Governments around the world are exploring strategies that contribute to increased government performance and economic development that enable them to meet the service-tax expectations of their citizens. Within the framework of technology use in public management, this sudy examines the effects of smart cities technologies on the importance that chief administrative officers attach to local economic development. Drawing on the Digital Era Governance (DEG) model for theoretical context, this study uses logistic regressions derived from the 2016 International City/County Management Association survey on smart cities and the U.S. Census Bureau. The results show that the level of commitment to, the extent of engagement with, and the barriers faced in implementing smart cities technologies are associated with the importance of local economic development. Among other variables, poverty and education were also found to be significant predictors of the importance of local economic development.
AlbinoV.BerardiU.DangelicoR. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.942092
2.
AndrewsR.BoyneG. A.WalkerR. M. (2006). Subjective and objective measures of organizational performance. In BoyneG. A.MeierK. J.O’Toole JrL. J.WalkerR. M. (Eds.), Public service performance: Perspectives on measurement and management (pp. 1–14). Cambridge University Press.
AnthopoulosL. G. (2017). The smart city in practice. In Understanding smart cities: A tool for smart government or an industrial trick? Public administration and information technology (Vol. 22, pp. 47–185). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57015-0_3.
5.
BadgettM. V. L.WaaldijkK.RodgersY. v. d. M. (2019). The relationship between lgbt inclusion and economic development: Macro-level evidence. World Development, 120, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.03.011
6.
BakıcıT.AlmirallE.WarehamJ. (2013). A smart city initiative: The case of Barcelona. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0084-9
BinghamR.HillE. W.WhiteS. B. (1990). Financing economic development: An institutional response. Sage.
9.
BlairJ. P. (1995). Local economic development: Analysis and practice. Sage.
10.
BoothroydP.DavisH. C. (1993). Community economic development: Three approaches. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 12(3), 230-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9301200307
11.
BorinsS. (2001). Public management innovation: Toward a global perspective. The American Review of Public Administration, 31(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740122064802
12.
BoyneG. A. (2002). Concepts and indicators of local authority performance: An evaluation of the statutory frameworks in england and wales. Public Money and Management, 22(2), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00303
13.
BoyneG. A. (2002). Theme: Local government: Concepts and indicators of local authority performance: An evaluation of the statutory frameworks in england and wales. Public Money and Management, 22(2), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00303
14.
BussT. F. (2001). The effect of state Tax incentives on economic growth and firm location decisions: An overview of the literature. Economic Development Quarterly, 15(1), 90-105. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124240101500108
15.
CaragliuA.Del BoC. (2018). The economics of smart city policies. Scienze Regionali, 17(1), 81-104. https://doi.org/10.14650/88818
16.
CaragliuA.Del BoC. F. (2019). Smart innovative cities: The impact of smart city policies on urban innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 373-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.022
17.
CarvalhoL. (2015). Smart cities from scratch? A socio-technical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 43-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsu010
18.
CerisolaS. (2018). Creativity and local economic development: The role of synergy among different talents. Papers in Regional Science, 97(2), 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12254
19.
ClingermayerJ. C.FeiockR. C. (2001). Institutional constraints and policy choice: An exploration of local governance. SUNY Press.
20.
CriadoJ. I.DiasT. F.SanoH.Rojas-MartínF.SilvanA.FilhoA. I. (2020). Public innovation and living labs in action: A comparative analysis in post-new public management contexts. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(6), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1729181
21.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
22.
DebnathA. K.ChinH. C.HaqueM. M.YuenB. (2014). A methodological framework for benchmarking smart transport cities. Cities, 37, 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.11.004
23.
DemirciogluM. A. (2017). Reinventing the wheel? Public sector innovation in the age of governance. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 800-805. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12821
24.
DenhardtR. B.CatlawT. J. (2014). Theories of public organization. Cengage Learning.
25.
De VriesH.BekkersV.TummersL. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda: Innovation in the public sector. Public Administration, 94(1), 146-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209
26.
DunleavyP.MargettsH.BastowS.TinklerJ. (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
27.
EdmistonK. D. (2003). State and local e-government: Prospects and challenges. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 20-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074002250255
28.
FacioneP. A.FacioneN. C.GiancarloC. A. (1997). Professional judgment and The disposition toward critical thinking. The California Academic Press.
29.
FeiockR. C.ClingermayerJ. C. (1992). Development policy choice: Four explanations for city implementation of economic development policies. The American Review of Public Administration, 22(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/027507409202200104
30.
FeldmanM.HadjimichaelT.LanahanL.KemenyT. (2016). The logic of economic development: A definition and model for investment. environment and planning C: Government and Policy, 34(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15614653
31.
FleischmannA.GreenG. P. (1991). Organizing local agencies to promote economic development. The American Review of Public Administration, 21(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/027507409102100101
Gil-GarciaJ. R.PardoT. A.NamT. (2015). What makes a city smart? Identifying core components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization. Information Polity, 20(1), 61-87. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150354
34.
HaH.FeiockR. C. (2012). Bargaining, networks, and management of municipal development subsidies. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(4), 481-497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074011408588
35.
HarmanH. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.
36.
HatcherW.HammondA. (2018). Nonprofit economic development organizations and the institutional arrangement of local economic development. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 4(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.4.1.21-40
37.
HawkinsC. V.KwonS.-W.BaeJ. (2016). Balance between local economic development and environmental sustainability: A multi-level governance perspective. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(11), 803-811. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1035787
38.
HoA. T.-K.NiA. Y. (2004). Explaining the adoption of e-government features: A case study of iowa county treasurers’ offices. The American Review of Public Administration, 34(2), 164-180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074004264355
39.
International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Smart Cities Survey (2016). Distributed by International City/County Management Association, icma.org/survey-research-datasets.
40.
KomninosN.TsarchopoulosP. (2013). Toward intelligent thessaloniki: From an agglomeration of apps to smart districts. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0085-8
41.
LimY.EdelenbosJ.GianoliA. (2019). Identifying the results of smart city development: Findings from systematic literature review. Cities, 95, 102397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102397
42.
LindquistE. A.HuseI. (2017). Accountability and monitoring government in the digital era: Promise, realism and research for digital-era governance. Canadian Public Administration, 60(4), 627-656. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12243
LongJ. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Advanced quantitative techniques in the social sciences. Sage.
45.
LundvallBÅLorenzE. (2012). Innovation and competence building in the learning economy: Implications for innovation policy. In Interactive learning for innovation (pp. 33-71). Palgrave Macmillan.
MargettsH.DunleavyP. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi- paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1987), 20120382. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0382
48.
MathurV. K. (1999). Human capital-based strategy for regional economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 13(3), 203-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124249901300301
McFarlandC.McConnellJ. K. (2013). Small business growth during a recession: Local policy implications. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(2), 102-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242412461174
51.
MinkoffS. L. (2012). The proximate polity: Spatial context and political risk in local developmental goods provision. Urban Affairs Review, 48(3), 354-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087411428049
52.
MoonM. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00196
53.
MorganJ. Q.HoymanM. M.McCallJ. R. (2019). Everything but the kitchen sink? Factors associated With local economic development strategy Use. Economic Development Quarterly, 33(4), 267-278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242419857152
54.
MyeongS.JungY.LeeE. (2018). A study on determinant factors in smart city development: An analytic hierarchy process analysis. Sustainability, 10(8), 2606. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082606
55.
NorrisD. F.ReddickC. G. (2013). Local e-government in the United States: Transformation or incremental change?Public Administration Review, 73(1), 165-175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02647.x
56.
NukpezahJ. A.AbutabenjehS. (2018). Institutional isomorphism and cash management practices in Mississippi. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 30(3), 315-334. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-02-2018-0005
57.
PaganoM. A.BowmanA. (1995). Cityscapes and capital: The politics of urban development. John Hopkins University Press.
PetersonP. E. (1981). City limits. University of Chicago Press.
60.
Pew Research Center (2019). Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet. Available at https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/. Assessed on March 30, 2021.
61.
PodsakoffP.OrganD. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
62.
RabariC.StorperM. (2015). The digital skin of cities: Urban theory and research in the age of the sensored and metered city, ubiquitous computing and big data. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsu021
ReeseL. A.RosenfeldR. A. (2004). Local economic development in the United States and Canada: Institutionalizing policy approaches. The American Review of Public Administration, 34(3), 277-292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074004264293
65.
RobichauR. W. (2010). The effects of economic development strategies in local municipalities. Perspectives in Public Affairs, 7(1), 26-41.
66.
RubinB. M.ZornC. K. (1985). Sensible state and local economic development. Public Administration Review, 45(2), 333-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/976155
67.
RubinH. J. (1989). Symbolism and economic development work: Perceptions of urban economic development practitioners. The American Review of Public Administration, 19(3), 233-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/027507408901900304
68.
RubinI. S.RubinH. J. (1987). Economic development incentives: The poor (cities) pay more. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 23(1), 37-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/004208168702300104
69.
RussoF.RindoneC.PanuccioP. (2016). European plans for the smart city: From theories and rules to logistics test case. European Planning Studies, 24(9), 1709-1726. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1182120
70.
SannarnesM. K.HenriksenH. Z.AndersenK. V. (2006). The E-government melting pot: Lacking new public management and innovation flavor? In WimmerM. A.SchollH. J.GrönlundÅAndersenK. V. (Eds.), Electronic government (Vol. 4084, pp. 25-36). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11823100_3.
71.
SantosL. D.MartinsI.BritoP. (2007). Measuring subjective quality of life: A survey to Porto's Residents. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 2(1), 51-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-007-9029-z
72.
SchumpeterJ. A. (1983). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Social science classics series. Transaction Books.
SenlierN.YildizR.AktaşE. D. (2009). A perception survey for the evaluation of urban quality of life in kocaeli and a comparison of the life satisfaction with the european cities. Social Indicators Research, 94(2), 213-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9361-1
75.
ShafferR.DellerS.MarcouillerD. (2006). Rethinking community economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 20(1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242405283106
76.
SnowC. C.HåkonssonD. D.ObelB. (2016). A smart city is a collaborative community: Lessons from smart aarhus. California Management Review, 59(1), 92-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125616683954
77.
SongC.LeeJ. (2016). Citizens’ use of social media in government, perceived transparency, and trust in government. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(2), 430-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1108798
StokanE. (2013). Testing Rubin's Model 25 years later: A multilevel approach to local economic development incentive adoption. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(4), 301-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242413491315
80.
Tat-Kei HoA. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 434-444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00197
81.
WalkerR. M.AndrewsR. (2015). Local government management and performance: A review of evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 101-133. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut038
82.
WarnerM. E.ZhengL. (2013). Business incentive adoption in the recession. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(2), 90-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242413479140
Yi HsiehJ. (2011). A multilevel growth assessment of the diffusion of management innovation nested in state levels: The case of US local economic development programs. Innovation, 13(1), 2-19. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2011.13.1.2
85.
ZhangX.WarnerM. E.HomsyG. C. (2017). Environment, equity, and economic development goals: Understanding differences in local economic development strategies. Economic Development Quarterly, 31(3), 196-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242417712003
86.
ZhengL.WarnerM. (2010). Business incentive use among U.D. Local governments: A story of accountability and policy learning. Economic Development Quarterly, 24(4), 325-336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242410376237
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.
