Measuring e-Government Efficiency from the Perspective of Implementers: The Case of e-Budgeting in Mexico

Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 5)

Abstract

Several studies on e-government have found that from different stakeholders’ standpoints, the nature of efficiency is complex and multidimensional. This study explores the multiple dimensions of e-government efficiency as a goal for e-government adoption, but from the perspective of those inside of government responsible to implement and adopt it. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to uncover the multiple dimensions of e-government efficiency from the perspective of implementers inside of government. The data come from a questionnaire applied over government officials who participated in a contemporary case of e-budgeting. The questionnaire includes inquiries about different dimensions of e-government efficiency found in two bodies of literature: information systems and budgeting. The results indicate a more complete structure of e-government efficiency than only the technical and economical aspects of this type of projects. The main motivation of this study is to extend our understanding of multiple dimensions of efficiency in e-government as possible outcomes during e-government adoption from the public administrators’ view. Derived from the analysis, some practical advice is suggested.

Keywords

Covariance Assure Liner OECD Malone 

References

  1. Andersen DF, Dawes SS (1991) Government information management. A primer and casebook. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakos JY, Treacy ME (1986) Information technology and corporate strategy. A research perspective. MIS Quarterly 10(2):107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin RI, Rockart JF, Morton MS, Wyman J (1984) Information technology: a strategic opportunity. Sloan Manage Rev 25(3):3–10Google Scholar
  4. Bryman A (2004) Social research methods. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Cattell RB (1966) The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav Res 1(2):245–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan CML, Lau YM, Pan SL (2008) E-government implementation: a macro analysis of Singapore’s e-government initiatives. Gov Inf Q 25(2):239–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chatterjee D, Ravichandran T (2004) Inter-organizational information systems research: a critical review and an integrative framework. In: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, IEEE, 5–8 Jan 2004Google Scholar
  8. Clemons EK, Reddi SP, Row MC (1993) The impact of information technology on the organization of economic activity: the ‘Move to the Middle’ hypothesis. J Manag Inf Syst 10(2):9–35Google Scholar
  9. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (1993) Using performance measures in the federal budget process. Author, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Danziger JN, Kraemer KL (1985) Computerized data-based systems and productivity among professional workers: the case of detectives. Public Adm Rev 45(1):196–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis S, Elin L, Reeher G (2002) Click on democracy: the internet’s power to change political apathy into civic action. Westview Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawes SS, Pardo TA (2002) Building collaborative digital government systems. Systematic constraints and effective practices. In: McIver WJ, Elmagarmid AK (eds) Advances in digital government. Technology, human factors, and policy. Kluwer, Norwell, MA, pp 259–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawes SS, Pardo T, DiCaterino A (1999) Crossing the threshold: practical foundations for government services on the world wide web. J Am Soc Inf Sci 50(4):346–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elgarah W, Falaleeva N, Saunders CS, Ilie V, Shim JT, Courtney JF (2005) Data exchange in interorganizational relationships: review through multiple conceptual lenses. In: The DATA BASE for advances in information systems—winter, vol 36(1)Google Scholar
  15. Gant JP (2004) Digital government and geographic information systems. In: Pavlichev A, Garson GD (eds) Digital government: principles and best practices. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
  16. Gant DB, Gant JP, Johnson CL (2002) State web portals: delivering and financing eservice. The Pricewaterhousecoopers Endowment for the Business of Government, Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  17. GAO (1993) Performance budgeting: state experiences and implications for the Federal Government. AFMD-93-41, February 17Google Scholar
  18. Garson GD (2004) The promise of digital government. In: Pavlichev A, Garson GD (eds) Digital government: principles and best practices. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, pp 2–15Google Scholar
  19. Gartner (2000) Gartner says U.S. E-government spending to surpass $6.2 billion by 2005. Available from http://www.gartner.com/5_about/press_room/pr20000411c.html. Accessed 6 April 2005
  20. Gil-Garcia JR (2005) Enacting state websites: a mixed method study exploring e-government success in multi-organizational settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  21. Gil-Garcia JR, Pardo TA (2005) E-government success factors: mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations. Gov Inf Q 22(2):187–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grizzle GA, Pettijohn CD (2002) Implementing performance-based program budgeting: a system-dynamics perspective. Public Adm Rev 62(1):51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gurbaxani V, Whang S (1991) The impact of organizations system on organizations and markets. Commun ACM 34(1):59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hall H, Andrews M (2005) Reforming budget ritual and budget practice: the case of performance management implementation in Virginia. Int J Public Adm 28:255–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heeks R (2006) Implementing and managing e-government. An international text. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Henadon C (1999) Performance budgeting in Florida—half way there. J Public Budgeting Account Financial Manag Winter, 672Google Scholar
  27. Ingraham PW (ed) (2007) In pursuit of performance management systems in state and local government. The John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  28. Jenster PV (1987) Firm performance and monitoring of critical success factors in different strategic contexts. J Manag Inf Syst 3(3):17–33Google Scholar
  29. Joreskog K, Moustaki I (2001) Factor analysis for ordinal variables: a comparison of three approaches. Multivariate Behav Res 36:347–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Joyce PG (1993) Using performance measures for federal budgeting: proposals and prospects. Public Budgeting Finance 14(1):3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Joyce PG (2007) Linking performance and budgeting under the separation of powers: the three greatest obstacles instantiated by independent legislatures. In: Robinson M (ed) Performance budgeting: linking results and funding. Palgrave-Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Joyce PG, Lee RD, Johnson RW (2004) Public budgeting systems, 7th edn. Jones and Bartlett, SudbaryGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaiser HF, Hunka S, Bianchini JC (1971) Relating factors between studies based upon different individuals. Multivariate Behav Res 6(4):409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kettl DF (1998) The transformation of governance: globalization, devolution, and the role of government. Public Adm Rev 60(6):488–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuan KKY, Chau PYK (2001) A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology-organization-environment framework. Inf Manag 38:507–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liner EB, Hatry HP, Vinson E, Allen R, Dusenbury P, Bryant S, Snell R (2001) Making results-based government work. The Urban Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. Luna-Reyes LF, Andersen DF, Richardson GP, Pardo TA, Cresswell AM (2007) Emergence of the governance structure for information integration across governmental agencies: a system dynamics approach. In: Proceedings of the eighth annual international conference on digital government research: bridging disciplines and domains (dg.o 2007), 25 May 2007, pp 47–56Google Scholar
  38. Macintosh A, Malina A, Farrell S (2002) Digital democracy through electronic petitioning. In: McIver WJ, Elmagarmid AK (eds) Advances in digital government technology, human factors, and policy. Kluwer, Norwell, MAGoogle Scholar
  39. Malone TW, Yates J, Benjamin RI (1987) Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies. Commun ACM 30(6):484–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Melkers JE, Willoughby KG (2001) Budgeters’ views of state performance-budgeting systems: distinctions across branches. Public Adm Rev 61(1):54–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Melkers JE, Willoughby KG (2004) Staying the course: the use of performance measurement in state governments. IBM Center for the Business of Government, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Moustaki I, Joreskog K, Mavridis D (2004) Factor models for ordinal variables with covariate effects on the manifest and latent variables: a comparison of LISREL and IRT approaches. Struct Equ Model J 11(4):487–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. OECD (2003) The e-government imperative. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, FranceCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. OECD (2007) Performance budgeting in OECD countries. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  45. Puron-Cid G (2010) Extending structuration theory: a study of an e-budgeting in Mexico. Ph.D., University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  46. Puron-Cid G (2012) Interdisciplinary application of structuration theory for e-government: a case study of an e-budgeting. Gov Inf Q 30(S1). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.07.010
  47. Rasmussen N, Eichorn CJ (2000) Budgeting. Technology, trends, software selection, and implementation. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Rocheleau B (2003) Politics, accountability, and governmental information systems. In: Garson GD (ed) Public information technology: policy and management issues. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
  49. Roldan JL, Leal A (2003) A validation test of an adaptation of the DeLone and McLean’s model in the Spanish EIS field. In: Cano JJ (ed) Critical reflections on information systems: a systemic approach. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
  50. Rubin IS (1990) Budget theory and budget practice: how good the fit? Public Adm Rev 50:179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rubin IS (1994) Early budget reformers: democracy, efficiency, and budget reforms. Am Rev Public Adm 24(3):229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scholl HJ (2009) Electronic government: a study domain past its infancy. In: Scholl HJ (ed) Electronic government: information, technology and transformation. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NYGoogle Scholar
  53. Soonhee K, Jooho L (2012) E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Adm Rev 72(6):819–828. doi: 10.111/j.1540-6210.2012.02593.x Google Scholar
  54. Van Reeth W (2002) The bearable lightness of budgeting. An explorative research on the uneven implementation of performance oriented budget reform. Ph.D. Doctoral degree thesis, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  55. VanLandingham G, Wellman M, Andrews M (2005) Useful, but not a panacea: performance-based program budgeting in Florida. Int J Public Adm 28:233–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. World Bank (2008) Performance-informed budgeting in Latin America experiences and opportunities. World Bank Public Sector and Governance Unit, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, International Conference on Performance Budgeting Mexico City, 9–10 June 2009Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE)AguascalientesMexico

Personalised recommendations