Advertisement

E-government, Accountability, and Performance: Best-in-Class Governments in European Union Countries

  • Rebecca L. Orelli
  • Emanuele Padovani
  • Eric Scorsone
Chapter
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 25)

Abstract

To what extent do e-government influence accountability and performance in the public sector? Given the growing importance of performance and accountability in government, discussion has not been as robust as it should be regarding the role of e-government in understanding these challenges. Much has been claimed and written about the influence of e-government on the modernization and growth of public sector initiatives in Europe. Little is known, however, about how e-government influences the accountability and performance of governments. The view of e-government proposed in the chapter suggests policy makers to a more careful consideration of performance and accountability pressures that different e-government strategies bring with them. Particularly, the chapter presents a view of both challenges and advantages of implementing e-government strategies, by examining how closely and critically intertwined e-government, performance and accountability are in ten European Union (EU) countries.

Keywords

European Union Public Sector Performance Measurement System Accountability Mechanism Half Section 
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.

References

  1. Achterkamp, M. C., & Vos, J. F. J. (2007). Critically identifying stakeholders. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthony, R. N., & Young, D. W. (2003). Management control in nonprofit organizations (7th ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
  3. Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance, international comparisons. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bouckaert, G., & Pollitt, C. (2005). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. De Bruijn, H. (2002). Managing performance in the public sector. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Dubnick, M. J., & Romzek, B. S. (1991). American public administration: Politics and the management of expectations. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EIPA (2003). eGovernment in Europe: The state of affairs. Belgium: Publishing Atlanta.Google Scholar
  9. EuropeanCommission (1993). Growth, competitiveness and employment: The challenges and courses for entering into the XXIst century.Google Scholar
  10. EuropeanCommission (1994). Europe and the Global Information Society: Recommendations to the European Council (Also known as the Bangemann Report). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  11. EuropeanCommission (1999). eEurope: An information society for us all. Retrieved from europa.eu.intGoogle Scholar
  12. EuropeanCommission (2000). eEurope Action Plan. Retrieved from europa.eu.intGoogle Scholar
  13. EuropeanCommission (2007a). i2010 – Annual Information Society Report 2007.Google Scholar
  14. EuropeanCommission (2007b). The user challenge benchmarking the supply of online public services. Belgium: Capgemini.Google Scholar
  15. Farneti, G., Mazzara, L., & Savioli, G. (1996). Il sistema degli indicatori negli enti locali [Performance measurement indicators in local governments]. Torino: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
  16. Garson, G. D., & Shea, C. M. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of Public Information Systems (3rd ed.). New York, London: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  17. Guthrie, J., Humphrey, C., Jones, L. R., & Olson, O. (Eds.). (2005). International public financial management reform. Progress, contradictions, and challenges. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hammers Specht, P. (2000). The Impact of IT on organization performance in the public sector. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems (pp. 141–151). New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  20. Hammers Specht, P., & Hoff, G. (2005). Information technology investment and organizational performance in the public sector. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems (pp. 127–142). New York, London: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hatry, P. H. (1999). Performance measurement. Getting results. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  22. Heeks, R. (2001). Understanding e-governance for development. IDPM i-Government Working Paper, (11).Google Scholar
  23. Heeks, R. (2006). Benchmarking eGovernment: Improving the National and International Measurement, Evaluation and Comparison of eGovernment. IDPM i-Government Working Paper, (18).Google Scholar
  24. Hoek, F., van Montfort, C., & Vermeer, C. (2005). Enhancing public accountability in the Netherlands. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(2), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hood, C. (1983). The tools of government in the digital age. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading MA: Adison Wesley.Google Scholar
  29. Poister, T. H. (2003). Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  30. Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Pollitt, C., Van Thiel, S., & Homburg, V. (Eds.). (2007). The new public management in Europe: Adaptation and alternatives. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  32. Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Romzek, B., & Dubnick, M. (1991). Accountability, professionalism and leadership: The Los Angeles Police Department and the Rodney King Beating. Paper presented at the national public management conference, The Maxwell School, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.Google Scholar
  34. Talbot, C. (2006). Performance regimes and institutional context: Comparing Japan, UK and USA. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Policy Evaluation.Google Scholar
  35. Talbot, C., Wiggan, J., & Johnson, C. (2005). Exploring performance regimes – a new approach to understanding public sector performance [A report for the National Audit Office] (Vol. 4).Google Scholar
  36. Willmott, H. (1996). Thinking accountability: accounting for the disciplined production of self. In M. R. & M. J. (Eds.), Accountability: Power, ethos and the technologies of managing. London: International Thomas Business Press.Google Scholar
  37. Worral, L., Remenyi, D., & Money, A. (2000). A methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of delivery of IT services. A comparative study of six british local authorities. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems (pp. 501–520). New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations