Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article reviews three decades of scholarly discourse to deepen our understanding of the role of digital technologies in public administration networks. Using PRISMA methodology, a systematic review of 59 publications retrieved from the Web of Science and Scopus databases was conducted to unpack and systematize existing knowledge on the foundations and evolution of digital technologies, assess their scope of application, and identify key factors influencing their use within public administration networks. Findings indicate a fragmented and uneven research landscape, with digital technologies primarily leveraged in governance and collaborative networks, rather than in policy networks. While ICT continues to serve as a foundational technology across all three domains, a notable shift is occurring: modern technologies, such as AI, blockchain, big data, and social media are gaining traction across public services, particularly in emergency response, public safety, healthcare, and education. This study provides a comprehensive overview, highlights research gaps, and suggests future research directions.

Keywords

governance networks collaborative networks policy networks digital technology public administration systematic literature review

Introduction

The immensity, complexity, and interdependence of ongoing and disruptive problems require public agencies to engage in multi-layered and interdisciplinary collaborations to address inherent challenges (i.e., Chun et al., 2011; Verhoest et al., 2024). Since the 1990s, governments only used a collaborative approach to problem-solving when hierarchical or market-based strategies were useless. However, in the digital era, governments no longer regard collaboration as a limited response. Collaborative arrangements, such as networks in public administration, are considered an integral part of their strategies for improving policy and service delivery (Ansell et al., 2022; J. Hu & Kapucu, 2021; Klijn et al., 2025). Moreover, these networks often apply digital technologies to improve transparency, communication, coordination, effectiveness, efficiency, and responsiveness/agility in the public sector (Q. Hu & Kapucu, 2016; Kattel et al., 2020; Mergel et al., 2021). Recent events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and various natural disasters, have demonstrated the transformative potential of digital technologies in reshaping how public administrations operate in different contexts. Nowadays, governments are increasingly enhancing their digital strategies by emphasizing the importance of modern technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and the Internet of Things (IoT), among others. Although the pandemic accelerated digital transformation in the public sector, this process started much earlier. Therefore, this article seeks to understand the contribution of digital technologies to network scholarship within the field of public administration.

The literature displays various perspectives on networks in disciplines such as political science, public administration and management (governance, structural or institutional arrangements), welfare science (social networks), information systems (technology networks), or telecommunication and transport (physical networks; Keast et al., 2013, 2023; Klijn et al., 2025). In this article, we take an inter-organizational perspective to study public administration networks (PANs; Börzel, 2011; Nowell & Kenis, 2019). Based on the broad network scholarship in public administration (i.e., Kapucu & Hu, 2020; Keast et al., 2013, 2023; Klijn et al., 2025), we define PANs as networks comprising a diverse set of interdependent yet autonomous actors (including public agencies, private firms, non-governmental organizations, individuals, and interest groups), which possess the resources and interests to collaboratively develop policies, deliver public services, or address societal and complex problems that cannot be resolved by any single actor alone. We distinguish them from technology and physical networks, such as power stations, transportation systems, and telecommunications and computer networks connecting multiple devices. Additionally, in contrast to social networks that primarily emerge from interactions between individuals, networks of organizations are initiated or self-organized by public entities for a specific goal or product (Nowell & Kenis, 2019).

The emergence of PANs began in the 1990s, and two seminal papers made key contributions to this work: one by Powell (1990), suggesting a network form of organizing as a supplement to the hierarchy-markets continuum and another by O'Toole (1997), calling for the serious treatment of networks in the public sector. At the same time, Huigen (1993) recognized the significance of information and communication technologies (ICT) in the context of policy networks. Since then, scholarship on PANs has improved considerably (e.g., Isett et al., 2011; Kapucu et al., 2017; Klijn et al., 2025); however, the classification of PANs remains somewhat vague.

Public administration networks draw from diverse realms of practice and research in public administration (Kapucu & Hu, 2020). However, in this article, we use the three most common streams that stand out in the public administration and management (PAM) literature: policy networks (political science), collaborative networks (inter-organizational relations/service delivery), and governance networks (public administration and management; Berry et al., 2004; Isett et al., 2011; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016). Policy networks are the oldest PANs (since the 1960s). They often consist of public agencies, private actors (including NGOs), and legislative offices that are interdependent and share a focus on public policy-making. This tradition revolves around topics related to the influence of interest groups on decision-making, pluralism, and the division of power (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016). While collaborative networks are rooted in the early literature on inter-organizational relations (1960s–1970s), these networks may be mandated or self-organized by governmental agencies in collaboration with private organizations and NGOs. They aim to work together for public value or service delivery and implementation (Agranoff, 2006; Rethemeyer, 2005). Finally, the third tradition is linked to governance networks, focusing on ways to manage/coordinate networks (Klijn et al., 2025). Gage et al. (1990) suggested that cooperation and coordination of goals and interests must be managed in networks to achieve satisfactory outcomes. The emergence of the governance concept in the 1990s, coupled with the increasing complexity of societal challenges, played a pivotal role in shaping governance networks (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016). Torfing (2012) defines governance networks as networks comprising actors with divergent interests, structures, and positions (asymmetrical power relations), but they are mutually dependent. Actors cooperate by sharing resources, information, and expertise or by jointly developing solutions to address societal challenges (Klijn et al., 2025). However, these activities require coordination to avoid failure, and digital technologies appear to be a valuable means of improving network relationships.

The interplay between networks in public administration and digital technology has been previously examined by Janowski et al. (2012). However, these scholars narrow the scope to one technology, ICT. Their research was conducted more than a decade ago; as a result, it does not explore more recent emerging and disruptive technologies, such as artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, blockchain, big data, cloud computing, robotics, modeling and simulation, quantum computing, and grid computing (OECD, 2016). Moreover, other existing literature reviews on networks in public administration (i.e., Q. Hu et al., 2023; Isett et al., 2011; Kapucu et al., 2017; Morçöl et al., 2021) advance our understanding of PANs but offer limited insight into the role of digital technologies within these networks. Furthermore, Klijn et al.’s latest 2025 publication on governance networks in the public sector offers only sparse references to AI and emerging technologies, without substantively addressing these critical external dynamics. Meanwhile, still other scholars argue that digital technologies are reshaping public agencies by simplifying and streamlining interactions with citizens and external stakeholders (Mergel et al., 2018; Van Cauter et al., 2017; Zyzak, 2023, 2024).

Building on the conceptual framework of public administration networks proposed by Janowski et al. (2012, p. 52), we seek to extend this framework by integrating the use of emerging digital technologies across the three domains of public administration networks. To guide this effort, we pose the following research questions:

How has research on the interplay between public administration networks and digital technologies evolved?

What are the most popular digital technologies used in the three types of public administration networks?

To what extent are digital technologies used in networks in the context of public sector services?

What are the driving factors behind the utilization of digital technologies in public administration networks?

Literature on digital technology appears to be scattered, with numerous terms emerging over the past two decades that often lack consistent or commonly accepted definitions. For instance, digitization (Anderson & Agarwal, 2011), digitalization (Greve, 2015), and digital transformation (Agostino et al., 2021) have received the most attention; yet, these concepts are sometimes used interchangeably (Mergel et al., 2019; Vial, 2019). In addition, scholars often concentrate on one specific technology either in an organizational or network context, for instance information and communication technologies (ICT; Christensen & Lægreid, 2022; Pilemalm & Mojir, 2020), social media (Mergel, 2013), artificial intelligence (Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek & Zyzak, 2025; Wirtz et al., 2020), blockchain (Warkentin & Orgeron, 2020), and Internet of Things (Velsberg et al., 2020), while overlooking the interconnected effects of multiple technologies on governance and collaboration dynamics.

This article seeks to contribute to the ongoing literature on digital government by (1) unpacking and systematizing existing knowledge about the foundations and development of emerging digital technologies in PANs, (2) determining the scope of application of these technologies, and (3) identifying the current state of research regarding the factors that influence their use within these public administration networks.

We proceed by presenting the research methodology based on the PRISMA group approach. Results and discussion follow this. The article concludes by presenting the main results and suggesting future research avenues.

Methodology

This systematic literature review (SLR) is based on the PRISMA group methodology (Page et al., 2021) and adheres to the recommendations about the research process and the exclusion criteria outlined by Petersen et al. (2015) and Kitchenham et al. (2011; see Figure 1 below). We chose this type of review because it differs from traditional narrative literature reviews, which often lack scientific rigor. As we use it, the SLR enables researchers to mitigate the risks of bias, errors, fragmentation, and incompleteness in research (Grant & Booth, 2009; Tranfield et al., 2003). It enables the reliable identification of secondary data and the integration of information from multiple sources, thus generating new knowledge.

Figure 1.

Research process based on PRISMA group methodology.

This study reviews three decades (1993–2023) of scholarly discourse using the Scopus and Web of Science databases, two of the most widely used, comprehensive, and high-quality sources for academic research renowned for their extensive coverage of peer-reviewed literature and robust journal indexing across a wide range of disciplines (Baas et al., 2020; Zhu & Liu, 2020). Their inclusion enhances quality control of search results, owing to the rigorous peer-review process that publications indexed in these databases typically undergo (Okwir et al., 2018). The process has one notable limitation: it focuses on the thematic areas of public administration, political science, social science, and management. This restriction reflects the extensive and multidisciplinary nature of research on digital technologies in networks. A substantial portion of the literature in these research areas deals with highly technical topics within computer and telecommunications sciences. However, this article focuses specifically on the role of digital technologies in public administration networks that define the scope of our analysis. The SLR procedure is presented in Figure 1.

As the first step in the research procedure, we conducted an initial literature review of digital technologies in the public sector. This process enabled us to identify relevant keywords used in publications concerning public administration networks and digital technologies. We searched for a combination of keywords with network: “public,” “poli*,” “collaborat*,” “govern*,” “coordinat*,” “cooperat*,” “service logic,” “service deliver*,” “inter*,” “manag*,” “collaborat* arrangement,” “network* arrangement.” The other combination of keywords refers to digital technology: “digit*,” “e-*,” “analog*,” “ICT”; “social media*,” “AI,” “artificial intelligence,” “technolog*,” “electron*,” “smart*,” “blockchain*,” “IoT,” “Internet of Things.” In the keywords, we used a broad keyword selection strategy to reach a comprehensive overview of the literature on digital technologies. However, we did not limit the search to practical solutions, such as “platforms” or “living labs.” Table 1 presents the results of the initial literature review, along with the keywords used in the research.

Table 1.

Selected Keywords for the Research.

Description			Sample publications	Keyword in research
Keywords related to public administration networks	Public networks		Agranoff and McGuire (2001), Cristofoli and Markovic (2016)	“public* network*”
	Policy networks		Klijn et al. (1995), Marsh and Smith (2000), Berardo and Scholz (2010)	“poli* network*”
	Collaborative networks		Scott et al. (2017), C. Huang et al. (2021)	“collaborat* network*”
	Governance networks		Torfing (2012), Klijn and Koppenjan (2016)	“govern* network*”
	Network governance		Kapucu and Hu (2020), Keast (2022)	“network* govern*”
	Coordination networks		Gittell and Weiss (2004)	“coordinat* network*”
	Cooperation networks		Zeng et al. (2010)	“cooperat* network*”
	Service logic		Gronroos (2019), Strokosch and Osborne (2021)	“service* logic” network
	Service delivery		Graddy and Chen (2006), Piatak et al. (2018)	“service* deliver” network
	Service implementation networks		Provan and Milward (1991)	“service* implement” network
	Inter-organizational and inter-agency networks		Bergenholtz and Waldstrøm (2011), Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek (2022)	“inter* network*”
	Management networks		McGuire and Agranoff (2011), Kapucu and Garayev (2013)	“manag* network*”
	Collaborative arrangements		Waterhouse and Keast (2011), Lægreid and Rykkja (2015), Zyzak (2020)	“collaborat* arrangement*”
	Network arrangements		Mandell and Keast (2007)	“network* arrangement*”
Keywords related to digital technologies	Evolution	Digitization	Dunleavy et al. (2006), Anderson and Agarwal (2011)	digit*
		Digitalization	Greve (2015), Lindgren et al. (2019)
		Digital transformation	Mergel et al. (2019), Pittaway and Montazemi (2020), Agostino et al. (2021)
	Approaches	Analog governance	Durkiewicz and Janowski (2018), 2020)	analog*
		E-gov	Ciborra (2009), Sandoval-Almazan and Gil-Garcia (2012), Meijer (2015)	e-*
		Electronic governance	Estevez et al. (2010), Janowski et al. (2012), Sandoval-Almazan and Gil-Garcia (2012)	electron*
		Smart governance	Meijer and Bolívar (2016), Yu et al. (2019)	smart*
	Types of digital technology	Information and communication technologies	Misuraca and Viscusi (2015), Pilemalm and Mojir (2020)	ICT* technolog*
		Social media	Sandoval-Almazan and Gil-Garcia (2012), Mergel (2013)	“social media*”
		Big data	Guo et al. (2022)	“big data”
		Artificial Intelligence	Wirtz et al. (2020), Zuiderwijk et al. (2021)	AI artificial intelligen*
		Blockchain	Warkentin and Orgeron (2020), Tan et al. (2022)	blockchain*
		Internet of Things	El-Haddadeh et al. (2019), Gil-Garcia et al. (2020), Velsberg et al. (2020)	IoT “Internet of Things”

Then, combinations of the identified keywords on PANs and digital technologies were used to search for publications with relevant words in titles, abstracts, and keywords on a peer-to-peer basis. We are aware that the choice of keywords in a search strategy may introduce bias as some specific elements might not be included; for example, research on “open governance,” “government as a platform,” “government data,” “information ecology,” and “information ecosystem.” Although these concepts may share common issues with PANs in a digital context, they represent separate research topics. We chose to limit the search to phrases undoubtedly related to PANs, as these networks constitute the research context in this article. Our initial literature review identifies synonyms and expressions used to describe PANs, as well as the types of digital technologies employed in these networks. As a result, we believe that our search strategy is suitable for this study. Table 2 lists the detailed search results.

Table 2.

Records Identified in the Scopus and the Web of Science Databases.

Search term combinations		digit*	e-*	analog*	ICT*	“social media*”	“big data”	AI	“artificial intelligen*”	technolog*	electron*	smart*	blockchain*	IoT	Internet of Things	S
Scopus	“public* network*”	42	54	1	5	15	7	0	5	106	37	23	4	12	12	313
	“poli* network*”	35	132	3	20	26	4	2	2	139	21	7	0	0	0	387
	“collaborat* network*”	109	242	2	68	35	16	9	29	522	77	52	8	12	12	1,170
	“govern* network*”	13	59	0	12	7	9	0	1	73	18	18	1	9	9	211
	“network* govern*”	38	85	4	17	8	14	1	4	114	18	22	3	2	2	318
	“coordinat* network*”	4	16	0	0	2	3	1	1	27	0	3	0	1	1	56
	“cooperat* network*”	36	85	2	11	3	5	0	9	156	26	8	3	2	2	343
	“service* logic” network	1	5	0	0	1	0	0	0	10	0	0	0	0	0	17
	“service* deliver” network	90	169	4	50	29	14	2	11	277	58	41	5	14	14	761
	“service* implement” network	7	12	1	3	4	0	1	0	18	5	4	0	2	2	59
	“inter* network*”	285	592	37	93	104	47	10	36	1,054	240	118	12	52	52	2,677
	“manag* network*”	34	77	0	13	6	5	1	5	172	14	16	3	7	7	352
	“collaborat* arrangement*”	6	34	0	6	0	2	0	0	64	5	4	0	0	0	119
	“network* arrangement*”	2	8	0	5	0	0	0	0	18	3	1	0	3	3	41
WoS	“public* network*”	4	10	0	1	4	2	0	0	20	8	3	1	1	1	53
	“poli* network*”	11	42	2	6	11	1	0	0	58	3	4	0	0	0	137
	“collaborat* network*”	40	262	1	38	12	11	5	11	506	27	17	1	3	3	924
	“govern* network*”	6	74	0	2	3	5	1	0	43	4	4	0	0	0	137
	“network* govern*”	31	129	2	13	6	4	3	2	92	12	7	0	1	1	299
	“coordinat* network*”	3	16	0	1	2	3	0	0	11	0	0	0	0	0	33
	“cooperat* network*”	12	63	0	5	0	2	1	2	103	0	3	2	1	1	192
	“service* logic” network	5	12	0	0	1	0	0	0	11	0	0	3	0	0	32
	“service* deliver” network	30	130	2	29	12	1	1	4	129	19	6	0	2	2	365
	“service* implement” network	3	6	1	1	1	0	0	0	5	0	0	0	0	0	17
	“inter* network*”	79	421	9	37	19	9	6	7	582	43	11	2	3	3	1,220
	“manag* network*”	9	28	0	7	2	1	0	1	64	2	3	0	1	1	117
	“collaborat* arrangement*”	2	11	0	4	0	1	0	0	32	3	1	0	0	0	53
	“network* arrangement*”	2	3	0	3	2	0	0	0	8	1	0	0	0	0	19
S		939	2,777	71	450	315	166	44	130	4,414	644	376	48	86	128	10,588

As presented in Table 2, the identification stage of the search enabled us to identify 10,588 records that were downloaded directly from the two databases into Excel. Subsequently, their format was standardized, allowing for the identification of duplications and further screening of the records according to the exclusion criteria (Figure 1).

After removing duplicates from both databases, a total of 6,183 publications were obtained. Next, the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the publications were manually screened by two researchers working in parallel and independently, based on predefined exclusion criteria. These criteria restricted the selection to records related to public administration, public management, public governance, and political science, and excluded editorial introductions. To minimize the risk of system-related errors, any discrepancies between the researchers’ assessments were discussed and resolved collaboratively. This initial screening phase reduced the number of records to 1,228. It also included an eligibility check to ensure each publication addressed public administration networks (PANs) and that digital technologies were a core focus rather than a minor subplot. When this could not be determined from the title or abstract, the full publication was briefly reviewed.

Furthermore, we carefully reviewed the full-text articles to assess the quality and eligibility of the studies. The exclusion criteria at this stage applied to publications that did not address public administration networks (PANs), treated digital technology as a secondary topic, or were written in languages other than English, a limitation acknowledged in this final phase (Figure 1). Following the full-text review, the final selection comprised 59 publications (see Appendix 1). The sequential elimination process, along with the applied exclusion criteria, significantly reduced the number of included records (see Appendix 1). A total of 521 publications were excluded due to their broad and very general approach to digital technologies in PANs (e.g., using them as a subplot). Additionally, 4,818 publications focused on networks in the private sector/firms, which fall outside the scope of this study. Then, 558 articles were excluded because they focused on the use of digital technologies within individual public organizations rather than addressing networks across public administration. Moreover, 90 publications were excluded because they were written in languages other than English: Portuguese (42), Spanish (23), German (7), Italian (5), French (5), Chinese (3), Russian (3), Bosnian (1), and Lithuanian (1). Finally, we did not include any additional publications and reports in the final research results list.

Results

This section presents the study’s findings, along with a bibliographic visualization of the scientific landscape related to digital technologies in public administration networks. The structure aligns with the four core research questions that guide this study. Based on the 59 publications selected, almost three-fourth of the research is published as journal articles (73%). It is noteworthy that research on this topic is quite scattered across a large number of journals representing both PAM and information systems. Twelve out of 59 publications are available as conference papers (20%), and only four publications are book chapters (7%). We employed the snowballing approach to identify book chapters that met the selection criteria (e-books or available print books). The detailed list of publishers is presented in Appendix 1.

Evolution of Scholarship: Interplay between PANs and Digital Technologies

Our analysis reveals that research focusing on digital technology in PANs has gained particular attention since 2015. As Figure 2 shows, emphasis on this topic began in 1993; however, over the next decade, there was a notable lack of research on new technologies in PANs. Then, over the next decade (between 2007 and 2015), the number of publications started to increase. A notable upward trend has been observed most recently, both before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Figure 2.

Time distribution of publications analyzed (number of publications and year of publication).

This publication trend might also be a result of the growth and diversity of peer-reviewed scientific journals and the appearance of fewer books in the last decade (Savage & Olejniczak, 2022).

The scientific landscape (Figure 3) of the terms identified in this study reveals that the studies concerned topics around public policy and collaborative working through information and communication technologies and data processing (i.e., Huigen, 1993). Around 2014, research evolved from collaboration, information management, information technology (IT) governance, and e-government to focus on interoperability, co-production, and a greater emphasis on local issues, public services, and smart solutions in cities (i.e., Albano, 2013; Anthopoulos, 2017; Janowski et al., 2012). In particular, research concentrated on emergency management and public safety networks (Fedorowicz et al., 2018; Q. Hu & Kapucu, 2016; Kapucu & Garayev, 2013; Meng et al., 2016; Rawat et al., 2015). The ongoing studies focus on digital government, digital governance, and the use of technologies such as artificial intelligence to develop collaborative innovations and co-create public value (i.e., Benaben et al., 2020; Covarrubias & Covarrubias, 2021; Gerrits, 2021; Liu & Lyu, 2020).

Figure 3.

Scientific landscape of identified terms (based on VOSviewer ver. 1.6.17).

As mentioned previously, we lack a comprehensive typology of PANs. However, we involve the three most popular types of public networks that are also the foundation for developing research on the use of ICT in public administrative networks (Janowski et al., 2012). Based on references, we identify the main clusters of scholars whose common research areas can be interpreted as research streams (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Top authors contributing to research on digital technology in PANs based on reference analyses (based on VOSviewer ver. 1.6.17).

First, the stream in red color refers to the research in the field of collaborative innovations. This pattern also points to the importance of service-dominant logic and the co-production of public services. Representatives of this trend are, for example, Jacob Torfing, Chris Huxham, Stephen Osborne, and Jean Hartley. Second, the blue color stream relates to studies of network governance. Research on this subject has been carried out by Erik-Hans Klijn, John Bryson, Barbara Crosby, Keith Provan, and Patrick Kenis, among others. Third, the yellow stream color includes research on inter-organizational information sharing. The authors most often cited in this stream are José Ramón Gil-García, Sharon Dawes, and Jane Fedorowicz. Finally, the fourth identified stream, the green one, refers to research related to the usability of digital technology in various public sector services, especially in emergency management. This cluster includes publications by authors such as Naim Kapucu, Ines Mergel, Sofie Pilemalm, Marijn Janssen, and Igor Calzada.

The distances between clusters and nodes indicate thematic differentiation. As shown in Figure 4, the linkages are located at various distances; however, connections exist between the four identified research streams. Thus, despite their different research areas, scholars transcend the boundaries of these streams and integrate various disciplines and perspectives to create interdisciplinary and multifaceted research.

In turn, Figure 5 presents the top scholars who have written about digital technology in PANs over time. The distance between the nodes represents the thematic closeness of the research. As Figure 5 shows, research conducted after 2000 was more fragmented, whereas contemporary research is more interconnected. The size of the nodes in Figure 5 highlights the top researchers focusing on digital technologies in PANs, such as Tomasz Janowski, Naim Kapucu, Marijn Janssen, and Jane Fedorowicz.

Figure 5.

Top scholars writing about digital technology in PAN over time (based on VOSviewer ver. 1.6.17).

According to Figure 5, the first studies were conducted primarily by information system scholars in the context of public governance, such as Marijn Janssen, Dorothy E. Leidner, Victor Bekkers, Elsa Estevez, and Enrico Ferro. Since 2010, researchers have started to emphasize the benefits of digital technologies in PANs, particularly in the context of inter-organizational communication. These studies were conducted by scholars from both information technology and public administration, including Tomasz Janowski, Jim Davies, Naim Kapucu, and Nelson King. Additionally, the role of innovative solutions was emphasized by Xin Guan, Bijan Raahemi, and Jane Fedorowicz. Finally, ongoing research concentrates on collaborative innovation, but in the context of advanced and modern technologies, such as AI and blockchain. Rainer Kattel, Satoshi Miura, Yu-Che Chen, and Julio Navío-Marco represent this research period.

The Most Popular Digital Technologies in Public Administration Networks

The results in Figure 6 show that 50 out of the 59 publications focus on digital technologies in the context of collaborative networks and governance networks to a similar extent. In contrast, policy networks received much less attention. Moreover, ICT is the most popular technology in all network types. It is followed by social media in governance networks and big data in collaborative networks. In turn, modern technologies such as artificial intelligence and blockchain have received limited attention in PANs so far; however, recent literature suggests that these technologies will become more widespread in the future (i.e., Benaben et al., 2020; Covarrubias & Covarrubias, 2021).

Figure 6.

The scope of digital technologies’ implementation in different types of public administration networks.

Based on the identified publications, ICT is a key technology used primarily for inter-organizational communication, as well as for building relationships, solving problems, and managing and maintaining relationships within public administration networks (Chen & Lee, 2018; Janowski et al., 2012; Kattel et al., 2020). Thanks to this broad application, the ICTs fulfill the role of “the main engine for organizational growth, through the generation of 'new' knowledge, and the 'iron cage' of organizational stability, based on the use of and reproduction of 'old' knowledge” (Bovaird, 2005). Together with the Internet, they have been seen as an essential means of transformation, leading to better governance due to increased citizen commitment (Henman, 2023; Rethemeyer, 2006).

Emerging technologies, including big data, social media, artificial intelligence, and blockchain, enable the creation of personalized solutions (Petrescu, 2019), facilitate the co-creation of services, and transform raw data into actionable knowledge (Chatfield & Reddick, 2020; Kattel et al., 2020). They support government-to-citizens (G2C), government-to-business (G2B), and government-to-government (G2G) interactions. They can also be applied to predict certain societal dynamics (Gerrits, 2021). Consequently, these technologies can be applied across various public service domains and geographical contexts, as demonstrated by the applications and practical examples presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Application of Digital Technologies in PANs and Practical Examples.

Sector/context	Technology	Application purpose & examples	Source
General public services	ICT (digital syntax)/Blockchain/ Big data/	To standardize and automate service delivery.	Kattel et al. (2020), Azelmad and Nfissi (2018), Suchowerska and McCosker (2022), Waksberg-Guerrini and Aibar (2007), Milakovich (2022).
		e.g., various licenses, social support payments, digital infrastructure that enabled secure connectivity between the databases and devices involved, G2B transactions like payments, taxes, and placed bids
		e.g., the Australian Government’s Digital Literacy of Older Australians Strategy.
		e.g., in Sweden, most taxpayers receive a pre-filled and pre-calculated tax return, streamlining the declaration process and minimizing errors.
	ICT/Web 2.0/Internet/Social media	To utilize data in decision-making for evidence-based policy-making.	Kitsing (2019), Chen and Lee (2018), Bovaird (2005), Osah and Pade-Khene (2020), Janowski et al. (2012);Scupola and Zanfei (2016).
		To co-create services.
		To promote a collaborative and inclusive approach to library digitalization/ E-library.
		e.g., an E-participation platform and open government data to inform citizens and empower them to shape public policy and decisions in urban governance
		e.g., Digital identity and e-residency in Estonia
		e.g., Open web-based platform (case of Luanshya, a town in Sub-Saharan Africa).
		e.g., Multidisciplinary and cross-cultural platforms in the development of policies concerning sustainable environmental development
		e.g., the Danish digital library sector.
Emergency management	ICT	To inform decision-making, facilitate information sharing, enhance the quality of communication, engage citizens and communities, coordinate collaborative efforts, and reduce communication costs.	Kapucu and Garayev (2013);Q. Hu and Kapucu (2016), Pilemalm and Mojir (2020);Kassen (2019), Leidner et al. (2009).
		e.g., Geographic information systems (GIS); global positioning systems (GPS); E-Team, WebEOC, and even SharePoint.
		e.g., Alarm management system and a map system, RAKEL - a shared radio-based platform for communication among response organizations.
		Crowdsourcing has been extensively used to track, report, and coordinate efforts in the context of natural disasters, civil wars, and human rights abuses in Haiti, Pakistan, Libya, and Kenya.	Baka (2017).
		e.g., Crowdsourcing platforms like Ushahidi (crisis reporting), FixMyStreet (local issue tracking), and Janaagraha (bribery monitoring).	Baka (2017).
	AI/Big data	To transform raw data into actionable knowledge that guides and supports stakeholders/emergency services (e.g., firefighters, police) in creating and managing a response to crises such as earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, through communication services and resource allocation.	Benaben et al. (2020).
	Social media	To improve governance strategies for public emergencies on social media.	Meng et al. (2016).
	Social media	e.g., the Shifang Incident in China.	Meng et al. (2016).
Public safety	ICT/Big data	To enhance access to justice, foster collaboration among legal authorities, and strengthen the justice system by improving legal institutions and ensuring fair, efficient administration of law, sentencing, and treatment decisions.	Chatfield and Reddick (2020), Kattel et al. (2020);Fedorowicz et al. (2018), Calzada et al. (2023).
		e.g., Engage both internal (e.g., court judges) and external stakeholders (e.g., court users) in adopting, using, and assimilating e-justice systems in the course of advancing the open justice practice more effectively and more systemically
		e.g., Analyze legal precedents and structured case data to recommend sentencing options
	Blockchain/Algorithms	To predict certain societal dynamics, e.g., crime in public transportation	Gerrits (2021), Mottur and Whittaker (2019).
	Blockchain/Algorithms	e.g., China’s “Situation-Aware Public Security Evaluation” (SAPE) platform which was developed for the prediction of terrorist attacks.	Gerrits (2021), Mottur and Whittaker (2019).
Healthcare	Big data	To sentencing or treatment decisions.	Kattel et al. (2020).
	Big data	e.g., Utilize patient health records and diagnostic data to generate personalized treatment.	Kattel et al. (2020).
	ICT	To enhance the e-prescribing system: An e-script sent by an e-prescriber is immediately processed by a pharmacy	King (2013).
	ICT	e.g., Outpatient e-prescribing (“e-prescribing”) in the United States.	King (2013).
Education	AI	To use student data for improvements in teaching and learning.	Williamson (2019).
Education	AI	e.g., Jisc is a key provider of performance data and a leading driver of learning analytics and AI services in the UK education sector: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/learning-analytics	Williamson (2019).

Adoption of Digital Technologies in Public Services

In this article, we employ the classification of government functions by Eurostat (2019) to identify the scope of digital technology application in PANs within the context of public services. The analysis of selected publications reveals that five public services predominate in the studies (Figure 7), with a particular emphasis on general public services. The other four functions of public services — emergency management, public safety, healthcare, and education – are emphasized, but not as much as the general public services. As Figure 7 shows, ICT dominates in four out of five public services. At the same time, other digital technologies, such as social media, artificial intelligence, and blockchain, are less often used in public services.

Figure 7.

Scope of application of digital technologies in the realization of different public functions.

Scholars argue that these new technologies find application in overcoming organizational divisions and silos, and also facilitate the implementation of political processes (Letch, 2016; Milakovich, 2022; Rethemeyer, 2006). In emergency management networks, digital technologies are used to increase the efficiency and agility of communication and coordination processes (Hu & Kapucu, 2016; Kapucu & Garayev, 2013; Meng et al., 2016). For instance, Meng et al. (2016) emphasize the relevance of social media in emergency management for urgent reporting, alerting, and peer-to-peer communication, as well as for situational updates, emotional support, and calls to action. Then, scholars concentrating on public safety networks claim that digital technologies support e-service ecosystems (Chatfield & Reddick, 2020). However, they suffer from fragmentation and a lack of interoperability between systems across various organizations (Fedorowicz et al., 2018). In turn, digital technologies in healthcare and education networks support operational work and customer service. In all these public sectors, the scope of using new technologies depends on institutional conditions and commitment (Albano, 2013; Williamson, 2019).

Driving Factors Behind the Utilization of Digital Technologies in PANs

In almost 2/3 of the selected publications, scholars argue that digital technologies provide benefits/opportunities for the public sector to meet ongoing challenges (i.e., Q. Hu & Kapucu, 2016; Janssen & Kuk, 2007; Letch, 2016; Osah & Pade-Khene, 2020) or to focus on potential future developments (Kitsing, 2019). Most of this research focuses on governance and collaborative networks (18 and 14 publications, respectively), while only six studies examine policy networks. Moreover, almost 40% of the research focuses on the general public sector (23 studies), followed by seven studies on emergency management, four publications on public safety, three articles on healthcare, and only one on the education sector (Appendix 1). Based on our analysis of the 59 publications, we suggest that these determinants can be understood from both short- and long-term perspectives. Table 4 presents the short-term and long-term benefits of digital technology utilization in PANs.

Table 4.

Short-term and Long-term Benefits as Determinants.

Short-term	Long-term
✓ Gathering, synthesizing, interpreting, and communicating information in many organizations	✓ Building relationships with citizens and users
✓ Improving the quality and agility of the information provided	✓ Increasing the transparency of government decisions and actions
✓ Improving joint decision-making processes	✓ Transforming the process of public sector operations
✓ Wider dissemination of government information	✓ Improving civic engagement and participation in public governance
✓ Obtaining representative collaborative situation models	✓ Reforming and boosting innovations due to the engagement of individuals and local communities
✓ Dealing with complex and uncertain circumstances	✓ Increasing the intensity and productivity of database’ use
✓ Supporting functional integration and collaborative efforts	✓ Increasing agility, efficiency, and quality of public services

Source. Bekkers (2009), Chen and Lee (2018), Ferro and Sorrentino (2010), Q. Hu and Kapucu (2016), Janssen and Kuk (2007), Kattel et al. (2020), Lee (2021), Letch (2016), Osah and Pade-Khene (2020).

Research on the drivers of digital technology utilization in the context of public administration networks addresses digital-era governance megatrends, including reintegration, needs-based holism, and digitization changes (Torfing et al., 2021). These megatrends are based on process simplification, client-based reorganization, one-stop electronic provision of services, and agile and open governance. Moreover, they can facilitate the co-creation of public value in networks, enhance stakeholder participation and information sharing among actors through collaborative platforms, increase joint management opportunities, drive public innovation, facilitate problem-solving, create opportunities for informal relationships, and effectively combine and utilize public and private resources (Ansell & Miura, 2020). Generally, the driving factors behind the utilization of digital technologies in public administration networks are complex and interdependent. An analysis of the 59 identified publications (see Appendix 1) reveals the following dimensions, which organize the key driving factors into distinct thematic groups:

– Relational referring to previous experience in collaborating within networks, stakeholder involvement, power of members, dense relationships, strength of the existing ties, trust between parties, work across silos, interorganizational and intersectoral collaboration.

– Managerial focusing on rules and guidelines, planning, aligning strategies of digital technologies implementation, organizational goals, mission, structure, the role of technologies in networks, processes implemented based on digital technologies, and digital skills.

– Legal and political emphasizing the rule of law; government support, national and international policy for the development of digital technologies, creating a legal basis to ensure data and information security, implementation of information policies, specification of time and conditions upon which government agencies should make their information available, implementation of digital rights.

– Technological, referring to digital infrastructure, secure connectivity, data combinations, technical capacity, information sharing, flexibility of the existing technology, scalability, and security of technologies.

– Cultural describing value, norms, attitudes, and beliefs, attitudes of the partners to work online, behavioral expression, group formation, and social structures in the virtual society.

– Ethical considerations encompass responsibility for using digital technologies, responsiveness, accountability, and understanding of digital rights.

– Economical considerations involve cost allocation, infrastructure maintenance, investments into technologies.

– Contextual factors encompass social, physical, and geographical environment.

In turn, very few researchers focus on barriers/limitations and challenges of digital technology utilization in the public sector (e.g., Albano, 2013; Lee, 2021; Mergel, 2017).

Concluding Discussion

This article aimed to deepen our understanding of the role of digital technologies in the three domains of network research in public administration: governance networks, collaborative networks, and policy networks. Analyses in this area included searching for answers to four research questions and achieving three specific objectives.

As part of the first objective, which is to unpack and systematize existing knowledge about the foundations and development of emerging digital technologies in PANs, the results of our analysis show a notable increase in publications over the last decade, particularly before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the first contributions started in the early 1990s by information system scholars, the development trend has been observed since 2009. This result confirms that public administrations in the digital era of governance no longer consider networks as the least solution, but rather as an integral part of their strategies to improve policy and service delivery (Ansell et al., 2022). The findings also show that digital technologies are primarily used in collaborative and governance networks, and to a lesser extent in policy networks (in only 9 out of 59 publications). Moreover, the findings reveal that ICT is the most popular digital technology in all three PANs. Digital technologies, such as social media and big data, are often utilized in collaborative and governance networks (see the summary in Table 5).

Table 5.

Summary of Results on Type of Technology, Type of Network, and Type of Public Service Sector.

Dimension/type of technology	ICT (%)	Social media (%)	Big data (%)	Internet (%)	AI (%)	Blockchain (%)
Policy network	50	12.5	12.5	12.5	12.5	x
Collaborative network	65.2	x	13	8.7	8.7	4.3
Governance network	54.2	20.8	8.3	12.5	x	4.2
General public services	42.3	3.6	3.6	5.4	x	2.5
Emergency management	8.6	8.6	3.2	x	3.2	x
Public safety	7.2	x	1.8	x	x	1.8
Healthcare	3.2	x	3.2	x	x	x
Education	x	x	x	x	1.8	x

Note. x = lack of research.

The other technology types are less involved in all three types of PANs. It is not surprising that ICT is a leading technology utilized in PANs, as ICT is one of the first and most widely used technologies in public administration (Chen & Lee, 2018; Janowski et al., 2012; Kapucu & Garayev, 2013).

Regarding the second objective of this paper—determining the scope of application of these technologies, our findings indicate that ICT has a significant influence on the processes of communication and coordination of activities, which considerably facilitates the achievement of common goals in networks. Apart from ICT, social media is used primarily in collaborative networks to collect information on society’s needs (De Widt & Panagiotopoulos, 2018; Mergel, 2017), while the Internet and big data are used in governance networks. Other modern technologies, such as AI and blockchain, have most recently been applied to public administration networks. Their rapid advancement and deployment, however, pose substantial regulatory challenges for public administration networks, especially when divergent institutional logics, such as legal, technological, and political perspectives, converge in collaborative settings (Kitsing, 2019). A general conclusion can be drawn that PANs will more actively implement emerging technologies to improve coordination, personalization, efficiency, and predictive capabilities in public services. This growing interest in new technologies in PANs may stem from the need to decentralize activities, increase the agility and transparency of decision-making processes, enhance learning processes within networks, and improve the level of innovation and organizational transformation (Schütz & Strohmaier, 2022; Williamson, 2019).

To achieve the third specific objective, identifying the current state of research about the factors influencing their use within these public administration networks, we used bibliographic visualizations and data compilation. The summary of results in Table 5 shows that different digital technologies, particularly ICT, are studied in the context of general public services in PANs, including basic administrative services and financial and fiscal affairs. These technologies are further explored in emergency management and public safety networks. Scholars emphasize the importance of new technologies in enhancing multiple channels of communication, coordination, and collaboration among involved agencies, fostering shared visions, and ensuring access to information and resources (Fedorowicz et al., 2018; Q. Hu & Kapucu, 2016). In turn, less attention has been dedicated to public sectors such as healthcare and education. Research on these issues highlights the impact of institutional settings on the adoption of digital technologies, such as ICT, big data, and AI, in healthcare and education (Albano, 2013; Williamson, 2019).

Subsequently, bibliographic visualization helped us to distinguish research trends and terms that create contemporary knowledge about digital technologies in PANs. We identified four research streams that dominate the literature: collaborative innovations, network governance, inter-organizational information sharing, and the usability of digital technologies. In addition, we identified several terms, such as digitalization, e-government, digital government, smart city, and many more, that have been developed over the last two decades (see Figure 2). This bibliographic visualization was also essential for identifying the short-term and long-term benefits as determinants of the utilization of digital technology in PANs. Our research also identifies determinants that constitute sets of the driving factors behind the utilization of digital technologies in public administration networks. These determinants are divided into relational, managerial, legal and political, technological, cultural, ethical, economic, and contextual.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Although using both Scopus and Web of Science databases increased the number of results, in the final step we could consider only publications written in English and books or e-books that were available to us. The recent review by Morçöl et al. (2021) suggests that China is one of the top countries in terms of publishing on collaborative governance networks. However, our SLR reveals that research on PANs in the context of digital technology in China is less prevalent (we included 4 out of 59 publications, while excluding 3 out of 90 publications). Overall, we expect that publications in languages other than English would contribute significantly to investigating the topic.

Overall, the results of our analysis indicate a rapidly growing area of study. Although research on the topic is scattered, our study supports the conclusion that the distances between research topics will decrease in the future. Nevertheless, scholars representing public administration and management, information communication and technology, and related disciplines must meet this challenge through their joint research. Their shared language would help guide practitioners in utilizing modern digital technologies (as presented in Table 3) and ensure a better fit. Kinder et al. (2021) stated that the public service ecosystem (PSE) now has replaced networks as the primary means of delivering public services. Therefore, future research could further consider whether the PSE has replaced or added a new stream to the PANs, or helps us to understand PANs in a broader context. Moreover, this research could take an interdisciplinary perspective and explore how digital technology may contribute to this change.

Second, our SLR highlights that researchers are more likely to emphasize the various potentials of using digital technologies in PANs rather than on the challenges and barriers to their use. Therefore, we suggest that future research should adopt a more critical perspective on the application of digital technologies in the public sector. Moreover, greater stress should be placed on the interplay between artificial intelligence and human intelligence in public administration networks, as such convergence is not merely speculative but increasingly inevitable.

Finally, based on our results, we can conclude that more research efforts should be made to minimize the fragmentation of current research on digital technologies in PANs, to find a research balance between the limitations and possibilities of using digital technologies in practice, and to increase the focus on a more adapted use of modern technologies. Dialog among the different disciplines and practices can help identify what is important to address in these issues.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-aas-10.1177_00953997251369090 – Supplemental material for Digital Technologies in Public Administration Networks: Systematic Literature Review and Research Avenues

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-aas-10.1177_00953997251369090 for Digital Technologies in Public Administration Networks: Systematic Literature Review and Research Avenues by Katarzyna Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek and Barbara Zyzak in Administration & Society

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Katarzyna Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek

Barbara Zyzak

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Katarzyna Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, DSc, Eng, associate professor at Silesian University of Technology. She specializes in research on the digital transformation of public services, with a particular focus on digital resilience, digital trust, and management under uncertainty and crisis conditions. Her work centres on analysing the adaptive processes of public organizations in the context of digitalization, as well as designing models that support social trust and digital resilience. She combines an engineering approach with a management perspective, creating interdisciplinary solutions for modern public governance.

Barbara Zyzak, PhD, is an associate professor of public policy and administration in the Department of Sociology and Political Science at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). Her research explores contemporary organizational dynamics within public administration, with a particular emphasis on network governance, cross-sectoral collaboration, meta-organizations, and collaborative platforms. She also investigates the management and coordination mechanisms that underpin these structures, as well as the digital transformation of the public sector.

References

Agostino

Arnaboldi

Lema

M. D.

(2021). New development: COVID-19 as an accelerator of digital transformation in public service delivery. Public Money & Management, 41(1), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2020.1764206

Agranoff

(2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00666.x

Agranoff

McGuire

(2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003504

Albano

(2013). The role of network governance models in the design of local eHealth policies. In Baskerville

De Marco

Spagnoletti

(Eds.), Designing organizational systems (pp. 319–342). Springer.

Anderson

C. L.

Agarwal

(2011). The digitization of healthcare: Boundary risks, emotion, and consumer willingness to disclose personal health information. Information Systems Research, 22(3), 469–490. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0335

Ansell

Miura

(2020). Can the power of platforms be harnessed for governance? Public Administration, 98(1), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12636

Ansell

Sørensen

Torfing

(Eds.) (2022). Building cocreation platforms. In Co-creation for sustainability (pp. 57–72). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Anthopoulos

(2017). Smart Utopia vs smart reality: Learning by experience from 10 smart city cases. Cities, 63, 128–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.10.005

Azelmad

Nfissi

(2018). e-Government whole-of-government approach for good governance: Initiatives from Morocco: Research. African Journal of Governance and Development, 7, 24–34.

10.

Baas

Schotten

Plume

Côté

Karimi

(2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative science studies, 1(1), 377–386.

11.

Baka

(2017). Co-creating an open platform at the local governance level: How openness is enacted in Zambia. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.10.001

12.

Bekkers

(2009). Flexible information infrastructures in Dutch E-Government collaboration arrangements: Experiences and policy implications. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2007.09.010

13.

Benaben

Fertier

Montarnal

Jiang

Truptil

Barthe-Delanoë

Lauras

Mace-Ramete

Wang

Bidoux

Lamothe

(2020). An AI framework and a metamodel for collaborative situations: Application to crisis management contexts. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 28(3), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12310

14.

Berardo

Scholz

J. T.

(2010). Self-organizing policy networks: Risk, partner selection, and cooperation in Estuaries. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 632–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00451.x

15.

Bergenholtz

Waldstrøm

(2011). Inter-organizational network studies—a literature review. Industry and Innovation, 18(6), 539–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2011.591966

16.

Berry

F. S.

Brower

R. S.

Choi

S. O.

Goa

W. X.

Jang

Kwon

Word

(2004). Three traditions of network research: What the public management research agenda can learn from other research communities. Public Administration Review, 64(5), 539–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00402.x

17.

Börzel

T. A.

(2011). Networks: Reified metaphor or governance panacea? Public Administration, 89(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01916.x

18.

Bovaird

(2005). E-government and e-governance: Organizational implications, options, and dilemmas. In Khosrow-Pour

(Ed.), Practicing e-government: A global perspective (pp. 43–61). IGI Global.

19.

Calzada

Pérez-Batlle

Batlle-Montserrat

(2023). People-centered smart cities: An exploratory action research on the cities’ coalition for digital rights. Journal of Urban Affairs, 45, 1537–1562. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2021.1994861

20.

Chatfield

A. T.

Reddick

C. G.

(2020). Collaborative network governance framework for aligning open justice and e-justice ecosystems for greater public value. Social Science Computer Review, 38(3), 252–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318771968

21.

Chen

Y.-C.

Lee

(2018). Collaborative data networks for public service: Governance, management, and performance. Public Management Review, 20(5), 672–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1305691

22.

Christensen

Lægreid

(2022). ICT use in central government: Scope, predictors and effects on coordination quality. International Journal of Public Administration, 45(3), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1851256

23.

Chun

S. A.

Sandoval

Arens

(2011). Public engagement and government collaboration: Theories, strategies and case studies. Information Polity, 16(3), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-2011-0261

24.

Ciborra

C. U.

(2009). Interpreting E-government and development: Efficiency, transparency or governance at a distance? In Avgerou

Lanzara

G. F.

Willcocks

L. P.

(Eds.), Bricolage, care and information: Claudio Ciborra’s legacy in information systems research (pp. 90–110). Palgrave Macmillan.

25.

Covarrubias

J. Z. L.

Covarrubias

I. N. L.

(2021). Different types of government and governance in the blockchain. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 10(1), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv10i1art1

26.

Cristofoli

D. A.

Markovic

(2016). How to make public networks really work: A qualitative comparative analysis. Public Administration, 94(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12192

27.

De Widt

Panagiotopoulos

(2018). Informal networking in the public sector: Mapping local government debates in a period of austerity. Government Information Quarterly, 35(3), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.05.004

28.

Dunleavy

Margetts

Bastow

Tinkler

(2006). New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057

29.

Durkiewicz

Janowski

(2018). Is digitalization improving governance quality? Correlating analog and digital benchmarks. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Digital Government ECDG, (pp. 48–56).

30.

Durkiewicz

Janowski

(2020). Towards synthetic and balanced digital government benchmarking [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Wailea-Makena, USA.

31.

El-Haddadeh

Weerakkody

Osmani

Thakker

Kapoor

K. K.

(2019). Examining citizens’ perceived value of internet of things technologies in facilitating public sector services engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.009

32.

Estevez

Fillottrani

Janowski

(2010). Information sharing in government-conceptual model for policy formulation [Conference session]. Proceedings of the European Conference on e-Government, ECEG.

33.

Eurostat. (2019). Manual on sources and methods for the compilation of COFOG statistics. In Classification of the functions of government (COFOG). European Commission Brussels.

34.

Fedorowicz

Sawyer

Tomasino

(2018). Governance configurations for inter-organizational coordination: A study of public safety networks. Journal of Information Technology, 33(4), 326–344. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-018-0056-z

35.

Ferro

Sorrentino

(2010). Can intermunicipal collaboration help the diffusion of E-Government in peripheral areas? Evidence from Italy. Government Information Quarterly, 27(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2009.07.005

36.

Gage

R. W.

Mandell

Krane

(1990). Strategies for managing intergovernmental policies and networks. Praeger.

37.

Gerrits

(2021). Soul of a new machine: Self-learning algorithms in public administration. Information Polity, 26(3), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-200224

38.

Gil-Garcia

J. R.

Pardo

T. A.

Gasco-Hernandez

(2020). Internet of things and the public sector. In J. R. Gil-Garcia, T. A. Pardo & M. Gasco-Hernandez (Eds.), Beyond smart and connected governments: Sensors and the Internet of things in the public sector (pp. 3–24). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

39.

Gittell

J. H.

Weiss

(2004). Coordination networks within and across organizations: A multi-level framework. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 127–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00424.x

40.

Graddy

E. A.

Chen

(2006). Influences on the size and scope of networks for social service delivery. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(4), 533–552. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muj005

41.

Grant

M. J.

Booth

(2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

42.

Greve

(2015). Ideas in Public Management Reform for the 2010s. Digitalization, value creation and involvement. Public Organization Review, 15(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-013-0253-8

43.

Grönroos

(2019). Reforming public services: Does service logic have anything to offer? Public Management Review, 21(5), 775–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1529879

44.

Guo

Chen

Liu

(2022). Government responsiveness and public acceptance of big-data technology in urban governance: Evidence from China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cities, 122, 103536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103536

45.

Henman

(2023). E-government and the electronic transformation of modes of rule: The case of partnerships. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 21(2), 19–24.

46.

Huang

Chen

(2021). Collaborative networks and environmental governance performance: A social influence model. Public Management Review, 23(12), 1878–1899. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1795229

47.

Huigen

(1993). Information and communication technology in the context of policy networks. Technology and Society, 15(3), 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-791x(93)90041-l

48.

Kapucu

(2021). Engaging citizens, clients and community for policy and service delivery. In Hildreth

Miller

Linquist

(Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 120–133). Routledge.

49.

Kapucu

(2016). Information communication technology utilization for effective emergency management networks. Public Management Review, 18(3), 323–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.969762

50.

Medina

Siciliano

M. D.

Wang

(2023). Network structures and network effects across management and policy contexts: A systematic review. Public Administration, 101, 953–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12835

51.

Isett

K. R.

Mergel

I. A.

LeRoux

Mischen

P. A.

Rethemeyer

R. K.

(2011). Networks in public administration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Supplement 1), i157–i173. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq061

52.

Janowski

Pardo

T. A.

Davies

(2012). Government information networks - Mapping electronic governance cases through Public Administration concepts. Government Information Quarterly, 29, S1–S10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.11.003

53.

Janssen

Kuk

(2007). E-government business models for public service networks. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 3(3), 54–71. https://doi.org/10.4018/jegr.2007070104

54.

Kapucu

Garayev

(2013). Designing, managing, and sustaining functionally collaborative emergency management networks. American Review of Public Administration, 43(3), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012444719

55.

Kapucu

(2020). Network governance: Concepts, theories, and applications. Routledge.

56.

Kapucu

Khosa

(2017). The state of Network Research in Public Administration. Administration & Society, 49(8), 1087–1120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399714555752

57.

Kassen

(2019). Promoting public cooperation in government: key drivers, regulation, and barriers of the e-collaboration movement in kazakhstan. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(4), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852317735595

58.

Kattel

Lember

Tõnurist

(2020). Collaborative innovation and human-machine networks. Public Management Review, 22(11), 1652–1673. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1645873

59.

Keast

(2022). Network governance. In Ansell

Torfing

(Eds.), Handbook on theories of governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.

60.

Keast

Mandell

M. P.

Agranoff

(2013). Network theory in the public sector: Building new theoretical frameworks. Routledge.

61.

Keast

Voets

Meek

J. W.

Flynn

(Eds.) (2023). A modern guide to networks. Edward Elgar Publishing.

62.

Kinder

Stenvall

Six

Memon

(2021). Relational leadership in collaborative governance ecosystems. Public Management Review, 23(11), 1612–1639. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1879913

63.

King

(2013). Exploring the impact of operating model choice on the governance of inter-organizational workflow: The U.S. e-prescribing network. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(5), 548–568. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.47

64.

Kitchenham

B. A.

Budgen

Pearl Brereton

(2011). Using mapping studies as the basis for further research – A participant-observer case study. Information and Software Technology, 53(6), 638–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.12.011

65.

Kitsing

(2019). Alternative futures for digital governance [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Dubai, UAE.

66.

Klijn

E. H.

Koppenjan

(2016). Governance networks in the public sector. Routledge.

67.

Klijn

E. H.

Koppenjan

Spekkink

Warsen

(2025). Governance networks in the public sector. Routledge.

68.

Klijn

E. H.

Koppenjan

Termeer

(1995). Managing networks in the public sector: A theoretical study of management strategies in policy networks. Public Administration, 73(3), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1995.tb00837.x

69.

Lægreid

Rykkja

L. H.

(2015). Hybrid collaborative arrangements: The welfare administration in Norway – between hierarchy and network. Public Management Review, 17(7), 960–980. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1029349

70.

Lee

J. W.

(2021). The data sharing economy and open governance of Big Data as Public Good. Journal of Asian Finance Economics and Business, 8(11), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no11.0087

71.

Leidner

D. E.

Pan

S. L.

(2009). The role of IT in crisis response: Lessons from the SARS and Asian Tsunami disasters. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18(2), 80–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2009.05.001

72.

Letch

(2016). Ecologies of interests in social information systems for social benefit. Information Technology and People, 29(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-09-2014-0218

73.

Lindgren

Madsen

C. Ø.

Hofmann

Melin

(2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.002

74.

Liu

Lyu

(2020). Path analysis of promoting urban public safety management based on network governance in Big Data [Conference session]. 2020 International Conference on Urban Engineering and Management Science (ICUEMS), Zhuhai, China.

75.

Mandell

Keast

(2007). Evaluating network arrangements: Toward revised performance measures. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(4), 574–597. https://doi.org/10.2753/pmr1530-9576300406

76.

Marsh

Smith

(2000). Understanding policy networks: Towards a dialectical approach. Political studies, 48(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00247

77.

McGuire

Agranoff

(2011). The limitations of public management networks. Public Administration, 89(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01917.x

78.

Meijer

(2015). E-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 32(2), 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.01.001

79.

Meijer

Bolívar

M. P. R.

(2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308

80.

Meng

Zhang

Zhao

Guan

(2016). The governance strategies for public emergencies on social media and their effects: A case study based on the microblog data. Electronic Markets, 26(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0202-1

81.

Mergel

(2013). A framework for interpreting social media interactions in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.015

82.

Mergel

(2017). Social media communication modes in government. In Chen

Yu-Che

Ahn

Michael J.

(Eds.), Routledge handbook on information technology in government (pp. 168–179). Routledge.

83.

Mergel

Edelmann

Haug

(2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002

84.

Mergel

Ganapati

Whitford

A. B.

(2021). Agile: A new way of governing. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13202

85.

Mergel

Kattel

Lember

McBride

(2018). Citizen-oriented digital transformation in the public sector [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age, Delft, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209281.3209294

86.

Milakovich

M. E.

(Ed.). (2022). Digital governance: Applying advanced technologies to improve public service (2nd ed.). Routledge.

87.

Misuraca

Viscusi

(2015). Shaping public sector innovation theory: An interpretative framework for ICT-enabled governance innovation. Electronic Commerce Research, 15(3), 303–322.

88.

Morçöl

Yoo

Faisal Azim

Menon

(2021). The collaborative governance networks literature: A comprehensive and systematic review. In Meek

Jack W.

(Ed.), Handbook of collaborative public management (pp. 36–49). Edward Elgar Publishing.

89.

Mottur

P. A.

Whittaker

N. R.

(2019). Vizsafe: The decentralized crowdsourcing safety network [Conference session]. 2018 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference, ISC2 2018.

90.

Nowell

B. L.

Kenis

(2019). Purpose-oriented networks: The architecture of complexity. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(3), 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvz012

91.

O'Toole

L. J.

(1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 57(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/976691

92.

OECD. (2016). OECD science, technology and innovation outlook 2016. OECD Publishing.

93.

Okwir

Nudurupati

S. S.

Ginieis

Angelis

(2018). Performance measurement and management systems: A perspective from complexity theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(3), 731–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12184

94.

Osah

Pade-Khene

(2020). E-government strategy formulation in resource-constrained local government in South Africa. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(4), 426–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2020.1715907

95.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

J. M.

Akl

E. A.

Brennan

S. E.

Chou

Glanville

Grimshaw

J. M.

Hróbjartsson

Lalu

M. M.

Loder

E. W.

Mayo-Wilson

McDonald

, & . . . Moher

(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

96.

Petersen

Vakkalanka

Kuzniarz

(2015). Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology, 64, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007

97.

Petrescu

(2019). From marketing to public value: Towards a theory of public service ecosystems. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1733–1752. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619811

98.

Piatak

Romzek

LeRoux

Johnston

(2018). Managing goal conflict in public service delivery networks: Does accountability move up and down, or side to side? Public Performance & Management Review, 41(1), 152–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2017.1400993

99.

Pilemalm

Mojir

K. Y.

(2020). ICT enabled cross-sector collaboration in emergency response: emerging forms of public-sector network governance. International Journal of Emergency Management, 16(3), 249–280. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijem.2020.113936

100.

Pittaway

J. J.

Montazemi

A. R.

(2020). Know-how to lead digital transformation: The case of local governments. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101474

101.

Powell

W. M.

(1990). Neither market nor hierarchy; network forms of organization. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 295–336). JAI Press.

102.

Provan

K. G.

Milward

H. B.

(1991). Institutional-level norms and organizational involvement in a service-implementation network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1(4), 391–418. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037100

103.

Rawat

Haddad

Altman

(2015). Towards efficient disaster management: 5G and Device to Device communication [Conference session]. 2015 2nd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Disaster Management (ICT-DM), Rennes, France.

104.

Rethemeyer

R. K.

(2005). Conceptualizing and measuring collaborative networks. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00436.x

105.

Rethemeyer

R. K.

(2006). Policymaking in the age of internet: Is the internet tending to make policy networks more or less inclusive? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mul001

106.

Sandoval-Almazan

Gil-Garcia

J. R.

(2012). Are government internet portals evolving towards more interaction, participation, and collaboration? Revisiting the rhetoric of e-government among municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29, S72–S81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.09.004

107.

Savage

W. E.

Olejniczak

A. J.

(2022). More journal articles and fewer books: Publication practices in the social sciences in the 2010’s. PLoS One, 17(2), e0263410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263410

108.

Schütz

Strohmaier

(2022). Power relations in European RDI-collaboration networks. Disparities in policy-driven opportunities for knowledge generation in ICT. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 31(3), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2020.1799139

109.

Scott

Woolcott

Keast

Chamberlain

(2017). Sustainability of collaborative networks in higher education research projects: Why complexity? Why now? Public Management Review, 20(7), 1068–1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1364410

110.

Scupola

Zanfei

(2016). Governance and innovation in public sector services: The case of the digital library. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.005

111.

Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek

(2022). Interpretive structural modelling of inter-agency collaboration risk in public safety networks. Quality and Quantity, 56, 1193–1221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01172-0

112.

Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek

Zyzak

(2025). Overcoming social and ethical challenges of AI through organizational resilience. A PLS-SEM approach. Telematics and Informatics, 96, 102210.

113.

Strokosch

Osborne

S. P.

(2021). Co-production from a Public Service logic Perspective. In Loeffler

Bovaird

(Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes (pp. 117–131). Springer International Publishing.

114.

Suchowerska

McCosker

(2022). Governance networks that strengthen older adults’ digital inclusion: The challenges of metagovernance. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1), 101649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101649

115.

Tan

Mahula

Crompvoets

(2022). Blockchain governance in the public sector: A conceptual framework for public management. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1), 101625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101625

116.

Torfing

(2012). Governance networks. In Levi-Faur

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 99–112). University Press.

117.

Torfing

Ferlie

Jukić

Ongaro

(2021). A theoretical framework for studying the co-creation of innovative solutions and public value. Policy and Politics, 49(2), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321x16108172803520

118.

Tranfield

Denyer

Smart

(2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

119.

Van Cauter

Verlet

Snoeck

Crompvoets

(2017). The explanatory power of the Delone & McLean model in the public sector: A mixed method test. Information Polity, 22(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-170404

120.

Velsberg

Westergren

U. H.

Jonsson

(2020). Exploring smartness in public sector innovation - Creating smart public services with the Internet of Things. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(4), 350–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085x.2020.1761272

121.

Verhoest

Hammerschmid

Rykkja

L. H.

Klijn

E. H.

(2024). Collaborating for digital transformation: How internal and external collaboration can contribute to innovate public service delivery. Edward Elgar Publishing.

122.

Vial

(2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003

123.

Waksberg-Guerrini

Aibar

(2007). Towards a network government? A critical analysis of current assessment methods for e-government [Conference session]. Electronic Government, Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74444-3_28

124.

Warkentin

Orgeron

(2020). Using the security triad to assess blockchain technology in public sector applications. International Journal of Information Management, 52, 102090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102090

125.

Waterhouse

J. M.

Keast

R. L.

(2011). Is the public sector ready to collaborate? Human resource implications of collaborative arrangements [Conference session]. 15th Annual Conference of the International Research Society for Public Management (IRSPMXV), Dublin, Ireland.

126.

Williamson

(2019). Policy networks, performance metrics and platform markets: Charting the expanding data infrastructure of higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2794–2809. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12849

127.

Wirtz

B. W.

Weyerer

J. C.

Sturm

B. J.

(2020). The dark sides of Artificial Intelligence: An integrated AI governance framework for public administration. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(9), 818–829. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1749851

128.

Wen

Jin

Zhang

(2019). Towards a service-dominant platform for public value co-creation in a smart city: Evidence from two metropolitan cities in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.017

129.

Zeng

S. X.

Xie

X. M.

Tam

C. M.

(2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.08.003

130.

Zhu

Liu

(2020). A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, 123(1), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8

131.

Zuiderwijk

Chen

Y. C.

Salem

(2021). Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), 101577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101577

132.

Zyzak

(2020). Managing collaborative arrangements: Challenges associated with managing secondary structures [Doctoral dissertation, University of Agder]. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2682238

133.

Zyzak

(2023). Network bandwidth management in public administration: Definition and mechanisms. In Keast

Voets, Jack

Meek

Flynn

(Eds.), A modern guide to networks (pp. 191–210). Edward Elgar Publishing.

134.

Zyzak

(2024). Importance of managerial networking for innovation in governance networks. Nordic Journal of Innovation in the Public Sector, 3(1), 1–20.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB