THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF USING INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES
The purpose of this article is to substantiate the theoretical foundations of using information and communication technologies (hereinafter – ICT) in public administration decision-making processes using the framework of categories and concepts proposed by New Public Management, Joined-up government, Public Value Рaradigm, Actor Network Theory and Socio-Technical Systems. The research task is to comprehensively consider the methods, approaches and foundations of using ICT in public administration through these theories. General scientific methods (analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction) as well as the comparative-historical method have been used. Such an approach allows to generalize and comprehend the role and impact of ICT in public administration within the framework of different theories and to offer an empirical application of the developed concepts. Correlation of the considered concepts' theoretical principles with the criteria for public services delivery, the role of citizens, approaches to measuring the performance of public servants makes it possible to conclude the information about the attitudes and requirements for innovations in public administration from the perspective of each of the theories. It can contribute to further study of the ICT's impact on the public administration decision-making processes, predicting the transformational impact of e-governance and theoretical advances empirical application by both public servants and those who hold political positions.
2. Albrechtslund, A. (2007). Ethics and technology design. In (Vol. 9, pp. 63-72): Ethics Inf Technol.
3. Alford John, & Janine, O. F. (2009). Making Sense of Public Value: Concepts, Critiques and Emergent Meanings. In (Vol. 32, pp. 171-191). International Journal of Public Administration.
4. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research [Article]. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002
5. Beese Jannis, Haki Kazem, & Stephan, A. (2015). On the Conceptualization of Information Systems as Socio-Technical Phenomena in Simulation-Based Research 2015 International Conference
6. on Information Systems (ICIS 2015), Fort Worth, TX. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285152964_On_the_Conceptualization_of_Information_Systems_as_Socio-Technical_Phenomena_in_Simulation-Based_Research
7. Benouareth, C. E., & Gacem, M. (2019). UNDERSTANDING "JOINING-UP-GOVERNMENT" REFORMS IN ANGLO-SAXON NATIONS FROM A CULTURAL POINT OF VIEW [Article]. Voprosy Gosudarstvennogo I Munitsipalnogo Upravleniya-Public Administration Issues(5), 27-45. https://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2019-0-5-27-45
8. Cohen, S., Rossi, F. M., Caperchione, E., & Brusca, I. (2019). Local government administration systems and local government accounting information needs: is there a mismatch? [Article]. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(4), 708-725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852317748732
9. Cole, M., & Parston, G. (2006). Unlocking Public Value: A New Model For Achieving High Performance In Public Service Organizations.
10. Cordella, A., & Bonina, C. M. (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection [Article]. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512-520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004
11. Cresswell, K. M., Worth, A., Sheikh, A. (2010). Actor-Network Theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. In. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
12. Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2009). Characteristics of Innovation and Innovation Adoption in Public Organizations: Assessing the Role of Managers [Review]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 495-522. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun021
13. Doolin B, & A, L. (2012). To Reveal is to Critique: Actor–Network Theory and Critical Information Systems Research. In (Vol. 17(2):69-78). Journal of Information Technology.
14. Du Gay, P. (1994). Making up Managers: Bureaucracy, Enterprise and the Liberal Art of Separation. In (Vol. 45, pp. 655-674): The British Journal of Sociology.
15. Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective [Article]. Research Policy, 39(4), 495-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022
16. Gruening, G. (2001). Origin and theoretical basis of new public management. In (Vol. 4, pp. 1-25): International Public Management Journal.
17. Heeks, R. (2008). Benchmarking e-Government: Improving the national and international measurement, evaluation and comparison of e-Government. In (pp. 257-301): Evaluating Information Systems.
18. Hood, C. C., & Margetts, H. Z. (2007). The tools of government in the digital age. In. Basingstoke, UK, Macmillan International Higher Education.
19. Janssen, D., Rotthier, S., & Snijkers, K. (2004). If you measure it they will score: An Assessment of international government benchmarking. In (Vol. 9, pp. 121-130): Information Polity.
20. Kearns, I. (2004). Public value and e-government. Institute for Public Policy Research.
21. Keast, R. (2011). Joined-Up Governance in Australia: How the Past Can Inform the Future. In (Vol. 34, pp. 221–231). International Journal of Public Administration: International Journal of Public Administration.
22. Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., & Muers, S. (2002a). Creating Public Value: An Analytical Framework for Public Service Reform. In. Discussion paper preparedby the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, United Kingdom.
23. Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., & Muers, S. (2002b). Creating Public Value: AnAnalytical Framework for Public Service Reform. In. Discussion paper preparedby the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, United Kingdom.
24. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford university press.
25. Lavertu, S. (2016). We All Need Help: "Big Data" and the Mismeasure of Public Administration [Article; Proceedings Paper]. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 864-872. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12436
26. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. In (Vol. 5, pp. 379–393). Systems Practice.
27. Ling, T. (2002). Delivering joined-up government in the UK: Dimensions, issues and problems [Article]. Public Administration, 80(4), 615-642. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00321
28. Markoff, J. (1996). The microprocessor's impact on society [Article]. Ieee Micro, 16(6), 54-59. https://doi.org/10.1109/40.546565
29. Missier, P., Lalk, G., Verykios, V., Grillo, F., Lorusso, T., & Angeletti, P. (2003). Improving data quality in practice: A case study in the Italian Public Administration [Article]. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 13(2), 135-160. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021548024224
30. Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics. A word and some questions. In (Vol. 47(1_suppl), pp. 74-89). The sociological review.
31. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard university press.
32. Ndou, V. (2004). E-government for developing countries: Opportunities and challenges. In (Vol. 18): The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries.
33. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Addison-Wesley. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.4050130113
34. Pang, M. S., Lee, G., & DeLone, W. H. (2014). IT resources, organizational capabilities, and value creation in public sector organisations: A public-value management perspective In (Vol. 29, pp. 187-205): Journal of Information Technology.
35. Peralta, A., & Rubalcaba, L. (2021). How Governance Paradigms and Other Drivers Affect Public Managers' Use of Innovation Practices. A PLS-SEM Analysis and Model [Article]. Mathematics, 9(9), 28, Article 1055. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9091055
36. Perry. (2004). Joined-up government in the western world in comparative perspective: A preliminary literature review and exploration. In (Vol. 14, pp. 103-138): Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
37. Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (2004). In Search of Excellence: Lessons From America's Best-Run Companies. HarperCollins. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393015
38. Pollit, C., & Bouchaert, G. (2004). Public management reform. In: Oxford University Press.
39. Proper, C., & Wilson, D. (2003). The use and usefulness of performance measures. In (Vol. 19, pp. 250-267). OxfordReview of Economic Policy.
40. Snijkers, K. (2005). E-government: ICT from a public management perspective In 13th annual NISPACEE conference.
41. Sorensen, C. H., & Paulsson, A. (2020). Contextualizing Policy: Understanding Implementation under Socio-technical Transitions [Article]. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(12), 1055-1067. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1665067
42. Srivastava, S. C., & Teo, T. S. H. (2008). The relationship between e-government national competitiveness: The moderating influence of environmental factors. In (Vol. 23, pp. 73-94): Communications of the Association for Information Systems.
43. Stoker, G. (2006). Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance? In (Vol. 36, pp. 41-57). The American Review of Public Administration.
44. Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of E-Government – A literature review [Review]. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001
45. Urry, J. (2004). The 'system' of automobility [Article]. Theory Culture & Society, 21(4-5), 25-+. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276404046059
Abstract views: 105 PDF Downloads: 80