This study aims to determine the culture of corruption in the global government smart service system in the last 5 years, from 2018 to 2022. This research used a qualitative method with a library research approach. The research data was obtained from the Scopus database of 318 articles. Data analysis in this study used VOSviewer and NVivo 12 plus devices. Through 318 article documents, the results showed that the United Kingdom had the highest contribution of artistic documents, and the University of South Africa was affiliated with the highest number of document publications of the 10 other affiliates. The “moral and ethical” movement within government agencies is expected to restore trust in the community and create conditions for a social environment that rejects, even opposes, and punishes acts of corruption.
Abu-RayashA.DincerI. (2021). Development of integrated sustainability performance indicators for better management of smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 67, 102704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102704
2.
AchilleosA.MarkidesC.KonstantinidisA.GiorkasI.KapitsakiG. M.MettourisC.PapadopoulosG. A. (2019, October14–17). Adopting an open smart city platform: A survey [Conference session]. 5th IEEE International Smart Cities Conference, ISC2, Casablanca, Morocco (pp. 384–389). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISC246665.2019.9071747
3.
AdamsD.AdamsK.UllahS.UllahF. (2019). Globalisation, governance, accountability and the natural resource ‘curse’: Implications for socioeconomic growth of oil-rich developing countries. Resources Policy, 61, 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.02.009
4.
AdamsD.UllahS.AkhtarP.AdamsK.SaidiS. (2019). The role of country-level institutional factors in escaping the natural resource curse: Insights from Ghana. Resources Policy, 61, 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.03.005
5.
AidtT.DuttaJ.SenaV. (2008). Governance regimes, corruption and growth: Theory and evidence. Journal of Comparative Economics, 36(2), 195–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2007.11.004
6.
Alcaide-MuñozL.Rodríguez–BolívarM. P.CoboM. J.Herrera-ViedmaE. (2017). Analysing the scientific evolution of e-Government using a science mapping approach. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.05.002
7.
AlsabiE.AlrwaisL.AlosimaiR.AlrwaisR.DahanayakeA. (2016). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press.
8.
AmickJ.BukovanskyM.LiuA. H. (2022). Presidential electoral cycles and corruption charges. Journal of East Asian Studies, 22(2), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1017/jea.2022.9
9.
AndroniceanuA.GeorgescuI. (2021). E-Government in European countries, a comparative approach using the principal components analysis. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 14(2), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2021-0015
10.
Anthony JnrB.Abbas PetersenS.HelfertM.GuoH. (2021). Digital transformation with enterprise architecture for smarter cities: A qualitative research approach. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 23(4), 355–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-04-2020-0044
11.
AnttiroikoA. V.ValkamaP.BaileyS. J. (2014). Smart cities in the new service economy: Building platforms for smart services. AI and Society, 29(3), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-013-0464-0
12.
AribowoE. (2019). Analisis Bibliometrik Berkala Ilmiah Names: Journal of Onomastics dan Peluang Riset Onomastik di Indonesia. Aksara, 31(1), 91–111.
13.
AsonguS. A.EfobiU.TchamyouV. S. (2018). Globalisation and governance in Africa: A critical contribution to the empirics. International Journal of Development Issues, 17(1), 2–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDI-04-2017-0038
14.
AsonguS. A.NnannaJ. (2019). Foreign aid, instability, and governance in Africa. Politics and Policy, 47(4), 807–848. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12320
15.
AsonguS. A.OdhiamboN. M. (2019). Governance and social media in African countries: An empirical investigation. Telecommunications Policy, 43(5), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.10.004
16.
AsonguS.TchamyouV.AsonguN.TchamyouN. (2018). The comparative African economics of governance in fighting terrorism. African Security, 11(4), 296–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392206.2018.1560968
17.
BaigS.YenigunC.AlamK. M. (2022). Political capacity and corruption Nexus: Re-examining evidence for developing countries. Economies, 10(6), 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10060127
18.
BarbourL.LindbergR.WoodsJ.CharltonK.BrimblecombeJ. (2022). Local urban government policies to facilitate healthy and environmentally sustainable diet-related practices: A scoping review. Public Health Nutrition, 25(2), 471–487. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021004432
19.
BiswasR.JanaA.AryaK.RamamrithamK. (2019). A good-governance framework for urban management. Journal of Urban Management, 8(2), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2018.12.009
20.
BlockJ.FischC.RehanF. (2020). Religion and entrepreneurship: A map of the field and a bibliometric analysis. Management Review Quarterly, 70(4), 591–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00177-2
21.
BreenM.GillandersR. (2022). Corruption and the burden of regulation: National, regional, and firm-level evidence. Public Finance Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10911421221114203
22.
BreitE.LennerforsT.OlaisonL. (2015). Critiquing corruption : A turn to theory. Ephemera : Theory and Politics in Organization, 15(2), 319–336.
23.
ChangI. C. C.JouS. C.ChungM. K. (2021). Provincialising smart urbanism in Taipei: The smart city as a strategy for urban regime transition. Urban Studies, 58(3), 559–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020947908
24.
ChunS. A.KimD.ChoJ. S.ChuangM.ShinS.JunD. (2021). Framework for smart city model composition: Choice of component design models and risks. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 10(3), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.20210701.oa4
25.
CollignonP.BeggsJ. J.WalshT. R.GandraS.LaxminarayanR. (2018). Anthropological and socioeconomic factors contributing to global antimicrobial resistance: A univariate and multivariable analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(9), e398–e405. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30186-4
26.
CowleyR.CaprottiF. (2019). Smart city as anti-planning in the UK. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 37(3), 428–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775818787506
27.
Dávid-BarrettE.FazekasM. (2020). Anti-corruption in aid-funded procurement: Is corruption reduced or merely displaced?World Development, 132, 105000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105000
28.
Dávid-BarrettE.FazekasM.HellmannO.MárkL.McCorleyC. (2020). Controlling corruption in development aid: New evidence from contract-level data. Studies in Comparative International Development, 55(4), 481–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-020-09315-4
DrápalováE.Di MascioF. (2020). Islands of good government: Explaining successful corruption control in two Spanish cities. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2730
31.
DreesL.LiehrS.BatbuyanB.MargO.MehringM. (2022). In search of a nomadic pastoralism for the 21st century. A transdisciplinary development of future scenarios to foster a social-ecological transformation in Mongolia. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 35(3), 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2022.2100744
EllegaardO.WallinJ. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
FilgueirasF.FlávioC.PalottiP. (2019). Digital transformation and public service delivery in Brazil. Latin American Policy, 10(2), 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/lamp.12169
37.
GaoJ.QiaoW.JiQ.YuC.SunJ.MaZ. (2021). Intensive-use-oriented identification and optimization of industrial land readjustment during transformation and development: A case study of Huai’an, China. Habitat International, 118, 102451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102451
38.
GomezM.PerdigueroJ.Sanzàlex. (2019). Socioeconomic factors affecting water access in rural areas of low and middle-income countries. Water (Switzerland), 11(2), 202. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020202
39.
HaughtonT.RybářM.Deegan-KrauseK. (2022). Corruption, campaigning, and novelty: The 2020 parliamentary elections and the evolving patterns of party politics in Slovakia. East European Politics and Societies, 36(3), 728–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/08883254211012765
40.
HsuW. -L.WuX.YuF. C.MenghindariS. K. (2021, December24–26). Penelitian tentang Sistem Evaluasi Shanghai Smart City di Era 5G Internet of Things [Conference session]. Konferensi Internasional IEEE ke-3 tentang Arsitektur, Konstruksi, Lingkungan, dan Hidraulik 2021, ICACEH 2021, Miaoli, Taiwan. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org
41.
HumprechtE. (2020). How do they debunk “fake news”? A cross-national comparison of transparency in fact checks. Digital Journalism, 8(3), 310–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1691031
42.
IbrahimT. K. T.Al-MatariE. M. (2022). The effect of governance rules application controls and the accrual basis application controls on quality of financial reporting: Applying to Jouf University. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(5), 2831. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052831
43.
IcasianoC. D. A.TaeihaghA. (2021). Governance of the risks of ridesharing in southeast Asia: An in-depth analysis. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(11), 6474. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116474
44.
ImperialeA. J.VanclayF. (2021). The mechanism of disaster capitalism and the failure to build community resilience: Learning from the 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy. Disasters, 45(3), 555–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12431
45.
IshakN.HasibuanR. R.ArbaniT. S. (2020). Bureaucratic and political collaboration towards a good governance system. Bestuur, 8(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.20961/bestuur.v8i1.42922
JacobsN.EdwardsP.MarkovicM.CottrillC. D.SaltK. (2020). Who trusts in the smart city? Transparency, governance, and the Internet of Things. Data & Policy, 2, e11. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2020.11
48.
JameelA.AsifM.HussainA.HwangJ.SahitoN.BukhariM. H. (2019). Assessing the moderating effect of corruption on the e-government and trust relationship: An evidence of an emerging economy. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(23), 6540. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236540
49.
JuwitaR. (2018). Good governance and anti-corruption: Responsibility to protect universal health care in Indonesia. Hasanuddin Law Review, 4(2), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v4i2.1424
50.
KenworthyJ. R. (2006). The eco-city: Ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable city development. Environment and Urbanization, 18(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247806063947
51.
KettererT. D.Rodríguez-PoseA. (2018). Institutions vs. ‘first-nature’ geography: What drives economic growth in Europe’s regions?Papers in Regional Science, 97, S25–S62. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12237
52.
KhalifaE. (2020). The impact of smart city model on national security. Central European Journal of International and Security Studies, 14(1), 52–73. https://doi.org/10.51870/cejiss.a140103
53.
KrozerY. (2017). Innovative offices for smarter cities, including energy use and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 7(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-017-0104-5
54.
LassouP. J. C.HopperT.TsamenyiM.MurindeV. (2019). Varieties of neo-colonialism: Government accounting reforms in Anglophone and Francophone Africa – Benin and Ghana compared. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 65, 102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2019.01.003
LiangD.De JongM.SchravenD.WangL. (2022). Mapping key features and dimensions of the inclusive city: A systematic bibliometric analysis and literature study. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 29(1), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1911873
LuJ.RenL.QiaoJ.YaoS.StrielkowskiW.StreimikisJ. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and corruption: Implications for the sustainable energy sector. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(15), 4128. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154128
59.
MahmoodM. (2016). Enhancing citizens’ trust and confidence in government through digital transformation. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 12(1), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEGR.2016010105
60.
MartinezM. C. V.RodríguezM. C. M.ArandaM. M. (2019). Transparency, accountability and access to information: Limits and scope of the national anti-corruption system in Mexico. Public Policy and Administration, 18(4), 534–546. https://doi.org/10.13165/VPA-19-18-4-12
61.
MarysyukK. B.TomchukI. O.DenysovskyіM. D.GeletskaI. O.KhutornyiB. V. (2021). ‘Diia. digital state’ and E-Government practices as anti-corruption tools in Ukraine. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development, 17, 885–897. https://doi.org/10.37394/232015.2021.17.83
62.
MaugeriM. (2022). Smart contracts, consumer protection, and competing European narratives of private law. German Law Journal, 23(6), 900–909. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2022.58
63.
MerçonJ.VetterS.TengöM.CocksM.BalvaneraP.RosellJ. A.Ayala-OrozcoB. (2019). From local landscapes to international policy: Contributions of the biocultural paradigm to global sustainability. Global Sustainability, 2, e7. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.4
64.
MergelI.EdelmannN.HaugN. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
65.
MietznerM. (2020). Populist anti-scientism, religious polarisation, and institutionalised corruption: How Indonesia’s democratic decline shaped its COVID-19 response. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 39(2), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1868103420935561
66.
MosannenzadehF.BiselloA.VaccaroR.D’AlonzoV.HunterG. W.VettoratoD. (2017). Smart energy city development: A story told by urban planners. Cities, 64, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.02.001
67.
NunkooR.RibeiroM. A.SunnasseeV.GursoyD. (2018). Public trust in mega event planning institutions: The role of knowledge, transparency and corruption. Tourism Management, 66, 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.11.010
68.
OforiI. K.DossouT. A. M.AkadiriS. S. (2023). Towards the quest to reduce income inequality in Africa: Is there a synergy between tourism development and governance?Current Issues in Tourism, 26, 429–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.2021157
69.
OkaforC. C.AigbavboaC.ThwalaW. D. (2023). A bibliometric evaluation and critical review of the smart city concept – making a case for social equity. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 14, 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-06-2020-0098
70.
OkpeV. V.OthmanM. F. (2021). An examination of legislature-executive crisis under the APC led democratic governance in Nigeria’s fourth republic and its impact on good governance, 2015-2019. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 29(2), 1397–1414. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.2.34
71.
OliveiraF.NeryD.CostaD. G.SilvaI.LimaL. (2021). A survey of technologies and recent developments for sustainable smart cycling. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(6), 3422. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063422
QuitzowL.RohdeF. (2022). Imagining the smart city through smart grids? Urban energy futures between technological experimentation and the imagined low-carbon city. Urban Studies, 59(2), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980211005946
74.
RaduL. D. (2020). Disruptive technologies in smart cities: A survey on current trends and challenges. Smart Cities, 3(3), 1022–1038. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities3030051
75.
RakhimovaN.McAslanD.PijawkaD. (2022). Measuring child-friendly cities: Developing and piloting an indicator assessment tool for sustainable neighborhood planning. Journal of Urbanism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2022.2111589
76.
RatmonoD.DarsonoD. (2022). New public management and corruption: Empirical evidence of local governments in Indonesia. Public and Municipal Finance, 11(1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.21511/pmf.11(1).2022.05
77.
Rodríguez-MartínezC. C.García-SánchezI. M.Vicente-GalindoP.Galindo-VillardónP. (2019). Exploring relationships between environmental performance, E-Government and corruption: A multivariate perspective. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(22), 6497. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226497
SadafR.OláhJ.PoppJ.MátéD. (2018). An investigation of the influence of the worldwide governance and competitiveness on accounting fraud cases: A cross-country perspective. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(3), 588. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030588
80.
Sandoval-AlmazánR.CriadoJ. I.Ruvalcaba-GómezE. A. (2020). Different perceptions, different open government strategies: The case of local Mexican public managers. Information Polity, 26(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-180100
81.
van EckN. J.WaltmanL. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
VanclayF. (2020). Reflections on social impact assessment in the 21st century. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(2), 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1685807
WaltmanL.van EckN. J.NoyonsE. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002
86.
WiyonoW.NurmandiA. (2022). Smart transportation development: Success strategy in China, United States, United Kingdom, and India. Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies (IHIET 2022): Artificial Intelligence and Future Applications, 68(Ihiet), 188–195. https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1002731
87.
WiyonoW.QodirZ.LestariL. (2023). Online media trends on political party sentiment ahead of the 2024 election in Indonesia. Journal of Governance, 8(1), 76–100. https://doi.org/10.31506/jog.v8i1.17880
88.
WongP. F.ChiaF. C.KiuM. S.LouE. C. W. (2022). Potential integration of blockchain technology into smart, sustainable city (SSC) developments: A systematic review. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 11, 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-09-2020-0140
89.
WuS.ChristensenT. (2021). Corruption and accountability in China’s rural poverty governance: Main features from Village and Township Cadres. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(16), 1383–1393. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1765799
90.
WuZ.JiangM.LiH.ZhangX. (2019). Mapping the knowledge domain of smart city development to urban sustainability: A scientometric study. Journal of Urban Technology, 11, 6648. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2020.1777045
91.
XiaoyiZ.DonglingW.YumingZ.ManokaranK. B.Benny AntonyA. (2021). IoT driven framework based efficient green energy management in smart cities using multi-objective distributed dispatching algorithm. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 88, 106567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106567
