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
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.
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.
Selected Keywords for the Research.
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.
Records Identified in the Scopus and the Web of Science Databases.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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).
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.
Application of Digital Technologies in PANs and Practical Examples.
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.
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.
Short-term and Long-term Benefits as Determinants.
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).
Summary of Results on Type of Technology, Type of Network, and Type of Public Service Sector.
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
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
References
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.
