A comparative study of e-government XBRL implementations: The potential of improving information transparency and efficiency

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 553-563

  Chen, Yu Che ^a  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

E Government; Financial information; Implementation; SBR; Transparency; XBRL

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866275388     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.05.009     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Alles M., Piechocki M. Will XBRL improve corporate governance? A framework for enhancing governance decision making using interactive data. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 2010, 10.1016/j.accinf.2010.09.008.
2. Allison G. Essence of decision 1971, Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
3. Baker N. Holland takes a different tack on XBRL. Compliance week 2008.
4. Bannister F., Connolly R. The trouble with transparency: A critical review of openness in e-government. Policy & Internet 2011, 3(1).
5. Bardach E. Turf barriers to interagency collaboration. The state of public management 1996, 168-192. Johns Hopskin University Press, Baltimore, MD. D. Kettl, B. Milward (Eds.).
6. Bertot J.C., Jaeger P.T., Grimes J.M. Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: e-Government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly 2010, 27(3):264-271.
7. Bharosa N., van Wijk R., Janssen M., de Winne N., Hulstijn J. Managing the transformation to standard business reporting: Principles and lessons learned from the Netherlands. Paper presented at the Dg.o'11, the 12th annual international conference on digital government research 2011.
8. Bingi P., Sharma M.K., Godla J. Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation. Information Systems Management 1999, 16(3):7-14.
9. Bonsón E., Cortijo V., Escobar T. Towards the global adoption of XBRL using international financial reporting standards (IFRS). International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 2009, 10:46-60.
10. Booth R.C. FY 2007 e-government act report for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 2007, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C.
11. Brown M.M., O'Toole L., Brudney J.L. Implementing information technology in government: An empirical assessment of the role of local partnership. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1998, 8(4):499-525.
12. Chen Y.C., Hsieh J.Y. Advancing e-governance: Comparing Taiwan and the United States. Public Administration Review 2009, 69(Supplement 1).
13. Chen Y.C., Knepper R. Digital government development strategies: Lessons for policy makers from a comparative perspective. Electronic Government Strategies and Implementation 2005, 394-420. Idea Publishing, Hershey, PA. W. Huang, K. Siau, K.K. Wei (Eds.).
14. Chen Y.C., Perry J. Outsourcing for e-government: Managing for success. Public Performance & Management Review 2003, 26(4):404-421.
15. Davis F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 1989, 13(3):319-339.
16. Dawes S. Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 1996, 15(3):377-394.
17. Dawes S., Cresswell A., Pardo T. From "need to know" to "need to share": Tangled problems, information boundaries, and the building of public sector knowledge networks. Public Administration Review 2009, 69(3):392-402.
18. Dawes S., Helbig N. Information strategies for open government: Challenges and prospects for deriving public value from government transparency. e-Government: Lecture notes in computer science 2010, Vol. LNCS 6628:50-60. IFIP: EGov. M.A. Wimmer, J.L. Chappelet, M. Janssen, H.J. Scholl (Eds.).
19. Debreceny R.S., Chandra A., Cheh J.J., Guithues-Amrhein D., Hannon N.J., Hutchison P.D., et al. Financial reporting in XBRL on the SEC's EDGAR system: A critique and evaluation. Journal of Information Systems 2005, 19(2):191-210.
20. Debreceny R., Farewell S., Piechocki M., Felden C., Gräning A. Does it add up? Early evidence on the data quality of XBRL filings to the SEC. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 2010, 29(3):296-306.
21. Devedžić V. Semantic web and education 2006, Spinger Science+Business Media, LLC, New York.
22. DiMaggio P., Powell W.W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 1983, 48(2):147-160.
23. Efendi J., Smith M., Wong J. Longitudinal analysis of voluntary adoption of XBRL on financial reporting 2009.
24. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Improved business process through XBRL: A use case for business reporting 2006, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Washington, D.C.
25. Fountain J. Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change 2001, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
26. Fung A., Graham M., Weil D. Full disclosure: The perils and promise of transparency 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.
27. Grimmelikhuijsen S. Do transparent government agencies strengthen trust?. Information Policy 2009, 14(3):173-186.
28. Hameleers M., Kupers R. Going Dutch. BR 2011, August, 1:10-13.
29. Heeks R. Reinventing government in the information age: International practice in IT-enabled public sector reform 1999, Routledge, London and New York.
30. Hernon P., Cullen R., Relyea H. Comparative perspectives on e-government: Serving today and building for tomorrow 2006, Scarecrow Press, Inc., Lanham, Maryland.
31. Ho A.T.K. Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review 2002, 62(4):434-444.
32. Ho A.T.K., Ni A.Y. Explaining the adoption of e-government features: A case study of Iowa County Treasurers' offices. American Review of Public Administration 2004, 34(2):164-180.
33. Khademian A. A public administration moment: Forging an agenda for financial regulatory reform. Public Administration Review 2009, 69(4):595-602.
34. King G., Keohane R., Verba S. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
35. Koppell J.G.S. Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of "multiple accountabilities disorder". Public Administration Review 2005, 65(1):94-108.
36. Lee J. Determinants of government bureaucrats' new PMIS adoption: The role of organizational power, IT capability, administrative role, and attitude. American Review of Public Administration 2008, 2008(2):180-202.
37. Web 2.0: The business model 2009, Springer, New York. M. Lytras, E. Damiani, P.O. de Pablos (Eds.).
38. Madden P. Standard business reporting 2009, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra MC.
39. Majid M.H., Koo I. XBRL: One year on, an update on Singapore's XBRL implementation effort 2008.
40. McGuire M., Silvia C. The effect of problem severity, managerial and organizational capacity, and agency structure on intergovernmental collaboration: Evidence from local emergency management. Public Administration Review 2010, 70(2).
41. Melitski J. Capacity and e-government performance: An analysis based on early adopters of internet technologies in New Jersey. Public Performance and Management Review 2003, 26(4):376-390.
42. Moon J., Norris D. Does managerial orientation matter? The adoption of reinventing government and e-government at the municipal level. Information Systems Journal 2005, 15:43-60.
43. North D.C. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
44. O'Reilly T. What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software 2005, (Retrieved April 29, 2012).
45. Ostrom E. A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review 1998, 92(1):1-22.
46. Ostrom E., Gardner R., Walker J. Rules, games and common-pool resources 1994, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
47. O'Toole L. Implementing public innovations in network settings. Administration and Society 1997, 29(2):115-134.
48. O'Toole L., Montjoy R.S. Interorganizational policy implementation: A theoretical perspective. Public Administration Review 1984, 44(6):491-503.
49. Pardo T.A., Scholl H.J. Walking atop the cliffs: Avoiding failure and reducing risk in large scale e-government projects. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii 2002.
50. Pardo T.A., Tayi G.K. Interorganizational information integration: A key enabler for digital government. Government Information Quarterly 2007, 24(4):691-715.
51. Peretz P., Schroedel J.R. Financial regulation in the United States: Lessons from history. Public Administration Review 2009, 69(4):603-612.
52. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford, CA (originally) New York: Stanford University Press (Originally) Harper and Row in 1978.
53. Poon P., Wagner C. Critical success factors revisited: Success and failure cases of information systems for senior executives. Decision Support Systems 2001, 30(4):393-418.
54. Premuroso R.F., Bhattacharya S. Do early and voluntary filers of financial information in XBRL format signal superior corporate governance and operating performance?. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 2008, 9(1):1-20.
55. Provan K., Kenis P. Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2008, 18(2):229-252.
56. Ragin C.C. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies 1987, University of California Press, Ltd., Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
57. Reddick C. Public-sector e-commerce and state financial management: Capacity versus wealth. Social Science Computer Review 2004, 22(3):293-306.
58. Rethemeyer K., Hatmaker D. Network management reconsidered: An inquiry into management of network structures in public sector service provision. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2008, 18(4):617-646.
59. Roohani S., Furusho Y., Koizumi M. XBRL: Improving transparency and monitoring functions of corporate governance. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 2009, 6(4):355-369.
60. Seidman H. Politics, position, and power: The dynamics of federal organization 1970, Oxford University Press, New York.
61. Siegel D. Pull: The power of the semantic web to transform your business 2009, PORTFOLIO, a Member of the Penguin Group, New York.
62. Standard Business Reporting NL (HNTP) Signing covenants next step towards large-scale XBRL filing 2009, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Justice, The Hague, Netherlands.
63. Stantial J. ROI on XBRL: Interactive data cuts reporting costs today. Journal of Accountancy 2007, June, 203(6):32-35.
64. Strauss A., Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research 1990, Sage Publication, Newbury Park, CA.
65. The Dutch Taxonomy Project From NTP to SBR: Perspective on a special project 2008, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Justice, Hague, Netherlands.
66. Tolbert C., Mossberger K., McNeal R.S. Institutions, policy innovation, and e-government in the American states. Public Administration Review 2008, 68(3):549-563.
67. Venkatesh V., Morris M., Davis G., Davis F. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003, 27(3):425-478.
68. Watson L.A. Sorry wrong number - Study finds financial results of 209 listed Indian companies don't add up. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 2009, 6(3):185-187.
69. Welch E.W., Mazur A., Bretschneider S. Voluntary behavior by electric utilities: Levels of adoption and contribution of the climate challenge program to the reduction of carbon dioxide. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2000, 19(3):407.
70. Welch E., Wong W. Global information technology pressure and government accountability: The mediating effect of domestic context on website openness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2001, (4):509-538.
71. Willcocks L., Sykes R. The role of the CIO and IT function in ERP. Communication of the ACM 2000, 43(4):32-38.
72. Yang K. Neoinstitutionalism and e-government. Social Science Computer Review 2003, 21(4):432-442.
73. Yardley D. Successful IT project delivery 2002, Pearson Education, London, Great Britain.
74. Yin R. Case study research: Design and methods 2003, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. 3rd edition.