One Step Forward and Two Steps Back: E-government Policies in Practice

A central goal of e-government policy is to increase efficiency in public administration, and one way to increase efficiency is via the increased use of automation and rule-based decision making. The use of data to streamline processes also has a prominent role in public policy today. This chapter specifically discusses the role of discretion in data-driven public administration. The empirical setting for this discussion is the Danish public sector which has been among the first movers to implement e-government solutions. Denmark has a long tradition of issuing public policies defining goals of front-office e-services as well as back-office digitization. Rule-based decision-making systems represent an ideal driver for actualizing the visions outlined in these policies. This chapter presents an experience where a rule-based decision-making system was introduced in an agency which handles complex cases requiring in-depth discretion by specialized professional caseworkers. This experience provides a platform for discussing possible challenges when implementing policy goals in an organizational context. This chapter also addresses the concept of “digital nomos”, the administrative norms of a digitized public administration.

[1]  B. Flyvbjerg.  What you Should Know about Megaprojects and Why: An Overview , 2014, 1409.0003.

[2]  Frans Jorna,et al.  The 'Iron Cage' strengthened? Discretion and digital discipline , 2007 .

[3]  Erik Johnston,et al.  Governance in the information era : theory and practice of policy informatics , 2015 .

[4]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Modeling Regulatory Compliance in Requirements Engineering , 2014, ER Workshops.

[5]  Kevin C. Desouza,et al.  A Glimpse into Policy Informatics: The Case of Participatory Platforms that Generate Synthetic Empathy , 2013, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[6]  Richard Heeks,et al.  Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice , 2007, Gov. Inf. Q..

[7]  Maria A. Wimmer,et al.  Features and added value of simulation models using different modelling approaches supporting policy-making: A comparative analysis , 2015 .

[8]  J. Fountain.  Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change , 2001 .

[9]  R. Cover.  The Supreme Court, 1982 Term , 1983 .

[10]  France Bélanger,et al.  The impact of the digital divide on e-government use , 2009, CACM.

[11]  M. Bovens,et al.  From Street‐Level to System‐Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control , 2002 .

[12]  Matthew L. Smith,et al.  Automating the Public Sector and Organizing Accountabilities , 2010, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Richard E. Susskind,et al.  The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts , 2016 .

[14]  V. Bekkers,et al.  Policy Implementation, Street-level Bureaucracy, and the Importance of Discretion , 2014 .

[15]  Antonio Cordella,et al.  E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery , 2015, Gov. Inf. Q..

[16]  J. B. Berger.  Mandatory e-government has arrived: The silent protest from staff calls for the committed scholar – resistance must never be futile! , 2014 .

[17]  I. Nonaka,et al.  How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation , 1995 .

[18]  Theresa A. Pardo,et al.  What makes a city smart? Identifying core components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization , 2015, Inf. Polity.

[19]  A. Tsoukiàs,et al.  Policy analytics: an agenda for research and practice , 2013 .

[20]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Power, politics, and MIS implementation , 1987, CACM.

[21]  Theresa A. Pardo,et al.  Information, Models, and Sustainability , 2016 .

[22]  Shoshana Zuboff,et al.  In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power , 1989 .

[23]  C. Reddick,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF E‐GOVERNMENT ON ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION: THE CASE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN EGYPT , 2011 .

[24]  Lars Tummers,et al.  Serving Clients When the Server Crashes: How Frontline Workers Cope with E-Government Challenges , 2015 .

[25]  Christopher G. Reddick,et al.  Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to servers? , 2005, Gov. Inf. Q..

[26]  Thomas J. Barth,et al.  Artificial Intelligence and Administrative Discretion , 1999 .

[27]  Erik Brynjolfsson,et al.  The second machine age: work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies, 1st Edition , 2014 .

[28]  Helle Zinner Henriksen,et al.  Scrutinizing Open Government Data to Understand Patterns in eGovernment Uptake , 2015, EGOV.

[29]  Alois Paulin,et al.  Towards Self-Service Government - A Study on the Computability of Legal Eligibilities , 2013, J. Univers. Comput. Sci..

[30]  Samarth Swarup,et al.  Information Integration to Support Model-Based Policy Informatics. , 2011, The innovation journal : the public sector innovation journal.

[31]  Marijn Janssen,et al.  Exploring relationships of shared service arrangements in local government , 2007 .

[32]  Aurélien Buffat.  Street-Level Bureaucracy and E-Government , 2015 .

[33]  Carsten Greve,et al.  Ideas in Public Management Reform for the 2010s. Digitalization, Value Creation and Involvement , 2015 .

[34]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Transition systems for designing and reasoning about norms , 2015, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[35]  John A. Taylor,et al.  The citizen in the information polity: Exposing the limits of the e-government paradigm , 2008, Inf. Polity.

[36]  F. Ulbrich,et al.  Adopting shared services in a public-sector organization , 2010 .