How advanced are Italian regions in terms of public e-services? The construction of a composite indicator to analyze patterns of innovation diffusion in the public sector

This paper applies an open and transparent methodology to construct a composite indicator for the analysis of the diffusion of ICT in the public sector and the development of public e-services across Italian regions. This methodology, based on OECD/EC-JRC Handbook and incorporating experts′ opinion into a Data Envelopment Analysis, will allow us to define a ranking of Italian regions in terms of ICT adoption and of e-service development. Data are obtained by merging four different surveys carried out by Between Co. (2010–2011) and Istat – Italy′s National Bureau of Statistics (2009). We add to extant empirical literature in three ways. First, we offer a comprehensive measurement of advances in digital government that is not circumscribed to a single domain (e.g. administrative procedures of public administrations) but is rather aimed to capture a wide spectrum of public e-services (e-government, e-education, Intelligent Transport Systems, e-health). Second, we tackle a major drawback of existing statistics and benchmarking studies which are largely based on the count of services provided online, by including more sophisticated indicators on the quality of services offered and on back office changes. The results – both in terms of scores and regional rankings – highlight the presence of different patterns of adoption and use of public e-services at the local level. Third, we offer a rich account of the extreme heterogeneity of public e-service development and of the underlying technological and organizational change at the sub-national level, and hence provide a basis for the differentiating policy measures across regions.

[1]  Theresa A. Pardo,et al.  Interorganizational information integration: A key enabler for digital government , 2007, Gov. Inf. Q..

[2]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of decision making units , 1978 .

[3]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  Dynamic capabilities : understanding strategic change in organizations , 2007 .

[4]  D. West Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance , 2007 .

[5]  David R. Cox,et al.  Quality‐Of‐Life Assessment: Can We Keep it Simple? , 1992 .

[6]  Laurens Cherchye,et al.  Creating composite indicators with DEA and robustness analysis: the case of the Technology Achievement Index , 2006, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[7]  Nofal Nagles García Reseña de "Dynamic capabilities. Understanding strategic change in organizations" de Constance E. Helfat, Sydney Finkelstein, Will Mitchell, Margareth Peteraf, Harbir Singh, David J. Teece, Sidney Winter , 2010 .

[8]  Z. Griliches Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: a Survey , 1990 .

[9]  Gianluca Misuraca,et al.  Envisioning digital Europe 2030: scenario design on ICT for governance and policy modelling , 2010, ICEGOV '10.

[10]  Jerry Brito,et al.  Hack, Mash & Peer: Crowdsourcing Government Transparency , 2007 .

[11]  Dawit Demissie,et al.  An analysis of African e-Government service websites , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[12]  B. Noveck Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful , 2009 .

[13]  Zlatko J. Kovacic,et al.  The Impact of National Culture on Worldwide eGovernment Readiness , 2005, Informing Sci. Int. J. an Emerg. Transdiscipl..

[14]  R. R. Russell,et al.  Technological Change, Technological Catch-up, and Capital Deepening: Relative Contributions to Growth and Convergence , 2002 .

[15]  RESEARCH IN ECONOMETRIC THEORY: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE PRODUCTIVITY RANKINGS , 1999, Econometric Theory.

[16]  Jane E. Fountain,et al.  Public Sector: Early Stage of a Deep Transformation , 2001 .

[17]  H. Gulliksen Theory of mental tests , 1952 .

[18]  J. Fountain Information, Institutions and Governance: Advancing a Basic Social Science Research Program for Digital Government , 2003 .

[19]  R. Huggins Creating a UK Competitiveness Index: Regional and Local Benchmarking , 2003 .

[20]  Anthony M. Cresswell,et al.  Designing electronic government information access programs: a holistic approach , 2004, Gov. Inf. Q..

[21]  Macroeconometrics : Past and future , 2001 .

[22]  A. Ho,et al.  Explaining the Adoption of E-Government Features , 2004 .

[23]  Ryad Titah,et al.  E-Government Adoption and Acceptance: A Literature Review , 2006, Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res..

[24]  W. Wong,et al.  Does E‐Government Promote Accountability? A Comparative Analysis of Website Openness and Government Accountability , 2004 .

[25]  Laurens Cherchye,et al.  An Introduction to ‘Benefit of the Doubt’ Composite Indicators , 2007 .

[26]  Charles P. Jones,et al.  An Analysis of the S&P 500 Index and Cowles's Extensions: Price Indexes and Stock Returns, 1870-1999 , 2002 .

[27]  Jeremy Millard Reorganisation of Government Back-Offices for Better Electronic Public Services , 2004, EGOV.

[28]  Willem Moesen,et al.  Towards a synthetic indicator of macroeconomic performance: Unequal weighting when limited information is available , 1991 .

[29]  D. Arduini,et al.  What do we know from the literature on public e-services? , 2011 .

[30]  A. Meijer Understanding modern transparency , 2009 .

[31]  Sonia Royo,et al.  ARE ICTs IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE EU REGIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS? AN EMPIRICAL STUDY , 2007 .

[32]  France Bélanger,et al.  Trust and Risk in eGovernment Adoption , 2008, AMCIS.

[33]  Stefano Tarantola,et al.  Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide , 2005 .

[34]  L. Cherchye,et al.  Legitimately Diverse, Yet Comparable: On Synthesizing Social Inclusion Performance in the EU , 2004 .

[35]  Dag H. Olsen,et al.  Local E-Government in Norway: Current Status and Emerging Issues , 2005, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[36]  Hyun Joon Kim,et al.  The willingness of e-Government service adoption by business users: The role of offline service quality and trust in technology , 2011, Gov. Inf. Q..

[37]  H. Grupp,et al.  Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators? , 2004 .

[38]  D. West E‐Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes , 2004 .

[39]  E. Felten,et al.  Government Data and the Invisible Hand , 2009 .

[40]  Federico Belotti,et al.  Technology Adoption and Innovation in Public Services: The Case of E-Government in Italy , 2008, Inf. Econ. Policy.

[41]  Harald Baldersheim,et al.  Innovation in E-government: Analysis of municipal web pages in the Nordic countries , 2008, Inf. Polity.

[42]  A. Saltelli,et al.  Expert Panel Opinion and Global Sensitivity Analysis for Composite Indicators , 2008 .

[43]  Marc Holzer,et al.  Digital Governance Worldwide: A Longitudinal Assessment of Municipal Web Sites , 2006, Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res..

[44]  M. Bochicchio,et al.  Smarter, Faster, Better e-Government , 2012 .

[45]  Paul T. Jaeger,et al.  Crowd-sourcing transparency: ICTs, social media, and government transparency initiatives , 2010, DG.O.