Summary
Samenvatting - Governance and Digitalisation (6452134)
- Course
- Institution
A summary of all articles that are the exam material for this course. Developed weekly, these articles form the basis for the exam.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
elsemariebittink
Reviews received
Content preview
INHOUDINHOUD 1
WEEK 1 2
Gil-Garcia et al. Revisiting the problem of Technological and Social Determinism:
Reflections for Digital Government Scholars 2
West, D. M. (2005, Introduction, pages 1-21). Digital government: Technology and public
sector performance. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (OA) 4
WEEK 2 7
Harari, Y. N. (2018). Why technology favors tyranny. The Atlantic, 322(3), 64-73. 7
Lee, C. P., Chang, K., & Berry, F. S. (2011). Testing the development and diffusion of e‐
government and e‐democracy: A global perspective. Public administration review, 71(3),
444-454. 7
Evgeny Morozov: How the Net aids dictatorships 12
WEEK 3 13
Degli Esposti, S., Ball, K., & Dibb, S. (2021). What's In It For Us? Benevolence, National
Security, and Digital Surveillance. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 862-873. 13
The Guardian (2016). The power of privacy (4/5): Open data: mapping the fallout from
Fukushima 13
The Guardian (2016). The power of privacy (5/5): The house that data built: living in a
smart home 14
Lips, A. M. B., Taylor, J. A., & Organ, J. (2009). Managing citizen identity information in
Egovernment service relationships in the UK: the emergence of a surveillance state or a
service state?. Public Management Review, 11(6), 833-856. 14
WEEK 4 16
Shirky (2005). Institutions vs. collaboration. TED Talks. 16
Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2015). Crowdsourcing and regulatory reviews: A new way of
challenging red tape in British government?. Regulation & Governance 17
Meijer, A. J., & Torenvlied, R. (2016). Social media and the new organization of
government communications: An empirical analysis of Twitter usage by the Dutch police.
The American review of public administration, 46(2), 143-161. 18
WEEK 5 21
Lavertu, S. (2016). We all need help: “Big data” and the mismeasure of public
administration. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 864-872. 21
Maciejewski, M. (2017). To do more, better, faster and more cheaply: Using big data in
public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(1_suppl),
120-135. 22
Mergel, I., Rethemeyer, R. K., & Isett, K. (2016). Big data in public affairs. Public
Administration Review, 76(6), 928-937. 25
WEEK 6 26
(!!!) Busuioc, M. (2021). Accountable artificial intelligence: Holding algorithms to account.
Public Administration Review, 81(5), 825-836.
[Digital version available through Leiden University Library] 26
(!!!) Pina, V., Torres, L., & Royo, S. (2007). Are ICTs improving transparency and
accountability in the EU regional and local governments? An empirical study. Public
administration, 85(2), 449-472. 26
Andrews, L. (2019). Public administration, public leadership and the construction of
, public value in the age of the algorithm and ‘big data’. Public Administration, 97(2),
296-310. 27
WEEK 7 29
(!!!) Ingrams, A., Piotrowski, S., & Berliner, D. (2020). Learning from our mistakes: public
management reform and the hope of open government. Perspectives on Public
Management and Governance, 3(4), 257-272. 29
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is
dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal of public administration research and
theory, 16(3), 467-494. 30
Goldfinch, S. (2007). Pessimism, computer failure, and information systems development
in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 917-929. 33
WEEK 1
Gil-Garcia et al. Revisiting the problem of Technological and Social
Determinism: Reflections for Digital Government Scholars
Introduction
The use of information and ICTs, including knowledge, skills and techniques, have always
been important for governments to achieve their objectives. ICTs have the potential to
transform government organizations. But many studies show how organizational structures
and institutional arrangements affect both implementation and final results of digital
government applications. When talking about change (technological or social) in digital
government, the importance of both technical and social aspects involved in the
phenomenon, one aspect is privileged over another → technological determinism or social
determinism. The problem at the core is social change and the role of technology in it.
Technological Determinism
Technological determinism has an opposite: voluntarism. Determinism and voluntarism are
the two sides of a distinction that occurs in order to explain human action, the state of
society and social change. While determinism assumes that human action is caused by
technology, culture or other structural factors, voluntarism holds that human action is the
product of individuals having free will to decide and govern themselves and thereby social
structures. Technological determinism remains as one of the main lines of explanation of
social change.
Industrialization has led to the era of an information and network society based on ICTs.
Technology is understood as ‘material culture’ and is a fundamental dimension of social
structure and social change. Technological determinism in modern society includes or
implies an informational determinism, which could be considered as another form of
technological determinism.
It is assumed that having an integrated information system has the potential to improve the
processes of planning and decision-making by government managers and provide easier
,access to information for citizens and other stakeholders. This kind of causal relationship, in
which ICTs are anticipated to have the power to directly transform government organizations
and enhance the benefits they give to society is what can be characterized as technological
determinism in digital government. Technological determinism could be characterized as
ICTs-included positive changes in governmental organizations.
There is a linear causal relationship where technology is the cause and change is the
predictable and predetermined effect. Problems with obtaining the desired result, are
attributed to problems with existing technology, to its ineffectiveness or lack of functionality.
The central actor for social change is the government, who has greater power through
technology to achieve its objectives for social development through public policies that are
powered by ICTs.
Social determinism
Economic, political and cultural factors can hinder progress and need to be solved in order to
access the benefits of the use of new ICTs. These limitations on the use of ICTs by the
government, which are then seen to dictate the possible results and the causes of both
success and failure, then serve as the dominant form of social determinism in the field of
e-government. Social determinism is an analytical category allowing distinctions and
classifications according to the privilege given to a particular causality and its directionality.
It is a causal link going in the opposite direction of technological determinism: social factors
are what determine how technology is used, especially in the results from its incorporation
into society. Technology has no power by itself that can generate a change. Human action is
always what builds, implements and uses technology and thereby what produces social
change. Technology is a social product and does not give greater access to public
information or encourage citizen participation.
Social determinism in the study of digital government, which also contains a ‘cultural
determinism’, refers to factors that relate to the practices of individuals and groups, whether
in organizations or in society in general, which are the cause of an ICT project’s failure in
government.
The problem is to assume that there is a linear relationship of causality between the factors
involved that in this case goes from organizational, institutional, cultural, societal to
technology. That way of understanding the causal relationships implies that by manipulating
some or all of these inputs to digital government projects, the results can be successfully
obtained. However, the results of some studies that try to observe these relations in a more
complex way show that technology characteristics and social factors affect each other in
bidirectional and circular causal relationships.
Preliminary Results: Some Reflections
The main criticism of technological determinism is the lack of consideration of the factors
involved at the societal, organizational, individual and cultural level. Social determinism is
criticized for the high weight given to social factors in the causal link; downplaying the
potential transformational power of technology.
Although technology has the potential to transform the internal operation of government and
dramatically improve the delivery of public services, the relationship between ICTs and social
structures is bidirectional and complex. ICTs have the ability to transform governmental
organizations, but at the same time they are affected by organizational and institutional
factors in their selection, design, implementation and specific use → ensemble view
, perspective; technology as an embedded system. Using different, but related concepts, the
theories propose that there is a dynamic interaction between organizational structures and
ICTs.
West, D. M. (2005, Introduction, pages 1-21). Digital government: Technology
and public sector performance. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (OA)
Despite the prevalence (invloed) of online options, there are three unanswered questions
that form the heart of this research:
- First, how much are the Internet and other digital delivery systems transforming the
public sector?
- Second, what determines the speed and breadth of e-government adoption?
- Third, what are the consequences of digital technology for public sector performance,
the political process, and democracy?
E-government is a field in which practitioners and theorists need to address one another and
share their respective insights. It is vitally important that
- We have clear conceptual frameworks for the analysis of e-government.
- It also is crucial that these frameworks rest on empirical analysis that actually shows
what is happening and what problems need to be addressed
Traditional bricks-and-mortar agencies - hierarchical, linear, and one-way in their
communications style Digital delivery systems
- nonhierarchical, nonlinear, interactive, and available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a
week
The Internet will transform government. By facilitating two-way interaction, electronic
governance has been hailed (wordt geprezen als) as a way to improve service delivery
(dienstverlening) and responsiveness (reactievermogen) to citizens. Stephen Goldsmith,
President George W. Bush’s Special Advisor for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,
says “electronic government will not only break down boundaries and reduce transaction
costs between citizens and their governments but between levels of government as well.”
Jeffrey Seifert and Matthew Bonham argue digital government has the potential to transform
governmental efficiency, transparency, citizen trust, and political participation in transitional
democracies.
The classic model of large-scale transformation
System transformation is defined as a “complete change in character, condition,” or “epochal
breakthroughs (baanbrekende doorbraak).” In this perspective, change is rapid and abrupt,
and visible to social observers. Often spurred either by scientific breakthroughs or economic
improvements that facilitate the availability of the new Electronic Government technology,
large-scale change produces revolutions in individual behavior and organizational activities.
New technologies enhance (verbeteren) communication by overcoming (overwinnen)
geographical distance, promoting ideological variety, opening citizens to more diverse
viewpoints, and encouraging deliberation. These benefits give the Internet unusually great
promise as a tool for democracy.
An alternative model stresses (benadrukt) incrementalism
Charles Lindblom in regard to organizational decision making, this kind of change is
characterized as a “muddling through” process. In the world of government, Lindblom
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller elsemariebittink. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $7.97. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
82956 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now