Value positions viewed through the lens of automated decision-making: The case of social services

Abstract As the use of digitalization and automated decision-making becomes more common in the public sector, civil servants and clients find themselves in an environment where automation and robot technology can be expected to make dramatic changes. Social service delivery in Trelleborg, Sweden, is the setting for a case study of the goals, policies, procedures, and responses to a change in how social assistance is delivered using automated decision-making. Interviews with politicians and professionals complemented with government documents and reports provide the empirical data for the analysis. Four value positions: Professionalism, Efficiency, Service, and Engagement, are used as the analytical framework. The findings reveal that the new technology in some respects has increased accountability, decreased costs, and enhanced efficiency, in association with a focus on citizen centricity. While the findings establish a congruence among instances of some value positions, a divergence is observed among others. Examples of divergence are professional knowledge vs. automated treatment, a decrease in costs vs. the need to share costs, and citizen trust vs. the lack of transparency. The study confirms the power of applying the value positions lens in e-Government research.

[1]  Stuart Culbertson E-Government and Organizational Change , 2005 .

[2]  Helle Zinner Henriksen,et al.  Social media in public health care: Impact domain propositions , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[3]  Peter Axel Nielsen,et al.  Value Positions in E-Government Strategies: Something is (not) Changing in the State of Denmark , 2017, ECIS.

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

[5]  Frantz Rowe,et al.  Being critical is good, but better with philosophy! From digital transformation and values to the future of IS research , 2018, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[6]  R. Roose,et al.  Electronic Information Systems: In search of responsive social work , 2018 .

[7]  Patrick Dunleavy,et al.  The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasi-paradigm for government on the Web , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[8]  Helle Zinner Henriksen,et al.  Opportunities and challenges of digitized discretionary practices: a public service worker perspective , 2018, Gov. Inf. Q..

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

[10]  Peter André Busch,et al.  The Role of Contextual Factors in the Influence of ICT on Street-Level Discretion , 2017, HICSS.

[11]  J. Cho,et al.  Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences , 2014 .

[12]  Véronique Laurent,et al.  ICT and Social Work: a Question of Identities? , 2007, FIDIS.

[13]  Christian Ø. Madsen,et al.  The Development in Leading e-Government Articles 2001-2010: Definitions, Perspectives, Scope, Research Philosophies, Methods and Recommendations: An Update of Heeks and Bailur , 2014, EGOV.

[14]  Tom Christensen,et al.  An Organization Approach to Public Administration , 2018 .

[15]  A. Alavi,et al.  Opportunities and Challenges , 1998, In Vitro Diagnostic Industry in China.

[16]  Janine O’Flynn,et al.  From New Public Management to Public Value: Paradigmatic Change and Managerial Implications , 2007 .

[17]  R. Roose,et al.  Creating Transparency through Electronic Information Systems: Opportunities and Pitfalls , 2018 .

[18]  Ronald Leenes,et al.  The ‘rule of law’ implications of data-driven decision-making: a techno-regulatory perspective , 2018, Law, Innovation and Technology.

[19]  Leslie P. Willcocks,et al.  Robotic process automation: strategic transformation lever for global business services? , 2017 .

[20]  Gianluigi Viscusi,et al.  Shaping public sector innovation theory: an interpretative framework for ICT-enabled governance innovation , 2015, Electron. Commer. Res..

[21]  T. Kauppinen,et al.  Rescaling inequality? Welfare reform and local variation in social assistance payments , 2014 .

[22]  D. Yates,et al.  Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services , 1981, Michigan Law Review.

[23]  C. Greve,et al.  Nordic Administrative Reforms: Lessons for Public Management , 2016 .

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

[25]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[26]  R. Roose,et al.  Policy Rationales for Electronic Information Systems: An Area of Ambiguity , 2017 .

[27]  Jean Damascène Mazimpaka,et al.  The public value of E-Government - A literature review , 2019, Gov. Inf. Q..

[28]  Liv Johanne Syltevik,et al.  Digitalization, Street‐Level Bureaucracy and Welfare Users' Experiences , 2018 .

[29]  E. Bracci,et al.  Measuring public value: a conceptual and applied contribution to the debate , 2018 .

[30]  P. Gillingham From bureaucracy to technocracy in a social welfare agency: a cautionary tale , 2018, Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development.

[31]  Zahir Irani,et al.  Managing e‐Government: value positions and relationships , 2015, Inf. Syst. J..

[32]  Jesper Holgersson,et al.  Not Another New Wine in the same Old bottles - Motivators and Innovation in Local Government E-Service Development , 2017, ECIS.

[33]  Helle Zinner Henriksen,et al.  Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion , 2018, Inf. Polity.

[34]  B. Bozeman,et al.  Public Values , 2007 .

[35]  Jeremy Rose,et al.  Stakeholder theory for the E-government context: Framing a value-oriented normative core , 2018, Gov. Inf. Q..

[36]  H. Tohidi,et al.  Organizational culture and leadership , 2012 .

[37]  Annika Andersson,et al.  Use of information systems in social work – challenges and an agenda for future research , 2018 .

[38]  Ellen P. Goodman,et al.  Algorithmic Transparency for the Smart City , 2017 .

[39]  Helle Zinner Henriksen One Step Forward and Two Steps Back: E-government Policies in Practice , 2018 .

[40]  Göran Goldkuhl,et al.  Government Value Paradigms - Bureaucracy, New Public Management, and E-Government , 2010, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[41]  Jeffrey B. Wenger,et al.  At the Discretion of Rogue Agents: How Automation Improves Women's Outcomes in Unemployment Insurance , 2008 .

[42]  Jan C. Weyerer,et al.  Artificial Intelligence and the Public Sector—Applications and Challenges , 2018, International Journal of Public Administration.

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

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

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

[46]  James G. March,et al.  A primer on decision making : how decisions happen , 1994 .

[47]  Agneta Ranerup,et al.  Electronic Government as a combination of human and technological agency: Testing the principle of symmetry , 2007, Inf. Polity.

[48]  Graham Symon,et al.  The state and class discipline: European labour market policy after the financial crisis , 2018 .

[49]  Frank Bannister,et al.  ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research , 2014, Gov. Inf. Q..

[50]  Reza Maleeh Minds, Brains and Programs: An Information-theoretic Approach , 2015 .

[51]  Renate Minas One‐stop shops: Increasing employability and overcoming welfare state fragmentation? , 2014 .

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

[53]  M. Moore Creating public value : strategic management in government , 1995 .

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

[55]  F. Reamer The Digital and Electronic Revolution in Social Work: Rethinking the Meaning of Ethical Practice , 2013 .

[56]  P. Gillingham Decision-making about the adoption of information technology in social welfare agencies: some key considerations , 2018 .

[57]  Dr. Michael Latzer The computer says “no”? , 2010, Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin.

[58]  Saggi Nevo,et al.  Classifying Information Technologies: A Multidimensional Scaling Approach , 2010, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[59]  Leif Sundberg Public Values and Decision Making in the Swedish e-Government Context , 2017 .

[60]  Antonio Cordella,et al.  A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[61]  S. Curry,et al.  Perceptions and Use of a Web-Based Referral System in Child Welfare: Differences by Caseworker Tenure , 2017 .

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

[63]  Agneta Ranerup,et al.  Rationalities in the Design of Public E-Services , 2007 .

[64]  Anja Declercq,et al.  Street-Level Strategies of Child Welfare Social Workers in Flanders: The Use of Electronic Client Records in Practice , 2015, British journal of social work.

[65]  Tony Evans,et al.  Street-Level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion , 2004 .

[66]  Elin Wihlborg,et al.  "The Computer Says No!" -- A Case Study on Automated Decision-Making in Public Authorities , 2016, 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).