Advertisement

Theorizing the Relationship of Corruption in National Institutions with E-Government Maturity

  • Satish Krishnan
  • Anupriya Khan
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 533)

Abstract

Though information and communication technologies (ICTs) are increasingly used in a range of governmental services in terms of e-government and smart government, many countries struggle to achieve a higher level of maturity owing to several challenges. In this study, we perceive corruption in a country is one such challenge, and take interest in understanding its impact on the growth and maturity of e-government. While the literature highlights a number of negative effects of corruption, its impact on e-government remains nearly unexplored, since most studies linking e-government and corruption have investigated the impact of e-government on corruption, but not the other way around. To address this void in the literature, we strive to provide a rich theoretical understanding of the mechanisms pertaining to the impact of corruption on e-government maturity. Adopting an institutional perspective to conceptualize corruption, we argue that corruption in three basic national institutions (political, legal, and media institutions) in a country can impede its e-government maturity. Specifically, we develop a conceptual framework by drawing on four key theoretical perspectives, namely, the agency theory, the control theory, the theory of X-inefficiency, and the rent-seeking theory to explain the negative influence of corruption in national institutions on e-government maturity. We believe that the proposed conceptual framework will guide further research on “corruption–e-government” phenomenon by offering theoretical insights, and help practitioners and policymakers dealing with e-government projects and initiatives.

Keywords

Corruption E-government maturity Institutions Agency theory Control theory Theory of X-inefficiency Rent-seeking theory Conceptual framework 

References

  1. 1.
    Aladwani, A.M.: Corruption as a source of e-government projects failure in developing countries: a theoretical exposition. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36(1), 105–112 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersen, K.V., Henriksen, H.Z.: E-Government maturity models: extension of the Layne and Lee model. Gov. Inf. Q. 23(2), 236–248 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andersen, T.B.: E-government as an anti-corruption strategy. Inf. Econ. Policy 21(3), 201–210 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anthopoulos, L., Reddick, C.G., Giannakidou, I., Mavridis, N.: Why e-government projects fail? An analysis of the healthcare.gov website. Gov. Inf. Q. 33(1), 161–173 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Azad, B., Faraj, S., Goh, J., Feghali, T.: What shapes global diffusion of government: comparing the influence of national governance institutions. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. 18(2), 85–104 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bardhan, P.: Corruption and development: a review of issues. J. Econ. Lit. 35(3), 1320–1346 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bayley, D.: The effects of corruption in a developing nation. West. Polit. Q. 19(4), 719–732 (1967)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Centre for International Media Ethics, Media Ethics Survey. www.cimethics.org. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  9. 9.
    Cho, Y.H., Choi, B.: E-government to combat corruption: the case of Seoul metropolitan government. Int. J. Public Adm. 27(10), 719–735 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Das, A., Singh, H., Joseph, D.: A longitudinal study of e-government maturity. Inf. Manag. 54(4), 415–426 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dawes, S.S.: Stewardship and usefulness: policy principles for information-based transparency. Gov. Inf. Q. 27(4), 377–383 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doig, A., Theobald, R.: Corruption and Democratization. Frank Cass, London (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eisenhardt, K.M.: Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14(1), 57–74 (1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elbahnasawy, N.G.: E-government, internet adoption, and corruption: an empirical investigation. World Dev. 57(C), 114–126 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freedom House, Freedom of the Press 2012. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/freedom-press-2012. Accessed 6 Jan 2018
  16. 16.
    Garcia-Murillo, M.: Does a government web presence reduce perceptions of corruption? Inf. Technol. Dev. 19(2), 151–175 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gartner, Smart Government Key Initiative Overview. https://www.gartner.com/doc/2520516/smart-government-key-initiative-overview. Accessed 6 Feb 2018
  18. 18.
    Habib, M., Zurawicki, L.: Corruption and foreign direct investment. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 33(2), 291–307 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heeks, R.: Information technology and public sector corruption. Information Systems for Public Sector Management Working Paper No. 4. Institute for Development Policy and Management, Manchester, CO (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heeks, R.: Information technology and the management of corruption. Dev. Pract. 9(1/2), 184–189 (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Henderson, J., Lee, S.: Managing I/S design teams: a control theories perspective. Manag. Sci. 38(6), 757–777 (1992)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hamza, H., Sehl, M., Egide, K., Diane, P.: A conceptual model for G2G relationships. In: Janssen, M., Scholl, H.J., Wimmer, M.A., Tan, Y. (eds.) EGOV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6846, pp. 285–295. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22878-0_24Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hirshleifer, J.: Toward a more general theory of regulation: comment. J. Law Econ. 19(2), 241–244 (1976)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huntington, S.P.: Political Order in Changing Societies. Yale University Press, New Haven (1968)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jain, A.K.: Models of corruption. In: Jain, A.K. (ed.) Economics of Corruption. RETH, pp. 13–34. Springer, Boston (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4935-2_2Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keil, M., Rai, A., Liu, S.: How user risk and requirements risk moderate the effects of formal and informal control on the process performance of IT projects. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22(6), 650–672 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim, C.: Anti-corruption initiatives and e-government: a cross-national study. Public Organ. Rev. 14(3), 385–396 (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim, S., Kim, H.J., Lee, H.: An institutional analysis of an e-government system for anti-corruption: the case of OPEN. Gov. Inf. Q. 26(1), 42–50 (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kirsch, L.: Portfolios of control modes and IS project management. Inf. Syst. Res. 8(3), 215–239 (1997)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Klitgaard, R.: Controlling Corruption. University of California Press, Berkeley (1988)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kock, N., Gaskins, L.: The mediating role of voice and accountability in the relationship between internet diffusion and government corruption in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. Inf. Technol. Dev. 20(1), 23–43 (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krishnan, S., Teo, T.S., Lim, V.K.: Examining the relationships among e-government maturity, corruption, economic prosperity and environmental degradation: a cross-country analysis. Inf. Manag. 50(8), 638–649 (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krishnan, S., Teo, T.S., Lymm, J.: Determinants of electronic participation and electronic government maturity: insights from cross-country data. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 37(4), 297–312 (2017)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Krueger, A.: The political economy of the rent seeking society. Am. Econ. Rev. 64(3), 291–303 (1974)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lambsdorff, J.G.: How corruption in government affects public welfare: a review of theory. Discussion Paper (No. 9), Center for Globalization and Europeanization of the Economy (2001)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lambsdorff, J.G.: Corruption and rent-seeking. Public Choice 113(1/2), 97–125 (2002)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Layne, K., Lee, J.W.: Developing fully functional e-government: a four stage model. Gov. Inf. Q. 18(2), 122–136 (2001)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leff, N.: Economic development through bureaucratic corruption. Am. Behav. Sci. 8(3), 8–14 (1964)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Leibenstein, H.: Allocative efficiency vs. “x-efficiency”. Am. Econ. Rev. 56(3), 392–415 (1966)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Luo, Y.: Corruption and organization in Asian management systems. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 19(3), 405–422 (2002)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mahmood, M.A., Bagchi, K., Ford, T.C.: On-line shopping behavior: cross-country empirical research. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 9(1), 9–30 (2004)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mauro, P.: Corruption and growth. Q. J. Econ. 110(3), 681–712 (1995)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    McChesney, F.S.: Rent extraction and rent creation in the economic theory of regulation. J. Leg. Stud. 16(1), 101–118 (1987)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    McMullen, M.: A theory of corruption. Sociol. Rev. 9(2), 181–200 (1961)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mellouli, S., Bousalam, F.: Multi-agent based framework for e-government. Electron. Gov. Int. J. 6(2), 177–192 (2009)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mistry, J.J.: The role of eGovernance in mitigating corruption. Account. Public Interes. 12(1), 137–159 (2012)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ristow, B.: Cash for coverage: Bribery of journalists around the world. https://www.cima.ned.org/resource/cash-for-coverage-bribery-of-journalists-around-the-world/. Accessed 12 Jan 2018
  48. 48.
    Rose-Ackerman, S.: Corruption - A Study in Political Economy. Academic Press, New Haven (1978)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rose-Ackerman, S.: Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Scholl, H.J., Scholl, M.C.: Smart governance: a roadmap for research and practice. In: iConference 2014 Proceedings, pp. 163–176. iSchools, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Seligson, M.A.: The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: a comparative study of four Latin American countries. J. Polit. 64(2), 408–433 (2002)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Senior, I.: Corruption, the government and the private sector: why it matters and what can be done. Econ. Aff. 24(2), 22–29 (2004)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Servaes, J.: Communication policies, good governance and development journalism. Commun. S. Afr. J. Commun. Theory Res. 35(1), 50–80 (2009)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Shim, D.C., Eom, T.H.: E-government and anti-corruption: empirical analysis of international data. Int. J. Public Adm. 31(3), 298–316 (2008)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shleifer, A., Vishny, R.W.: Corruption. Q. J. Econ. 108(3), 599–617 (1993)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Singh, G., Pathak, R.D., Naz, R., Belwal, R.: E-governance for improved public sector service delivery in India, Ethiopia and Fiji. Int. J. Public Sector Manag. 23(3), 254–275 (2010)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Singh, H., Das, A., Joseph, D.: Country-level determinants of e-government maturity. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 20, 632–648 (2007)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Srivastava, S.C., Teo, T.S.: What facilitates e-government development? A cross-country analysis. Electron. Gov. Int. J. 4(4), 365–378 (2007)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Srivastava, S.C., Teo, T.S., Devaraj, S.: You can’t bribe a computer: dealing with the societal challenge of corruption through ICT. MIS Q. 40(2), 511–526 (2016)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Teo, T.S., Srivastava, S.C., Jiang, L.: Trust and electronic government success: an empirical study. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 25(3), 99–132 (2008)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tiwana, A., Keil, M.: Control in internal and outsourced systems development projects. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 26(3), 9–44 (2010)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Transparency International: Global corruption barometer 2003. https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/gcb_2003. Accessed 5 Dec 2017
  63. 63.
    Transparency International: Global corruption barometer 2013. https://www.transparency.org/gcb2013/report. Accessed 5 Dec 2017
  64. 64.
    Transparency International: Corruption perception index 2016. https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016. Accessed 2 Dec 2017
  65. 65.
    Treisman, D.: The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. J. Public Econ. 76(3), 399–457 (2000)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tullock, G.: Efficient rent seeking. In: Buchanan, J.M., Tollison, R.D., Tullock, G. (eds.) Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society, pp. 97–112. Texas A&M University Press, College Station (1980)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    UNDP (United Nations Development Programme): Tackling Corruption, Transforming Lives: Accelerating Human Development in Asia and the Pacific. Macmillan Publishers, New Delhi (2008)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    United Nations: E-government for the people (2012 report). http://www.unpan.org/egovkb/global_reports/08report.htm. Accessed 15 Nov 2017
  69. 69.
    United Nations: United Nations e-government survey 2016. http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN97453.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2017
  70. 70.
    UNODC: The global programme against corruption—UN anti-corruption toolkit (2004 report). https://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/Toolkit_ed2.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  71. 71.
    Wescott, C.: E-government in the Asia-Pacific region. Asia J. Polit. Sci. 9(2), 1–24 (2001)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wong, W., Welch, E.: Does e-government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of website openness and government accountability. Gov. Int. J. Policy Adm. Inst. 17(2), 275–297 (2004)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yoon, J., Chae, M.: Varying criticality of key success factors of national e-strategy along the status of economic development of nations. Gov. Inf. Q. 26(1), 25–34 (2009)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Khan, A., Krishnan, S.: Investigating the impact of corruption in national institutions and national stakeholder service systems on e-government maturity. Int. J. Inf. Manag. (forthcoming)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of Management KozhikodeKozhikodeIndia

Personalised recommendations