Institutional isomorphism, policy networks, and the analytical depreciation of measurement indicators: The case of the EU e-government benchmarking

Telecommunications Policy

Volumn 39, Issue 3-4, 2015, Pages 305-319

  Codagnone, Cristiano ^a,b   Misuraca, Gianluca ^c   Savoldelli, Alberto ^d   Lupiañez Villanueva, Francisco ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^c JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

^d Independent Consultant   (Italy)

^e UNIVERSITAT OBERTA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Benchmarking; e government; European Union; Institutional isomorphism; Open Method of Coordination; Policy networks

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACTING; BENCHMARKING; E-GOVERNMENT; SET THEORY;

E-GOVERNMENT SERVICES; EUROPEAN UNION; INSTITUTIONAL ISOMORPHISM; MEASUREMENT INDICATORS; OPEN METHOD OF COORDINATION; POLICY NETWORKS; POLITICAL DIMENSIONS; PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATION;

PUBLIC POLICY;

EID: 84939970580     PISSN: 03085961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2015.01.005     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. Accenture. (2003). e-government leadership: Engaging the customer.
2. Accenture. (2004). e-government leadership: High performance, maximum value.
3. Accenture. (2007). Leadership in customer service: Delivering on the promise.
4. W. Alonso, and P. Starr The politics of numbers 1987 Russell Sage Foundation New York
5. F. Amoretti Benchmarking electonic democracy A. Anttiroiko, M. Malkia, Encyclopedia of digital government 2007 Information Science Hershey, PA 135 140
6. ANAO Electronic service delivery, including internet use by Commonwealth Government Agencies 1999 Australian National Auditing Office Canberra
7. K. Andersen, and H. Henriksen The first leg of e-government research:domains and application areas 1998-2003 International Journal of Electronic Government Research 1 4 2005 26 44
8. K. Andersen, H. Henriksen, R. Medaglia, J. Danziger, M. Sannarnes, and M. Enemærke Fads and facts of e-government: a review of impacts of e-government (2003-2009) International Journal of Public Administration 33 11 2010 564 579 10.1080/01900692.2010.517724
9. C. Arndt The politics of governance ratings International Public Management Journal 11 3 2008 275 297
10. F. Bannister The curse of the benchmark: an assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisons International Review of Administrative Sciences 73 2 2007 171 188 10.1177/0020852307077959
11. Baum, C., & Di Maio, A. (2000). Gartner's four phases of e-government model.
12. J. Beckert Institutional isomorphism revisited: Convergence and divergence in institutional change∗ Sociological Theory 28 2 2010 150 166 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01369.x
13. J. Best Damned lies and statistics: Untangling numbers from the media, politicians, and activists 2001 University of California Press Berkeley
14. D. Broster, G. Misuraca, and M. Bacigalupo Lifting off towards open government: A report from the EU Belgian presidency conference European Journal of ePractice 12 2011 1 13
15. Capgemini. (2005). Online availability of public services: How is Europe progressing? Report of the fifth measurement (October 2004). Brussels: European Commission, DG Information Society and Media.
16. Capgemini. (2006). Online availability of public services: How is Europe progressing? Report of the 6th measurement. Brussels: European Commission, DG Information Society and Media.
17. Capgemini The user challenge benchmarking. The supply of online public services 7th measurement 2007 European Commission, DG Information Society Brussels
18. Capgemini Ernst, and Young Summary report web-based survey on electronic public services: Results of the first measurement 2001 European Commission, DG Information Society Brussels
19. Capgemini Ernst, and Young Summary report web-based survey on electronic public services: Results of the second measurement 2002 European Commission, DG Information Society Brussels
20. Capgemini Ernst, & Young. (2003a). Online availability of public services: How is Europe progressing? Report of the 4th measurement (October 2003). Brussels: European Commission, DG Information Society.
21. Capgemini Ernst, and Young Web-based survey on electronic public services. Results of the third measurement (October 2002) 2003 European Commission, DG Information Society Brussels
22. Capgemini et al. Smarter, faster, better e-government, 8th measurement 2009 European Commission, DG Information Society and Media Brussels
23. Capgemini, et al. (2010a). Digitizing public service in Europe: Putting ambition into action, 9th benchmark measurement. Brussels: European Commission, DG Information Society and Media.
24. Capgemini et al. Method paper 2010, preparing the 9th benchmark measurement 2010 European Commission, DG Information Society and Media Brussels
25. Capgemini, et al. (2012a). e-government benchmark framework 2012-2015. Method Paper. Brussels: European Commission, DG Connect.
26. Capgemini, et al. (2012b). Public services online 'Digital by Default or by Detour?' Assessing user centric e-government performance in Europe - e-government benchmark 2012. Final background report. Brussels: European Commission, DG Connect.
27. Capgemini, et al. (2012c). Public services online 'Digital by Default or by Detour?' Assessing user centric e-government performance in Europe - e-government benchmark 2012. Final Insight Report. Brussels: European Commission, DG Connect.
28. L. Carter, and F. Bélanger The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors Information Systems Journal 15 1 2005 5 25 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00183.x
29. L. Carter, and V. Weerakkody e-government adoption: A cultural comparison Information Systems Frontiers 10 4 2008 473 482 10.1007/s10796-008-9103-6
30. Codagnone, C., & Undheim, T. (2008). Government efficiency and effectiveness: The theory and practice of benchmarking and measurement. European Journal of e-Practice, 1(4), 4-18. Also available at: .
31. D. Coursey, and D.F. Norris Models of e-government: Are they correct? An empirical assessment Public Administration Review 68 3 2008 523 536 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00888.x
32. M. Cowles, T. Risse, and J. Caporaso Transforming Europe: Conclusions M. Cowles, J. Caporaso, T. Risse, Transforming Europe: Europeanization and domestic change 2001 Ithaca and London Cornell University Press 217 238
33. J. de Neufville Social indicators and public policy: Interactive processes of design and application 1975 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co. Amsterdam, New York
34. Deloitte Research. (2000). At the dawn of e-government: The citizen as customer.
35. P. DiMaggio, and W. Powell The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields American Sociological Review 48 1983 147 160
36. P. DiMaggio, and W. Powell The new institutionalism in organizational analysis 1991 University of Chicago Press Chicago
37. P. Dunleavy, H. Margetts, S. Bastow, and J. Tinkler New public management is dead - Long live digital-era governance Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 3 2006 467 494
38. A. Etzioni, and E. Lehman Some dangers in 'valid' social measurements: Preliminary notes Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 373 1 1967 1 15
39. European Commission. (1999). e-Europe, an information society for all, communication on a commission initiative for the special European Council of Lisbon, 23-24 March 2000. COM(1999) 687 final. Brussels: European Commission.
40. European Commission. (2002a). e-Europe 2005, an information society for all: An action plan to be presented in view of the Seville European Council. COM(2002) 263 final. Brussels: European Commission.
41. European Commission. (2002b). e-Europe 2005: Benchmarking indicators. COM (2002) 655 final, Brussels: European Commission.
42. European Commission. (2003). The Role of e-Government for Europe's Future. COM(2003) 567 final, Brussels.
43. European Commission. (2004). Facing the challenge: The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment. Report from the High Level Group chaired by Wim Kok. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.
44. European Commission. (2005). i2010 - A European information society for growth and employment. COM (2005) 229 final. Brussels.
45. European Commission. (2006). i2010 e-government action plan: Accelerating e-Government in Europe for the benefit of all. COM(2006),173 final. Brussels.
46. European Commission. (2010a). A digital agenda for Europe. COM (2010)245 final. Brussels: European Commission.
47. European Commission. (2010b). Europe 2020. A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010) 2020 final, Brussels: European Commission.
48. European Commission. (2010c). The European e-government action plan 2011-2015. Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable & innovative government. COM(2010) 743 final. Brussels: European Commission.
49. X. Fernández-i-Marín The impact of e-government promotion in Europe: Internet dependence and critical mass Policy & Internet 3 4 2011 10.2202/1944-2866.1093
50. D. Gilbert, P. Balestrini, and D. Littleboy Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e-government International Journal of Public Sector Management 17 4 2004 286 301 10.1108/09513550410539794
51. Goldkuhl, G., Persson, A. (2006). From e-Ladder to e-Diamond - Re-conceptualising models for public e-Services. Paper presented at the 14th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2006), Göteborg, Sweden. Available at: .
52. Å. Grönlund Ten years of e-government: The 'end of history' and new beginning M. Wimmer, J. Chappelet, M. Janssen, H. Scholl, Electronic government Vol. 6228 2010 Springer Berlin, Heidelberg 13 24
53. Å. Grönlund, and T. Horan Introducing e-gov: History, definitions, and issues Communications of the Association for Information Systems 15 2004 2004 713 729
54. Heeks, R. (2006). Understanding and Measuring e-Government: International Benchmarking Studies. Paper presented at the UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs) Workshop on Participation and e-Government: Understanding the Present and Creating the Future, Budapest, Hungary. .
55. J. Hiller, and F. Bélanger Privacy strategies for electronic government, e-government series 2001 Endowment for the Business of Government, Pricewaterhouse Coopers Arlington, VA
56. P. Hills Prest's experience of evaluation Scientometrics 34 3 1995 401 414
57. M. Horst, M. Kuttschreuter, and J.M. Gutteling Perceived usefulness, personal experiences, risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-government services in the Netherlands Computers in Human Behavior 23 4 2007 1838 1852
58. i2010 High Level Group. (2009). Benchmarking Digital Europe 2011-2015 a Conceptual Framework. Brussels.
59. J. Innes Knowledge and Public Policy: The Search for Meaningful Indicators 1990 Transaction Publishers New Brunswick
60. Jansen, J., de Vries, S., & van Schaik, P. (2010). The contextual benchmark method: Benchmarking e-government services. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 213-219. 10.1016/j.giq.2010.02.003
61. D. Janssen, S. Rotthier, and K. Snijkers If you measure it they will score: An assessment of international e-government benchmarking Information Polity 9 3, 4 2004 121 130
62. Joerges, C., (1999). Bureaucratic nightmare, technocratic regime and the dream of good transnational governance'. In C. Joerges, & E. Vos, (Eds.), EU Committees: Social Regulation, Law and Politics.
63. V. Kumar, B. Mukerji, I. Butt, and A. Persaud Factors for successful e-government adoption: A conceptual framework Electronic Journal of e-government 5 1 2007 63 76
64. M. Kunstelj, and M. Vintar Evaluating the progress of e-government development: A critical analysis Information Polity 9 3, 4 2004 131 148
65. K. Layne, and J. Lee Developing fully functional e-government: A four-stage model Government Information Quarterly 18 2 2001 122 136
66. J. Lee 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-government: A qualitative meta-synthesis Government Information Quarterly 27 3 2010 220 230
67. J. Lee, H.J. Kim, and M.J. Ahn The willingness of e-government service adoption by business users: The role of offline service quality and trust in technology Government Information Quarterly 28 2 2011 222 230
68. M. Maggetti, and F. Gilardi The policy-making structure of European regulatory networks and the domestic adoption of standards Journal of European Public Policy 18 6 2011 830 847 10.1080/13501763.2011.593311
69. A. Martini How counterfactuals got lost on the way to brussels A. Fouquet, L. Méasson, L'évaluation des politiques publiques en Europe, cultures et futurs: Policy and programme evaluation in europe, cultures and prospects 2009 l'Harmattan Paris
70. Meade, A. W., Watson, A. M., & Kroustalis, C. M. (2007). Assessing Common Methods Bias in Organizational Research. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York.
71. J. Meyer World society 2009 Oxford University Press Oxford
72. G. Misuraca, C. Codagnone, and P. Rossel From practice to theory and back to practice: Reflexivity in measurement and evaluation for evidence-based policy making in the information society Government Information Quarterly 30 Suppl. 1 2013 S68 S82
73. B. Mosse, and E.A. Whitley Critically classifying: UK e-government website benchmarking and the recasting of the citizen as customer Information Systems Journal 19 2 2009 149 173
74. OECD. (2006a). How and Why Should Government Activity Be Measured in "Government at a Glance".GOV Technical Paper 1. Paris: OECD.
75. OECD. (2006b). Issues in Outcome Measurement for "Government at a Glance". GOV Technical Paper 3. Paris: OECD.
76. OECD Measuring government activity 2009 OECD Paris
77. Osimo, D. (2008). Benchmarking e-government in the web 2.0 era: What to measure and how. European Journal of e-Practice, 1(4), 33-43. Also available at: .
78. Peters, R. M., Janssen, M., & Engers, T. M. v. (2004). Measuring e-government impact: existing practices and shortcomings. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th international conference on electronic commerce, Delft, The Netherlands.
79. J. Peterson Decision-making in the European Union: Towards a framework for analysis Journal of European Public Policy 2 1 1995 69 93 10.1080/13501769508406975
80. Petricek, V., Escher, T., Cox, I., & Margetts, H. (2006). The web structure of e-government - Developing a methodology for quantitative evaluation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web, Edinburgh, Scotland.
81. M. Porter Strategy and the internet Harvard Business Review 79 2 2001 63 78
82. D.D. Potnis Measuring e-governance as an innovation in the public sector Government Information Quarterly 27 1 2010 41 48 10.1016/j.giq.2009.08.002
83. C.G. Reddick Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to servers? Government Information Quarterly 22 1 2005 38 57 10.1016/j.giq.2004.10.003
84. R. Rhodes Control and Power in Central-Local Relations 1981 Gower Aldershot
85. R. Rhodes Beyond Westminster and Whitehall 1988 Unwin-Hyman London
86. R. Rhodes Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance and Accountability 1997 Open University Press Buckingham
87. T. Risse, M. Cowles, and J. Caporaso Europeanization and domestic change: Introduction M. Cowles, J. Caporaso, T. Risse, Transforming Europe: Europeanization and domestic change 2001 Ithaca and London Cornell University Press 1 20
88. A. Rorissa, D. Demissie, and T. Pardo Benchmarking e-government: A comparison of frameworks for computing e-government index and ranking Government Information Quarterly 28 3 2011 354 362
89. S. Salem Benchmarking the e-government Bulldozer: Beyond measuring the tread marks Measuring Business Excellence 11 4 2008 9 22
90. A. Saltelli, B. D'Hombres, J. Jesinghaus, A. Manca, M. Mascherini, M. Nardo, and M. Saisana Indicators for European Union policies. Business as usual? Social Indicators Research 102 2 2011 197 207 10.1007/s11205-010-9678-4
91. A. Savoldelli, C. Codagnone, and G. Misuraca Understanding the e-government paradox: Learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption Government Information Quarterly 31 2014 2014 S63 S71 10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.008
92. F.W. Scharpf Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? 1999 Oxford University Press Oxford
93. C. Scott e-Government in the Asia-Pacific region 2001 Asian Development Bank Manila 31
94. M.A. Shareef, V. Kumar, U. Kumar, and Y.K. Dwivedi e-government Adoption Model (GAM): Differing service maturity levels Government Information Quarterly 28 1 2011 17 35 10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.006
95. Statskontoret. (2000). The 24/7 Agency: Criteria for 24/7 Agencies in the Networked Public Administration, Report 2000. Stockholm: 41 Statskontoret.
96. E. Szyszczak Experimental governance: The open method of coordination European Law Journal 12 4 2006 486 502
97. TNO & DTI i2010 e-government action plan progress study 2009 European Commission, DG Information Society and Media Brussels
98. M.W. Tomlinson, and G.P. Kelly Is everybody happy? The politics and measurement of national wellbeing Policy & Politics 41 2 2013 139 157
99. United Nations Benchmarking e-government: A global perspective: Assessing the UN member states 2001 United Nations - Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) New York
100. United Nations UN global e-government survey 2003 2003 United Nations - Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) New York
101. United Nations. (2005). UN Global e-government Readiness Report 2005. From e-government to e-inclusion. New York: United Nations - Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).
102. United Nations. (2008). UN e-government survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance. New York: United Nations - Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).
103. United Nations. (2010). United Nations e-government survey 2010: Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis. New York: United Nations - Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).
104. United Nations. (2012). United Nations e-government survey 2010: e-government for the people. New York: United Nations - Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).
105. W. Van Dooren A politico-administrative agenda for progress in social measurement: Reforming the calculation of government's contribution to GDP Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 11 3 2009 309 326 10.1080/13876980903220751
106. P. Verdegem, and G. Verleye User-centered e-government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction Government Information Quarterly 26 3 2009 487 497
107. D. West e-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes Public Administration Review 64 1 2004 15 27
108. D. West Digital government: Technology and public sector performance 2005 Princeton University Press Princeton, NJ
109. West, D. (2007). Global e-government. Providence, RI. Center for Public Policy, Brown University Available online at: .
110. A. Whitmore A statistical analysis of the construction of the United Nations e-Government Development Index Government Information Quarterly 29 1 2012 68 75 10.1016/j.giq.2011.06.003
111. WITSA Digital planet 2010 2010 World Information Technology and Services Alliance Taipei