Digitization or e-government and the impact on the fight against corruption

One of the instruments to increase the potential for corruption is e-government, or in other words the digitization of public services. For this mechanism, an average of 2% of the value of public
investments has been invested every year in the last 5-6 years.

The public sector in recent years, where the central one more and the local one less, have advanced in the use of digital potential in revitalizing their response to the changing needs of citizens. But a growing concern is the efficiency of using limited public resources, where civil expertise and investigative media have introduced the need for better management of budget funds.

The transformative potential of ICT at both levels of public administration is somehow influencing the increase in transparency and engagement of citizens, from where we find that some information barriers are being lowered and services are being facilitated, albeit incomplete.

The most important in this advancement is the approach, although unfinished, for fairer and more inclusive governance, why not also for a participatory democracy.

The process of digitization is influencing every day whether intentionally or not to introduce the concept of open governance based on e-governance[1].

So, it seems that there is a positive change related to the spread of the culture of information and the construction of a communication model between citizens and institutions based on the digital mindset.

Based on the steps taken in the direction of reforming services compared to a few years ago, we see that the combination of public and private sector interactions is educating and encouraging policy makers to design cost-efficient public programs and services to reduce corruption in administration and the use of state budget funds.

Meanwhile, citizens have become more aware of their rights and more demanding than before. This widespread spirit of civic and public awareness is putting civil pressure on any leader who thinks they have the institution as land to use. Such consolidation on the anti-corruption front is using the values of the new digital system to strengthen quality transparency to further advance the growing pressure for problematic accountability.

All this atmosphere based on the combination of the digital instrument with the strengthening of the citizen voice through the arguments of civil expertise is the precursor of the new citizen action.

Our expectation is that an electronic government, when it is built and put into full use, will probably change the logic of the demands of citizens and interest groups in the model that is based on the demand of the account for institutions according to cost and profitability[2].

Electronic governance is expected to orient future governance no longer towards the organization of programs and services based on functional rationality[3] and vertical hierarchy[4], but based on horizontal hierarchy, network interaction based on information exchange.

The different structuring is expected to dictate the change in the model of administration of institutions, where from the current situation that is implemented based on regulations and time mandates towards a flexible administration, based on forced sectoral interaction and teamwork with central coordination.

In this change of administration, it is natural that the model of leaders or management style will change from the current approach based on command and control towards a leadership style that facilitates and coordinates, based on innovation.

The different structuring[5] is expected to dictate the change in the model of administration of institutions, where from the current situation that is implemented based on regulations and time mandates towards a flexible administration, based on forced sectoral interaction and teamwork with central coordination.

In this change of administration, it is natural that the model of leaders or management style will change from the current approach based on command and control towards a leadership style that facilitates and coordinates, based on innovation.

In order for the management scheme to work according to the premises as above, an electronic government also enables the improvement of the internal communication from top to bottom that is currently implemented, towards a hierarchical network with several managers with central coordination and direct communication.

All that we have described so far is related to the internal changes in the model of administration, direction and interaction of the institutions, but all of which for us the public is valid at the moment on how to communicate with the citizens.

To this day we try and see and hear from different experiences of citizens that communication for the public is a useless model, as it is centralized, formal and with limited communication channels. Although it seems very difficult to happen, e-governance is trying to break this mindset by also trying from public pressure outside public institutions to make communication as valuable, direct and fast as possible, based on multiple channels communication.

An achievement in this direction, but also in relation to receiving services, has already become a fact.

The way of providing the service for a few months has changed from the model based on letters and physical communications with the employees of the institutions to an electronic exchange, as well as no more face to face and time wasting to get a service.

The final of all this achievement based on electronic governance is that, starting from the low culture of providing public services, it will be possible little by little to change the mindset for the way of providing the service, forcing the productivity of the institutions to be based on standardization and adapting to the demands of citizens, reaching a future in the personalization of service (Tat‐Kei Ho 2002, 437).

Our observation on e-government e-services shows us that the development of e-government does not necessarily follow the maturity stages of the theoretical digital government according to the model above, as the will of the government and politics as a whole is crucial not to build the system for narrow purposes political, but for that public interest that it is worth building.

Existing government services are in various stages of development, ranging from informational stages to transactional and active interaction.

But there is a trend that e-government best practices are being adapted and followed at a fast pace[6].

However, the prevalence of a number of challenges, including institutional and specifically infrastructural ones, considering also the lack of experience in generating high-value online public services for end users, as well as other basic challenges, such as the structure of economy and the general level of income, or systemic corruption and the political and demographic situation, are influencing the performance of the digital reform in the public sector.

From these challenges, it should be considered by all actors that digitization should not be the only goal of reforming public services. Wider implications, such as expanding the public value of services and leaving space for citizens or private entities to present their voice is the current challenge for the leadership of public administration reform.

This way of dialogue is the basis of guaranteeing a functional governance system to ensure what is missing: justice and equality, which should be the essential guarantors of the digital governance initiative.

This is the first part of the political paper entitled “Digitalization, performance evaluation of the central and local administration, wage increase and the relationship with corruption”

[1] https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/696281/adbi-wp1248.pdf

[2] https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/edoardoteso/files/edoardoteso_jmp.pdf

[3] A concept that originated in the work of Max Weber and was also used by Jürgen Habermas in his development of Parsonsian social theory. It refers to the rationality of the social system, which develops through differentiation and reintegration through money and power and nowadays by ‘colonizing’ the rationality of interpersonal relationships

[4] a horizontal structure has fewer managers and many employees, where skilled employees make decisions without approval of the manager. Meanwhile, a vertical organizational structure is pyramidal, with leaders at the top followed by middle management and then employees of various skill levels

[5] the ability of an institution, entity, etc. to adapt successfully to the environment and circumstances of the time

[6] https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/resources/docs/qe-02-17-763-en-n.pdf