Skip to main content

Integration of RPA in Public Services: A Tension Approach to the Case of Income Support in Sweden

Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to identify and analyze key tensions in the governance, the management, and the organization of RPA-practices in public services. Key tensions will be analyzed in an agency–structure framework and using empirical data on introduction of RPA-tools in income support services in three Swedish municipalities. The analysis will be guided by two research questions: what tensions underly RPA-integration by actors in their practices; and how these tensions can be understood based on an agency–structure framework. The findings discuss issues such as coordination dilemmas in decentralized structures, different interpretations of the legal frames, standardization versus individualization logics of the profession, trust versus control mechanisms, but also elements of municipal innovation and accommodation of case processing when RPA is integrated into income support services.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-92644-1_6
  • Chapter length: 19 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-92644-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Notes

  1. 1.

    SALAR: Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions.

  2. 2.

    Applicants to income support benefits.

References

  • 2016/17:54, S. Riksrevisionens rapport om den offentliga förvaltningens digitalisering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2011). Qualitative research and theory development: Mystery as method. Sage Publications.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannister, F. (2010). Deep e-government: Beneath the carapace. In H. J. Scholl (Ed.), E-government: Information, technology, and transformation (Vol. 17, pp. 33–51). M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2015). The great theory hunt: Does e-government really have a problem? Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.10.003

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2020). Administration by algorithm: A risk management framework. Information Polity, 25(4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-200249

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & McClure, C. R. (2008). Citizen-centered e-government services: Benefits, costs, and research needs. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Digital government research, Montreal, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolin, M., & Loth, A. (2018). 12 av 16 socialsekreterare säger upp sig i protest. SVT Nyheter. Retrieved from https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/robot-tar-over-i-kungsbacka

  • 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. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X1200010X

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, P. A. (2019). Digital discretion acceptance and impact in street-level bureaucracy. (PhD Doctoral Dissertation). Universitetet i Agder, Agder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, P. A. (2020). Crafting or mass-producing decisions: Technology as professional or managerial imperative in public policy implementation. Information Polity, 25, 111–128. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-190163

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cetina, K. K., & Cicourel, A. V. (2014). Advances in social theory and methodology (RLE social theory): Toward an integration of micro-and macro-sociologies. Routledge.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cordella, A., & Paletti, A. (2018). ICTs and value creation in public sector: Manufacturing logic vs service logic. Information Polity, 23(2), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170061

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cordella, A., & Tempini, N. (2015). E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 279–286.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dawe, A. (1978). Theories of social action. A history of sociological analysis, 362417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denk, T., Hedström, K., Karlsson, F., & Wihlborg, E. (2020). Medborgarnas inställning till automatiserat beslutsfattning. In Digitala är vi allihopa? (pp. 79–89). SOM-institutet, Göteborgs universitet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duivenboden, H. V., & Thaens, M. (2008). ICT-driven innovation and the culture of public administration: A contradiction in terms? Information Polity, 13(3–4), 213–232.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Engstrom, D. F., & Ho, D. E. (2020). Algorithmic accountability in the administrative state. Yale Journal on Regulation, 37(3), 800–854. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000567989300001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Favaretto, M., De Clercq, E., & Elger, B. S. (2019). Big data and discrimination: Perils, promises and solutions. A systematic review. Journal of Big Data, 6(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-019-0177-4

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giritli Nygren, K., Axelsson, K., & Melin, U. (2013). Public e-services from inside: A case study on technology’s influence on work conditions in a government agency. Retrieved from https://lt.ltag.bibl.liu.se/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsswe&AN=edsswe.oai.DiVA.org.liu.98041&site=eds-live

  • Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Meijer, A. J. (2015). Does Twitter increase perceived police legitimacy? Public Administration Review, 75(4), 598–607. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000356975600014.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, M. (2017). Reassembling local e-government: A study of actors’ translations of digitalisation in public administration. (718 Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary). Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköping.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, M., & Wihlborg, E. (2019). ‘It is always an individual assessment’: A case study on challenges of automation of income support services. In I. Lindgren, M. Janssen, H. Lee, A. Polini, M. P. Rodríguez Bolívar, H. J. Scholl, & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Electronic government. EGOV 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 11685, pp. 45–56). Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasselblad, A., & Sundberg, L. (2020, 31 August–2 September). When worlds collide: Comparing the logic of the industrial and welfare societies. Paper presented at the Electronic Government, E-Democracy and Open Government, and Electronic Participation: Joint Proceedings of Ongoing Research and Projects of IFIP WG 8.5 EGOV-CeDEM-ePart 2020, Linköping, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, C. (2002). Political analysis: A critical introduction. Palgrave.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ingemarsdotter, J., Eidenskog, D., & Hedtjärn Swaling, V. (2020). Vilse i lasagnen?– En upptäcktsfärd i den svenska digitaliseringens mångbottnade problemstruktur / Lost in the Lasagna?– A journey into the multi-layered problem structure of Swedish digitalisation. Retrieved from

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, D., & Montin, S. (2012). Solving municipal paradoxes: Challenges for Swedish local democracy. Panorama: Insights into Asian and European Affairs, 2, 125–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, K. K. (2021). Digitization or equality: When government automation covers some, but not all citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101547

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, I. (2020, 31 August–2 September). Exploring the use of robotic process automation in local government. Paper presented at the Electronic Government, E-Democracy and Open Government, and Electronic Participation: Joint Proceedings of Ongoing Research and Projects of IFIP WG 8.5 EGOV-CeDEM-ePart 2020, Linköping, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2017). Opportunities and challenges for digital governance in a world of digital participation. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 22(2/3), 197–205.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, D. (2018). Meta-theoretical issues. In V. Lowndes, D. Marsh, & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science. Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, L., Murray, D., & Ng, V. (2019). International human rights law as a framework for algorithmic accountability. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 68(2), 309–343. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589319000046

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, A., & Bekkers, V. (2015). A metatheory of e-government: Creating some order in a fragmented research field. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 237–245. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X15000568

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, A., & Thaens, M. (2010). Alignment 2.0: Strategic use of new internet technologies in government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(2), 113–121.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Misuraca, G., & van Noordt, C. (2020). Overview of the use and impact of AI in public services in the EU, EUR 30255 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2020) (9276195408). Retrieved from

    Google Scholar 

  • Misuraca, G., & Viscusi, G. (2020, 31 August–2 September). AI-enabled innovation in the public sector: A framework for digital governance and resilience. Paper presented at the Electronic Government: Proceedings of the 19th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2020, Linköping, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A., Medaglia, R., & Andersen, K. N. (2009). Time to give in: Firm belief in administrative reform as a driver for delivering benefits from IT. Paper presented at the Electronic Government: Proceedings of the 8th [IFIP WG 8.5] International Conference, EGOV 2009, Linz, Austria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierre, J. (Ed.). (2016). The Oxford handbook of Swedish politics. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prop 2003/04:145. Trängselskatt [Congestion tax].

    Google Scholar 

  • Prop. 2016/17:180. En modern och rättssäker förvaltning – ny förvaltningslag [A modern and legally secure administration - A new administrative procedure act].

    Google Scholar 

  • Puron-Cid, G., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2020). Opportunities and challenges of policy informatics: Tackling complex problems through the combination of open data, technology and analytics. In M. Khosrow-Pour, S. Clarke, M. E. Jennex, & A.-V. Anttiroiko (Eds.), Open government: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 236–258). IGI Global.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ranerup, A., Henriksen, H. Z., & Hedman, J. (2016). An analysis of business models in Public Service Platforms. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.01.010

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Redden, J., Dencik, L., & Warne, H. (2020). Datafied child welfare services: Unpacking politics, economics and power. Policy Studies, 41(5), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2020.1724928

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Regeringskansliet. (2017). För ett hållbart digitaliserat Sverige – en digitaliseringsstrategi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regeringskansliet, & SALAR. (2016). Vision e-hälsa 2025 - gemensamma utgångspunkter för digitalisering i socialtjänst och hälso- och sjukvård. Retrieved from http://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/79df147f5b194554bf401dd88e89b791/vision-e-halsa-2025.pdf

  • Ritala, P., Huizingh, E., Almpanopoulou, A., & Wijbenga, P. (2017). Tensions in R&D networks: Implications for knowledge search and integration. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, In Press, Corrected Proof. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517300094

  • Savoldelli, A., Codagnone, C., & Misuraca, G. (2014). Understanding the e-government paradox: Learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption. Government Information Quarterly, 31, S63–S71. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000340323800007.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1996). The construction of social reality. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • SFS 1974:152. Regeringsformen [Instrument of Government].

    Google Scholar 

  • SFS 2001:453. Socialtjänstlag [Social Services Act].

    Google Scholar 

  • SFS 2017:725. Kommunallag [Local Government Act].

    Google Scholar 

  • SFS 2017:900. Förvaltningslag [Administrative Procedure Act].

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. Retrieved from https://login.e.bibl.liu.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid&db=buh&AN=59330958&lang=sv&site=eds-live&scope=site.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration and Society, 43(8), 842–868. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84855274288&partnerID=40&md5=899edd754434fc0b9fd3caca03a6c1f6

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • SOU 2021:16. En väl fungerande ordning för val och beslutsfattande i kommuner och regioner. Retrieved from Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syssner, J. (2014). Politik för kommuner som krymper (Vol. 4). Linköping University Electronic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrift, N. (1985). Bear and mouse or bear and tree? Anthony Giddenss reconstitution of social theory. Sociology, 19(4), 609–623.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Van Cauter, L., Bannister, F., Crompvoets, J., & Snoeck, M. (2015). When innovation stumbles: Applying Sauer’s failure model to the Flemish road signs database project. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age (IJPADA), pending.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Noordt, C., Medaglia, R., & Misuraca, G. (2020, 31 August–2 September). Stimulating the uptake of AI in public administrations: Overview and comparison of AI strategies of European Member States. Paper presented at the Electronic Government, E-Democracy and Open Government, and Electronic Participation: Joint Proceedings of Ongoing Research and Projects of IFIP WG 8.5 EGOV-CeDEM-ePart 2020, Linköping, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vassilakopoulou, P., Grisot, M., & Aanestad, M. (2017). Friction forces and patient-centredness: Understanding how established logics endure during infrastructure transformation. Health Informatics Journal, 25(2), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458217712053

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, R. W. (2006). Governance of shared service centers in public administration: Dilemmas and trade-offs. Paper presented at The 8th international conference on Electronic commerce (ICEC 2006), Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. E. (1987). The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International Organization, 41(3), 335–370.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Whittlestone, J., Nyrup, R., Alexandrova, A., Dihal, K., & Cave, S. (2019). Ethical and societal implications of algorithms, data, and artificial intelligence: A roadmap for research. Nuffield Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 1. Retrieved from https://login.e.bibl.liu.se/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjag&AN=jstor.10.2307.20024652&site=eds-live

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariana S. Gustafsson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gustafsson, M.S. (2022). Integration of RPA in Public Services: A Tension Approach to the Case of Income Support in Sweden. In: Juell-Skielse, G., Lindgren, I., Åkesson, M. (eds) Service Automation in the Public Sector. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92644-1_6

Download citation