Political Factors for the Adoption of Different Governance Models in the Provision of Public Services Under Web 2.0 Technologies

This paper contributes to the current debate on Web 2.0 technologies and their implications for local governance through the analysis of the perceptions of policy makers of local governments about the governance model to be adopted in the management of Web 2.0 applications for the delivery of public services. Also this paper analyses political factors as attributes that could explain the governance patterns to be adopted by municipalities. To achieve this aim, an e-survey has been performed by policy makers in Spanish municipalities. Findings indicate that policy makers are mainly prone to implement Web 2.0 technologies under the “Bureaucratic Model” framework, keeping the leading role in this implementation. Nonetheless, right-wing ideologists and majority governments are prone to implement collaborative models of governance, whereas left-wing ideologists and minority governments are in favor to implement non-collaborative models of governance.

[1]  Jordi Graells-Costa,et al.  Administración colaborativa y en red , 2011 .

[2]  M. Barzelay,et al.  Public Management Policymaking in Spain: The Politics of Legislative Reform of Administrative Structures, 1991–1997 , 2010 .

[3]  A. Ni,et al.  Th e Decision to Contract Out: A Study of Contracting for E‐Government Services in State Governments , 2007 .

[4]  A. Ho Reinventing Local Governments and the E‐Government Initiative , 2002 .

[5]  Bridgette Wessels,et al.  A new public service communication environment? Public service broadcasting values in the reconfiguring media , 2005, New Media Soc..

[6]  Ronald J. Oakerson,et al.  분권화 시대의 대도시 거버넌스 = Governing local public economies : creating the civic metropolis , 1999 .

[7]  Albert Jacob Meijer,et al.  Social media strategies: Understanding the differences between North American police departments , 2013, Gov. Inf. Q..

[8]  Stuart Bretschneider,et al.  Politics of E-Government: E-Government and the Political Control of Bureaucracy , 2011 .

[9]  Douglas A. Luke,et al.  Cluster analysis in community research: Epistemology and practice , 1993 .

[10]  Political and Economic Determinants of Budget Deficits in the Industrialdemocracies , 1988 .

[11]  Caroline J. Tolbert,et al.  Institutions, Policy Innovation, and E-Government in the American States , 2008 .

[12]  G. Norman Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics , 2010, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[13]  B. Guy Peters,et al.  The future of governing , 1996 .

[14]  Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar,et al.  Governance Models for the Delivery of Public Services Through the Web 2.0 Technologies , 2017 .

[15]  Daniel A. Smith,et al.  Delegating Direct Democracy: Interparty Legislative Competition and the Adoption of the Initiative in the American States , 2008, American Political Science Review.

[16]  Taewoo Nam,et al.  Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0 , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[17]  D. Hodge,et al.  Phrase Completions: An Alternative to Likert Scales. , 2003 .

[18]  Rebecca MacKinnon Flatter world and thicker walls? Blogs, censorship and civic discourse in China , 2007 .

[19]  Xavier Fageda,et al.  Why do local governments privatise public services? A survey of empirical studies , 2007 .

[20]  M. J. Moon The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality? , 2002 .

[21]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Information infrastructure, governance, and socio-economic development in developing countries , 2009, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[22]  Stephen J. Conroy,et al.  Ethical Attitudes of Accountants: Recent Evidence from a Practitioners’ Survey , 2007 .

[23]  Krishnamurthy Sriramesh,et al.  E-government in a corporatist, communitarian society: the case of Singapore , 2006, New Media Soc..

[24]  Yannis Charalabidis,et al.  Policy making 2.0: From theory to practice , 2013, Gov. Inf. Q..

[25]  Katrien G. Luijkx,et al.  The Relationship Between Governance Roles and Performance in Local Public Interorganizational Networks , 2012 .

[26]  I. García‐Sánchez,et al.  The Relationship between Political Factors and the Development of E–Participatory Government , 2011 .

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

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

[29]  Albert Meijer,et al.  Networked Coproduction of Public Services in Virtual Communities: From a Government-Centric to a Community Approach to Public Service Support. , 2011 .

[30]  Thompson S. H. Teo,et al.  Moderating effects of governance on information infrastructure and e-government development , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[31]  Dennis Linders,et al.  From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..