Strategic e-government development and the role of benchmarking

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 573-581

  Kromidha, Endrit ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Benchlearning; Benchmarking; Donor benchmarker duality; E Government; International assistance; Neoinstitutionalism

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866279861     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.04.006     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Aiken M., Hage J. Organizational interdependence and intra-organizational structure. American Sociological Review 1968, 33(6):912-930.
2. Alesina A., Dollar D. Who gives foreign aid to whom and why?. Journal of Economic Growth 2000, 5(1):33-63.
3. Archer M.S. Morphogenesis versus structuration: On combining structure and action. The British Journal of Sociology 1982, 33(4):455-483.
4. World Bank World population statistics Retrieved, 2012, from. http://datafinder.worldbank.org/population-total.
5. Bannister F. The curse of the benchmark: An assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisons. International Review of Administrative Sciences 2007, 73(2):171-188.
6. Barzelay M. The new public management: Improving policy and research dialogue 2001, University of California Press Berkeley, USA.
7. Bryman A., Bell E. Business research methods 2007, Oxford University Press, USA.
8. Burnside C., Dollar D. Aid, policies, and growth. The American Economic Review 2000, 90(4):847-868.
9. Ciborra C. Interpreting e-government and development: Efficiency, transparency or governance at a distance?. Information Technology & People 2005, 18(3):260-279.
10. Ciborra C., Navarra D.D. Good governance, development theory, and aid policy: Risks and challenges of e-government in Jordan. Information Technology for Development 2005, 11(2):141-159.
11. Cocchiglia M., Vernaschi S. e-Government for development. Journal of E-Government 2006, 2(2):3-18.
12. Collier P., Dollar D. Aid allocation and poverty reduction. European Economic Review 2002, 46(8):1475-1500.
13. European Commission eEurope 2005: An information society for all 2002, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium.
14. Crawford G. Foreign aid and political reform: A comparative analysis of democracy assistance and political conditionality 2001, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA.
15. Crawford G., Kearton I. Evaluating democracy and governance assistance 2002, Centre for Development Studies, University of Leeds, UK.
16. Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. (PhD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
17. Davis F.D., Bagozzi R.P., Warshaw P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 1989, 35(8):982-1003.
18. DiMaggio P. The new institutionalisms: Avenues of collaboration. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) 1998, 154(4):696-705.
19. DiMaggio P.J., Powell W.W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 1983, 48(2):147-160.
20. DiMaggio P.J., Powell W.W. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis 1991, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.
21. Dunleavy P., Hood C. From old public administration to new public management. Public Money & Management 1994, 14(3):9-16.
22. Dunleavy P., Margetts H., Bastow S., Tinkler J. New public management is dead. Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2006, 16(3):467-494.
23. Evans P.B., Rueschemeyer D., Skocpol T. Bringing the state back in 1985, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
24. Fountain J.E. Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change 2001, Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C., USA.
25. Franck T.M. The emerging right to democratic governance. The American Journal of International Law 1992, 86(1):46-91.
26. Geels F.W., Schot J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 2007, 36(3):399-417.
27. Graafland-Essers I., Ettedgui E. Benchmarking e-government in Europe and the US 2003, Rand Corporation, California, USA.
28. Hall P.A., Taylor R.C.R. Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies 1996, 44(5):936-957.
29. Harrison M.I., Koppel R., Bar-Lev S. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care. An interactive sociotechnical analysis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2007, 14(5):542-549.
30. Hawley A.H. Human ecology: A theory of community structure 1950, Ronald Press Co., New York, USA.
31. Hay C. Constructivist institutionalism. The Oxford handbook of political science 2006, 56-74. Oxford University Press, New York, USA. R.A.W. Rhodes, S.A. Binder, B.A. Rockman (Eds.).
32. Hay C., Wincott D. Structure, agency and historical institutionalism. Political Studies 1998, 46(5):951-957.
33. Heeks R. e-Government in Africa: Promise and practice. Information Polity 2002, 7(2/3):97-104.
34. Heeks R. Most e-government-for-development projects fail: How can risks be reduced? 2003, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, UK.
35. Heeks R. Benchmarking e-government: Improving the national and international measurement, evaluation and comparison of e-government. IDPM i-Government Working Paper 2006, 18.
36. Heeks R., Bailur S. Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly 2007, 24(2):243-265.
37. Montserrat J.B. Local e-government bench-learning. Towards a new methodological framework to benchmark electronic services provision and adoption in local public administration 2010, Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Documentació Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.
38. Jansen J., De Vries S., Van Schaik P. The contextual benchmark method: Benchmarking e-government services. Government Information Quarterly 2010, 27(3):213-219.
39. Janssen D., Rotthier S., Snijkers K. If you measure it they will score: An assessment of international eGovernment benchmarking. Information Polity 2004, 9(3-4):121-130.
40. Kunstelj M., Vintar M. Evaluating the progress of e-government development: A critical analysis. Information Polity 2004, 9(3, 4):131-148.
41. Lane J.E. New public management 2000, Routledge, London, UK.
42. Layne K., Lee J. Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly 2001, 18(2):122-136.
43. Lowndes V. Institutionalism. Theories and methods in political science 2002, 90-108. Palgrave, Basingstoke, UK. 2nd ed. D. Marsh, G. Stoker (Eds.).
44. March J.G., Olsen J.P. Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics 1989, Free Press, New York, USA.
45. March J.G., Olsen J.P. Democratic governance 1995, Free Press, New York, USA.
46. March J.G., Olsen J.P. The logic of appropriateness - Advanced research on the Europeanization of the nation-state 2004, ARENA - Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
47. Matei A., Savulescu C. E-government in the Balkans: Comparative study. National and European values of public administration in the balkans 2011, 32-51. Economica Publishing House, Romania. A. Matei, C. Radulescu (Eds.).
48. Meyer J.W., Rowan B. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology 1977, 83(2):340-363.
49. Nielsen K. Institutionalist approaches in the social sciences: Typology, dialogue, and future challenges. Journal of Economic Issues 2001, 35(2):505-516.
50. North D.C. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
51. Orlikowski W.J. The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science 1992, 3(3):398-427.
52. Orlikowski W.J. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Resources, co-evaluation and artifacts - Theory in computer supported cooperative work 2008, 255-305. Springer, London, UK. M.S. Ackerman, C.A. Halverson, T. Ericskon, W.A. Kellogg (Eds.).
53. Orlikowski W.J., Robey D. Information technology and the structuring of organizations 1991, Center for Information Systems Research, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, USA.
54. Ostrom E. Rational choice theory and economic analysis. Towards complementarity. American Political Science Review 1991, 85(1):238-243.
55. Peters B.G. Political institutions, old and new. A new handbook of political science 1998, 205-221. Oxford Scholarship Online Monographs, UK. R.E. Goodin, H.D. Klingemann (Eds.).
56. Peters B.G. Institutional theory in political science: The 'new institutionalism' 2005, Continuum International Publishing Group, London, UK.
57. Poel I.v.d The transformation of technological regimes. Research Policy 2003, 32(1):49-68.
58. Rorissa A., Demissie D., Pardo T. Benchmarking e-government: A comparison of frameworks for computing e-government index and ranking. Government Information Quarterly 2011, 28(3):354-362.
59. Schmidt V.A. Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 2008, 11:303-326.
60. Scott W.R. Institutions and organizations. Foundations for organizational science 1995, Sage Publications, London, UK. 2nd ed.
61. Sharma S.K. Assessing e-government implementations. Electronic Government, an International Journal 2004, 1(2):198-212.
62. Stability Pact eSEEurope agenda for the development of the information society: A cooperative effort to implement the information society in South-Eastern Europe 2002, Stability Pact - Electronic South Eastern Europe Initiative "ESEE", Ljubljana, Slovenia.
63. Steinmo S., Thelen K.A., Longstreth F. Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis 1992, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
64. Stone D., Maxwell S., Keating M. Bridging research and policy. Background paper presented for an international workshop funded by the UK Department for International Development, Radcliffe House, Warwick University 2001.
65. Thelen K. Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science 1999, 2(1):369-404.
66. Thompson J.D. Organizations in action: Social science bases of administration 1967, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
67. Trauner F. From membership conditionality to policy conditionality: EU external governance in South-Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 2009, 16(5):774-790.
68. UNCTAD Information economy report. (No. 6) 2011, United Nations, New York and Geneva.
69. UNDP Europe and CIS United nations development programme - Democratic governance Retrieved November, 2010, from. http://europeandcis.undp.org/.
70. UNPAN United Nations E-Government Development Knowledge Base. (No. 2010) 2003-2010, United Nations Public Administration Networks, New York and Geneva.
71. Venkatesh V., Davis F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 2000, 46(2):186-204.
72. Venkatesh V., Morris M.G., Davis G.B., Davis F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003, 27(3):425-478.
73. Von Haldenwang C. Electronic government (e-government) and development. The European Journal of Development Research 2004, 16(2):417-432.
74. Walsham G. Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 1995, 4(2):74-81.
75. Walsham G. Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems 2006, 15(3):320-330.
76. Walsham G., Waema T. Information systems strategy and implementation: A case study of a building society. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 1994, 12(2):150-173.
77. Wauters P., Lorincz B. User satisfaction and administrative simplification within the perspective of e-government impact: Two faces of the same coin. European Journal of ePractice 2008, 4(2):1-10.
78. Weir M., Skocpol T. State structures and the possibilities for 'Keynesian' responses to the great depression in Sweden, Britain and the United States. Bringing the state back in 1985, 107-163. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. P.B. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, T. Skocpol (Eds.).
79. Yang K. Neoinstitutionalism and e-government. Social Science Computer Review 2003, 21(4):432-442.
80. Yildiz M. E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly 2007, 24(3):646-665.
81. Yin R.K. Case study research: Design and methods 2009, Sage Publications, London, UK. 4th ed.
82. Zucker L.G. The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review 1977, 42(5):726-743.