The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development emphasizes the e-government process as a tool for promoting budget transparency making all fiscal reports publicly available on the Internet. Nonetheless, the particular approach adopted to New Public Management models may influence different policies concerning the concepts of information quality and transparency. Based on an administrative culture approach, the aim of this article is to analyze whether the new technologies are being used by central governments for improving their accountability and democracy making their budgetary figures transparent for all stakeholders. The results of this study confirm that differences do exist across countries under different administrative cultures.
AlamM.NandamR. (2005, May). Public sector reform and accounting change in a cultural environment. Paper presented at the 10th CIGAR Conference, Poitiers, France.
2.
ArchambaultJ. J.ArchambaultM. E. (2003). A multinational test of determinants of corporate disclosure. International Journal of Accounting, 38, 173-194.
3.
Arellano-GaultD.del Castillo-VegaA. (2004). Maturation of public administration in a multicultural environment: Lessons from the Anglo-American, Latin, and Scandinavian political traditions. International Journal of Public Administration, 27, 519-528.
4.
Arellano-GaultD. (2008). An organizational analysis of transparency: “Transparency failures” as an instrument for incorporating effective transparency policies into public organizations. Open Government, 4(1), 1-19.
5.
ArgyriadesD. (2006). The rise, fall and rebirth of comparative administration: The rediscovery of culture. Public Administration Review, 66, 281-284.
6.
BastidaF.BenitoB. (2007). Central government budget practices and transparency: An international comparison. Public Administration, 85, 667-716.
7.
BeckT. (1996). From continental law to Anglo-American behaviorism: Scandinavian public administration. Public Administration Review, 56, 94-103.
8.
BenitoB.BastidaF. (2009). Budget transparency, fiscal performance, and political turnout: An international approach. Public Administration Review, 69, 403-416.
9.
BrownD. (2005). Electronic government and public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71, 241-254.
10.
ChapmanI. (2008). State and local fiscal sustainability: The challenges. Public Administration Review, 68(Suppl. 1), S115-S131.
11.
ChenC. J. P.JaggiB. (2000). Association between independent non-executive directors, family control and financial disclosures in Hong Kong. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 19, 285-310.
12.
CookeT. E. (1989a). Disclosure in the corporate annual reports of Swedish companies. Accounting and Business Research, 19, 113-114.
13.
CookeT. E. (1989b). Voluntary corporate disclosure by Swedish companies. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 1, 171-195.
14.
CuillierD.PiotrowskiS. J. (2009). Internet information-seeking and its relation to support for access to government records. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 441-449.
15.
DibbenP.WoodG.RoperI. (2004). Contesting public sector reforms. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
European Commission. (2011). Council Directive 2011/85/EU of 8 November 2011 on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
FieldmanM. S.KhademianA. M. (2007). The role of public management in inclusion: Creating communities of participation. Governance, 20, 305-324.
19.
HaqueM. S. (2006). Modernising government: The way forward—An analysis:International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72, 319-325.
20.
HealdD. (2006a). Transparency as an instrumental value. In HoodC.HealdD. (Eds.), Transparency: The key to better governance? (pp. 59-73). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
HealdD. (2006b). Varieties of transparency. In HoodC.HealdD. (Eds.), Transparency: The key to better governance? (pp. 25-43). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
HughesO. (1994). Public management and administration. London, England: Macmillan.
23.
JhoW. (2005). Challenges for e-governance: Protests from civil society on the protection of privacy in e-government in Korea. International Review of Administrative Science, 71, 151-166.
24.
JusticeJ. B.MelitskiJ.SmithD. L. (2006). E-government as an instrument of fiscal accountability and responsiveness: Do the best practitioners employ the best practices?American Review of Public Administration, 36, 301-322.
25.
KickertW. (1997). Public management in the United States and Europe. In KickertW. (Ed.), Public management and administrative reform in Western Europe (pp. 15-38). Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.
26.
KickertW. (2007, April). Distinctive characteristics of state and administrative reform in Southern Europe. Paper presented at the Proceedings to IRSPM Conference 2007, Potsdam, Germany.
27.
KingC. S.StiversC. (1998). Government is us: Public administration in an anti-government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
28.
KingJ. (2006). Democracy in the information age. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 65(2), 16-32.
29.
KuuttiniemiK.VirtanenP. (1998). Citizens charters and compensation mechanisms. Helsinki, Finland: Public Management Department, Ministry of Finance.
30.
MargettsH. (2006). Transparency and digital government. In HoodC.HealdD. (Eds.), Transparency: The key to better governance? (pp. 197-207). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31.
NiskanenW. (1974). Bureaucracy and representative government (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Aldine Press.
32.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2001a). Citizens as partners: OECD handbook on information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. Paris, France: Author.
33.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2001b). OECD Best Practices for Budget Transparency. Paris, France: Author.
34.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2002). OECD e-government project. Key issues and findings. 26th Session of the Public Management Committee. Available from www.oecd.org
35.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2003). Engaging citizens online for better policy-making (OECD Observer, Policy Brief). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pcd/2501856.pdf
36.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2004). The legal framework for budget systems. An international comparison [Special issue]. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 4(3).
37.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2005). E-government for better government (OECD E-Government Studies). Available from www.oecd.org
38.
PinaV.TorresL.YetanoA. (2009). Accrual accounting in EU local governments: One method, several approaches. European Accounting Review, 18, 765-807.
39.
PiotrowskiS. J.Van RyzinG. G. (2007). Citizen attitudes toward transparency in local government. American Review of Public Administration, 37, 306-323.
40.
RanerupA. (2001). Internet-enabled applications for local government democratization: Contradictions of the Swedish experience. In HeeksR. (Ed.), Reinventing government in the information age: International practice in IT-enabled public sector (pp. 177-193). London, England: Routledge.
41.
ReviglioF. (2001). Budgetary transparency for public expenditure control (Working Paper No. 01/8). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
42.
RocheleauB.WuL. (2002). Public versus private information systems: Do they differ in important ways? A review and empirical test. American Review of Public Administration, 32, 349-397.
43.
RutgersM. R. (2001). Traditional flavours? The different sentiments in European and American administrative thought. Administration & Society, 33, 220-244.
44.
SandersonI. (2001). Performance management, evaluation and learning in “modern” local government. Public Administration, 79, 297-313.
45.
SandersonI.ForemanA. (1996). Towards pluralism and partnership in management development in local government. Local Government Studies, 22, 59-77.
46.
StillmanR. J. (1999). American versus European public administration: Does public administration make the modern state? In KickertW. J.StillmanR. J. (Eds.), The modern state and its study, new administrative sciences in a changing Europe and United States (pp. 247-260). Northampton, UK: Elgar.
47.
TolbertC. J.MossbergerK. (2006). The effects of E-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66, 354-369.
48.
TorresL. (2004). Accounting and accountability: recent developments in governmental financial information systems. Public Administration and Development, 24, 447-456.
49.
TorresL. (2006). Service charters in Spain: Transparency and citizen empowerment or government marketing?Public Money & Management, 26, 159-164.
50.
TorresL.PinaV. (2003, September). Service charters: Reshaping the government-citizen relationship. The case of Spain. Paper presented at the Proceedings to Conference of the European Group of Public Administration (EGPA), Lisbon, Portugal.
51.
TorresL.PinaV.AcereteB. (2006). E-governance developments in European Union cities: Reshaping government’s relationship with citizens. Governance, 19, 277-302.
52.
TorresL.PinaV.RoyoS. (2005). E-government and the transformation of public administration in EU countries. Online Information Review, 29, 531-553.
53.
United Nations. (2003). World public sector report 2003: E-Government at the crossroads. New York, NY: Author.
54.
WangX. (2002). Assessing administrative accountability: Results from a national survey. American Review of Public Administration, 32, 350-370.
55.
WardM. (1996). The effect of the Internet on political institutions. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5, 1127-1142.
56.
Wilson of Dinton, L. (2006). The contribution of scholarship to good government. British Academy Review, 9, 44-47.
57.
World Bank. (2008). World Bank support for public financial management: Conceptual roots and evidence of impact. Washington, DC: Author.
