International Journal of Public Administration

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

The Socio-Economic Efficiency of Digital

Government Transformation

Anna Sanina, Aleksey Balashov & Mariia Rubtcova

To cite this article: Anna Sanina, Aleksey Balashov & Mariia Rubtcova (2021): The Socio-
Economic Efficiency of Digital Government Transformation, International Journal of Public
Administration, DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2021.1988637

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1988637

Published online: 26 Oct 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 90

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lpad20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1988637

The Socio-Economic Efficiency of Digital Government Transformation

a b c
Anna Sanina , Aleksey Balashov , and Mariia Rubtcova
a
International Laboratory for Digital Transformation in Public Administration, HSE University, Moscow, Russia; bDepartment of Management in
Social Sphere, Saint Petersburg State Institute of Psychology and Social Work, Saint Petersburg, Russia; cDepartment of Social Management
and Planning, Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The article is devoted to the understanding of digital government transformation (DGT) as key to Digital government; digital
improving public administration and governance. The paper complements the debate regarding government transformation;
DGT rationale in public administration, providing theoretical and empirical analysis of its socio- public governance;
economic impact and performance in governance. The empirical part is based on two regression innovation in the public
sector; socio-economic
analyses exploring indicators of DGT and public administration performance. The article concludes efficiency
that (1) DGT is understood as innovation, but innovation in the public sector is also commonly
associated with DGT, (2) this innovation helps to reshape the governance to match the society’s
needs, (3) the policy-based approach to DGT is not enough explanation of its rationale and
efficiency, and (4) there are certain improvements in the socio-economic sphere that are related
to DGT and thus help one understand its meaning for the contemporary world.

Introduction
Digital technologies have significantly changed the routine
of public administration and governance, as well as the
working environment of civil servants (Wirtz et al., 2020).
They include knowledge management software, e-govern­
ment services, process automation systems, virtual agents,
predictive analysis and data visualization, etc. The imple­
mentation of these technologies is one of the leading trends
of contemporary society, with a significant impact on the
social and economic processes taking place in society.
However, there are research gaps on the impact of digital
transformation on government performance. On the one
hand, the introduction of digital technologies into the
practice of governance is obvious and necessary, since
modern technologies leave no alternative but the digitaliza­
tion of an increasing number of administrative and man­
agement functions and procedures (Tangi et al., 2021). On
the other hand, there are risks and difficulties associated
with introducing technologies that are not fully developed
and entrusting them with real management processes.
These risks make the authorities hesitate and view digital
technologies as an auxiliary mechanism of public admin­
istration or, in some cases, prevent the introduction of
digital technologies into public administration processes.
Studies discuss using digital technologies from two
points of view. On the one hand, implementation of
digital technologies is one of the best mechanisms for
innovation in the public sector. Digital technologies help
to automate and improve data processing and filtering,
information codification, and knowledge distribution.
In the public sector, digital technologies are now used
most often in situations where there is a large amount of
data, a lack of people and experts for its analysis, and the
existence of a routine process that can be automated and
improved over time. As a result, it becomes possible to
reduce administrative workloads, solve resource alloca­
tion problems, and perform more complex tasks with
the help of machine-based technology, especially artifi­
cial intelligence (AI) (Giovanni et al., 2020). The wide­
spread introduction of these technologies has led to the
concept of transformation of the public administration
and governance. For many researchers, politicians, and
civil servants, it is obvious that the point of no return for
modern public administration has passed, and the intro­
duction of new digital technologies is already becoming
routine.
On the other hand, digital technologies are some of
the most important innovations in public administra­
tion (Curtis, 2019). The development of many spheres of
public life, including the state of cities, medicine, educa­
tion, logistics, transport, defense, and others depends on
the degree of development of digital technologies in
public administration (Giovanni et al., 2020). Digital
technologies research is still lacking, and there is

CONTACT Anna Sanina anna.g.sanina@gmail.com International Laboratory for Digital Transformation in Public Administration, HSE University,
Moscow, Russia.
© 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 A. SANINA ET AL.
a special need to understand the benefits of using digital
technologies in the public sector (Bannister & Connolly,
2020; Panagiotopoulos et al., 2019). Governments and
administration authorities need to understand all func­
tional abilities of these technologies for their use in the
public sector, and they must understand the reasons for
using them (Wirtz et al., 2020). This task prompts dis­
cussions of whether digital technologies are really good
for public administration and whether they contribute
to the transformation of governance in a positive way.
For many authorities, digital technologies implementa­
tion means serious risks. Aside from technical risks,
these risks are associated with a decrease in human
control over the decisions made, the inability to influ­
ence the assessment of the quality of these decisions, and
the consequences of a shrinking workforce.
The range of applicability of digital technologies in
public administration is wide. Their applications are
potentially relevant to every area of public administra­
tion. At the same time, the implementation of digital
technologies largely depends on a fundamental under­
standing of whether or not these technologies are posi­
tive for the development of public administration.
Despite the up-to-date experience of digitalization of
public administration allowing one to draw certain con­
clusions proving the importance of digital technologies
for public administration, there are still many questions
about the effectiveness of the digital transformation of
public administration.
This paper is motivated by these concerns and uncer­
tainties. Its goal is twofold. First, it aims to provide
empirical understanding of the concept of digital govern­
ment transformation (DGT) from the point of view of its
socio-economic efficiency. Second, it seeks evidence on
the impact of DGT, complementing the debate on
whether or not it can be associated with some positive
trends. The rest of the article is organized as follows. The
literature review section explores the terminology issues
and key aspects of DGT research in public administra­
tion. The methodology section explores the empirically
based features of the definition of digital government
transformation in contemporary governance that can be
found internationally; additionally, it describes the
research questions as well as the set of data employed.
The results section summarizes the estimation results.
The last section provides the key findings of the research
and matches them with the broader field of discussion.
Literature review
Digital government transformation (DGT) is a relatively
new issue in public administration. It is a continuation
of the broader topic of public sector digitalization, on
which the largest number of articles was published
around 2016 (Reis et al., 2019), as digital technology
had the biggest impact on the public sector that year.
However, after 2016, the number of articles on digitali­
zation in public administration decreased, which can be
explained by a series of scandals related to the protection
of personal data, when many digital systems demon­
strated their vulnerability to cyberattacks (Kushzhanov
& Aliyev, 2018).
Since 2018, research on digitalization of the public
sector has switched to the broader topic of digital gov­
ernment transformation (DGT). Much of the work on
DGT was published after 2018 (Curtis, 2019; Giovanni
et al., 2020; Lindgren & van Veenstra, 2018; Tangi et al.,
2021). The first papers were exploratory sketches and
conference abstracts. The most complete presentation of
this concept can be found in the article by Tangi et al.
(2021), which defines DGT as “second-order organiza­
tional changes enabled by digital technologies trans­
forming the way organizations are structured and
organized and resulting in a new state, from the point
of view of processes, culture, roles, relationships, and
possibly all aspects of the organization” (p. 2).
Digital transformation includes two elements:
a technical system, which is possible due to the develop­
ment of technology, and a social system, which includes
all elements of the technical system environment and
has a great impact on social elements (Bostrom &
Heinen, 1977). Thus, DGT is fundamentally different
from the previous view of the digitalization of public
administration. If digitalization was of secondary impor­
tance and was supposed to help existing management
structures to better perform their functions, then DGT
involves a radical revision of the management structures
themselves.
Much of the DGT research was inspired by the intro­
duction of AI in public administration and governance.
A significant part of DGT, AI suggests the ability of
a computer system to engage in intelligent behavior
similar to that of a human, which means the ability to
perceive, understand, make decisions, and learn in con­
ditions of a certain autonomy, designed to achieve spe­
cific goals. In real life, there is disillusionment with
intelligent management systems and their potential in
solving managerial tasks. Perhaps this is also the reason
that, as will be demonstrated, studies of AI are more
about technological sites and less about human/social
features and consequences. It is important to note that
every transformation should have a goal and take into
account both technical and social aspects; therefore, the
development of digital government technologies should
be accompanied by changes in organizational character­
istics and have a positive effect. There has been some

discussion around the question of the positive effects of
DGT. For example, Weerakkody et al. (2011, p. 321)
note that digital transformation should enable the deliv­
ery of public sector services, taking into account such
aspects as efficiency, transparency, accountability, and
citizenship.
Still, if we look at the available research, not all of these
aspects have been well studied. DGT’s transparency,
accountability, and citizen-centeredness have received
more research attention than its effectiveness. The politi­
cal implications of digital transformation are most often
explored. DGT is better at ensuring transparency, control
over corruption, and the degree of participation and sup­
port from citizens (Carter & Belanger, 2005; Cordella &
Tempini, 2015; Luna-Reyes & Gil-Garcia, 2014; Torfing
et al., 2021). In addition, researchers are interested in the
practice of digitalization, possible obstacles and user
reach, ways of organizing project teams for the imple­
mentation of digital technologies, ways of obtaining
financial support, etc. (Al-Emadi & Anouze, 2018;
Ashaye & Irani, 2019; Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2012).
EUPACK research also focuses on this side of DGT, high­
lighting online services, e-government users, pre-filled
forms, online service completion, barriers to public sector
innovation, ease of doing business, and services to busi­
nesses as key indicators (EUPACK, 2018).
Some of the research focuses on the benefits of digitali­
zation for the public sector itself and shows that organiza­
tional change is needed. DGT will reduce bureaucracy and
overcome the structural inefficiencies of the current gov­
ernment (Cordella & Bonina, 2012; Cordella & Tempini,
2015). This policy-based approach to digital government as
a result of DGT allows us to shift attention from the
internal efficiency of the public sector to the processes of
value creation occurring outside it and raise the question of
what social benefits arise during the digital transformation
(Bannister & Connolly, 2020; Panagiotopoulos et al., 2019).
Among the general requirements for the implementation
of DGT technologies in the public sector is the support of
the government and ministries, suggesting participation in
the development process and the exchange of experience;
government funding that allows focusing on creating pub­
lic good without attracting significant investment; no
requirements for creating a formal governance structure;
the possibility for innovations throughout the technology
creation and implementation process; and forming
a multidisciplinary team of experts in technology develop­
ment (Shin, 2021; De Vries et al., 2016). The general
principles of the introduction of DGT technologies in the
public sector are partnership, openness, experimental, and
public in nature (Kuziemski & Misuraca, 2020).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 3
The socio-economic efficiency of public administra­
tion as such is not often the subject of discussion
(Afonso, Schuknecht, & Tanzi, 2020; Aristovnik,
2012). Moreover, these discussions are not related to
the issues of digital transformation of public adminis­
tration, and the proposed performance criteria do not
imply the mandatory use of digital technologies. The
analysis of the literature demonstrates that theoretical
studies of DGT and its implementation rarely center on
the question of how digital transformation and public
administration efficiency are related. DGT is seen more
as a tool for political and organizational change. Only
the most recent studies (Bannister & Connolly, 2020;
Tangi et al., 2021) are beginning to wonder what ben­
efits DGT can bring to the development of the socio-
economic system, despite some fundamental research
that predicted that DGT is the very condition for the
development of public administration in the near
future in a direction that does not contradict current
trends in the development of society. By definition and
by nature, public administration cannot lag far behind
society either technologically or conceptually
(Farazmand, 2017). Today, knowledge is being created
and used faster than ever, and new technologies are
constantly changing the way tasks are executed
(Henman, 2020). Although competition in the public
sector is not a critical factor in development, the need
for public organizations to keep pace with innovation
in the private sector is now viewed as a serious poten­
tial for the development of the government (Wirtz
et al., 2020). While feeling the difference between the
ease of interaction with the private sector and outdated,
inefficient mechanisms for cooperation with the public
sector, the confidence of citizens in the government
tends to decrease (Shin, 2021). Consequently, the rejec­
tion of DGT undermines the very foundations of gov­
ernance. Therefore, it is necessary to proceed from
empirical data and discover which characteristics of
DGT stand out as significant at the practical level.
The theoretical analysis of DGT shows that it is
understood as the most important innovation that
should help to change public administration and
then the economy and society. To investigate this
widespread suggestion empirically, is necessary to
conduct a deeper analysis to answer the following
research questions:
RQ1: Does digital innovation in the public sector affect
the efficiency of public administration?
RQ2: Do DGT technologies have an impact on the
socio-economic performance of public administration?
4 A. SANINA ET AL.
Methodology
The key DGT indicators
To understand DGT from the point of view of its socio-
economic efficiency and to develop the empirically based
features of understanding DGT in public administration
and governance, it is important to make a set of examples
of DGT applications acknowledged by both researchers
and practitioners as working solutions for the public sector.
For that, we have explored the major policy-related and
governance-related sources providing the analytics of par­
ticular indicators related to DGT and its effectiveness (i.e.,
the World Bank, The World Health Organization, United
Nations Development Programme, the United Nations
E-Government Survey, the University of Gothenburg’s
Quality of Government Basic Dataset, and the Global
Competitiveness Index). We have explored the theoretical
support of each particular indicator, looking for the studies
that help to prove the positive impact of any DGT steps
onto the social and/or economical issue performed by the
indicators. The result of this analysis is presented in the
Table 1.
Data
To answer the research questions, a regression analysis
models the relationship between the set of explanatory
variables and the dependent variable. Regarding the first
research question, this paper uses the human develop­
ment and potential index (HDI) and its main compo­
nents: expected lifespan at birth, education index, and
GDP per capita, which are used as an indicator of the
effectiveness of public administration. This index allows
for measuring the level of socio-economic development of
the country and reflects the standard of living of citizens,
which is the most important indicator used in estimating
the efficiency of the economy. Thus, it can be considered
as a referent of public administration efficiency. Expected
lifespan reflects longevity, the education index is the level
of education and combines the expected and average
years of education, and real GDP per capita, adjusted for
the local cost of living (PPP), reflects the standard of living
in the country.
The UN Global E-Government Development Index
(publicadministration.un.org) of the United Nations is
an indicator of innovation in public administration.
This comprehensive indicator estimates the ability of
public authorities to use information and communication
technologies (ICT) to provide public services to citizens.
This index includes estimates for three components: the
Online Services Index (OSI), ICT Infrastructure
Development Index (TII), and Human Capital
Index (HCI).
The Online Services Index (OSI) reflects differences
in e-government development levels between countries.
The ICT Infrastructure Development Index (TII) is the
arithmetical average of five indicators: estimated
Internet users per 100 residents, the number of main
telephone lines per 100 inhabitants, the number of
mobile subscribers per 100 residents, the number of
wireless broadband subscribers per 100 residents, and
the number of fixed broadband subscribers per 100
residents. The Human Capital Index (HCI) is
a weighted average of four indicators: adult literacy,
total enrolment ratio (total number of enrolled students
as a percentage of the school-age population), expected
years of studying, and average years of studying.
Therefore, in the dependent variable, regression (Y) is
the HDI (or one of its components), and one of the
independent variables (X) is the E-Government
Development Index (or one of its components).
The source of the empirical data used in the study is
the official website of the World Bank (https://data.
worldbank.org/indicator). All variables of the regression
analysis are presented in Table 2.
To answer the second research question, the regres­
sion analysis of the introduction of artificial intelligence
in public administration is conducted. The indicators of
public administration are those presented in the 2018
European Commission study on measuring public
administration (Van Dooren, 2018). Particularly, this
study uses the following indicators with global coverage:
World Bank Governance Indicators; World
Competitiveness Yearbook, World Economic Forum;
and Quality of Government, University of Gothenburg.
World Bank Governance Indicators (WBGI) is one of
the most well-known and widely used indicators for
measuring public administration. It combines data
from commercial and non-profit organizations, has
operated since 1996, and covers about 200 countries.
The World Bank defines governance as a broad concept
that needs to take into account aspects such as transpar­
ency and accountability, political stability and the
absence of violence, government effectiveness, quality
of regulation, rule of law, and the fight against
corruption.
The World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY) of the
World Economic Forum is also a tool for measuring
public administration. WCY has been in existence
since 2004 and covers more than 100 countries. This
report is based on the Global Competitiveness Index

Table 1. The interconnection of GDT implementation and positive changes in government performance indicators.
Indicator
Government Effectiveness
Control of Corruption
Political Stability and Absence of Violence/
Terrorism
Regulatory Quality
Rule of Law
Voice and Accountability
Quality of the education system
Health
Security
Transparency of government policymaking
Future orientation of government (FOG)
The Bayesian Corruption Indicator
Performance of Democratic Institutions
Public Services
State Legitimacy
ICRG Indicator of Quality of Government
Corruption Perception Index
E-Government Innovation (Development?)
Index
Specialists in R&D (per million people)
Exports of high-tech products (% of
industrial exports)
The registered number of new businesses
The ratio of the employed and the
population, 15+, the total (%) (modeled
estimate of the ILO)
Total tax rate (% of commercial profits)
Telecommunications infrastructure index
Online service index
Public spending per student, average (% of
GDP per capita)
Public spending on education, total (% of
GDP)
GNI per capita, PPP
Unemployment, total (% of the total
workforce) (modeled estimate of ILO)
Labour force participation rate (LF_partrate), The World Bank
total (% of the total population aged 15+)
(national estimate)
Nurses and midwives (per 1000 people)
Adolescent fertility rate (number of births
per 1,000 women aged 15–19 years)
Education index
Rurality
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Source
World Bank Governance Indicators, The
Quality of Government Basic Dataset,
University of Gothenburg
World Bank Governance Indicators
World Bank Governance Indicators
World Bank Governance Indicators
World Bank Governance Indicators
World Bank Governance Indicators, The
Global Competitiveness Index, World
Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Index, World
Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Index, World
Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Index, World
Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Index, World
Economic Forum
The Global Competitiveness Index, World
Economic Forum
The Quality of Government Basic Dataset,
University of Gothenburg
The Quality of Government Basic Dataset,
University of Gothenburg
The Quality of Government Basic Dataset,
University of Gothenburg
The Quality of Government Basic Dataset,
University of Gothenburg
The Quality of Government Basic Dataset,
University of Gothenburg
The Quality of Government Basic Dataset,
University of Gothenburg, Transparency
Internationala
United Nations E-Government Survey
The World Bank
The World Bank
The World Bank
The World Bank
The World Bank
United Nations E-Government Survey
United Nations E-Government Survey
The World Bank
The World Bank
The World Bank
The World Bank
The World Bank, The World Health
Organization
The World Bank, The World Health
Organization
United Nations Development Programme
The World Bank
5
Studies proving the interconnection of GDT implementation and
positive changes of the indicator
Kaufmann et al. (1999); Krishnan et al. (2017); Amavilah et al.
(2017); Asongu et al. (2018); Ezcurra and Rios (2020); Islam and
McGillivray (2020); Emara and El Said (2021)
Kaufmann et al. (1999); Krishnan et al. (2017); Amavilah et al.
(2017); Asongu et al. (2018); Ezcurra and Rios (2020); Islam and
McGillivray (2020); Van de Walle and Migchelbrink (2020);
Emara and El Said (2021)
Kaufmann et al. (1999); Memon and Awan (2017); Krishnan et al.
(2017); Asongu et al. (2018); Ezcurra and Rios (2020); Islam and
McGillivray (2020); Emara and El Said (2021).
Kaufmann et al. (1999); Krishnan et al. (2017); Amavilah et al.
(2017); Asongu et al. (2018); Ezcurra and Rios (2020); Islam and
McGillivray (2020); Emara and El Said (2021)
Kaufmann et al. (1999); Krishnan et al. (2017); Amavilah et al.
(2017); Ezcurra and Rios (2020); Islam and McGillivray (2020);
Emara and El Said (2021)
Kaufmann et al. (1999); Krishnan et al. (2017); Asongu et al.
(2018); Ezcurra and Rios (2020); Hassan and Lee (2019); Islam
and McGillivray (2020); Emara and El Said (2021)
Yunis et al. (2017); Kelley and Simmons (2019)
Yunis et al. (2017); Kelley and Simmons (2019); Twizeyimana and
Andersson (2019)
Kelley and Simmons (2019); Twizeyimana and Andersson (2019)
Hassan and Lee (2019); Twizeyimana and Andersson (2019)
Yunis et al. (2017)
Standaert (2015); Chen and Neshkova (2020)
Charron and Lapuente (2018); Tarverdi et al. (2019); Van de Walle
and Migchelbrink (2020)
Charron and Lapuente (2018); Van de Walle and Migchelbrink
(2020)
Boräng et al. (2017); Suzuki and Hur (2020)
Boräng et al. (2017); Suzuki and Hur (2020)
Basyal et al. (2018); Suzuki and Hur (2020)
Ali et al. (2018); Basyal et al. (2018); Yıldırım and Bostancı (2021)
Lemke et al. (2019)
Amavilah et al. (2017)
Krishnan et al. (2017)
Ma and Zheng (2018)
Kochanova et al. (2020)
Faid et al. (2020)
Szopiński and Staniewski (2017); Faid et al. (2020)
Amavilah et al. (2017)
Amavilah et al. (2017)
Szopiński and Staniewski (2017); Pérez-Morote et al. (2020); Faid
et al. (2020)
Szopiński and Staniewski (2017); Ma and Zheng (2018)
Ma and Zheng (2018)
Szopiński and Staniewski (2017); Ma and Zheng (2018)
Amavilah et al. (2017); Pérez-Morote et al. (2020)
Szopiński and Staniewski (2017); Pérez-Morote et al. (2020)
Sharma and Mishra (2017); Pérez-Morote et al. (2020)
6 A. SANINA ET AL.
Table 2. Variables of the regression analysis of the introduction of innovation in the public sector.
Y X
GNI per capita (PPP) E-Government Innovation Index (EGovt_index)
Specialists in R&D (per million people)
Exports of high-tech products (% of industrial exports)
The registered number of new businesses
The ratio of the employed and the population, 15+, the total (%) (modeled estimate of the ILO)
Total tax rate (% of commercial profits)
Education index Telecommunications infrastructure index
Online services index
Public spending per student, average (% of GDP per capita)
Public spending on education, total (% of GDP)
GNI per capita, PPP
Unemployment, total (% of the total workforce) (modeled estimate of ILO)
Labour force participation rate (LF_partrate), total (% of the total population aged 15+) (national
estimate)
The expected GNI per capita, PPP
lifespan Nurses and midwives (per 1000 people)
Adolescent fertility rate (number of births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 years)
Education index
Online services index (OSI)
Telecommunications infrastructure index (TII)
HDI Online services index
Telecommunications infrastructure index
(tcdata360.worldbank.org/), which includes 12 competi­
tiveness indicators based on open information as well as
the knowledge of thousands of experts from around the
world. In public administration, the index measures
corruption and transparency as well as education,
health, social infrastructure, and others.
The third indicator, the quality of the government, is
presented in the study of the European Commission as
the most fully reflective of the state of public adminis­
tration. It has been developed at the University of
Gothenburg’s Institute for Public Administration
(https://qog.pol.gu.se/data) since 2008 and contains
data on the quality of government, political system,
civil society, conflict and violence, religion, and various
areas of public life such as education, energy, infrastruc­
ture, environment, health, migration, social security,
and others. This indicator covers about 200 countries.
Among the main indicators of DGT covering coun­
tries of the world, researchers today highlight the follow­
ing: the 2018 AI Index report from Stanford University,
the Global AI Index by Tortoise Media, and Government
Artificial Intelligence Readiness (Moltzau, 2019).
The indicator aimed at measuring AI specifically in
public administration is the Government AI Readiness
Index, first developed by Oxford Insights and
International Development Research Centre (oxfordin­
sights.com) and published in 2017. Its purpose is to
determine how well governments of different countries
are taking advantage of artificial intelligence in the
provision of public services. Therefore, the results of
the rating should reflect the ability of governments of
different countries to use the innovative potential of AI.
The study uses the 2017 and 2019 index, but the 2019
What X reflects
Innovations in public sector
Science and technological
progress
Entrepreneurship
Employment
Taxes
Innovations in public sector
Education
Income
Unemployment
Labor force participation rate
Income
Health care availability
Adolescent fertility
Education
Innovations in public sector
Innovations in public sector
ranking contains an improved methodology and
broader country coverage (194) compared to 2017
(35). The index consists of 11 indicators, combined
by four groups: management and administration, infra­
structure and data, skills and education, and public
services.
As part of the study, the components of the World
Bank Governance Indicators, World Competitiveness
Yearbook, and Quality of Government are used as an
independent variable: Government AI Readiness Index,
or one of its components.
The sources of empirical evidence used in the study
are the official website of the World Bank (data.world­
bank.org/indicator), the official website of the World
Economic Forum (https://reports.weforum.org), and
the official website of the University of Gothenburg.
All variables of pair regressions are represented in
Table 3.
The regression analysis includes 194 countries; the
number of observations varies from 194 (AI startups,
2019) to 2,134 (government procurement of advanced
technology products, 2007–2019). All the regressions are
suspected to have heteroscedasticity, so they are evalu­
ated with robust errors. A multicollinearity test with the
vif() function showed that multicollinearity does not
affect the coefficients and p-values.
Results
The empirical investigation shows some significant (coeffi­
cient of determination equal to 0.6 and higher) relation­
ships between the variables. Table 4 summarizes
statistically significant relationships that help answer the

Table 3. Variables of the regression analysis of the introduction of AI in the public sector.
Source Y, variables of governance
World Bank Governance Government Effectiveness
Indicators
Control of Corruption
Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism
Regulatory Quality
Rule of Law
Voice and Accountability
The Global Competitiveness Quality of the education system
Index, World Economic Health
Forum Security
Transparency of government policymaking
Accountability
Future orientation of government (FOG)
The Quality of Government The Bayesian Corruption Indicator
Basic Dataset, University Performance of Democratic Institutions
of Gothenburg Public Services
State Legitimacy
ICRG Indicator of Quality of Government
Rule of Law
Corruption Perceptions Index
Government Effectiveness
first research question, i.e., whether or not the innovation
in the public sector affects the efficiency of public
administration.
According to the data, public sector innovation indi­
cators have an impact on the components of HDI; parti­
cularly, GNI per capita is influenced by the e-government
index, the education index is influenced by the telecom­
munications infrastructure index, and the expected life­
span is influenced by the online services index. At the
same time, the last two indicators have an impact on the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 7
X, variables of AI
Data availability
Government procurement of advanced technology products
Data capability (in government)
Technology skills
AI startups
(Private sector) innovation capability
Digital public services
Importance of ICTs to government vision of the future
AI Readiness
Data availability
Government procurement of advanced technology products
Data capability (in government)
Technology skills
AI startups
(Private sector) innovation capability
Digital public services
Importance of ICTs to government vision of the future
AI Readiness
Data availability
Government procurement of advanced technology products
Data capability (in government)
Technology skills
AI startups
(Private sector) innovation capability
Digital public services
Importance of ICTs to government vision of the future
Data availability
Government procurement of advanced technology products
Data capability (in government)
Technology skills
AI startups
(Private sector) innovation capability
Digital public services
Importance of ICTs to government vision of the future
AI Readiness
Data availability
Government procurement of advanced technology products
Data capability (in government)
Technology skills
AI startups
(Private sector) innovation capability
Digital public services
Importance of ICTs to government vision of the future
Data availability
Government procurement of advanced technology products
Data capability (in government)
Technology skills
AI startups
(Private sector) innovation capability
Digital public services
Importance of ICTs to government vision of the future
HDI itself. Therefore, the linear regression of HDI indi­
cators to public sector innovation suggests that innova­
tion contributes to the efficiency of public administration.
A linear link is found between some indicators, i.e., GDP
per capita and the e-government index; the telecommu­
nications infrastructure index and the education index;
the online services index and life expectancy; the telecom­
munications infrastructure, online services, and the HDI.
Figure 1 provides a graphic representation of the regres­
sion results.
8 A. SANINA ET AL.

Table 4. Regression analysis (1).

Dependent variable:
GNI_percap Educ_index Lifeexp HDI
OLS OLS OLS OLS
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Constant −12,180.45** 0.72*** 68.25*** 0.50***
(5,508.07) (0.09) (0.99) (0.004)
EGovt_index 43,325.61***
(5,488.34)
Tax_rate −109.75***
(34.37)
Employment 124.39*
(73.15)
High_Tech 167.56***
(56.07)
New_businesses −0.01
(0.01)
Tech_RD 7.94***
(1.09)
OSI −0.04 7.70*** 0.07***
(0.06) (1.05) (0.01)
TII 0.46*** 0.50***
(0.06) (0.02)
Govt_exp_perstudent −0.005***
(0.002)
Unempl 0.005**
(0.002)
Govt_exp_educ 0.005
(0.01)
LF_partrate −0.003**
(0.001)
GNI_percap 0.0000***
(0.0000)
Nurses 0.11*
(0.07)
Fertility −0.10***
(0.01)
Educ_index 5.15***
(1.28)
Observations 188 278 458 1,095
R2 0.73 0.30 0.74 0.75
Adjusted R2 0.72 0.28 0.74 0.75
Residual Std. Error 8,304.61 (df = 181) 0.15 (df = 271) 4.17 (df = 452) 0.08 (df = 1092)
F Statistic 79.56*** (df = 6; 181) 19.26*** (df = 6; 271) 261.04*** (df = 5; 452) 1,654.85*** (df = 2; 1092)
*p**p***p < .01

To answer Research Question 2 regarding DGT technologies significantly contribute to the

whether or not DGT technologies have an impact
on the performance of public administration, the
significant results of regression models are presented
in Table 5.
According to the results of the regression analysis,
DGT indicators have a significant impact on public
sector performance; particularly, the digital skills
index affects the education quality index, the index
of data capabilities of the government affects the
performance of government and public services, and
the index of the importance of ICT for the govern­
ment affects the indicator of the government’s readi­
ness for the future. At the same time, the
Government AI Readiness Index has an impact on
legislation quality. Hence, the regression of public
sector indicators to DGT indicators suggests that
transformation and general improvement of the
mechanisms of public administration.
Still, some points need deeper exploration and
research. According to the results of the first regression
analysis, where the dependent variable is the quality
index of the education system, there is an inverse con­
nection between indicators. In particular, when the index
of technological skills increases by 1 point, the indicator
of the quality of the education system decreases by 41.88.
The same type of connection can be observed in that
when the index of government’s ability to work with data
increases by 1 unit, the index of public services decreases.
Such connections show that there are some fundamental
inconsistencies between the old, traditional approach to
public administration and the introduction of artificial
intelligence with positive results.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 9

Figure 1.

Table 5. Regression analysis (2).

Dependent variable:
Quality_of_education WGI_reg WGI_effect FOG ffp_ps
OLS OLS OLS OLS OLS
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Constant 247.56*** 8.32*** −16.09*** 229.28*** 11.57***
(11.61) (2.51) (3.12) (10.93) (0.22)
Digit_skills −41.88***
(2.68)
AI_Readiness_score 10.19***
(0.5)
AI_Readiness_data_capability 115.32***
(5.30)
Importance_ICT_gov −40.51***
(2.69)
AI_datacapability_govt −10.90***
(0.38)
Observations 128 228 192 128 176
R2 0.66 0.65 0.71 0.64 0.83
Adjusted R2 0.66 0.65 0.71 0.64 0.83
Residual Std. Error 23.07 (df = 126) 18 (df = 226) 16 (df = 190) 23.93 (df = 126) 1 (df = 174)
F Statistic 245.1*** (df = 1; 126) 419*** (df = 1; 226) 473*** (df = 1; 190) 226.2*** (df = 1; 126) 840*** (df = 1; 174)
*p**p***p < .01
10 A. SANINA ET AL.
Discussion and conclusion
Empirical studies show that DGT plays a very important
role in developing, transforming, and reshaping the
public sector in terms of socio-economic efficiency.
This study, as well as a number of previous studies
(Shin, 2021; Vries et al., 2016; Dwivedi et al., 2021),
show that DGT can help public governance to be effec­
tive in the contemporary world. In particular, our study
shows that digital innovation in the public sector affect
the efficiency of public administration, at least as a tool
for human development and potential, and thus we can
conclude that any systematic attempt at digital transfor­
mation could lead to a better society and governance.
Also, the DGT technologies have a statistically signifi­
cant impact on the socio-economic performance of pub­
lic administration, not only on the politically-related
issues of democratization, participation, and transpar­
ency. This socio-economic side of DGT and public
administration performance definitely needs deeper
research and practical discussion.
Unlike the previous research, this investigation
reveals an important role of DGT in determining how
to better use limited resources, enabling authorities to
more efficiently fulfill their responsibilities to citizens
and to plan resources for the future. Of course, there
are challenges and “dark sides” (Wirtz et al., 2020) of
DGT implementation in governance, and various legal,
social, and ethical considerations should be thought
through and tested. Still, this study shows that DGT
improves governance performance significantly in
terms of socio-economic effectiveness in particular.
With that empirically proved background, DGT should
become a central point and reason for a shift in public
administration and governance. Since important social
processes such as education and public services are entirely
conditioned by a traditionalist (non-DGT) approach to
management in general, they cannot give a positive result
when implementing DGT without fundamental transfor­
mations in authorities’ attitudes and readiness for major
shifts in the processes of governance (Dwivedi et al., 2021).
In a broader way, our study shows that today, the
development of public administration mechanisms has
reached the stage at which it becomes impossible to
improve its efficiency without the introduction of
DGT. The theoretical analysis and empirically observed
features of DGT’s efficiency allow justifying its rationale
and developing the key points of DGT in governance.
These points are the following:
First, DGT is understood as innovation, but innova­
tion in the public sector is also commonly associated
with DGT. Second, this innovation helps to reshape
governance because it cannot work in an old way in
the new reality; it should match the society technologi­
cally and conceptually (Farazmand, 2017). Third, the
policy-based approach to DGT is not enough explana­
tion of its rationale and efficiency; there are certain
improvements in the socio-economic sphere that are
related to DGT and thus help one to understand its
meaning for the contemporary world.
Acknowledgments
The article was prepared within the framework of the Basic
Research Program at HSE University. We are grateful to our
colleagues for their comments and suggestions. We are also
thankful to Galina Shabanova, student of the HSE Master’s
Programme “Urban Development and Governance,” who
greatly assisted with the empirical part of this study.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by the HSE University Basic
Research Program.
ORCID
Anna Sanina http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9635-0280
Aleksey Balashov http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3219-085X
Mariia Rubtcova http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4003-4988
References
Afonso, A. Schuknecht, L., Tanzi, V. (2020). The size of
government. EconPol Working Paper, No. 46, ifo Institute
- Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University
of Munich, Munich. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/221806
Al-Emadi, A., & Anouze, A. L. (2018). Grounded theory
analysis of successful implementation of e-government pro­
jects: Exploring perceptions of e-government authorities.
International Journal of Electronic Government Research,
14(1), 23–52. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEGR.2018010102
Ali, M. A., Hoque, M. R., & Alam, K. (2018). An empirical
investigation of the relationship between e-government
development and the digital economy: The case of Asian
countries. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(5),
1176–1200. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0477
Amavilah, V., Asongu, S. A., & Andrés, A. R. (2017). Effects of
globalization on peace and stability: Implications for gov­
ernance and the knowledge economy of African countries.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 122(C),
91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.013
Aristovnik, A. (2012). Measuring relative efficiency in health
and education sector: The case of East European countries.
Actual Problems of Economics, 136(10), 305–314 https://

www.researchgate.net/publication/285661429_Measuring_
relative_efficiency_in_health_and_education_sector_The_
case_of_East_European_countries .
Ashaye, O. R., & Irani, Z. (2019). The role of stakeholders in the
effective use of e-government resources in public services.
International Journal of Information Management, 49(7),
253–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.016
Asongu, S. A., Efobi, U., & Tchamyou, V. S. (2018). Globalisation
and governance in Africa: A critical contribution to the
empirics. International Journal of Development Issues, 17(1),
2–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDI-04-2017-0038
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2020). The future ain’t what it
used to be: Forecasting the impact of ICT on the public
sphere. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), №
101410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101410
Basyal, D. K., Poudyal, N., & Seo, J. W. (2018). Does
E-government reduce corruption? Evidence from
a heterogeneous panel data model. Transforming
Government: People, Process and Policy, 12(2), 134–154.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-12-2017-0073
Boräng, F., Nistotskaya, M., & Xezonakis, G. (2017). The
quality of government determinants of support for
democracy. Journal of Public Affairs, 17(1–2), 1643.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1643
Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS problems and
failures: A socio- technical perspective. MIS Quarterly, 1
(3), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/248710
Carter, L., & Belanger, F. (2005). The utilization of
e-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and accep­
tance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5–25.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00183.x
Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G., Pachón, J. R. C., & Cegarra, J. L. M.
(2012). E-government and citizen’s engagement with local
affairs through e-websites: The case of Spanish municipali­
ties. International Journal of Information Management, 32(5),
469–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.02.008
Charron, N., & Lapuente, V. (2018). Quality of government in
EU regions: Spatial and temporal patterns. QOG Working
Paper Series, 1(1).
Chen, C., & Neshkova, M. I. (2020). The effect of fiscal trans­
parency on corruption: A panel cross-country analysis.
Public Administration, 98(1), 226–243. https://doi.org/10.
1111/padm.12620
Cordella, A., & Bonina, C. (2012). A public value perspective
for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical
reflection. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4),
512–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004
Cordella, A., & Tempini, N. (2015). E-government and organiza­
tional change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in
public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 32
(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005
Curtis, S. (2019). Digital transformation—the silver bullet to
public service improvement? Public Money and
Management, 39(5), 322–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09540962.2019.1611233
De Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation
in the public sector: A systematic review and future research
agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146–166. https://doi.
org/10.1111/padm.12209
Dwivedi, Y.K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs,
C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A.,
Galanos, V., Ilavarasan, P.V., Janssen, M., Jones, P., Kar, A.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 11
K., Kizgin, H., Kronemann, B., Lal, B., Lucini, B., Medaglia,
R., and Le Meunier-FitzHugh, K., Le Meunier-FitzHugh, L.
C., Misra, S., Mogaji, E., Sharma, S.K., Singh, J.B.,
Raghaven, V., Raman, R., Rana, N. P., Samothrakis, S.,
Spencer, J., Tamilmani, K., Tubadji, A., Walton, P.,
Williams, M.D. (2021). Artificial Intelligence (AI):
Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges,
opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and
policy. International Journal of Information Management,
57, 101994. https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/handle/10454/
17208
Emara, N., & El Said, A. (2021). Financial inclusion and economic
growth: The role of governance in selected MENA countries.
International Review of Economics & Finance, 75(4), 34–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2021.03.014
EUPACK. (2018) A comparative overview of public adminis­
tration characteristics and performance in EU28.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
https://doi.org/10.2767/13319
Ezcurra, R., & Rios, V. (2020). Quality of government in
European regions: Do spatial spillovers matter? Regional
Studies, 54(8), 1032–1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00343404.2019.1665644
Faid, G., Tariq, M. M., Ishtiaq, A., Zeynvand, V. L., Meyer, D. F., &
Máté, D. (2020). The nexus of E-government and increased
productivity relative to income level comparison. Business,
Management and Economics Engineering, 18(1), 88–105
https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2020.12067 .
Farazmand, A. (2017). Governance reforms: The good, the
bad, and the ugly; and the sound: Examining the past and
exploring the future of public organizations. Public
Organization Review, 17(4), 595–617. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11115-017-0398-y
Giovanni, L., Codagnone, C., Misuraca, G., Gineikyte, V., and
Barcevicius, E., et al. (2020). Exploring digital government
transformation: A literature review. Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference on Theory and Practice of
Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2020). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 502–509.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3428502.3428578
Hassan, M. H., & Lee, J. (2019). Policymakers’ perspective about
e-Government success using AHP approach. Transforming
Government: People, Process and Policy, 13(1), 93–118.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-03-2018-0017
Henman, P. (2020). Improving public services using artificial
intelligence: Possibilities, pitfalls, governance. Asia Pacific
Journal of Public Administration, 42(4), 209–221. https://
doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2020.1816188
Islam, M. R., & McGillivray, M. (2020). Wealth inequality,
governance and economic growth. Economic Modelling, 88
(C) , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2019.06.017
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Zoido-Lobatón, P. (1999).
Governance matters. World Bank.
Kelley, J. G., & Simmons, B. A. (2019). Introduction: The
power of global performance indicators. International
Organization, 73(3), 491–510. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0020818319000146
Kochanova, A., Hasnain, Z., & Larson, B. (2020). Does
e-Government improve government capacity? Evidence
from tax compliance costs, tax revenue, and public procure­
ment competitiveness. The World Bank Economic Review,
34(1), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhx024
12 A. SANINA ET AL.
Krishnan, S., Teo, T. S., & Lymm, J. (2017). Determinants of
electronic participation and electronic government matur­
ity: Insights from cross-country data. International Journal
of Information Management, 37(4), 297–312. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.03.002
Kushzhanov, N., & Aliyev, U. (2018). Digital space: Changes in
society and security awareness. Bulletin of the National
Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 1(371),
94–101 http://www.bulletin-science.kz .
Kuziemski, M., and Misuraca, G. (2020). AI governance in the
public sector: Three tales from the frontiers of automated
decision-making in democratic settings. Telecommunications
Policy, 44(6), 101976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.
101976
Lemke, F., Taveter, K., Erlenheim, R., Pappel, I., Draheim, D.,
& Janssen, M. (2019). Stage models for moving from
e-government to smart government. In International
Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society:
Challenges in Eurasia (pp. 152–164). Springer, Cham.
Lindgren, I., & van Veenstra, A. (2018). Digital government
transformation: A case illustrating public e-service develop­
ment as part of public sector transformation. Proceedings of the
19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government
Research: Governance in the Data Age. Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 38,
1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209281.3209302 .
Luna-Reyes, L., & Gil-Garcia, R. (2014). Digital government
transformation and internet portals: The co-evolution of tech­
nology, organizations, and institutions. Government
Information Quarterly 31(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.
2014.08.001
Ma, L., & Zheng, Y. (2018). Does e-government performance
actually boost citizen use? Evidence from European
countries. Public Management Review, 20(10), 1513–1532.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1412117
Memon S.A., and Awan J.H. (2017). Transformation Towards
Cyber Democracy: A Study on Contemporary Policies,
Practices, and Adoption Challenges for Pakistan. Handbook of
Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy and Cyber-Defense, 1–20.
Moltzau, A. (2019, December 4). The global artificial intelli­
gence indexes 2018–2019. An overview of different indexes
measuring AI around the world. Towards Data Science.
https://towardsdatascience.com/the-global-artificial-
intelligence-indexes-2018-2019-1b0d0dce5f60
Panagiotopoulos, P., Klievink, B., & Cordella, A. (2019). Public
value creation in digital government. Government Information
Quarterly, 36(4), 101421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.
101421
Pérez-Morote, R., Pontones-Rosa, C., & Núñez-Chicharro, M.
(2020). The effects of e-government evaluation, trust and the
digital divide in the levels of e-government use in European
countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 154,
119973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119973
Reis, J., Santo, P.E., and Melão, N. (2019). Artificial intelli­
gence in government services: a systematic literature review
Proceedings of the World Conference on Information
Systems and Technologies, 241–252.
Sharma, R., & Mishra, R. (2017). Investigating the role of
intermediaries in adoption of public access outlets for deliv­
ery of e-Government services in developing countries: An
empirical study. Government Information Quarterly, 34(4),
658–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.10.001
Shin, D. (2021). The effects of explainability and causability on
perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explain­
able AI. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.
Vol 146, 102551.
Standaert, S. (2015). Divining the level of corruption: A Bayesian
state-space approach. Journal of Comparative Economics, 43
(3), 782–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2014.05.007
Suzuki, K., & Hur, H. (2020). Bureaucratic structures and orga­
nizational commitment: Findings from a comparative study of
20 European countries. Public Management Review, 22(6),
877–907. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619813
Szopiński, T., & Staniewski, M. W. (2017). Manifestations of
e-government usage in post-communist European
countries. Internet Research, 27(2), 199–210. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IntR-01–2015-0011
Tangi, L., Janssen, M., Benedetti, M., & Noci, G. (2021). Digital
government transformation: A structural equation model­
ling analysis of driving and impeding factors. International
Journal of Information Management, 60, 102356. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102356
Tarverdi, Y., Saha, S., & Campbell, N. (2019). Governance,
democracy and development. Economic Analysis and Policy,
63, 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2019.06.005
Torfing, J., Ferlie, E., Jukić, T., & Ongaro, E. (2021). A theoretical
framework for studying the co-creation of innovative solutions
and public value. Policy & Politics 49(2). https://doi.org/10.
1332/030557321X16108172803520
Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value
of E-Government–A literature review. Government
Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.giq.2019.01.001
Van de Walle, S., & Migchelbrink, K. (2020). Institutional
quality, corruption, and impartiality: The role of process
and outcome for citizen trust in public administration in
173 European regions. Journal of Economic Policy
Reform, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2020.
1719103
Van Dooren, W. (2018). Measuring public administration:
A feasibility study for better comparative indicators in the
EU. Publications Office of the European Union. https://ec.
europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=
8122&furtherPubs=yes
Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M., & Dwivedi, Y. (2011).
Transformational change and business process reengineer­
ing (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public
sector. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 320–328.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.010
Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Sturm, B. J. (2020). The dark
sides of artificial intelligence: An integrated AI governance
framework for public administration. International Journal
of Public Administration, 43(9), 818–829. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01900692.2020.1749851
Yıldırım, S., & Bostancı, S. H. (2021). The efficiency of
e-government portal management from a citizen perspec­
tive: Evidences from Turkey. World Journal of Science,
Technology and Sustainable Development, 18(3), 259–273.
https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-04-2021-0049
Yunis, M., El-Kassar, A.-N., & Tarhini, A. (2017). Impact of
ICT-based innovations on organizational performance: The
role of corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 30(1), 122–141. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JEIM-01-2016-0040