Cited by 51E-Government and Public ServicesPublic Policy and Administration ResearchPublic Administration in Developing Nations

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Automating the Public Sector and Organizing Accountabilities

Open access
Smith, Matthew L., Noorman, Merel E., Martin, Aaron K.·2010·Communications of the Association for Information Systems

Abstract

In this paper we examine the ways in which implementing new information and communication technologies (ICTs) to automate public sector processes affects accountability. New technologies alter conventional modes of behavior in the public sector, shedding light on certain areas of bureaucratic practice and obscuring others, and in doing so they enhance accountability and exacerbate dysfunctions. To investigate how ICTs influence the accountability equation, we explore a range of empirically documented e-government implementations, from simple transactions involving low-levels of automation to highly automated systems such as fingerprint analysis technologies. Drawing on these empirical examples, we develop a tentative framework of ICT-exacerbated accountability dysfunctions. Following this, we then discuss potential accountability arrangements for different types of e-government processes, in hope of realizing the benefits of new technologies while minimizing the potential for unaccountability and dysfunction that could arise from their application. Throughout, we stress the necessity of striking a balance between the potential benefits of ICTs to the bureaucratic process and systems that may reduce efficiency but uphold accountability.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17705/1cais.02601

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 49 · Cited by 51

Metadata

Authors
Smith, M. L., Noorman, M. E., & Martin, A. K.
Affiliations
  • International Development Research Centre (CA)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
Venue
Communications of the Association for Information Systems
Published
2010
Volume
26
ISSN
1529-3181 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W149590791
Cited by
51
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2
FWCI
20.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Communications of the Association for Information Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration in Developing Nations
Keywords
e-government, information and communication technologies, public sector automation, accountability, bureaucratic procedures, fingerprint analysis, public administration, administrative efficiency

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