Public Management and Technology: How Can e-Government Strategies Contribute to Greater Efficiency in Public Expenditures?

  • Flavio SaabEmail author
  • Wesley Rodrigo Couto Lira
  • Cassiano de Souza Alves
  • Paulo Henrique de Souza Bermejo
  • Guilherme Henrique Alves Borges
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 797)


Government concerns about the growth of public expenditures that have increased in recent decades. The challenge of achieving greater efficiency in government spending stems from the growing demand for public services and the limited ability of governments to raise taxes to fund these services. In this context, the present research aims to investigate how e-government strategies can contribute to greater efficiency regarding public expenditures. To achieve this objective, interviews, bibliographical research, and documentary research were carried out, resulting in a proposal that includes e-government strategies with potentially positive effects on the efficiency of public spending.


Public expenditures Open government Electronic government e-Government Public administration Open innovation 



The authors would like to thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq-Brasil)—Process 402789/2015-6 for financial support in carrying out this study.


  1. 1.
    Alberti A, Bertucci G (2006) Replicating innovations in governance: an overview. In: Innovations in governance and public administration: replicating what works, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Australian Government Information Management Office, A The Australian Public Service Big Data Strategy (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bailey A, Minto-coy I, Thakur D (2017) Information technology governance in public organizations, vol 38, pp 201–227. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barth TJ, Arnold F (1999) Artificial intelligence and administrative discretion: implications for public administration. Am Rev Pub Adm 29(4):332–351. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basu K (2016) Globalization of labor markets and the growth prospects. J Policy Model 38(4):656–669. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biswas S, Chakraborty I, Hai R (2017) Income inequality, tax policy, and economic growth. Econ J 127(601):688–727. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dorasamy N (2017) Citizen participation and needs as an input tool for local government quality management. Risk Gov Control Fin Markets Institutions 7(2):56–66.
  8. 8.
    Executive Office of the President, USA (2014) Big data: seizing opportunities. Executive Office of the President, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fan Y, French ML, Duray R, Stading GL (2017) Service strategy to improve operational capabilities in the public sector. Serv Ind J 37(11–12):703–725. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gil AC (2008) Métodos e Técnicas de Pesquisa SocialGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Godoi CK, Bandeira-de-Mello R, da Silva AB (2006) Pesquisa Qualitativa em Estudos Organizacionais. Editora SaraivaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grimmelikhuijsen SG, Feeney MK (2016) Developing and testing an integrative framework for open government adoption in local governments. Pub Adm Rev 0:1–12. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haque MS (2002) E-Governance in India: its impacts on relations among citizens, politicians and public servants. Int Rev Admin Sci 68(2):231–250. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harrison TM, Guerrero S, Burke GB, Cook M, Cresswell A, Helbig N, Hrdinová J, Pardo T (2012) Open government and e-government: democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Inf Polity Int J Gov Democracy Inf Age 17(2):83–97.
  15. 15.
    Heeks R (2010) Do information and communication technologies (ICTs) contribute to development? J Int Dev 22(5):625–640. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Landau J (1993) Organizational change and barriers to innovation: a case study in the Italian public sector. Hum Relat. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Layne K, Lee J (2001) Developing fully functional e-government: a four stage model. Gov Inf Q 18(2):122–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lederman D, Loayza NV, Soares RR (2005) Accountability and corruption: political institutions matter. Econ Politics 17(1):1–35. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lonti Z, Woods M (2008) OECD working papers on public towards government at a glance: identification of core data and issues related to public sector efficiency. Gov Int J Policy Adm (7):156.
  20. 20.
    Lopes CA (2007) Acesso à Informação Pública para a Melhoria da Qualidade dos Gastos Públicos—Literatura, Evidências Empíricas e o Caso Brasileiro. Caderno de Finanças Públicas, pp 5–40Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luna-Reyes LF, Gil-Garcia JR, Romero G (2012) Towards a multidimensional model for evaluating electronic government: proposing a more comprehensive and integrative perspective. Gov Inf Q 29(3):324–334. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Luo Y, Bu J (2015) How valuable is information and communication technology? a study of emerging economy enterprises. J World Bus 51(2):1–12. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maciejewski M (2017) To do more, better, faster and more cheaply: using big data in public administration. International Rev Adm Sci 83(1_suppl):120–135. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martins TCM, Bermejo PH de S (2016) Desafio de ideias para o governo aberto: o caso da polícia militar de minas gerais—Brasil. Cadernos Gestão Pública E Cidadania 21(70):303–324.
  25. 25.
    Moen R, Norman C (2009) Evolution of the PDCA cycle. Society, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    More A, Kanungo, P (2016) Proceedings of the international congress on information and communication technology, vol 438, pp 635–643. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moreno-Enguix MDR, Lorente Bayona LV (2017) Factors affecting public expenditure efficiency in developed countries. Politics Policy 45(1):105–143. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nabatchi T (2010) The (re)discovery of the public in public administration. Public Adm Rev 70(SUPPL. 1):309–311. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nagarajan NR, Teixeira AAC, Silva ST (2016) The impact of an ageing population on economic growth: an exploratory review of the main mechanisms. Análise Soc 51(218):4–35Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nam T, Pardo TA (2014) The changing face of a city government: a case study of Philly311. Gov Inf Q 31(SUPPL.1). Scholar
  31. 31.
    OCDE (2009) Focus on citizens. Public engagement for better policy and servicesGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ogunde AO, Odukwe C (2017) A prototype system for mining frequent citizens’ demand patterns from e-government databases. Comput Inf Syst 21(2):1–9Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pereira GV, Macadar MA, Luciano EM, Testa MG (2017) Delivering public value through open government data initiatives in a smart city context. Inf Syst Front 19(2):213–229. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pollanen R, Abdel-Maksoud A, Elbanna S, Mahama H (2017) Relationships between strategic performance measures, strategic decision-making, and organizational performance: empirical evidence from Canadian public organizations. Public Manage Rev 19(5):725–746. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rayner S (2012) Uncomfortable knowledge: the social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Econ Soc 41(1):107–125. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Saab F, Garcia GC, Pereira JS, Bermejo PH de S (2017) Public participation and regulatory public policies: an assessment from the perspective of Douglasian cultural theory. Lecture Notes in business information processing, vol 299, pp 238–249. Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thorhildur J, Avital M, Rn-Andersen NB (2013) The generative mechanisms of open government data. In: ECIS 2013 ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Turle M, Hordern V (2005) Introduction to freedom of information act. Comput Law Security Rep 21(5):415–419. Scholar
  39. 39.
    UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills (2013) Seizing the data opportunity: a strategy for UK data capability. LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    BRAZIL, Ministry of Education. Challenge of professional and technological education. Available at: Accessed on 23 Jan 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Flavio Saab
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wesley Rodrigo Couto Lira
    • 2
  • Cassiano de Souza Alves
    • 2
  • Paulo Henrique de Souza Bermejo
    • 1
  • Guilherme Henrique Alves Borges
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Brasilia (UnB)BrasíliaBrazil
  2. 2.Ministry of Planning, Development and Management (MP)BrasíliaBrazil
  3. 3.Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq)BrasíliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations