The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Automating the Public Sector and Organizing Accountabilities
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“because their actions and potential inability to take into account the requirements of administrative due process may have a considerable impact on the outcomes of ADM (Pääkkönen et al. 2020; see also Smith et al. 2010, 3; Automaattiseen päätöksentekoon liittyvät… 2020, 11)”
From Administrative due process when using automated decision-making in public administration: some notes from a Finnish perspective (2021) · cites this paper as Smith et al. 2010
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
- Publisher
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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