Keywords

Introduction

In the realm of public policy, the words of Richard SerinoFootnote 1 (2011) hold true: All disasters are local. During times of crises, local governments are indispensable when it comes to setting priorities and making critical policy decisions (Crow & Albright, 2019). This significance has been evident in various crises such as the financial crisis from 2008 and the refugee crisis from 2015, but also, more recently, in the approach to the Covid-19 pandemic and the migration flows due to the war in Ukraine (Bergström et al., 2022; Vargo et al., 2021). Successfully addressing these complex challenges requires substantial capacity of local governments. In the current societal context, this predominantly concerns digital capacity, denoting a government’s proficiency in deploying digital technologies effectively (Fountain, 2005; Gil-Garcia et al., 2014; Kim & Bretschneider, 2004). For example, the Covid-19 pandemic showed that digital technologies proved to be imperative. During the pandemic they enabled to continue working, to contain the spread of the virus and to speed up vaccinations (Zaki & Wayenberg, 2021). After the pandemic, they were still a crucial enabler for recovery strategies in various European countries: “The coronavirus crisis has demonstrated how crucial it is to be connected and to be able to interact with each other online” (Margrethe Vestager,Footnote 2 2020).

Recognizing that local digital capacity is not only vital for managing current crises but also for preparing for future challenges and unforeseen circumstances (Ferket et al., 2014), there is an ongoing imperative to enhance it (Zhao et al., 2018). In many European countries, this drive is reflected in a trend towards municipal amalgamations (Ebinger et al., 2019; Karkin et al., 2019). However, the effectiveness of this approach has not been sufficiently demonstrated (Boogers & Reussing, 2018; Steiner et al., 2016; Torfs et al., 2024). Empirical research in this area is limited and inconclusive (Blom-Hansen et al., 2016; De Ceuninck, 2017; Ebinger et al., 2019), and often falls short in adequately considering the impact on intergovernmental relations (Feeney et al., 2020; Kuhlmann & Bogumil, 2021). Therefore, the primary objective of this chapter is to assess the extent to which municipal amalgamations can effectively enhance local digital capacity while taking their intergovernmental context into account. This inquiry is pursued by addressing two associated research questions: How do municipal amalgamations impact upon local digital capacity; and which type of intergovernmental relationsFootnote 3 is most conducive to building this capacity?

In the following and second section, we elaborate on the concept of local digital capacity, exploring its characteristics and assessing the potential value of municipal amalgamations for its enhancement. The third section is devoted to the research framework, wherein we introduce the Technology Enactment Framework as a theoretical lens, present Flanders as the selected case, and outline our data collection and analysis strategies. Subsequently, we present the findings, culminating in a conclusion where we critically assess the significance of the amalgamation to enhance local digital capacity in an intergovernmental context.

Amalgamations as Local Digital Capacity-Building Reforms

Local digital capacity refers to a local government’s proficiency in deploying digital technologies effectively to attain a desired outcome (Fountain, 2005; Gil-Garcia et al., 2014; Kim & Bretschneider, 2004). This capacity comprises both objective and enacted technologies (Fountain, 2001; Zhao et al., 2018). Objective technologies encompass the digital tools within the organization, such as hardware devices and software applications. Enacted technologies focus on how these objective technologies permeate the organization, exhibiting varied deployment approaches. For instance, an email system can be configured to break down siloed barriers, but equally as well to enhance internal control mechanisms (Fountain, 2005). Thus, local digital capacity does not only hinge on technological presence, but also on how technologies are employed and by whom (Fountain, 2005; Gil-Garcia et al., 2014; Kim & Bretschneider, 2004).

The development of local digital capacity typically falls within the responsibilities of local governments themselves. Nevertheless, they frequently seek support from other governmental entities, given the multilevel governance structure in which they operate (Bergström et al., 2022; Crow & Albright, 2019; Jüptner & Klimovský, 2022). Local governments generally prioritize the development of the enacted technologies, as technology enactment happens throughout the organization and depends on factors such as management perception, IT department’s design, the implementation of digital decisions, and the use by employees within the organization (Fountain, 2001, 2005). Simultaneously, intergovernmental relations, encompassing both vertical connections with central governments and horizontal collaborations in intermunicipal or regional partnerships, tend to contribute to the establishment of the objective technologies (Fountain, 2001, 2005). Despite these diverse perspectives and opportunities to build digital capacity, the digital capacity of local government remains limited (Hanelt et al., 2021; Haug et al., 2023; Kuhlmann & Heuberger, 2021; Mergel et al., 2019). Recent cross-country research shows that desired outcomes from digital technologies are effectively achieved in only 10 to 33 per cent of the cases (Padwalkar et al., 2023). This is primarily attributed to local governments’ failure to deploy the existing objective technologies in an enacted manner (Kim & Bretschneider, 2004). To address this challenge, several central governments contemplate municipal amalgamations—reforms aimed at reducing the number of multifunctional local government units through consolidation (Bish, 2001, p. 14). The underlying rationale for such reforms is the belief that larger local governments could potentially yield greater (digital) capacity (Tavares, 2018).

However, focusing on municipal amalgamations to bolster local digital capacity poses a twofold problem. First, there is inadequate empirical evidence supporting the assumption that municipal amalgamations positively impact a local government’s digital capacity. Studies on the general effects of municipal amalgamations yield inconclusive results (Blom-Hansen et al., 2016; De Ceuninck, 2017; Ebinger et al., 2019). For example, there are studies indicating positive impacts on financial resources and staff professionalism, while other studies reveal negative impacts on service proximity, citizen participation, and cost efficiency (Boogers & Reussing, 2018; Steiner et al., 2016; Torfs et al., 2024). Moreover, studies specific to the effects of municipal amalgamations on digital capacity are largely absent, with only indirect research linking the size of a municipality to its digital capacity (Kuhlmann & Heuberger, 2021; Flemish Government and VVSG, 2016). Second, there persist uncertainties regarding the ramifications of municipal amalgamations on the intergovernmental relations that underpin local digital capacity. While research addressing the impact of municipal amalgamations on the type of intergovernmental relations is lacking, existing empirical studies suggest that intergovernmental relations face strain following amalgamations (Feeney et al., 2020; Kuhlmann & Bogumil, 2021). Given that local digital capacity heavily relies on intergovernmental support (Kim & Bretschneider, 2004), changes in these relations might not be as favourable and could potentially even be counterproductive by eroding local digital capacity.

In summary, municipal amalgamations hold the potential to enhance local digital capacity, but this potential is not sufficiently proven. Empirical studies supporting this claim are inadequate and uncertainty surrounding the type of intergovernmental relations introduces doubt. Therefore, the objective of this research extends beyond evaluating the impact of municipal amalgamations on local digital capacity; it also seeks to identify the most conducive type of intergovernmental relations for fostering local digital capacity-building.

Research Framework

Technology Enactment Framework (TEF)

In pursuit of this dual objective, we adopt the Technology Enactment Framework (TEF) developed by Jane Fountain in 2001 as a conceptual lens (Fountain, 2001; Gil-Garcia et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2018). The TEF is widely recognized as one of the most valuable avenues to investigate the interplay between digital technologies and organizational forms within a governmental context (Cordella & Iannacci, 2010; Danziger, 2004; Mergel et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2018).

To begin, the TEF classifies digital technologies into objectives and enacted categories, aligning with the distinction outlined in the previous section of this chapter (Fountain, 2001, 2005). The framework starts from the identification of the objective technologies in the organizational environment. Subsequently, the organizational form selectively adopts some of these objective technologies and shapes the perception, design, implementation, and usage related to these objective technologies, thereby transforming them into enacted technologies. Finally, these enacted technologies can, in turn, impact the functioning of the organization form (Cordella & Iannacci, 2010; Danziger, 2004; Fountain, 2001, 2005; Zhao et al., 2018). Consequently, the TEF reveals a recursive connection between the organizational form and enacted technologies, while only establishing a unidirectional link with the objective technologies. Changes in the organizational form do not alter the objective technologies in the environment but may impact interactions with enacted technologies (Zhao et al., 2018).

Moreover, the organizational form results from a dynamic interplay between the organization and its surrounding networks. The organization is a governmental entity shaped by its structure, size, personnel, and resources. The networks refer to the relationships in which the organization is engaged (Fountain, 2001, 2005; Zhao et al., 2018). This interaction between the organization and its network is influenced by the type of intergovernmental relation in which they function. In the TEF, a reciprocal relationship positions the organization and its network as equal partners, jointly influencing the transformation of objective technologies into enacted technologies (Bergström et al., 2022).

Building upon this Technology Enactment Framework (Fountain, 2001, 2005) and prior research leveraging it (Cordella & Iannacci, 2010; Gil-Garcia et al., 2014), we present our research model as illustrated in Fig. 10.1. The model serves as a tool for exploring the impact of a municipal amalgamation (change in organization) within its intergovernmental context (network) on local digital capacity (objective and enacted technologies). From this model, we derive two testable hypotheses, each contributing to the study’s objectives. The first hypothesis suggests that a municipal amalgamation enhances local digital capacity exclusively through its impact on enacted technologies. This assumption aligns with the relationships identified by the TEF (Fountain, 2001, 2005) and is supported by empirical findings, indicating that government reforms influence the choices behind enacted technologies but not the presence of specific objective technologies (Cordella & Iannacci, 2010). The second hypothesis suggests that a multi-layered type of intergovernmental relations is most conducive to digital capacity-building. This assumption is rooted in the reciprocal relationship between organization and network posited by the TEF, emphasizing intergovernmental relations characterized by minimal conflict, the right of representation and participation, and agreed-upon rules as most suitable for digital capacity-building (Bergström et al., 2022).

Fig. 10.1
A block flow diagram. Objective technologies are linked to organizational reform with organization and network. Enacted technologies are bidirectionally linked to the organizational reform including organization and network.

Technology Enactment Framework applied to the research-context. (Source: Fountain, 2005)

Full size image

Case

The investigation of both hypotheses is conducted through a single case study focusing on a Flemish amalgamated municipality over a five-year period (2017–2022), coinciding with the municipality’s requirement to bolster its digital capacity due to the challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic. Flanders, the northern region of the Nordic Napoleonic country Belgium, is selected due to its extensive history of municipal amalgamations and its acknowledgement of the critical necessity for local digital capacity. The amalgamation history, as outlined in Box 10.1, dates to 1977 and has witnessed shifts in both responsible governmental levels (from federal to regional) and strategies of amalgamation (from top-down to bottom-up). Essentially, Flanders has experienced a transformation in the type of intergovernmental relations in which municipal amalgamations transpire. The former approach was mainly centralized, while today’s amalgamation approach is characterized by a multi-layered system involving numerous horizontal and vertical intergovernmental relations (Bergström et al., 2022; De Ceuninck, 2017). The recognition of significance of local digital capacity is prominently articulated through the ‘Flanders Radical Digital’ programme, emphasizing a comprehensive and organization-wide strategy where local governments hold pivotal roles (Flemish government, 2015, 2021). This acknowledgement is not unique to Flanders. Intergovernmental bodies such as the European Commission, the OECD, and the UN demonstrate that countries globally are making digital advancements, albeit at different paces (Kuhlmann & Heuberger, 2021). However, Flanders is set apart by its pronounced struggle during the Covid-19 pandemic, being one of the most affected European regions (Zaki & Wayenberg, 2021), which further underlined the urgent need for local digital capacity.

Box 10.1 Flemish Amalgamation History

The Flemish amalgamation history began in 1977 with a series of amalgamations that are described as the most far-reaching reforms in the history of municipalities in Belgium (Ackaert & Dekien, 1989). By means of a Royal Decree, the Belgian government opted for a mandatory reform, reducing the number of Belgian municipalities from 2359 to 589. In Flanders, the number of municipalities decreased from 906 to 308, which is equivalent to a reduction of 66 per cent (Ackaert & Dekien, 1989). According to evaluation studies, the Belgian government fell short with this centralized policy focus (e.g. Bergström et al., 2022). The municipalities received little support and there was no systematic follow-up (Ackaert & Dekien, 1989). This mandatory reform led to friction and conflict between the central and local governments. Even to an extent that municipal amalgamations were off topic for a long time (De Ceuninck, 2017). Only decades later, they reappeared on the agenda. By this time, amalgamation policy had become a regional matter because of the state reform in 2001Footnote 4 (Hondeghem et al., 2022). In 2010, the Flemish government started to develop its own amalgamation policy. From then on, amalgamations were voluntary and bottom-up, albeit still within a central framework (De Ceuninck, 2017; Wayenberg et al., 2018). In 2014, the Flemish government strengthened its amalgamation policy by developing a script for amalgamations and an amalgamation decree. These initiatives led to the first voluntary amalgamations in 2019 where fifteen municipalities amalgamated into seven (ABB, 2022). Today, several amalgamations are in progress, which will result in 13 new municipalities from the amalgamation of 28 existing ones, effective January 1, 2025 (VVSG, 2024).

In Flanders, there are currently seven recently voluntarily amalgamated municipalities. To guide our selection for the single case study, we employ two specific parameters. First, we choose an amalgamation involving equal partners, as research suggests that amalgamations with less equal partners often result in absorption rather than organizational reforms (Ebinger et al., 2019; Tavares, 2018). This criterion is based on the population size of the municipalities involved. Second, we opt for an amalgamated municipality that demonstrated a certain level of digital proficiency at the beginning of our period of analysis (2017). This proficiency is assessed through the outcomes of i-Monitor, a tool developed by the Flemish government for evaluating municipalities across various e-government domains. Municipalities scoring three or higher out of fiveFootnote 5 are considered sufficiently proficient in digital technology to provide valuable insights (Flemish Government and VVSG, 2016).

These criteria lead to two potential options, and ultimately, the selection is based on choosing the amalgamated municipality with the highest population. This decision is supported by empirical research linking the size of local governments to their digital capacities (Kuhlmann & Heuberger, 2021; Flemish Government and VVSG, 2016). The chosen amalgamated municipality is the result of the amalgamation of two municipalities with a combined population of 33,600 inhabitants and a digital maturity rate of 57 per cent in 2016 (Flemish Government and VVSG, 2016). The principal decision for the amalgamation was made in June 2017, followed by the final decision in December of the same year. Ultimately, the new amalgamated municipality commenced operations on 01 January 2019 (Audit Flanders, 2022).

Data Collection and Analysis Strategy

The data collection strategy combined a document analysis and semi-structured interviews to gather in-depth information about digital technologies within the municipality (Yin, 2018). First, we performed a document analysis of the multi-year plans and annual accounts. For the period from 2017 to 2019, we analysed the documents of the pre-amalgamated municipalities. For the period from January 2019 onwards, we analysed the documents of the amalgamated municipalities. Second, we interviewed actors involved in the use of digital technologies in the amalgamated municipality, selected via the snowball method (Van Thiel, 2021). All interviews were conducted during the spring of 2023 and lasted between 56 and 74 minutes. We used a semi-structured questionnaire that probed the evolution of digital capacity over the period from 2017 to 2022, and to the potential role of the municipal amalgamation or other decisive factors therein. All the interviews were conducted and recorded via MS Teams and subsequently transcribed using MS Word. After that, we systematically analysed the transcripts via an iterative coding scheme using Nvivo 14 software (Gehman et al., 2018).

Digital Capacity of an Amalgamated Municipality in an Intergovernmental Context

The analysis is structured in alignment with the two primary objectives of this research. The first part focuses on the impact of municipal amalgamations on local digital capacity, while the second part contributes to the identification of the type of intergovernmental relations mostly suited for the enhancement of local digital capacity in an amalgamated municipality. Both parts entail a comprehensive examination of respondents’ responses, complemented by a reflective analysis of the implications inherent in their perceptions.

Enhancing Digital Capacity via Municipal Amalgamation

In this first part of the analysis, we examine the potential influence of a municipal amalgamation on the digital capacity of a local government. Drawing upon the definition of digital capacity and the first hypothesis articulated in the theoretical section of this chapter, we differentiate between the objective and enacted technologies within the amalgamated municipality.

The objective technologies in the amalgamated municipality have experienced a significant increase over the past few years, as outlined in the multi-year plan for 2020–2025. However, it is important to note that this upward trend commenced well before the 2019 amalgamation and can be attributed to various factors, including technical and societal evolutions. The surge in the number of hardware devices in both pre-amalgamated municipalities was already noticeable in the annual accounts of 2017–2019 due to the growing workforce and the expansion of employee profiles utilizing digital devices. Traditionally, only administrative profiles required digital devices, but in recent years, hardware has become essential across various organizational functions. For instance, the amalgamated municipality currently provides digital equipment for their cleaning staff. The increase in software applications was primarily driven by the societal shift towards an increasingly digital environment. Municipalities are compelled to align with this digital trend as citizens expect more digital services, and local partners increasingly offer their services exclusively in digital formats. However, the sharp increase in software applications is not universally viewed positively, unlike the increase in hardware devices. One respondent noted: “Unfortunately, the number of software applications has increased exponentially” (respondent 2). The amalgamated municipality faces the challenge of managing a multitude of diverse and uncoordinated software packages, leading to insufficient support. This situation has reached a point where the need for reduction and simplification is becoming apparent.

The enacted technologies encompass four key elements, as discussed in the second section of this chapter: management perception, IT department design, digital decision implementation, and employee usage within the organization (Fountain, 2001, 2005). We begin by examining the evolution in the perception of the management team. In the case at hand, the perception has remained consistent over the past few years. Both pre-amalgamated municipalities already prioritized information technologies: “The vibe has always been there” (respondent 2). Today, the amalgamated municipality continues to demonstrate a willingness to invest in digital technologies: “ICT is a basic condition for a good management of the organization” (multi-year plan 2020–2025).

Aligned with the stability observed in the perception, the design of the IT department also remained relatively consistent. In both pre-amalgamated municipalities, the IT department was perceived as a supportive entity and held a central position within the municipal organizational framework. Reflecting the enduring and shared vision of the two pre-amalgamated municipalities, the amalgamated municipality retained the same central position for the IT department. Respondents assert that this decision emerged from a comprehensive discourse during the preparatory phase of the amalgamation where the importance of centralization was reaffirmed. Here, respondents emphasize that the amalgamation process could just as well have led to a repositioning if there had not already been a shared sustainable vision. While the position remained unchanged, the capabilities of the IT department did undergo a transformation. In the pre-amalgamated municipalities, the IT department primarily focused on IT support. In contrast, the IT department in the amalgamated municipality now serves as a full partner in various projects. When a local project involves a significant IT component, the IT department assumes responsibility for planning and budgeting. The respondents attribute this strengthened position of the department to the amalgamation, stating: “The amalgamation certainly played a part in the opportunities [the IT department] experiences today” (respondent 1). According to the respondents, the IT department of the amalgamated municipality has been assigned more responsibilities due to the amalgamation, which led to increased professionalization and a higher number of employees within the department. For instance, one of the pre-amalgamated municipalities had only two employees in the IT department, making it challenging to effectively play a supporting role from a central position. With the amalgamation, there are more IT employees, allowing the department to develop expertise and fulfil the requirements of a central and supportive position more effectively. In short, the amalgamation did not alter the position of the IT department within the municipal organization, but it did strengthen its role and professionalism of the department.

This enhanced role of the IT department also creates a more favourable environment for the implementation of digital decisions. The evolution allows for greater space to prepare, substantiate, and justify digital proposals, while also facilitating the integration of digital components in other policy proposals: “The organization is well versed in making the reflex to come to the IT department when they have a project where even the smallest component is IT related” (respondent 2). Moreover, the amplified role of the IT department enables the provision of adequate support during and after the implementation of digital decisions. Therefore, the amalgamation enhanced the efficacy of preparation and monitoring mechanisms for the implementation of digital decisions, turning the IT department into a crucial source of technical expertise and collaboration.

Finally, the use of digital technologies by the employees within the organization merits consideration. In line with the proliferation of objective technologies, their use and integration within the organizational framework has also grown. The respondents even indicate that the hardware devices are optimally used: “The municipality is working optimally in terms of hardware” (respondent 2). In contrast, there exists an untapped potential for the expansion of software application use. Respondents attribute this suboptimal use of software applications to two primary causes, both of which were at least exacerbated by the 2019 amalgamation. First, suboptimal use can be attributed to inadequacies in the design of the municipality’s software architecture. The amalgamated municipality currently uses over 200 applications that lack effective communication and coordination, and even partly overlap. The amalgamation intensified these architectural challenges, resulting in a complex structure sourced by applications from both pre-amalgamated municipalities and entirely new ones. Second, suboptimal software application use is also linked to the limited digital maturity and adaptability of the employees. The amalgamation prompted the replacement of a range of familiar and trusted software applications with new counterparts serving identical purposes: “None of the software applications from one of the pre-amalgamated municipalities are used in the amalgamated municipality” (respondent 2). Consequently, employees with lower digital maturity minimize their usage and necessitate extended periods for adjustment: “Staff members had to adapt, which led to the necessary frustrations and even burnout” (respondent 2). This sentiment is further corroborated by various statements from local employees, exemplified by expressions such as “I could have done it faster in Word” or “If I could have printed the document, it would have already been signed” (respondent 1).

Taken together, the respondents perceived a discernible influence of the municipal amalgamation on local digital capacity: “The amalgamation created the opportunity to make a turnaround and take a big step forward” (respondent 1). The analysis of the five-year evolution of digital capacity within a Flemish municipality unveiled notable changes, which respondents attributed to the municipal amalgamation of 2019: “The amalgamation did create some buzz” (respondent 2). Important to note is that the respondents only observed an impact on some elements of the enacted technologies, and not on the objective technologies: “The amalgamation played a role in the way digital technologies are enacted today” (respondent 2). While not every element of the enacted technologies exhibits uniform impact in this case, the respondents did emphasize the potential influence of municipal amalgamations under different circumstances. They suggested that their experienced stability in certain elements could be ascribed to the effective functioning in the pre-amalgamated municipalities. From this, it can be inferred that the extent to which a municipal amalgamation influences local digital capacity depends on two factors: (1) the digital capacity and maturity at the beginning of the amalgamation process and (2) the equality in population size of the amalgamating partners. In conclusion, this part of our analysis substantiates the first hypothesis: municipal amalgamations can only enhance local digital capacity through their impact on enacted technologies.

Building Digital Capacity via Intergovernmental Relations

In this second part of the analysis, we inquire into the intergovernmental relations conducive to the flourishing of digital capacity-building in an amalgamated municipality. Guided by the conceptualization of intergovernmental relations and the second hypothesis expounded in the theoretical section of this chapter, we delineate between the horizontal and vertical intergovernmental relations in which the amalgamated municipality is involved.

The horizontal relations within the amalgamated municipality exhibit minimal divergence from the relations established by the municipalities prior to the amalgamation. According to the respondents, the amalgamation only affected the horizontal relations between the two pre-amalgamated municipalities. Apart from these discontinued relations, the amalgamated municipality remains actively involved in all other horizontal relations related to digital capacity-building. These relations predominantly exist within a provincial partnership, where various municipalities collaborate to enhance the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of acquiring objective technologies. This collaboration allows for the pooling of specialized knowledge and experience, and economic benefits through bulk purchasing. Here, the respondents emphasize the reliance on these horizontal intergovernmental relations for certain aspects of their digital capacity-building: “We would not be able to set up such things ourselves” (respondent 2). While acknowledging their significance, the respondents also express reservations and delineate limitations. Firstly, they argue that horizontal intermunicipal partnerships become less effective when involving too many partners. From this perspective, a municipal amalgamation is seen as advantageous, reducing the number of stakeholders at the table. Secondly, the respondents express their assumption that the value of the horizontal relations may be contingent upon the size of the government and thus diminish after amalgamation. With a total population of 33,600 inhabitants after the amalgamation, the respondents contend that their municipality remains sufficiently compact to derive benefits from horizontal relations, contrasting with larger amalgamations that may not experience similar advantages. The absence of larger municipalities in the provincial partnership further bolsters the notion of a correlation between municipal size and the necessity for support from horizontal intergovernmental relations.

The vertical relationships in which the amalgamated municipality is involved exhibit no change compared to the relations of the municipalities prior to the amalgamation. According to the respondents, during the strategic deliberation of digital capacity-building preceding the municipal amalgamation, the municipality realized that the vertical relation with the Flemish government would remain indispensable even after the amalgamation. The respondents even express a need to expand the vertical relations, both in supporting objective and enacted technologies. The objective technologies are already partly provided via intergovernmental relations. However, the respondents indicate that the supporting role of the central government is not sufficient, and advocate for the Flemish government to take on a regulatory role as well. This suggestion is rooted in the perceived oligopolistic dominance of software suppliers, with respondents positing that regulatory intervention could foster a more competitive market environment and align the software more effectively with local needs: “It would be an improvement if the Flemish government would take more directive action when it comes to the supply of software applications” (respondent 2). The enacted technologies primarily fall under the purview of the municipality itself. The first part of the analysis demonstrated that the amalgamation is strengthening certain elements of those technologies. However, the respondents also call for support from the central government to enhance the enacted technologies. For instance, they highlight the value of the digital building blocks supplied by the Flemish government (objective technologies) but stress the need for additional guidance in successfully implementing and using them (enacted technologies).

Taken together, the intergovernmental relations implicated in digital capacity-building have undergone minimal alterations because of the municipal amalgamation. However, the respondents observed a decrease in the importance of horizontal relations since the 2019 amalgamation, while the significance of vertical relations continues to grow. They advocate for an expanded vertical relation that supports digital capacity-building not only in terms of objective but also in terms of enacted technologies. In other words, respondents perceive a greater efficacy in adopting a more centralized approach to digital capacity-building than what is currently in place. Given these findings, we are compelled to reject the second hypothesis. According to respondents, a multi-layered type of intergovernmental relations is not considered most conducive to digital capacity-building.

Conclusion

This research aimed at gaining a deeper understanding of the impact of municipal amalgamations on digital capacity(-building) at the local government level. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of digital capacity evolution in a Flemish amalgamated municipality over a five-year period (2017–2022), during which the Covid-19 pandemic heightened the demand for local digital capacity. As local digital capacity is built from both local government’s own initiatives and the support from intergovernmental relations, we analysed the impact of a municipal amalgamation on both. The results show that the 2019 amalgamation exclusively enhanced local digital capacity through its influence on enacted technologies (i.e. management perception, IT department design, digital decision implementation, and employee usage within the organization). The amalgamation did not impact the objective technologies (i.e. hardware and software), necessitating continued support through intergovernmental relations. The respondents even argue for strengthening intergovernmental relations to address future challenges and unforeseen circumstances in the current societal context. They particularly advocate for reinforcing vertical intergovernmental relations to enhance both objective and enacted technologies, relying on central government support. These findings align with Jane Fountain’s Technology Enactment Framework (Fountain, 2001, 2005), emphasizing that local digital capacity is influenced not only by objective and enacted digital technologies but also by the context surrounding the local government such as its amalgamated organization and network of intergovernmental relations.

The answers of the respondents show that it is feasible to engage in digital capacity-building within various types of intergovernmental relations, but they express a preference for a more centralized approach. In comparison to the prevailing multi-layered approach, a heightened level of centralization in digital capacity-building could effectively address constraints perceived by respondents. This includes the potential for more rapid policy responses aligning with the pace of evolving technologies and a more coordinated approach fostering collaboration through horizontal relations with numerous partners. It is crucial to clarify that the discussion revolves around a ‘more centralized approach’ rather than a complete shift to a fully centralized model. Respondents emphasize the significance of maintaining the right of representation, participation, and creating space for mutual feedback within the realm of digital capacity-building.

In conclusion, we can state that municipal amalgamations offer a valuable means to augment local digital capacity, but their efficacy as an organizational reform is contingent on the specific context in which they unfold. The success of this endeavour for digital capacity(-building) is intricately tied to the needs of the local government (objective and/or enacted technologies), as well as the nature (horizontal and/or vertical) and type (centralized, multi-layered, and/or conflicted) of intergovernmental relations. Enhancing these aspects necessitates a strategic and integrated approach that aligns internal efforts with intergovernmental initiatives. While a municipal amalgamation can serve as a platform for such endeavours, it cannot simply be applied as a universal solution to the digital capacity challenges at the local level, as succinctly articulated by one of the respondents: “A municipal amalgamation is an ideal opportunity to address digital capacity-building, but both changes are so intense they require central support” (respondent 2).