Advertisement

Policymakers’ Perceptions on the Citizen Participation and Knowledge Sharing in Public Sector Delivery

  • Manuel Pedro Rodríguez BolívarEmail author
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 15)

Abstract

Public agencies are being pressured for innovation, driving service delivery towards a more personalized, outcome-driven, participative, efficient, and collaborative model. In this regard, social media has been told to be a potential powerful tool to support public engagement, intended as the improvement of public services and the establishment of relationships between government and citizens based on information sharing and dialogue. This chapter captures the perception of policymakers responsible of strategies for e-government in local governments with the aim at analyzing the following research questions: (a) Do policymakers think that Web 2.0 technologies promote the effective involvement of citizens in the improvement of public sector services? (b) Do policymakers think that Web 2.0 technologies promote the technological innovation in public services? and (c) Do policymakers think that Web 2.0 technologies promote the sharing knowledge needed to improve public sector services? To answer these research questions, an e-survey was sent to policymakers responsible of strategies for e-government in large Spanish local governments. Findings indicate that policymakers are prone for using Web 2.0 technologies to engage citizens in the process of public services delivery, but only making suggestions through consultations. No co-production or technological innovation is expected from citizens because they are expected to play a passive role more than an active one.

Keywords

Local Government Public Service Technological Innovation Citizen Participation Public Service Delivery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research was carried out with financial support from the Regional Government of Andalusia (Spain), Department of Innovation, Science and Enterprise (Research project number P11-SEJ-7700).

References

  1. Archives, Q. S. (2010). Recordkeeping and web 2.0. survey report. Sunnybank Hills, QLD, Australia: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Asgarkhani, M. (2005). The effectiveness of e-service in local government: A case study. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 3(4), 157–166.Google Scholar
  3. Bastida, F. J., & Benito, B. (2006). Financial reports and decentralization in municipal governments. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72(2), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, J., Portney, K., & Thomson, K. (1993). The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., Munson, S., & Glaisyer, T. (2010). Social media technology and government transparency. Computer, 43(11), 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010a). Crowd-sourcing transparency: ICTs, social media, and government transparency initiatives. In S. A. Chun, R. Sandoval, & A. Philpot (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 51–58). Puebla, Mexico: Digital Government Society of North America.Google Scholar
  8. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010b). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bertram, D. (2007). Likert scales. Department of Computer Science, The University of Calgary. Retrieved June 28, 2014, from http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~kristina/topic-dane-likert.pdf
  10. Blank, G., & Reisdorf, B. C. (2012). The participatory web: A user perspective on Web 2.0. Information, Communication & Society, 15(4), 537–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonham, G., Seifert, J. and Thorson, S. (2001). The Transformational Potential of E-government: The Role of Political Leadership. Paper Presented at the Electronic Governance and Information Policy (Panel 9-1), 4th Pan European International Relations Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research, University of Kent, Canterbury.Google Scholar
  12. Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boulos, M. N. K., Maramba, I., & Wheeler, S. (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC Medical Education. Retrieved November 8, 2012, from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/6/41.#B68
  14. Bozeman, B. (2000). Bureaucracy and red tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Cegarra Navarro, J. G., Córdoba Pachón, J. R., & Moreno Cegarra, J. L. (2012). E-government and citizen’s engagement with local affairs through e-websites: The case of Spanish municipalities. International Journal of Information Management, 32(5), 469–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2009). Information disclosure and control on Facebook: Are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes? Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12(3), 3411–3450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chun, S., Shulman, S., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Hovy, E. (2010). Government 2.0: Marking connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity, 15(1–2), 1–9.Google Scholar
  18. Collison, D., Lorraine, N., & Power, D. (2003). An exploration of corporate attitudes to the significance of environmental information for stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(4), 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. European Commission. (2010). The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011–2015. Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable & innovative Government. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  20. Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2013). Government innovation through social media. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunleavy, P., & Margetts, H. Z. (2010). The second wave of digital era governance. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association conference 2010 annual meeting papers, September 2–5, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. El-Haddadeh, R., Weerakkody, V., & Al-Shafi, S. (2013). The complexities of electronic services implementation and institutionalization in the public sector. Information and Management, 50(4), 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Emerson, T. L. N., Conroy, S. J., & Stanley, W. (2007). Ethical attitudes of accountants: Recent evidence from a Practitioners’ Survey. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(1), 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Escher, T., Margetts, H., Petricek, V., & Cox, I. (2006). Governing from the centre? Comparing the nodality of digital governments. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 31 August–4 September 2006, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  25. European Commission. (2013). Public services online: ‘Digital by default or by detour’—Assessing user centric eGovernment performance in Europe–eGovernment Benchmark 2012. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/eGov%20Benchmark%202012%20insight%20report%20published%20version%200.1%20_0.pdf
  26. Foundation, O. (2014). eEspaña 2014 Informe anual sobre el desarrollo de la Sociedad de la Información en España. Madrid, Spain: Fundación Orange.Google Scholar
  27. Gallego, R., & Barzelay, M. (2010). Public management policymaking in Spain: The politics of legislative reform of administrative structure, 1991–1997. Governance, 23(2), 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gibson, A. (2010). Local by social: How local authorities can use social media to achieve more for less. London: NESTA.Google Scholar
  29. Gomes, R., & Sousa, L. (2012). Contributions to the development of local e-government 2.0. Future Internet, 4(4), 882–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ho, A. T. K. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 434–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hodge, D. R., & Gillespie, D. (2003). Phrase completions: An alternative to Likert scales. Social Work Research, 27(1), 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holgersson, J., & Karlsson, F. (2014). Public e-service development: Understanding citizens’ conditions for participation. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 396–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hood, C., & Margetts, H. (2007). The tools of government in the digital age. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  35. Huijboom, N., Van den Broek, T., Frissen, V., Kool, L., Kotterink, B., Nielsen, M., & Millard, J. (2009). Public services 2.0: The impact of social computing on public services. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  36. Johnston, E., & Hansen, D. (2011). Design lessons for smart governance infrastructures. In D. Ink, A. Balutis, & T. Buss (Eds.), American governance 3.0: Rebooting the public square? Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.Google Scholar
  37. Kickert, W. (1997). Public management in the United States and Europe. In W. Kickert (Ed.), Public management and administrative reform in Western Europe (pp. 15–38). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  38. Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (2010). Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  39. Leighninger, M. (2011). Using online tools to engage—And be engaged by—The Public. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.Google Scholar
  40. Li, Q. (2013). A novel Likert scale based on fuzzy sets theory. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(5), 1609–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen co-production in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacKinnon, R. (2008). Flatter world and thicker walls? Blogs, censorship and civic discourse in China. Public Choice, 134(1/2), 31–46.Google Scholar
  43. MacKinnon, R. (2009). China’s censorship 2.0: How companies censor bloggers. First Monday, 14(2), Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index. php/fm/article/viewArticle/2378/2089
  44. Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? study I: Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31(3), 657–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McDermott, P. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McNutt, K. (2012). Social media & government 2.0. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: University of Saskatchewan and University of Regina.Google Scholar
  48. Mergel, I. (2013). Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the U.S. federal government. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Millard, J. (2009). Government 1.5: Is the bottle half full or half empty? European Journal of ePractice, 9(1), 35–50.Google Scholar
  50. Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mossberger, K., Wu, Y., & Crawford, J. (2013). Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major U.S. cities. Paper presented at Public Management Research Conference, June 21, 2013, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  52. Nam, T., & Sayogo, D. S. (2011). Government 2.0 collects the wisdom of crowds. In A. Datta, S. Shulman, B. Zheng, S. Lin, A. Sun, & E. Lim (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Social Informatics (SocInfo 2011) (pp. 51–58). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  53. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Noveck, B. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Washington, DC: Brookings Institutions Press.Google Scholar
  55. Oakerson, R. J. (1999). Governing local public economies: Creating the civic metropolis. Richmond, VA: ICS Press.Google Scholar
  56. OECD. (2010). Denmark: Efficient e-government for smarter service delivery. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264087118-en
  57. Oliveira, G. H. M., & Welch, E. W. (2013). Social media use in local government: Linkage of technology, task, and organizational context. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Orvik, J. M. (1972). Social desirability for individual, his group, and society. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 7(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Osimo, D. (2008). 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.Google Scholar
  60. Oxley, A. (2011). A best practices guide for mitigating risk in the use of social media. Washington DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.Google Scholar
  61. Peters, B. G. (2001). The future of governing. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  62. Picazo-Vela, S., Gutiérrez-Martínez, I., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2012). Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 504–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Redell, T., & Woolcock, G. (2004). From consultation to participatory governance? A critical review of citizen engagement strategies in Queensland. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(3), 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reggi, L., & Scicchitano, S. (2011). European regions financing public e-services: The case of EU Structural Funds. Working Papers 1110, Rome: University of Urbino Carlo Bo.Google Scholar
  65. Relly, J. E., & Sabharwal, M. (2009). Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: A cross-national study. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 148–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., Caba, M. C., & López Hernández, A. M. (2006). Cultural contexts and governmental digital reporting. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72(2), 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Roscoe, J. T. (1975). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioural sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  68. Rouban, L. (1997). The administrative modernisation policy in France. In E. Kickert (Ed.), Public management and administrative reform in Western Europe (pp. 141–156). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  69. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30(2), 251–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Russell, C. J., & Bobko, P. (1992). Moderated regression analysis and Likert scales: Too coarse for comfort. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Saiz, M. P. (2011). La Ley de Economía Sostenible: La sostenibilidad financiera del Sector Público. Revista de Contabilidad y dirección, 13, 21–42.Google Scholar
  72. Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. (2012). Are government internet portals evolving towards more interaction, participation, and collaboration? Revisiting the rhetoric of e-government among municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(Supplement 1), 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schillemans, T., Van Twist, M., & Vanhommerig, I. (2013). Innovation in accountability. Learning through interactive, dynamic, and citizen-initiated forms of accountability. Public Performance and Management Review, 36(3), 407–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Scott, J. K. (2006). “E” the people: Do U.S. municipal government web sites support public involvement? Public Administration Review, 66(3), 341–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shackleton, P., Fisher, J., & Dawson, L. (2004). E-government services: One local government’s approach. In H. Linger, J. Fisher, W. Wojtkowski, W. G. Wojtkowski, J. Zupancic, K. Vigo, & J. Arnold (Eds.), Constructing the infrastructure for the knowledge economy: Methods and tool: Theory and Practice (pp. 581–592). Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Smith, K. A. (2004). Voluntary reporting performance measures to the public: A test of accounting reports from U.S. cities. International Public Management Journal, 7(1), 19–48.Google Scholar
  77. IAB Spain Research. (2014). V Estudio Anual de Redes Sociales. Madrid, Spain: IAB.Google Scholar
  78. Spanish National Statistics Institute (SNSI). (2014). Retrieved June 1, 2014, from http://www.ine.es/inebmenu/mnu_padron.htm
  79. Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Taylor, J. A. (2012). The information polity: Towards a two speed future? Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in The Information Age, 17(3/4), 227–237.Google Scholar
  81. Thaler, M., & Sunstein, C. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  82. The White House. (2009). The open government initiative. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/open
  83. Torres, L., Pina, V., & Acerete, B. (2005). Gauging e-government evolution in EU municipalities. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 3(6), 43–54.Google Scholar
  84. Tuomi, I. (2002). Theory of innovation: Change and meaning in the age of internet. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  85. United Nations. (2010). E-Government survey. Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  86. Verdegem, P., & Verleye, G. (2009). User-centered e-government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Government Information Quarterly, 26(3), 487–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Welch, E. W. (2012). The rise of participative technologies in government. In M. A. Shareef, N. Archer, Y. K. Dwivedi, A. Mishra, & S. K. Pandey (Eds.), Transformational government through eGov practice: Socioeconomic, cultural, and technological issues (pp. 347–367). Bingley, England: Emerald.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Business StudiesUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations