The influence of political factors in policymakers' perceptions on the implementation of Web 2.0 technologies for citizen participation and knowledge sharing in public sector delivery

Information Polity

Volumn 20, Issue 2-3, 2015, Pages 199-220

  Rodríguez Bolívar, Manuel Pedro ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

local governments; political factors; Web 2.0

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941213592     PISSN: 15701255     EISSN: 18758754     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3233/IP-150365     Document Type: Article

References (108)

1. Ahn MJ, Bretschneider S. Politics of E-Government: E-Government and the Political Control of Bureaucracy. Public Administration Review. 2011; 71(3): 414-424.
2. Baber WB. Toward Understanding the Role of Auditing in the Public Sector. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 1983; 5: 213-227.
3. Bertot JC, Jaeger PT, Grimes JM. Crowd-sourcing transparency: ICTs, social media, and government transparency initiatives, Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, 2010a.
4. Bertot JC, Jaeger PT, Grimes JM. 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.
5. Bertot JC, Jaeger PT, Munson S, Glaisyer T. Social media technology and government transparency. Computer. 2010; 43(11): 53-59.
6. D. Bertram. Likert scales (available at http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~kristina/topic-dane-likert.pdf), 2007.
7. Blank G, Reisdorf BC. The Participatory Web. Information, Communication & Society. 2012; 15(4): 537-554.
8. Bonsón E, Torres L, Royo S, Flores F. Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly. 2012; 29(2): 123-132.
9. Boulos MNK, Maramba I, Wheeler S. Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education, BMCMedical Education, (available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/6/41.#B68, 2006.
10. Cegarra Navarro JG, Córdoba Pachón JR, Moreno Cegarra JL. E-government and citizen's engagement with local affairs through e-Websites: The case of Spanish municipalities. International Journal of Information Management. 2012; 32(5): 469-478.
11. Chan CML, Lau YM, Pan SL. E-government implementation: A macro analysis of Singapore's e-government initiatives. Government Information Quarterly. 2008; 25(2): 239-255.
12. Chun S, Shulman S, Sandoval-Almazan R, Hovy E. Government 2.0: Marking connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity. 2010; 15: 1-9.
13. Collison D, Lorraine N, Power D. An exploration of corporate attitudes to the significance of environmental information for stakeholders, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2003; 19(4): 199-211.
14. Criado JI, Sandoval-Almazan R, Gil-Garcia JR, Government innovation through social media. Government Information Quarterly. 2013; 30(4): 319-326.
15. Emerson TLN, Conroy SJ, Stanley W. Ethical Attitudes of Accountants: Recent Evidence from a Practitioners' Survey. Journal of Business Ethics. 2007; 71(1): 73-87.
16. European Commission. Public Services Online. 'Digital by Default or by Detour'. Assessing User Centric eGovernment performance in Europe - eGovernment Benchmark 2012, (available at http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digitalagenda/files/eGov%20Benchmark%202012%20insight%20report%20published%20version%200.1%20-0.pdf), 2013.
17. Gallego R, Barzelay M. Public Management policymaking in Spain: The Politics of Legislative Reform of Administrative Structure, 1991-1997, Governance. 2010; 23(2): 277-296.
18. García-Sánchez I-M, Rodríguez-Domínguez L, Gallego-Álvarez I. The Relationship between Political Factors and the Development of E-Participatory Government. The Information Society: An International Journal. 2011; 27(4): 233-251.
19. Gibson A. Local by Social. How local authorities can use social media to achieve more for less, NESTA: London, 2010.
20. Gomes R, Sousa L. Contributions to the Development of Local e-Government 2.0. Future Internet. 2012; 4(4): 882-899.
21. Hibbing JR, Theiss-Morse E. Stealth Democracy: Americans' Beliefs about How Government Should Work, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
22. Ho ATK. Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative, Public Administration Review. 2002; 62(4): 434-444.
23. Hodge DR, Gillespie D. Phrase completions: An alternative to Likert scales. Social Work Research. 2003; 27(1): 45-55.
24. Hood C, Margetts H. The tools of government in the digital age. Basingstoke, Palgrave: UK, 2007.
25. Huijboom N, Van den Broek T, Frissen V, Kool L, Kotterink B, Nielsen M, Millard J. Public Services 2.0: The Impact of Social Computing on Public Services, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, (2009).
26. IAB Spain Research (IAB). V Estudio Anual de Redes Sociales, IAB: Madrid, 2014.
27. International Development Association (IDA). Information and Communication Technology Agency of Sri Lanka (ICTA), Volume 3, Colombo-05: Sri Lanka, 2011.
28. Johnston E, Hansen D. Design lessons for smart governance infrastructures, in American Governance 3.0: Rebooting the Public Square? D. Ink, A. Balutis and T. Buss, eds, National Academy of Public Administration: Washington, DC, 2011.
29. Kickert W. Public Management in the United States and Europe, in Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe, W. Kickert, ed., Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 1997.
30. Krishnan S, Teo TSH. Moderating effects of governance on information infrastructure and e-government development. Journal of the American Society Information Science and Technology. 2012; 63(10): 1929-1946.
31. Leighninger M. Using Online Tools to Engage - And Be Engaged By - The Public, IBM Center for The Business of Government, IBM Center for The Business of Government: Washington, USA, 2011.
32. Li Q. A novel Likert scale based on fuzzy sets theory. Expert Systems with Applications. 2013; 40(5): 1609-1618.
33. Linders D. From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen co-production in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly. 2012; 29(4): 446-454.
34. MacKinnon R. Flatter world and thicker walls? Blogs, censorship and civic discourse in China. Public Choice. 2008; 134: 31-46.
35. MacKinnon R. China's censorship 2.0: How companies censor bloggers. First Monday. 14(2): (available at http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index. php/fm/article/viewArticle/2378/2089), 2009.
36. Margetts H, Dunleavy P. The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transaction Royal Society. 2013; A: 1-17.
37. Matell MS, Jacoby J. Is There an Optimal Number of Alternatives for Likert Scale Items? Study I: Reliability and Validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1971; 31(3): 657-674.
38. McDermott P. Building open government. Government Information Quarterly. 2010; 27(4): 401-413.
39. Meijer A. The Do It Yourself State. The future of participatory democracy, Information Polity. 2012; 17(3-4): 303-314.
40. Meso P, Musa P, Straub D, Mbarika V. Information infrastructure, governance, and socio-economic development in developing countries, European Journal of Information Systems. 2009; 18(1): 52-65.
41. Moon MJ. The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review. 2002; 62(4): 424-433.
42. Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2010; 15(5): 625-632.
43. Oakerson RJ. Governing local public economies: Creating the civic metropolis, ICS Press: Richmond, 1999.
44. Orange Foundation. eEspaña. Informe anual 2014 sobre el desarrollo de la sociedad de la información en España, Fundación Orange: Madrid, 2014.
45. Orvik JM, Social desirability for individual, his group, and society, Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1972; 7: 3-32.
46. Oxley A. A Best Practices Guide for Mitigating Risk in the Use of Social Media, IBM Center for The Business of Government, Washington DC, 2011.
47. Peters BG. The future of governing, Lawrence, University Press of Kansas: Kansas. 2001.
48. Picazo-Vela S, Gutiérrez-Martínez I, Luna-Reyes LF. Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly. 2012; 29(4): 504-511.
49. Queensland State Archives. Recordkeeping and Web 2.0. Survey Report, Queensland State Archives: Sunnybank Hills, 2010.
50. Rapkin BD, Luke DA. Cluster Analysis in Community Research: Epistemology and Practice. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1993; 21(2): 247-277.
51. Reggi L, Scicchitano S. European Regions Financing Public e-Services: the Case of EU Structural Funds. Working Papers 1110, Rome: University of Urbino Carlo Bo, 2011.
52. Rodríguez Bolívar MP, Caba MC, López Hernández AM. Cultural contexts and governmental digital reporting, International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2006; 72(2): 269-290.
53. Roscoe JT. Fundamental research statistics for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.), Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, 1975.
54. Rouban L. The Administrative Modernisation Policy in France, in Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe, W. Kickert (ed.), Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 1997.
55. Roubini N, Sachs JD. Government Spending and Budget Deficits in the Industrial Countries. Economic Policy: A European Forum. 1989; 4(8): 99-132.
56. Roubini N, Sachs JD. Political and Economic Determinants of Budget Deficits in the Industrial Democracies. European Economic Review. 1989; 33(5): 903-938.
57. Rowe G, Frewer L. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values 2005; 30(2): 251-290.
58. Russell CJ, Bobko P. Moderated regression analysis and Likert scales: Too coarse for comfort. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1992; 77(3): 336-342.
59. Saiz MP. La Ley de Economía Sostenible: La sostenibilidad financiera del Sector Público. Revista de Contabilidad y dirección. 2011; 13: 21-42.
60. Sandoval-Almazan R, Gil-Garcia JR. Are Government Internet Portals Evolving Towards More Interaction, Participation, and Collaboration? Revisiting the Rhetoric of E-government Among Municipalities. Government Information Quarterly. 2012; 29(Supplement 1): S72-S81.
61. Smith DA, Fridkin D. Delegating direct democracy: Interparty legislative competition and the adoption of the initiative in the American states. American Political Science Review. 2008; 102(3): 333-350.
62. Smyth P, Reddel T. Place Management; A New Way Forward in Redressing Social Exclusion in Queensland. National Housing Action. 2000; 14(2): 9-14.
63. Spanish National Statistics Institute (SNSI), (available at http://www.ine.es/inebmenu/mnu-padron.htm), 2014.
64. Spector PE. Summated rating scale construction: An introduction, Sage: Newbury Park, CA, 1992.
65. Sriramesh K, Rivera-Sánchez M. E-government in a corporatist, communitarian society: The case of Singapore. New Media & Society. 2006; 8(5): 707-730.
66. Taylor JA. The Information Polity: Towards a two-speed future? Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy In The Information Age. 2012; 17(3/4): 227-237.
67. Thaler M, Sunstein C. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness, Penguin: London, UK, 2009.
68. The White House. The Open Government Initiative, (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/open), 2009.
69. Tolbert CJ, Mossberger K, McNeal R. Institutions, policy and e-government in the American States. Public Administration Review. 2008; 68(3): 549-563.
70. Torres L, Pina V, Acerete B. Gauging E-Government Evolution in EU Municipalities. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics. 2005; 3(6): 43-54.
71. Tuomi I. Theory of Innovation: Change and Meaning in the Age of Internet, Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2002.
72. United Nations. E-Government Survey 2010. Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis, United Nations: New York, 2010.
73. Valtysson B. Access Culture: Web 2.0 and Cultural Participation, International Journal of Cultural Policy. 2010; 16(2): 200-214.
74. Verdegem P, Verleye G. User-centered e-Government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Government Information Quarterly. 2009; 26(3): 487-497.
75. Welch EW. The Rise of Participative Technologies in Government, in Transformational Government through eGov Practice: Socioeconomic, Cultural, and Technological Issues, M.A. Shareef, N. Archer, Y.K. Dwivedi, A. Mishra and S.K. Pandey, eds, Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, United Kingdom, 2012.
76. Wong W, Welch E. Does E-Government Promote Accountability? A Comparative Analysis of Website Openness and Government Accountability, Governance: An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institution. 2004; 17(2): 275-297.
77. Ya Ni A, Bretschneider S. The Decision to Contract Out: A Study of Contracting for E-Government Services in State Governments. Public Administration Review. 2007; 67(3): 531-544.
78. Yang KF, Holzer M. The performance-trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public Administration Review. 2006; 66(1): 114-126.
79. Yildiz M. E-Government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly. 2007; 24(3): 646-665.
80. Graells-Costa J. Administración colaborativa y en red. El profesional de la información. 2011; 20(3): 345-347.
81. Osimo D. Web 2.0 in Government: Why? and How?, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008.
82. Meijer A, Koops B, Pieterson W, Overman S, ten Tije S. Government 2.0: Key Challenges to Its Realization. Electronic Journal of e-Government. 2012; 10(1): 59-69.
83. OECD. Denmark: Efficient e-Government for Smarter Service Delivery, OECD Publishing, (Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264087118-en), 2010.
84. Kim S, Schachter H.L. Citizen participation in the budget process and local government accountability. Public Performance and Management Review. 2013; 36(3): 456-471.
85. O'Neill R. The transformative impact of e-Government on public governance in New Zealand. Public Management Review. 2010; 11(6): 751-770.
86. Edelenbos J. Institutional Implications of Interactive Governance: Insights from Dutch Practice. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions. 2005; 18(1): 11-134.
87. Taylor J, Lips M, Organ J. Information-Intensive Government and the Layering and Sorting of Citizenship. Public Money and Management. 2007; 27(2): 161-164.
88. Callanan M. Institutionalizing Participation and Governance? New Participative Structures in Local Government in Ireland. Public Administration. 2005; 83(4): 909-929.
89. Klein P. Web 2.0: Reinventing Democracy. CIO Insight. 2008; 30-43.
90. Deloitte. Change your world or the world will change you. The future of collaborative government and Web 2.0, Quebec: Deloitte & Touche LLP and affiliated entities, 2008.
91. Aparaschivei P. The use of new media in electoral campaigns: Analysis on the use of blogs, Facebook, Twitter and You Tube in the 2009 Romanian presidential campaign. Journal of Media Research. 2011; 4(2): 39-60.
92. Williams CB, Gulati GJ. Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the Congressional elections of 2006 and 2008. New Media & Society. 2013; 15(1): 52-71.
93. Kovac P, Decman M. Implementation and Change of Processual Administrative Legislation through an Innovative Web 2.0 Solution, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences. 2009; 28E: 65-86.
94. A. Chadwick. Internet Politics: States, Citizens, and New Communication Technologies, New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
95. Corradini F, Paganelli E, Polzonetti A. The e-government digital credentials. International Journal of Electronic Governance. 2007; 1(1): 17-37.
96. Weerakkody V, Dhillon G. Moving from e-government to t-government, International Journal of Electronic Government Research. 2008; 4(4): 1-16.
97. Kumar V, Mukerji B, Butt I, Persaud A. Factors for successful e-government adoption: A conceptual framework. The Electronic Journal of e-Government. 2007; 5(1): 63-76.
98. Papacharissi ZA. On convergent supersurfaces and public spheres online, International Journal of Electronic Governance. 2011; 4(1/2): 9-17.
99. Tranmüller R, Wimmer MA. E-Government at a Decisive Moment: Sketching a Roadmap to Excellence, in EGOV 2003, LNCS 2739, R. Tranmüller, ed., Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2003.
100. Frissen V, Van Staden M, Huijboom N, Kotterink B, Huveneers S, Kuipers M, Bodea G. Naar een 'User Generated State'? De impact van nieuwe media voor overheid en openbaar bestuur, Rapport voor het ministerie van BZK, Den Haag, 2008.
101. Accenture. Web 2.0 and the Next Generation of Public Service. Driving high performance through more engaging, accountable and citizen-focused service, (available at https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files-epractice/sites/Web%202.0%20and%20the%20Next%20Generation%20of%20Public%20Service%20-%20Driving%20high%20 performance%20through%20more%20engaging,%20accountable%20and%20citizen-focused%20service.pdf), 2009.
102. T. Meynhardt, Public value inside: What is public value creation? International Journal of Public Administration. 2009; 32(3): 192-219.
103. O'Flynn J. From new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 2007; 66(3): 353-366.
104. Kelly G, Mulgan G, Muers S. Creating public value: An analytical framework for public service reform, Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office, UK, (available at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk), 2002.
105. Castelnovo W, Simonetta M. The public value evaluation of e-government policies. The Electronic Journal of Information System Evaluation. 2007; 11(2): 61-72.
106. UNDESA. World public sector report 2003: E-government at cross road - Global e-government survey, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York, 2003.
107. Parks RB, Baker PC, Kiser L, Oakerson R, Ostrom E, Ostrom V, Percy SL, Vandivort MB, Whitaker GP, Wilson R. Consumers as co-producers of public services: some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Studies Journal. 1981; 9(7): 1001-1011.
108. Alford J. A public management road less travelled: Clients as co-producers of public services. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 1998; 57(4): 128-137.