Governance Models for the Delivery of Public Services Through the Web 2.0 Technologies

The growing participation in social networking sites is altering the nature of social relations and changing the nature of political and public dialogue. This article contributes to the current debate on Web 2.0 technologies and their implications for local governance through the identification of governance models to be adopted by local governments if Web 2.0 technologies are implemented for providing public services. Also, this article analyzes whether the political competition could be an attribute that could explain the governance models to be adopted by municipalities. To achieve this aim, an e-survey during the period of May–July 2014 has been performed by policy makers responsible of strategies for e-government 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, political competition seems to be essential to understand the findings of this article. Thus, majority governments are prone to implement collaborative models of governance, whereas minority governments are in favor to implement noncollaborative models of governance.

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

[2]  María de-Miguel-Molina E-Government in Spain: An Analysis of the Right to Quality E-Government , 2009 .

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

[4]  Christopher G. Reddick,et al.  Social media adoption at the American grass roots: Web 2.0 or 1.5? , 2013, Gov. Inf. Q..

[5]  Shan Ling Pan,et al.  E-government implementation: A macro analysis of Singapore's e-government initiatives , 2008, Gov. Inf. Q..

[6]  Edward A. Fox,et al.  Social media use by government: from the routine to the critical , 2011, dg.o '11.

[7]  Tim O'Reilly,et al.  What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software , 2007 .

[8]  Paul T. Jaeger,et al.  Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[9]  T. Bogt Management control and performance measurement in Dutch local government , 1999 .

[10]  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..

[11]  Erik-Hans Klijn,et al.  Managers in Governance Networks: How to Reach Good Outcomes? , 2011 .

[12]  Gauging E-Government Evolution in EU Municipalities , 2013 .

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

[14]  María Petra Sáiz Antón La Ley de Economía sostenible: la sostenibilidad financiera del sector público , 2011 .

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

[16]  Enrique Bonsón,et al.  Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[17]  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.

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

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

[20]  G. Jan van Helden,et al.  Accounting change in Dutch government: Exploring the gap between expectations and realizations☆ , 2000 .

[21]  Luis F. Luna-Reyes,et al.  Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

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

[23]  L. Cronbach Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .

[24]  Qing Li,et al.  A novel Likert scale based on fuzzy sets theory , 2013, Expert Syst. Appl..

[25]  P. Bobko,et al.  Moderated regression analysis and Likert scales: too coarse for comfort. , 1992, The Journal of applied psychology.

[26]  Patrick Dunleavy,et al.  The Second Wave of Digital Era Governance , 2010 .

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

[28]  Rebecca MacKinnon,et al.  China's Censorship 2.0: How Companies Censor Bloggers , 2009, First Monday.

[29]  Brian E. Dixon,et al.  Towards E-Government 2.0: An Assessment of Where E-Government 2.0 Is and Where It Is Headed , 2010 .

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

[31]  N. Kang,et al.  Book Review: Corporate Governance and Development: Reform, Financial Systems, and Legal Frameworks (eds.) T.G. Arun and J. Turner , 2009 .

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

[33]  Natalie Helbig,et al.  Designing social media policy for government: Eight essential elements , 2010 .

[34]  Walter J.M. Kickert,et al.  Public Management in the United States and Europe , 2001 .

[35]  Stuart Bretschneider,et al.  The Decision to Contract Out : A Study of Contracting for E-Government Services in State Governments Essays on Service Delivery and Privatization , 2008 .

[36]  James K. Scott “E” the People: Do U.S. Municipal Government Web Sites Support Public Involvement? , 2006 .

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

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

[39]  H. Kaufman,et al.  Red Tape: Its Origins, Uses, and Abuses , 1977 .

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

[41]  José Ramón Gil-García,et al.  Government innovation through social media , 2013, Gov. Inf. Q..

[42]  Bianca C. Reisdorf,et al.  THE PARTICIPATORY WEB , 2012 .

[43]  Sean A. Munson,et al.  Social Media Technology and Government Transparency , 2010, Computer.

[44]  Paul T. Jaeger,et al.  The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[45]  Veronica Phillips,et al.  About the Open Government Initiative , 2015 .

[46]  Girish J. Gulati,et al.  Towards E-participation in the Middle East and Northern Europe , 2010 .

[47]  Emily Christofides,et al.  Information Disclosure and Control on Facebook: Are They Two Sides of the Same Coin or Two Different Processes? , 2009, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[48]  V. Frissen,et al.  Public Services 2.0: The Impact of Social Computing on Public Services , 2010 .

[49]  D. Norris,et al.  Local E‐Government in the United States: Transformation or Incremental Change? , 2013 .

[50]  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 .

[51]  Eric W. Welch,et al.  Social media use in local government: Linkage of technology, task, and organizational context , 2013, Gov. Inf. Q..

[52]  Judit García-Martín,et al.  Patterns of Web 2.0 tool use among young Spanish people , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[53]  Jesper Holgersson,et al.  Public e-service development: Understanding citizens' conditions for participation , 2014, Gov. Inf. Q..

[54]  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.

[55]  David Osimo,et al.  Collaborative approaches to public sector innovation: A scoping study , 2014 .

[56]  Barney Dalgarno,et al.  Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[57]  Isabel Gallego Álvarez,et al.  The Relationship between Political Factors and the Development of E-Participatory Government , 2011, Inf. Soc..

[58]  Nick Anstead,et al.  Tools of government in the digital age , 2009 .

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

[60]  Dennis Linders,et al.  We-Government: an anatomy of citizen coproduction in the information age , 2011, dg.o '11.

[61]  Darren George,et al.  SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference , 1998 .

[62]  R. Emerson Likert Scales , 2017 .

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

[64]  Seppo Tiihonen,et al.  From Governing to Governance , 2004 .

[65]  H. Kraemer,et al.  Summated Rating Scale Construction An Introduction , 2009 .

[66]  Concepción Campillo Alhama,et al.  La comunicación 2.0 de las políticas orientadas a mayores en los ayuntamientos españoles , 2013 .

[67]  David Weinberger,et al.  Small Pieces Loosely Joined (a unified theory of the web) , 2002 .

[68]  Enrique Bonsón,et al.  Citizens' engagement on local governments' Facebook sites. An empirical analysis: The impact of different media and content types in Western Europe , 2015, Gov. Inf. Q..

[69]  J. I. Grande,et al.  Las Redes sociales digitales en la gestión y las políticas públicas: avances y desafíos para un gobierno abierto , 2013 .

[70]  R. Torstendahl,et al.  Public management and administrative reform in Western Europe , 1999 .

[71]  J. Rho,et al.  Effect of the Government’s Use of Social Media on the Reliability of the Government: Focus on Twitter , 2015 .

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

[73]  Rui Gomes,et al.  Contributions to the Development of Local e-Government 2.0 , 2012, Future Internet.

[74]  Molly W. Andolina,et al.  Investing in Democracy: Engaging Citizens in Collaborative Governance , 2010 .

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

[76]  Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro,et al.  E-government and citizen's engagement with local affairs through e-websites: The case of Spanish municipalities , 2012, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[77]  David C. Li,et al.  Online social network acceptance: a social perspective , 2011, Internet Res..

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

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

[80]  R. Karl Rethemeyer,et al.  Network Management Reconsidered: An Inquiry into Management of Network Structures in Public Sector Service Provision , 2007 .