CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 265E-Government and Public ServicesPublic Policy and Administration ResearchInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development

Public value creation in digital government

Open access
Panagiotopoulos, Panos, Klievink, Bram, Cordella, Antonio·2019·Government Information Quarterly
DOI 10.1016/j.giq.2019.101421
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.giq.2019.101421

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PVM's focus on citizen and political engagement provides an appropriate democratic means for the resolution of tensions emerging from the implementation of AI in public administration.

    “Thus, PVM's focus on citizen and political engagement provides an appropriate democratic means for the resolution of tensions emerging from the implementation of AI in public administration (Andrews, 2018;Panagiotopoulos, Klievink, & Cordella, 2019).”

    From AI adoption and diffusion in public administration: A systematic literature review and future research agenda (2023) · cites this paper as Panagiotopoulos, Klievink, & Cordella, 2019

    Section 3.6 describes citizen participation as a democratic component of public value creation, while section 3.2 identifies tensions arising from AI and algorithmic governance in the public sector. The paper calls for an integrative view of public value creation, but does not say that citizen and political engagement provides a means to resolve those AI-related tensions. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Alford, J, & Hughes, O. (2008). Public Value Pragmatism as the Next Phase of Public Management. The American Review of Public Administration, 38(2), 130-148.
  2. Alford, John, & Yates, S. (2014). Mapping public value processes. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 27(4), 334-352.
  3. Andersen, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government information quarterly, 23(2), 236-248.
  4. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 119- 128.
  5. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2015). The great theory hunt: Does e-government really have a problem? Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 1-11.
  6. Benington, J., & Moore, H. M. (2010). Public Value: Theory and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
  7. Bonina, C.M. & Cordella, A. (2008). The new public management, e-government and the notion of' public value': lessons from Mexico. Proceedings Annual Workshop of the AIS Special Interest Group for ICT in Global Development (GlobDev 2008).
  8. Bruijn, H. De, & Dicke, W. (2006). Strategies for safeguarding public values in liberalized utilitiy sectors. Public Administration, 84(3), 717-735.
  9. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445-456.
  10. Cabral, S., Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., & Potoski, M. (2019). Value Creation and Value Appropriation in Public and Non-Profit Organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 40(4).
  11. Chatfield, A. T., & Reddick, C. G. (2018). Customer agility and responsiveness through big data analytics for public value creation: A case study of Houston 311 on-demand services. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 336-347.
  12. Cordella, A, & Iannacci, F. (2010). Information Systems in the Public Sector: the e-Government Enactment Framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(1), 52-66.
  13. Cordella, A., & Bonina, C. M. (2012). A Public Value Perspective for ICT Enabled Public Sector Reforms: a Theoretical Reflection. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512-520.
  14. Cordella, A., & Paletti, A. (2018). ICTs and value creation in public sector: Manufacturing logic vs service logic. Information Polity, 23(2), 125-141.
  15. Cordella, A., Paletti, A., & Shaikh, M. (2017). Public Value and Co-Production: Reconfiguring Service Delivery. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 10577.
  16. Cordella, A., & Willcocks, L. (2012). Government policy, public value and IT outsourcing: The strategic case of ASPIRE. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(4), 295-307.
  17. Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2013). Government innovation through social media. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 319-326.
  18. Crosby, B. C., 't Hart, P., & Torfing, J. (2017). Public value creation through collaborative innovation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 655-669.
  19. Dahl, A., & Soss, J. (2014). Neoliberalism for the Common Good? Public Value Governance and the Downsizing of Democracy. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 496-504.
  20. de Graaf, G., & van der Wal, Z. (2010). Managing Conflicting Public Values: Governing With Integrity and Effectiveness. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(6), 623- 630.
  21. De Jong, J., Douglas, S., Sicilia, M., Radnor, Z., Noordegraaf, M., & Debus, P. (2017). Instruments of value: using the analytic tools of public value theory in teaching and practice. Public Management Review, 19(5), 605-620.
  22. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They? Source: Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105-1121.
  23. Estevez, E., & Janowski, T. (2013). Landscaping government chief information officer education. In 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1684- 1693). IEEE.
  24. Giest, S. (2017). Big data for policymaking: fad or fast-track? Policy Sciences, 50(3), 367-382.
  25. Hartley, J., Alford, J., Knies, E., & Douglas, S. (2017). Towards an empirical research agenda for public value theory. Public Management Review, 19(5), 670-685.
  26. Janssen, M., & Helbig, N. (2016). Innovating and changing the policy-cycle: Policy-makers be prepared! Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), S99-S105.
  27. Jorgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public Values: An Inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354-381.
  28. Kankanhalli, A., Charalabidis, Y., & Mellouli, S. (2019). IoT and AI for Smart Government: A Research Agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 304-309.
  29. Kankanhalli, A., Zuiderwijk, A., & Tayi, G. K. (2017). Open innovation in the public sector: A research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 84-89.
  30. Karkin, N., & Janssen, M. (2013). Evaluating websites from a public value perspective: A review of Turkish local government websites. International Journal of Information Management, 34(3), 351-363.
  31. Karunasena, K., & Deng, H. (2012). Critical factors for evaluating the public value of e- government in Sri Lanka. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 76-84.
  32. Kattel, R., & Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 787-801.
  33. Klievink, B., Bharosa, N., & Tan, Y.-H. (2016). The collaborative realization of public values and business goals: Governance and infrastructure of public-private information platforms. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 67-79.
  34. Klievink, B., & Janssen, M. (2009). Realizing Joined-Up Government -Dynamic Capabilities and Stage Models for Transformation. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 275-284.
  35. Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446- 454.
  36. McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2012). Big data: the management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 90(10), 60-66, 68, 128.
  37. Meijer, A. (2017). Datapolis: a public governance perspective on "smart cities". Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(3), 195-206.
  38. Mergel, I. (2019). Digital service teams in government. Government Information Quarterly, (advanced online publication). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIQ.2019.07.001 · DOI
  39. Mergel, I., Gong, Y., & Bertot, J. (2018). Agile government: Systematic literature review and future research. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 291-298.
  40. Moore, M H. (1995). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard University Press.
  41. Moore, Mark H. (2014). Public Value Accounting: Establishing the Philosophical Basis. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 465-477.
  42. Niehaves, B., Plattfaut, R., & Becker, J. (2013). Business process management capabilities in local governments: A multi-method study. Government Information Quarterly, 30(3), 217- 225.
  43. Pablo, A. L., Reay, T., Dewald, J. R., & Casebeer, A. L. (2007). Identifying, Enabling and Managing Dynamic Capabilities in the Public Sector. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 687-708.
  44. Panagiotopoulos, P., Al-Debei, M. M., Fitzgerald, G., & Elliman, T. (2012). A business model perspective for ICTs in public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 192- 202.
  45. Pang, M.-S., Lee, G., & DeLone, W. H. (2014). IT resources, organizational capabilities, and value creation in public-sector organizations: a public-value management perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 29(3), 187-205.
  46. Pereira, G. V., Macadar, M. A., Luciano, E. M., & Testa, M. G. (2017). Delivering public value through open government data initiatives in a Smart City context. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(2), 213-229.
  47. Rose, J., Flak, L. S., & Sæbø, Ø. (2018). Stakeholder theory for the E-government context: Framing a value-oriented normative core. Government Information Quarterly, 35(3), 362- 374.
  48. Rose, J., Persson, J. S., Heeager, L. T., & Irani, Z. (2015). Managing e-Government: value positions and relationships. Information Systems Journal, 25(5), 531-571.
  49. Scott, M., DeLone, W., & Golden, W. (2016). Measuring eGovernment success: a public value approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(3), 187-208.
  50. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., & David Teece, M. J. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 187(18), 509-533.
  51. Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of E-Government -A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167-178.
  52. Wilden, R., Devinney, T. M., & Dowling, G. R. (2016). The Architecture of Dynamic Capability Research Identifying the Building Blocks of a Configurational Approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 997-1076.
  53. Williams, I., & Shearer, H. (2011). Appraising Public Value: Past, Present and Futures. Public Administration, 89(4), 1367-1384.
  54. Yıldız, M., & Saylam, A. (2013). E-government discourses: An inductive analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 141-153.
  55. Zuboff, S., & Maxmin, J. (2002). The support economy: Why corporations are failing individuals and the next episode of capitalism. Penguin; New edition (3 Jun. 2004).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Panagiotopoulos, P., Klievink, B., & Cordella, A.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
Corresponding author
Panagiotopoulos, Panos
ORCID
Venue
Government Information Quarterly
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-10
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
101421
ISSN
0740-624X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.giq.2019.101421
OpenAlex
W2985185374
Cited by
265
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 8
FWCI
69.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Government Information Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Keywords
public value creation, e-government, public value theory, digital technologies, public sector management, organizational capabilities, e-government implementation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review