№ 8/2020

Fìnansi Ukr. 2020 (8): 86–102https://doi.org/10.33763/finukr2020.08.086

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSIONS

PAIENTKO Tetiana ¹, FEDOSOV Viktor ²

¹Berlin University of Applied Sciences of Economics and Techniques (HTW)
OrcID ID : https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2962-308X
²SHEE “Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman”
OrcID ID : https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1092-4218

Digitalization of government bureaucracy in European countries: corruption risks and anti-corruption effects

Recently, countries around the world have been using ICT to effectively deliver information and public services to their citizens. This phenomenon is called e-governance or e-government. The article is devoted to the identification of the impact of e-governance on the dynamics of corruption risks. The aim of the article is to examine how the introduction of information technologies affects the dynamics of corruption in post-communist European countries. The methodology is based on using programming in R for conducting empirical research. The research was divided into two stages. The first stage is an analysis of panel data to find the relationship between the level of implementation of e-governance and corruption. The second stage is the creation of country clusters regarding the level of corruption and tools of e-governance used. The study states three hypotheses. H1: The use of e-Government will result in mitigating corruption in European countries. H2: The impact of e-Government on corruption will be lower in post-communist countries than in countries which never experienced communist regimes. H3. The level of corruption depends on types of e-government services implemented in studied countries. The study results showed that all three hypotheses were confirmed. The results of the research showed that digital government transformation helps to reduce corruption risks in post-communist countries. Reducing the risk of corruption is faster where e-government tools target increased accountability and transparency. Anti-corruption effects are higher in countries that did not experience communist regimes. This study contributes to the methodology of studying the relationship between the digital transformation of government and the level of corruption.

Keywords:information technologies, digitalization, government bureaucracy, corruption, accountability

JEL: H11, H59, O38

PAIENTKO T. . Digitalization of government bureaucracy in European countries: corruption risks and anti-corruption effects / T. . PAIENTKO, V. . Fedosov // Фінанси України. - 2020. - № 8. - C. 86-102.

Article original in Ukrainian (pp. 86 - 102)

Download

Downloads :210

1. Palvia, S., & Sharma, S. (2007). E-Government and e-Governance: Definitions/Domains, Framework and Status around the world. International Conference on e-Government, 2007, 1–15.
2. Şandor, S. D. (2012). ICT and public administration reform. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 36 (E), 155–164.
3. Abujamra, R., & Randall, D. (2019). Blockchain applications in healthcare and the opportunities and the advancements due to the new information technology framework. Advances in Computers, 115. 1–14. doi.org/10.1016/bs.adcom.2018.12.002
4. Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28 (1), 52–61. doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004
5. Pencheva, I., Esteve, M., & Mikhaylov, J. S. (2018). Big Data and AI – A transformational shift for government: So, what next for research? Public Policy and Administration, 35 (1), 1–21. doi.org/10.1177/0952076718780537
6. Kim, C. K. (2007). A cross-national analysis of global E-government. Public Organization Review, 7 (4), 317–329. doi.org/10.1007/s11115-007-0040-5
7. Tolbert, C. J., Mossberger, K., & McNeal, R. (2008). Institutions, policy innovation and e-government in the American states. Public Administration Review, 68 (3), 549–563. doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00890.x
8. García-Sánchez, I. M., Rodríguez-Domínguez, L. & Frias-Aceituno, J. V. (2013). Evolutions in e-governance: evidence from Spanish local governments. Environmental Policy and Governance, 23 (5), 323–340. doi.org/10.1002/eet.1622
9. Gallego-Álvarez, I., Rodríguez-Domínguez, L., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2010). Are determining factors of municipal e-government common to a worldwide municipal view? An intra-country comparison. Government Information Quarterly, 27 (4), 423–430. doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2009.12.011
10. Evans, D., & Yen, D. C. (2006). E-government: evolving relationship of citizens and government, domestic, and international development. Government Information Quarterly, 23 (2), 207–235. doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2005.11.004
11. Fedosov, V., & Paientko, T. (2019). Can Informational Technologies Increase Government Effectiveness. Retrieved from ceur-ws.org./Vol1-2393 /paper_315.pdf.
12. Paientko, T. (2018). Geographic Information Systems: Should They Be Used in Public Finance Reform Development? Retrieved from ceur-ws.org/Vol-2104/paper_170.pdf.
13. Ionescu, L. (2013). The potential role of e-government in mitigating corruption. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 8 (3), 126–131.
14. Szopiński, T., & Staniewski, M. (2017). Manifestations of e-government usage in post-communist European countries. Internet Research, 27 (2), 199–210. doi.org/10.1108/IntR-01-2015-0011
15. Rodrigues-Dominguez, L., Sanchez, I. M. G., & Alvarez, I. G. (2011). From emerging to connected e-Government: the effects of socioeconomics and internal administration characteristics. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 11 (1), 85–109. doi.org/10.4192/1577-8517-v11_5
16. Benkler, Y. (2018). Bogactwo sieci. Jak produkcja społeczna zmienia rynki i wolność (The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom). Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.
17. Internet Statistics. (n. d.). Retrieved from www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.
18. Balan, S. (2018). Information society: content, manifestation, socioeconomic implications. Internal Auditing and Risk Management, 8 (2), 187–196.
19. Gronlund, A. (2002). Electronic Government: Design, Applications and Management. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. doi.org/10.4018/978-1-93070-819-8
20. Garson, D.G. (1999). Information Technology and Computer Applications in Public Administration: Issues and Trends. London: Idea Group Publishing. doi.org/10.4018/978-1-87828-952-0
21. Kamarck, E. C., & Nye, J. S. (Eds.). (2002). Governance.Com: Democracy in the Information Age, Visions of Governance in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
22. West, D. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64 (1), 15–27. doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00343.x
23. Goel, R. K., Nelson, M. A., & Naretta, M. A. (2012). The internet as an indicator of corruption awareness. European Journal of Political Economy, 28 (1), 64-75. doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2011.08.003
24. Ionescu, L. (2013) The role of technology in combating corruption. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 8 (3), 101–106.
25. Krishnan, S., & Teo, T. S. H. (2012). Moderating effects of governance on information infrastructure and e-government development. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63 (10), 1929–1946. doi.org/10.1002/asi.22660
26. Wong, W., & Welch, E. (2004) Does e-government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of website openness and government accountability, Governance, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 275-297. doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2004.00246.x
27. Hopper, T., Tsamenyi, M., Uddin, S., & Wickramasinghe, D. (2009). Management accounting in less developed countries: What is known and needs knowing. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22 (3), 469–514. doi.org/10.1108/09513570910945697
28. Marian, I. (2012). International law regarding enforcement powers at sea. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 4 (1), 57–62.
29. Gajendra, S., Xi, B., & Wang, Q. (2012). E-government: public participation and ethical issues. Journal of E-Governance, 35 (4), 195–204. doi.org/10.3233/GOV-2012-0320
30. Andersen, T. B., & Rand, J. (2006, March). Does E-Government reduce corruption. Retrieved from citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.688.467&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
31. Barata, K., & Cain, P. (2001). Information, not technology, is essential to accountability: Electronic records and public-sector financial management. Information Society, 17 (4), 247–258. doi.org/10.1080/019722401753330841
32. Margetts, H., & Naumann, A. (2017). Government as a Platform: What Can Estonia Show the World? Retrieved from www.politics.ox.ac.uk/materials/publications/16061/government-as-a-platform.pdf.
33. Falco, E. (2016). Digital Community Planning. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 5 (2), 1–22.doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.2016040101
34. Clarke, A. (2019). Digital Government Units: What Are They, and What Do They Mean for Digital Era Public Management Renewal? International Public Management Journal, 23 (3), 358–379. doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2019.1686447
35. Ramon, G.-G. J., Dawes, Sh. S., & Pardo, Th. A. (2018). Digital Government and Public Management Research: Finding the Crossroads. Public Management Review, 20 (5), 633–646. doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181
36. European Commission. (2019, October 18). The eGovernment Benchmark 2019 (Insight Report). Retrieved from ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/egovernment-benchmark-2019-trust-government-increasingly-important-people.