to said property). One can link this to a need to increase internal
control as the registry creates a possibility for statistical analysis of the data and a digital audit
trail for all the changes connected to city property management. The possibility to interface
the registry with other data systems will decrease mistakes via centralization of all data. On
the whole, this is an internal tool for control and management of city property centrally. It is
also important to note that such digital central control and management system should,
ideally, diminish opportunities for corruption and nepotism as well. As this development
touched most of the city’s organizational units there was a lot of internal uncertainty and
resistance to the creation of the program. The initial assignment for the procurement process
was set only at the end of 2012 and the development process started in 2013. Finally, at the

12
end of 2014 the pilot testing program started which discovered a multitude of mistakes in the
functioning of the software. Currently the development is in its finalization phase.
Operative information database
There were three main city departments that were involved with the development: Municipal
Engineering Department, Transport Department and the Urban Planning Department. The
operative information database for closing down streets, excavation permits and operative
information was finishes at the end of 2013 and it’s a fully automated e-service. This has been
described by the city government as one of the fastest ICT development projects in the local
municipality’s history. The evaluation of the previous semi-automated system was held in
mid-2012, when the prior contract with the software provider was finishing. Beginning of
2013 additional sources outside the city government was found and project funding was
applied for. The initial assignment was compiled in January 2013, the work started in May
and by December the database was ready to be tested. The goal was to cut down the time it
took to process applications for permits and make the overall process more transparent,
simple and accessible to involved stakeholders. This also meant that the information of
closing down streets and municipal works was to become available online to all citizens with
also the possibility for citizens to follow the processes online on the map-interface in real
time. The new database was functional since the beginning of 2014 and it considerably cut
down the time to apply for permits in the connected policy area from two weeks to two days.
As it is mostly used by field specialists and usually different water, electricity works
companies, the database was quickly adopted by its users.
Changes in power, control and accountability
All three developments are at their core managerial in nature and mostly meant for specialist
use, although, the operational information database and the spatial planning registry also
introduce functionalities to the general public (e.g. the possibility to follow in real time road-
blockages, road maintenance etc. work in the city and be warned of the latter beforehand; or
in the case of the urban planning registry follow planning procedures in your neighbourhood
or the city at large and also give online feedback to the former). The latter two are both
working tools, information channels and archives of processes, and both are important
channels for government-private sector interactions. The property registry is the most
administrative and internal control oriented in nature. The core task of the new registry is to
provide a transparent overview of management of municipality’s real-estate to the central city
office. As mentioned above, the ability to evaluate renting, sale contracts and other property
oriented information uniformly is also a deterrent for corruption. As different city departments
and district offices have been historically rather independent of the central city government, it
is not surprising that the development has been difficult and different offices have tried to
postpone the system. The control function of the database is clear and the new system does
not offer a lot of value added to specific city departments. Even though the system is meant
for internal use there are almost no feedback functions built into the system. One of the IT
personnel of the city described it as a “more elaborate excel table”. Because the development
has taken a lot of time, it is partially also the case that the functionalities of technologies have
grown beyond the initial assessment and need, while it is very difficult to change the official
procurement process after it had already started. Thus, also the GeoWeb solutions of the
development were not interfaced with the official interactive city maps that the Urban
Planning Department uses. Consequently, with this development mainly the power of the
central city office has increased with making the property management more transparent.
Although it would have been possible to make most of the registry information also accessible

13
to the general public, the city government and the City Property Department see it as an
internal tool meant for increasing administrative efficiency and accountability.
The operative information database and the spatial planning registry introduce more complex
patterns of relationships. It is important to note here that compared to the spatial planning
registry, operative information database is of much more smaller scale and the processes in
general much simpler than processing detailed or general urban plans. However, in both cases
the idea was to control work-flow electronically and make it possible for different city
departments to approve permits or plans parallel to each other. With these kind of case-
management software solutions the capacity to delay processes by government decreases as
citizens are able to follow government decision making and ask for justification for delays
(Garcia-Murillo 2013). This makes both areas more transparent and up for public scrutiny,
which has also been the case for implemented operative information system as timelines of
roadworks has become much easier to follow to the GeoWeb application for the general
public and the media. Also the time saved on evaluating permit applications in the case of the
operative information system was rather drastic. It is also important that with the new solution
responsibilities of various city offices and private companies applying for permits became
clearer and thus also easier to control.
In the case of the spatial planning registry it is difficult to know how the processes will work.
In the new system it is possible for also citizens to follow the processes online and see which
city department is holding up the process. As debates and review of general urban plans can
stretch to years, in the initial assessment phase of the registry development the specialists
involved advised for a radical solution: if city departments are unable to approve urban plans
in the set timeframe, they will be automatically approved. This did not reach the final phases
of the development. As the development started with the analysis of the process itself, there
was also possibility to redesign the urban planning process more thoroughly. While changes
were in the end made (e.g. initial planning procedures were simplified for the users) the civil
servants in the city opposed more drastic changes in the process itself. There is still a high
level of uncertainty connected to the new registry inside the city as various city departments
have to use it during the planning process. Thus, as the spatial planning registry is by its
nature much more complex system than operative info system, here we can see how
administrative power issues intertwined strongly with technological developments.
During the process of development, public servants in different city departments were well
aware of the control function these new web-based solutions created and those involved with
the development process tried to minimize the pressure landing on specific public officials.
For example, in the more complex urban planning registry specific information of who
specifically is looking over spatial plans from a specific department is not given in the public
view. This information is of course available in the system itself for administrative personnel
as tasks are assigned and completed within the registry itself. Consequently, the statistical
information that is given to the general user is less specific than is available for the municipal
government itself.
The most significant change we found in the externally oriented operative information
database and the urban planning registry was connected to the ‘responsibilization’ of citizens
that was enacted through the development process of these new web-systems. First and
foremost in both cases the external users become explicitly responsible for the spatial
information they add to the database and the registry. Thus, the mistakes made in the entry are
the faults of users alone. This is a powerful shift in responsibility and, accordingly, in
accountability; we can argue that this represents a case of contracting out accountability via
technological solutions (if files, data, etc., does not fit, applicant cannot move on to the next

14
phase). In the case of the operative information database the exactness of data entry (for
example drawing on the map the extent of the road blockage needed for specific works) will
also determine the fees that imposed for the service. Thus, the service becomes to a degree
dependent on also the skill level of the user. This also applies for the urban planning registry
where personalized accounts and digital signatures are imposed to increase personal
responsibility. Thus, each user gets a digital work table in the registry and depending on the
role (UPD’s worker, City Office specialist, external stakeholder and the general user), also
access to various information and tasks. Furthermore, in the more complex urban planning
registry the goal of the Urban Planning Department with the digitalization process was also to
make the developers more responsible for getting agreements from different city departments
and also citizens from the specific neighbourhoods prior to different steps in the registry work
flow. The registry also gives the opportunity to give direct tasks to developers especially
connected to mistakes made in incorrect data import.
Here also a case for the digital/democratic divide can be made. In the operative information
database the move to the electronic service was very smooth and the big companies were able
to almost instantaneously start applying for permits online and use the GeoWeb interface to
map out the works. While the main users of both the operative information database and the
urban planning registry are specialists in nature, the urban planning process is much more
conflictual and also political in nature, thus, public interest of these processes is much higher.
However, urban planning process is considered complicated and overly technical already by
average users and also neighbourhood associations who were interviewed as part of the study.
In the new registry the process is online and while there are public debates held in case of
specific urban plans, the opinions and specific data is only accessible online. In the urban
planning registry case it is also clear that the local government prefers to primarily use
electronic channels for the process. With some notification tasks compulsory by law in the
urban planning process, the municipality has built an interface with the official state
government e-service portal (eesti.ee) that gives maintains official e-mail addresses for
citizens. If this cannot be used, then the paper-based notifications are seen as the last resort.
While in none of the case we can see a high level of two way interactions, the urban planning
registry creates opportunity for identified citizens to give opinions and express views on
different detailed and urban plans. The city municipality can also answer through the system.
As the new system has not been in use for a long time, it is difficult to foresee how much
these channels are actually going to be used and if this will speed up communication between
government and citizens.

5. Discussion and conclusions

In this article we have we have outlined the expectations ICT and especially web-based
technologies have created for public sector reform. However, the effects of these
technological solutions cannot be analysed uniformly as is the case with many previous
studies. Applications differ in terms of the outlook – internal/external – and also the
participatory level and by doing so they give power to different parties both the general
public, but also the government by making outside stakeholders more responsible for their
input. Most of the developments in the public sector are more managerial in nature and as was
also shown in the presented cases from the city of Tallinn, more intensive citizen engagement
is also viewed as a source of risk in the public sector. We cannot say that the three examined
biggest and the most recent electronic solutions in the city of Tallinn were transformative in
terms of the core processes, but they did create some additional efficiency gains and made

15
some control functions much more easier for the central municipal government. Nevertheless,
the possibility for more detailed outside scrutiny was enabled in the case of two developments
which for the main users also came at the price of higher ‘responsibilization’ in the process.
Thus, in conclusion the effects of ICT also in terms of control, power and accountability in
the public sector are not unidirectional. With the increased use of Web 2.0 technology
applications (also social media) by the government, evaluation of these relationships between
the central concepts in democracy may become even more important – especially as the
public sector tries to decrease risk and uncertainty connected to these applications influencing
their use and deployment. Additionally, what was interesting in the afore-described cases was
the fact that the developments themselves were spurred on by control and accountability
procedures inside the government. Consequently, the analysis of technology adoption inside
government should also analyse more specifically intra-government push factors which may
be influenced by the general level of expectations for government in the society at large.

References
Aagesen, G., and Krogstie, J. (2011). Service delivery in transformational government: model and
scenarios. Electronic Government, an International Journal, 8(2-3), 242-258.
Abu-Shanab, E. A.; Y. A. Harb, and S. Y. Al-Zoubi, /2013) Egovernment as an anti-corruption tool:
citizens perceptions,” Int. J. Electron. Gov., 6, 3, 232–248.
Ahn, M. J., & Bretschneider, S. (2011). Politics of E‐Government: E‐Government and the Political
Control of Bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 414-424.
Aikins, S.K., and Krane, D. (2012) Are public officials obstacles to citizen-centered egovernment? An
examination of municipal administrators’ motivations and actions. State and Local
Government Review, 42(2), 87–103.
Ala-Mutka, K., Broster, D., Cachia, R., Centeno, C., Feijóo, C., Haché, A., et al. (2009). The impact of
social computing on the EU information society and economy. In: Y. W. Lusoli Punie, C.
Centeno, G. Misuraca, & D. Broste (Eds.), JRC scientific and technical reports.
Andersen, K. N., Henriksen, H. Z., Medaglia, R., Danziger, J. N., Sannarnes, M. K., & Enemærke, M.
(2010). Fads and facts of e-government: A review of impacts of e-government (2003–
2009). International Journal of Public Administration, 33(11), 564-579.
Anttiroiko, A. V. (2010). Innovation in Democratic E-Governance: Benefitting from Web 2.0. Citizens
and E-Government: Evaluating Policy and Management: Evaluating Policy and Management,
110.
Axelsson, K., Melin, U., & Lindgren, I. (2013). Public e-services for agency efficiency and citizen
benefit—Findings from a stakeholder centered analysis. Government Information
Quarterly, 30(1), 10-22.
Bannister, F., and Connolly, R. (2011). Trust and transformational government: A proposed
framework for research. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 137-147.
Bannister, F., and Connolly, R. (2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A
framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 119-128.
Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized Individualization and its
Social and Political Consequences.
Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2009). The impact of the digital divide on e-government
use. Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 132-135.
Berry, F. S. (2007, May). Government Reform, Public Service Values and the Roles of Public Sector
Leadership in Serving Society. Available at:
http://www.ipa.udel.edu/3tad/papers/workshop5/berry.pdf
Bertot, C.; J., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2012b). Promoting transparency and accountability
through ICTs, social media, and collaborative e-government. Transforming Government:
People, Process and Policy, 6(1), 78-91.

16
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., and Grimes, J. M. (2010a). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency:
E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for
societies. Government information quarterly, 27(3), 264-271.
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., and Hansen, D. (2012a). The impact of polices on government social media
usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1),
30-40.
Bertot, J. C.; P. T. Jaeger, S. Munson, and T. Glaisyer, (2010b) Social Media Technology and
Government Transparency,” Computer, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 53–59, 2010.
Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and
corporate transparency in municipalities. Government information quarterly, 29(2), 123-132.
Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of
public services. Public administration review, 67(5), 846-860.
Bovens, M. (2005). Public accountability. In E. Ferlie, L. Lynn, Jr., & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of public management (pp. 182–208). New York: Oxford University Press.
Brainard, L. A., & Derrick-Mills, T. (2011). Electronic commons, community policing, and
communication: Online police-citizen discussion groups in Washington, DC. Administrative
Theory & Praxis, 33(3), 383-410.
Brewin, B. (2008). FDA panel cites shortfalls in technology, staffing. Government Executive, January
29, 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=39153&printerfriendlyvers=1
Bryer, T. A., & Zavattaro, S. M. (2011). Social media and public administration: Theoretical
dimensions and introduction to the symposium. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33(3), 325-
340.
Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e‐government services: citizen trust, innovation
and acceptance factors*. Information systems journal,15(1), 5-25.
Cavallo, S., Lynch, J., & Scull, P. (2014). The Digital Divide in Citizen-Initiated Government
Contacts: A GIS Approach. Journal of Urban Technology, 21(4), 77-93.
Cerrillo-i-Martinez, A. (2012) Icts’ Contribution to Enhancing Government Transparency. Arbor-
Cienc. Pensam. Cult., 188, 756, 707–724.
Chadwick, A. (2009) Web 2.0: New challenges for e-democracy in an era of informational
exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 5(1): 9-42.
Chan, C. M., and Pan, S. L. (2008). User engagement in e-government systems implementation: A
comparative case study of two Singaporean e-government initiatives. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 17(2), 124-139.
Cho, Y. H., & Choi, B. D. (2004). E-government to combat corruption: The case of Seoul
metropolitan government. International Journal of Public Administration, 27(10), 719-735.
Cinnamon, J., & Schuurman, N. (2013). Confronting the data-divide in a time of spatial turns and
volunteered geographic information. GeoJournal, 78(4), 657-674.
Cleary, D. (2011). Predictive analytics in the public sector: Using data mining to assist better target
selection for audit. In M. Klun, & M. Decman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th European
Conference on e-Government (pp. 166–176). Reading: ACPI.
Coursey, D., & Norris, D. F. (2008). Models of e‐government: Are they correct? An empirical
assessment. Public administration review, 68(3), 523-536.
Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2013). Government innovation through
social media. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 319-326.
de Fine Licht, J. (2011). Do we really want to know? The potentially negative effect of transparency in
decision making on perceived legitimacy.Scandinavian Political Studies, 34(3), 183-201.
Dimitrova, D. V., & Chen, Y. C. (2006). Profiling the Adopters of E-Government Information and
Services The Influence of Psychological Characteristics, Civic Mindedness, and Information
Channels. Social Science Computer Review,24(2), 172-188.
DiRienzo, C. E., Das, J., Cort, K. T., & Burbridge, J. J. (2007). Corruption and the role of information.
Journal of International Business Studies, 38(2), 320–332.
Dixon, B. E. (2010). Towards e-government 2.0: An assessment of where e-Government 2.0 is and
where it is headed. Public Administration & Management, 15(2), 418–454.

17
Dunleavy, P., & Margetts, H. Z. (2010). The second wave of digital era governance. In APSA 2010
Annual Meeting Paper.
Ebbers, W., Pieterson, W., & Noordman, H. (2009). Electronic government: Rethinking channel
management strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 181–201.
Eggers, W. D. (2007). Government 2.0: Using technology to improve education, cut red tape, reduce
gridlock, and enhance democracy. Rowman & Littlefield.
Elbahnasawy, N. G. (2014) E-Government, Internet Adoption, and Corruption: An Empirical
Investigation. World Dev., 57, 114–126.
Eppler, M.J., and Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from
organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. Information
Society, 20(5), 325–344
Eriksson, K. (2012). Self‐Service Society: Participative Politics and New Forms Of Governance.
Public Administration, 90(3), 685-698.
Eriksson, K., & Vogt, H. (2012). On self-service democracy: Configurations of individualizing
governance and self-directed citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory,
1368431012459693.
Fayol, H. (1916). Administration industrielle et générale. Prévoyance, organisation, commandement,
coordination, contrôle (Industrial and general management: Forecast, organization, directing,
coordination, verification). Paris: H. Dunod & E. Pina.
Ferro, E., & Molinari, F. (2009). Making sense of gov 2.0 strategies: no citizens, no
party. Proceedings of EDEM, 7-8.
Fink, D. (2010). Road Safety 2.0: Insights and implications for government.Proceedings of the 23rd
Bled eConference, Bled, Slovenia.
Furlong, S. R., & Kerwin, C. M. (2005). Interest group participation in rule making: A decade of
change. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 353-370.
Garcia-Murillo, M. (2010) The effect of internet access on government corruption. Electron. Gov. Int.
J., 7(1), 22–40.
Garcia-Murillo, M. (2013). Does a government web presence reduce perceptions of
corruption?. Information Technology for Development, 19(2), 151-175.
Garicano, L., & Heaton, P. (2010). Information technology, organization, and productivity in the
public sector: evidence from police departments. Journal of Labor Economics, 28(1), 167-201.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Martinez-Moyano, I. J. (2007). Understanding the evolution of e-government: The
influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics.Government Information
Quarterly, 24(2), 266-290.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Martinez-Moyano, I. J. (2007). Understanding the evolution of e-government: The
influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics. Government Information
Quarterly, 24(2), 266-290.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Helbig, N., & Ojo, A. (2014). Being smart: Emerging technologies and innovation in
the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 31, I1-I8.
Gladwell, M. and C. Shirky, (2011) From Innovation to Revolution: Do Social Media Make Protests
Possible? Foreign Affairs.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2013). A good man but a bad wizard. About the limits and future of
transparency of democratic governments. ICT, Public Administration and Democracy in the
Coming Decade, 20, 83.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Porumbescu, G., Hong, B., and Im, T. (2013). The Effect of Transparency on
Trust in Government: A Cross‐National Comparative Experiment. Public Administration
Review, 73(4), 575-586.
Grönlund, Å., & Horan, T. A. (2005). Introducing e-gov: history, definitions, and issues.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15(1), 39.
Halachmi, A. (2002). Performance measurement, accountability, and improved performance. Public
Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 370–374.
Halachmi, A. (2011). Accountability and governance. In D. Greiling, A. Halachmi, & R. Schauer
(Eds.), Accounting, accountability and governance in the public sector (pp. 226–243). Linz:
Trauner.

18
Halachmi, A., & Greiling, D. (2013). Transparency, e-government, and accountability: Some issues
and considerations. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(4), 562-584.
Halachmi, A., and Holzer, M. (2010). Citizen participation and performance measurement:
Operationalizing democracy through better accountability. Public Administration Quarterly,
34(3), 338–376.
Hand, L. C., & Ching, B. D. (2011). " You Have One Friend Request" An Exploration of Power and
Citizen Engagement in Local Governments' Use of Social Media. Administrative Theory &
Praxis, 33(3), 362-382.
Hanna, N. (2010). Transforming government and building the information society. New York:
Springer.
Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to
market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 73(6),
821-830.
Heeks, R. (2005). Implementing and managing eGovernment: an international text. Sage.
Hendler, J. (2009). Web 3.0 Emerging. Computer, 42(1), 111-113.
Henman, P. (2010) Governing Electronically: E-Government and the Reconfiguration of Public
Administration, Policy and Power. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hicks, R. (2010). Singapore to mine citizen sentiment online. Government analytics (Retrieved
11/28/2010, from http://www.futuregov.asia/articles/2010/nov/22/singapore-minecitizen-
sentiment-social-media/#)
Hood, C. (2006). Transparency in a historical perspective. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.),
Transparency: The key to better governance (pp. 3–23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huijboom, N., van den Broek, T., Frissen, V., Kool, L., Kotterink, B., Meyerhoff Nielsen, M., et al.
(2009). Public Services 2.0: The impact of social computing on public services. In Y. Punie,
G. Msaucura, & D. Osimo (Eds.), JRC scientific and technical reports. : Institute for
Prospective Technology Studies.
Hupe, P., Hill, M., & Nangia, M. (2014). Studying implementation beyond deficit analysis: The top-
down view reconsidered. Public Policy and Administration, 0952076713517520.
Jaeger, P. T., & Matteson, M. (2009). e-government and technology acceptance: The case of the
implementation of section 508 guidelines for websites. Electronic Journal of e-
Government, 7(1), 87-98.
Jaeger, P. T., & Thompson, K. M. (2003). E-government around the world: Lessons, challenges, and
future directions. Government Information Quarterly,20(4), 389-394.
Jin, G. Z., & Lee, J. (2013). Inspection technology, detection and compliance: Evidence from Florida
restaurant inspections (No. w18939). National Bureau of Economic Research (Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18939.pdf).
Johnson, P. A., & Sieber, R. E. (2012). Motivations driving government adoption of the Geoweb.
GeoJournal, 77(5), 667-680.
Johnson, P. A., & Sieber, R. E. (2013). Situating the adoption of VGI by government. In
Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge (pp. 65-81). Springer Netherlands.
Johnston, E. W., & Hansen, D. L. (2011). Design lessons for smart governance infrastructures.
Transforming American Governance: Rebooting the Public Square, 197-212.
Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of
social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68.
Khayyat, N. T (2010) Effects of Information Technology on Cost, Quality and Efficiency in Provision
of Public Services,Inf. Commun. Tech. Policies Pract., 73–90.
Kolsaker, A., & Lee-Kelley, L. (2008). Citizens' attitudes towards e-government and e-governance: a
UK study. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(7), 723-738.
La Porte, T. M., Demchak, C. C., & De Jong, M. (2002). Democracy and bureaucracy in the age of the
web empirical findings and theoretical speculations. Administration & Society, 34(4), 411-446.
Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (2010). Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in
practice. O'Reilly Media, Inc.
Leighninger, M. (2012). Mapping Deliberative Civic Engagement. Democracy in motion: Evaluating
the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement, 19.

19
Lenk, K. (2012). The nuts and bolts of administrative action in the information age. In I.Th.M. Snellen
& W. van der Donk (Eds.), Public information in an information age: Revisited (pp. 221–235).
Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Lin, Y.-R.; J.P. Bagrow and D. Lazer (2011) More Voices Than Ever? Quantifying Media Bias in
Networks, in: Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, P.o.t.F.I.A.C.o.W.a.S.Media, Editor
2011: Barcelona, Spain, pp. 193–200.
Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen
coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446-454.
Lindgren, I., and Jansson, G. (2013). Electronic services in the public sector: A conceptual
framework. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 163-172.
Lukensmeyer, C. J., & Torres, L. H. (2008). Citizensourcing: Citizen participation in a networked
nation. Civic engagement in a network society, 207-233.
Luna, D. E.; J. R. Gil-Garcia, L. F. Luna-Reyes, R. Sandoval-Almazan, and A. Duarte-Valle, (2013)
Improving the performance assessment of government web portals: A proposal using data
envelopment analysis (DEA),” Inf. Polity Int. J. Gov. Democr. Inf. Age, 18(2), 169–187.
Mackenzie, A. (2010). Wirelessness: Radical empiricism in network cultures. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasi-paradigm
for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A:
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371.
Meijer, A., & Thaens, M. (2010). Alignment 2.0: Strategic use of new internet technologies in
government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(2), 113-121.
Meijer, A., Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Brandsma, G. J. (2011). Communities of public service support:
Citizens engage in social learning in peer-to-peer networks. Government Information
Quarterly, 29(1), 21–29.
Mergel, I. (2013a). A framework for interpreting social media interactions in the public
sector. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 327-334.
Mergel, I. (2013b). The social media innovation challenge in the public sector. ICT, Public
Administration and Democracy in the Coming Decade, 20, 71.
Mergel, I., & Greeves, B. (2012). Social media in the public sector field guide: Designing and
implementing strategies and policies. John Wiley & Sons.
Mergel, I., Schweik, C. M., & Fountain, J. E. (2009). The transformational effect of Web 2.0
technologies on government. Available at SSRN 1412796.
Millard J (2009) Government 1.5: Is the bottle half full or half empty? European Journal of ePractice
9(1): 35–50.
Millard, J. (2006). E-governance and E-participation: Lessons in promoting inclusion and
empowerment. e-participation and e-government: understanding the present and creating the
future. Report of the Ad Hoc Expert Group Meeting, Budapest, Hungary, 27th–28th July 2006
(pp. 91–113).
Misuraca, G., and Viscusi, G. (2015). Shaping public sector innovation theory: an interpretative
framework for ICT-enabled governance innovation. Electronic Commerce Research, 1-20.
Misuraca, G., Codagnone, C., and Rossel, P. (2013). From practice to theory and back to practice:
Reflexivity in measurement and evaluation for evidence-based policy making in the
information society. Government Information Quarterly, 30, S68–S82. S63–S71.
doi:10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.008.
Morgeson, F. V., VanAmburg, D., & Mithas, S. (2010). Misplaced trust? Exploring the structure of
the e-government-citizen trust relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, muq006.
Mossberger, K., Wu, Y., & Crawford, J. (2013). Connecting citizens and local governments? Social
media and interactivity in major US cities. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 351-
358.
Mussari, R., and Steccolini, I. (2006). Using the internet for communicating performance
information. Public Money and Management, 26(3), 193-196.
Nam, T. (2012a). Citizens’ attitudes toward open government and government 2.0. International
review of administrative sciences, 78(2), 346-368.

20
Nam, T. (2012b). Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. Government
Information Quarterly, 29(1), 12-20.
Niehaves, B., & Becker, J. (2008). The age-divide in e-Government—Data, interpretations, theory
fragments. In Towards Sustainable Society on Ubiquitous Networks (pp. 279-287). Springer
US.
Norris, D. F., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Advancing e-government at the grassroots: tortoise or hare?.
Public Administration Review, 64-75.
Norris, D.F. (2007), “Electronic democracy at the American grassroots”, in Norris, D.F. (Ed.), Current
Issues and Trends in E-Government Research, CyberTech Publishing, Hershey, PA.
Northrup, TA and Thorson, SJ (2003) 'The Web of Governance and Democratic Accountability',
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island,
Hawaii: IEEE Computer Society.
Noveck, B.S. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy
stronger, and citizens more powerful. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of
software. Available online at. http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/whatis-web-20.html
O'reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of
software. Communications & strategies, (1), 17.
Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in government: Why and how. Institute for Prospectice Technological
Studies (IPTS), JRC, European Commission, EUR,23358.
Pestoff, V. A., T. Brandsen, and B. Verschuere. (2012) New Public Governance, the Third Sector and
Co-Production. New York: Routledge.
Picazo-Vela, S., Gutierrez-Martinez, I., and 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.
Pina, V., Torres, L., and Royo, S. (2010). Is e‐government leading to more accountable and
transparent local governments? An overall view. Financial Accountability &
Management, 26(1), 3-20.
Pollitt, C. (2010). Technological Change: a central yet neglected feature of public administration.
NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 3(2), 31-53.
Quah, J. T. (2011). Curbing corruption in Asian countries. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group.
Reddick, C. G. (2011). Citizen interaction and e-government: Evidence for the managerial,
consultative, and participatory models. Transforming Government: People, Process and
Policy, 5(2), 167-184.
Reddick, C. G., & Turner, M. (2012). Channel choice and public service delivery in Canada:
Comparing e-government to traditional service delivery. Government Information Quarterly,
29(1), 1-11.
Rose, W. R., and Grant, G. G. (2010). Critical issues pertaining to the planning and implementation of
E-Government initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 27(1), 26-33.
Sandoval-Almazan, R., & 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, S72-S81.
Savoldelli, A., Codagnone, C., and Misuraca, G. (2014). Understanding the e-government paradox:
Learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption. Government Information
Quarterly, 31.
Selke, A., Mallick, B., & Halzbach, A. (2008). e-Honest: Technical potential and social risks of local
e-government strategy in Bangladesh for supporting the fight against corruptions. In D.
Remenyi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on e-Government (pp. 475–482).
Reading: ACPI.
Shim, D. C., & Eom, T. H. (2009). Anticorruption effects of information communication and
technology (ICT) and social capital. International review of administrative sciences, 75(1), 99-
116.
Smith, M. L. (2010). Building institutional trust through e-government trustworthiness
cues. Information Technology & People, 23(3), 222-246.

21
 Streib, G., & Navarro, I. (2006). Citizen Demand for Interactive E-Government The Case of Georgia
Consumer Services. The american review of public administration, 36(3), 288-300.
Taylor, F. W. (1914). The principles of scientific management. Harper.
Thomas, J. C., & Streib, G. (2005). E-Democracy, E-Commerce, and E-Research Examining the
Electronic Ties Between Citizens and Governments. Administration & Society, 37(3), 259-
280.
Tolbert, C. J., and Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e‐government on trust and confidence in
government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354-369.
Tolbert, C. J., Mossberger, K., and McNeal, R. (2008). Institutions, Policy Innovation, and E‐
Government in the American States. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 549-563.
Torfing, J.; B.G. Peters, J. Pierre, and E. Sørensen. (2012). Interactive Governance: Advancing the
Paradigm. Oxford, UK Oxford University Press.
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. UK: Sage
Publications.
Veljković, N., Bogdanović-Dinić, S., & Stoimenov, L. (2012). Building E-Government 2.0-A Step
Forward in Bringing Government Closer to Citizens. Journal of e-Government Studies and
Best Practices, DOI: 10.5171/2012.770164
Waheduzzaman. (2010). Value of people's participation for good governance in developing countries.
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 4(4), 386-402.
Wang, Y. S., & Liao, Y. W. (2008). Assessing eGovernment systems success: A validation of the
DeLone and McLean model of information systems success. Government Information
Quarterly, 25(4), 717-733.
Wangpipatwong, S., Chutimaskul, W., and Papasratorn, B. (2008). Understanding citizen’s
continuance intention to use e-government website: A composite view of technology
acceptance model and computer self-efficacy. The electronic journal of e-government, 6(1),
55-64.
Weber, M. (1915/1947). The theory of social and economic organization. London: Collier Macmillan.
Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government
and trust in government. Journal of public administration research and theory, 15(3), 371-
391.
West, D.M. (2004). E-Government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes.
Public Administration Review, 64, 15–27.
Wong, W., and Welch, E. (2004). Does e‐government promote accountability? A comparative analysis
of website openness and government accountability. Governance, 17(2), 275-297.
Yong, J.S. and Koon, L. (2005) E-government: Enabling public sector reform. In: Yong JS (ed.) E-
government in Asia: Enabling Public Service Innovation in the 21st Century. Singapore:
Times Media, 3–21.

22

View publication stats