There is a common understanding that e-government applications have the potential to transform governmental operations and services. Public managers in different countries are working to provide the benefits of information technologies to their agencies and clients. Budgeting is one of the most relevant and comprehensive government processes and electronic budgeting is a very necessary part of this new wave of reform. However, e-budgeting is not only a matter of how information technology can change the budgeting process, but also a question of how the government setting affects the kind of technology that can be implemented and used. This paper discusses how organizational dynamics and institutional arrangements affect the technology features of e-budgeting projects in Mexico.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arellano-GaultDavid, JesúsRamírez, Gil-GarcíaJ. Ramón, and AngelesRojano2000. “Nueva Gerencia Pública en Acción: Procesos de Modernización Presupuestal. Un Análisis Inicial en Términos Organizativos.” Reforma y Democracia17 (June): 7–44.
2.
Arellano-GaultDavid and Gil-GarcíaJ. Ramón. forthcoming. “Public Management Policy and Accountability in Latin America: Performance-Oriented Budget in Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela.” The International Public Management Journal7 (1).
3.
Ayala EspinoJosé. 1996. Mercado, Elección Pública e Instituciones. Una Revisión de las Teorías Modernas del Estado.Mexico City: UNAM.
4.
BrintonM. C. and NeeV.1998. The New Institutionalism in Sociology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
5.
DawesS. S. and PardoT.2002. “Building Collaborative Digital Government Systems.” in McIverW. J. and ElmagarmidA. K.(eds.). Advances in Digital Government. Technology, Human Factors, and Policy.Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
6.
DeSanctisG. and PoolM. S. 1994. “Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory.” Organization Science 5 (2): pp. 121–147.
7.
FletcherP. D. 2002. “The Government Paperwork Elimination Act: Operating Instructions for an Electronic Government.” International Journal of Public Administration, 25(5) pp. 723–736.
8.
FountainJ. E. 1995. “Enacting Technology: An Institutional Perspective.” Faculty Research Working Paper Series, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, October.
9.
FountainJ. E. 2001. Building the Virtual State. Information Technology and Institutional Change. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
10.
GarsonG. D. 2004. “The Promise of Digital Government.” in PavlichevA. and GarsonG. D. (Eds.), Digital Government: Principles and Best Practices. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
11.
Gil-GarcíaJ. R. and Luna-ReyesL. F.2003. “Towards a Definition of Electronic Government: A Comparative Review.” In A. Mendez-Vilas et al. Techno-Legal Aspects of Information Society and New Economy: An Overview.Badajoz, Spain: Formatex, Information Society Series No. 1.
12.
HeeksR. (Ed.). 1999. Reinventing Government in the Information Age. International Practice in IT-Enabled Public Sector Reform.New York: Routledge.
13.
HolmesD.2001. e.gov. e-business Strategies for Government.London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
14.
KlingR.2000. “Learning about Information Technologies and Social Change: the Contribution of Social Informatics.” the Information Society 16(3) pp. 217–232.
15.
KlingR.2001. “Social Informatics.” Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. Kluwer Publishing.
16.
KlingR. and SchacchiW.1982. “The Web of Computing: Computer Technology as Social Organization.” Advances in Computers 21: pp.1–90.
17.
KraemerK. L., and KingJ. L. 2003. “Information Technology and Administrative Reform: Will the Time after E-Government Be Different?” Paper presented at the Heinrich Reinermann Schriftfest, Post Graduate School of Administration, Speyer, Germany, September 29.
18.
KraemerK. L.KingJ. L.DunkleD. E., and LaneJ. P. 1989. Managing Information Systems. Change and Control in Organizational Computing.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
MarchJ. G. and OlsenJ. P. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: the Organizational Basis of Politics. Free Press.
20.
MoonM. J. 2002. “The Evolution of E-Government Among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality?” Public Administration Review, 62(4)pp. 424–433.
21.
MusgraveR. A. and MusgraveP. B. 1992. Public Finance in Theory and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
22.
NorthD. C. 1999. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
OECD.2003. The e-Government Imperative. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
24.
OPR Manual de Orientación.2002. Manual de Orientación del Sistema de Planeación Estratégica y DAS-G. e-Strategia Consulting Group document. VII- 2002.
25.
OPR Guía de Referencia.2002. Guía de Referencia para la Administración de Proyectos Presidenciales en el SPE. e-Strategia Consulting Group document. VII- 2002.
26.
OrlikowskiW. J. 1992. “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations.” Organization Science, 3(3) pp. 398–427.
27.
OrlikowskiW. J. 2000. “Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations.” Organization Science 11 (4): pp. 404–428.
28.
OrlikowskiW. J., and IaconoC. S. 2001. “Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research–A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact.” Information Systems Research, 12(2) pp. 121–134.
29.
PetersB. G. 2001. Institutional Theory in Political Science. The ‘New’ Institutionalism.London: Continuum.
30.
PetreiH.1997. Presupuesto y Control. Pautas de Reforma en América Latina. Washington, D.C.: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.
31.
PowellWalter W. and DiMaggio, Paul J. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press.
32.
RobeyD. and SahayS.1996. “Transforming work through information technology: A comparative case study of geographic information systems in county government.” Information Systems Research, 7(1) pp. 93–110.
33.
RutherfordM.1999. Institutions in Economics. The Old and the New Institutionalism.New York: Cambridge University Press.
SHCP Manual de Normas.2002. Manual de Normas Presupuestarias para la Administración Pública Federal. México, D.F., D.O.F. publication: 3-IX- 2002.
36.
SHCP Lineamientos Normativos.2002. Lineamientos Normativos y de Operación para la Transferencia en Línea de las Adecuaciones Presupuestarias Internas Vía Internet. México, D.F., SHCP internal document: VIII- 2002.
37.
SHCP Oficio Circular.2003. Oficio Circular por el que se establecen los Lineamientos para la Operación de los Sistemas Electrónicos de la Subsecretaría de Egresos, mediante la utilización de Firma Electrónica. México, D.F., D.O.F. publication: 05-III- 2003.
38.
SHCP Manual de Procedimientos.2003. Manual de Procedimientos para el Registro de Adecuaciones Presupuestarias Internas en los Sistemas Electrónicos de la Subsecretaría de Egresos Mediante Firma Electrónica. México, D.F., SHCP internal document: 06-III- 2003.
39.
SHCP Presentación.2003. Presentación para Capacitación del Sistema SICP-SICGP con firma electrónica. México, D.F., SHCP internal document: 31-III- 2003.
40.
SHCP Guía Funcional.2003. Guía Funcional del Proceso Integral de Programación y Presupuesto. Guía funcional. México, D.F., SHCP internal document: VII- 2003.
41.
SHCP Lineamientos Operativos.2003. Lineamientos Operativos de Concertación de Estructuras Programáticas 2004, México, D.F., SHCP internal document: 04-VII- 2003.
42.
SHCP Guia de Acceso.2003. Guia de Acceso al Proceso Integral de Programacíon y Presupuesto. México, D.F., SHCP internal document: 31-VII- 2003.
43.
SHCP Manual de Programación.2003. Manual de Programación y Presupuesto. México, D.F., SHCP internal document: X- 2003.
44.
WildavskyA.1984. The Politics of the Budgetary Process. Boston: Little Brown.
45.
WildavskyA.1992. The New Politics of the Budgetary Process. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
46.
YinRobert K.2003. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
