Strategic e-government development and the role of benchmarking

Abstract Developing information systems and e-government requires a lot of strategic and financial resources that developing countries often do not have. Facing such challenges, some countries are supported by international assistance and donors. This research contributes to explain how such assistance on the development of national information and communication technology (ICT) strategies and programs is related to e-government development. This comparative study of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, (Former Yugoslav Republic of) Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia takes a Rational Neoinstitutionalist perspective to look at longitudinal changes in these developing countries. Quantitative data such as the amount of foreign aid for national ICT strategies and the e-government index are combined with qualitative information from reports and documents. The research suggests that the effect of international assistance on e-government is generally positive in less developed countries. The analysis of benchmarking and benchlearning as e-government policy-making tools is another aim of this study, providing a critical discussion of their role and that of the donor–benchmarker duality.

[1]  W. Scott,et al.  Institutions and Organizations. , 1995 .

[2]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method , 1995 .

[3]  T. Franck.  The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance , 1992, American Journal of International Law.

[4]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  Joan Batlle Montserrat.  Local e-Government Bench-learning: Towards a new methodological framework to benchmark electronic services provision and adoption in local public administration , 2010 .

[6]  Michael H. Harris,et al.  : In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the Aclu , 1991 .

[7]  W. Powell,et al.  The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis , 1992 .

[8]  Gordon Crawford,et al.  Foreign aid and political reform: a comparative analysis of democracy assistance and political conditionality. , 2001 .

[9]  K. Thelen.  Historical Institutionalism in comparative politics , 1997 .

[10]  YangKaifeng.  Neoinstitutionalism and e-government , 2003 .

[11]  Claudio Ciborra,et al.  Interpreting e-government and development: Efficiency, transparency or governance at a distance? , 2005, Inf. Technol. People.

[12]  A. Alesina,et al.  Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why? , 1998 .

[13]  Donald R. Cooper,et al.  Business Research Methods , 1980 .

[14]  Mateja Kunstelj,et al.  Evaluating the progress of e-government development: A critical analysis , 2004, Inf. Polity.

[15]  Richard Heeks,et al.  eGovernment in Africa: Promise and Practice , 2002, Inf. Polity.

[16]  M. Archer,et al.  Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and action. 1982. , 1982, The British journal of sociology.

[17]  W. Orlikowski.  The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations , 2014 .

[18]  W. Orlikowski.  Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations , 2000 .

[19]  T. Skocpol,et al.  Bringing the State Back In: State Structures and the Possibilities for “Keynesian” Responses to the Great Depression in Sweden, Britain, and the United States , 1985 .

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

[21]  Johan P. Olsen,et al.  The Logic of Appropriateness , 2008 .

[22]  Paul van Schaik,et al.  The Contextual Benchmark Method: Benchmarking e-Government services , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[23]  M. Aiken,et al.  Organizational interdependence and intra-organizational structure. , 1968 .

[24]  B. Peters.  Political Institutions, Old and New , 1998 .

[25]  V. Schmidt.  Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse , 2008 .

[26]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[27]  D. Dollar,et al.  Aid, Policies, and Growth , 1997 .

[28]  C. Hood,et al.  From old public administration to new public management , 1994 .

[29]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Information systems strategy and implementation: a case study of a building society , 1994, TOIS.

[30]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory , 1967 .

[31]  F. Trauner.  From membership conditionality to policy conditionality: EU external governance in South Eastern Europe , 2009 .

[32]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[33]  C. Ciborra,et al.  Good governance, development theory, and aid policy: Risks and challenges of e-government in Jordan , 2005 .

[34]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[35]  Jungwoo Lee,et al.  Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model , 2001, Gov. Inf. Q..

[36]  Jan-Erik Lane,et al.  New Public Management , 2021, Bangladesh Journal of Public Administration.

[37]  C. Hay,et al.  Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism , 1998 .

[38]  Masood Ahmed,et al.  Bridging research and policy , 2005, Nature Climate Change.

[39]  Christian von Haldenwang.  Electronic Government (E-Government) and Development , 2004 .

[40]  G. Crawford,et al.  EVALUATING DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE ASSISTANCE , 2001 .

[41]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[42]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Doing interpretive research , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[43]  Richard Heeks.  Most eGovernment-for-Development Projects Fail: How Can Risks be Reduced? , 2003 .

[44]  R. Yin,et al.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed. , 2009 .

[45]  Paul Collier,et al.  Aid Allocation and Poverty Reduction , 1999 .

[46]  K. Nielsen.  Institutionalist Approaches in the Social Sciences: Typology, Dialogue, and Future Challenges , 2001 .

[47]  Amos H. Hawley,et al.  Human Ecology: A Theory of Community Structure , 1950 .

[48]  Theresa A. Pardo,et al.  Benchmarking e-Government: A comparison of frameworks for computing e-Government index and ranking , 2011, Gov. Inf. Q..

[49]  Kaifeng Yang,et al.  Neoinstitutionalism and E-Government , 2003 .

[50]  G. Stoker,et al.  Theories and methods in political science. 2nd edition , 2002 .

[51]  Richard Heeks,et al.  Benchmarking eGovernment: Improving the National and International Measurement, Evaluation and Comparison of eGovernment , 2008 .

[52]  SteinmoThelenLongstreth.  Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis , 1992 .

[53]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[54]  Paul DiMaggio.  The New Institutionalisms: Avenues of Collaboration , 1998 .

[55]  T. Skocpol,et al.  Bringing the State Back In , 1985 .

[56]  Michael Barzelay,et al.  The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue , 2001 .

[57]  Ibo van de Poel,et al.  The transformation of technological regimes , 2003 .

[58]  Davy Janssen,et al.  If you measure it they will score: An assessment of international eGovernment benchmarking , 2004, Inf. Polity.

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

[60]  P. Hall,et al.  Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms , 1996 .

[61]  Jennifer Lai,et al.  Unintended Consequences of Information Technologies in Health Care—An Interactive Sociotechnical Analysis , 2007 .

[62]  Michele Cocchiglia,et al.  E-Government for Development , 2006 .

[63]  Mete Yildiz,et al.  E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward , 2007, Gov. Inf. Q..

[64]  José Ramón Gil-García,et al.  Information Economy Report 2006. The development perspective: by Peter Frohler (coord.). , 2007 .

[65]  L. Zucker.  The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. , 1977 .

[66]  A. Bryman,et al.  Business Research Methods , 2004 .

[67]  E. Ettedgui,et al.  Benchmarking e-government in Europe and the US , 2003 .

[68]  Frank Bannister,et al.  The curse of the benchmark: an assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisons , 2007 .

[69]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations , 2011 .

[70]  Wei Li,et al.  Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance , 2009, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[71]  M. Barzelay.  The New Public Management , 2019 .

[72]  Patrick Dunleavy,et al.  New public management is dead. Long live digital-era governance , 2005 .

[73]  Fred D. Davis.  A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems : theory and results , 1985 .

[74]  Sushil K. Sharma,et al.  Assessing e-government implementations , 2004, Electron. Gov. an Int. J..

[75]  B. Peters.  Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism , 1999 .

[76]  Johan P. Olsen,et al.  Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics , 1989 .

[77]  F. Geels,et al.  Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways , 2007 .

[78]  Elinor Ostrom,et al.  Rational Choice Theory and Institutional Analysis: Toward Complementarity , 1991, American Political Science Review.