The purpose of this study is to examine the role that digital technology (DT) plays in enhancing public management reforms in the local government institutions of a landlocked country: specifically, Uganda. The study used structural equation modelling (SEM) to investigate the mediating effects of competence and inclusive policy from a survey data collected in 2021. It also analysed other latent variables in the model in order to present an empirical understanding of digitally-driven public management reforms. The aim is to provide a comparative analysis with other developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The findings show positive and significant relationships exist between DT and digitally-enabled public management reform (DEPMR). Moreover, there is a partial complementary mediation effect of competence in the DT-DEPMR relationship. However, inclusive policy does not have a mediating effect on the relationship.
AndersenK. V. (2002). Reengineering public sector organisations using information technology. In Reinventing government in the information age (pp. 334–352). Routledge.
2.
AnderssonT.LiffR. (2012). Multiprofessional cooperation and accountability pressures: Consequences of a post-new public management concept in a new public management context. Public Management Review, 14(6), 835–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.650053
3.
AndrewsR.Van de WalleS. (2013). New public management and citizens’ perceptions of local service efficiency, responsiveness, equity and effectiveness. Public Management Review, 15(5), 762–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.725757
4.
AnsellC.SørensenE.TorfingJ. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems. Public Management Review, 23(7), 949–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1820272
5.
AsgarkhaniM. (2005). Digital government and its effectiveness in public management reform: A local government perspective. Public Management Review, 7(3), 465–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030500181227
6.
BernhardI.WihlborgE. (2022). Bringing all clients into the system–professional digital discretion to enhance inclusion when services are automated. Information Polity, 27(3), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200268
7.
BertzJ.QuinnM.BurnsJ. (2024). Public service management reform: An institutional work and collective framing approach. Public Management Review, 26(11), 3151–3175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2207576
8.
BrysonJ. M.CrosbyB. C.BloombergL. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12238
9.
ByrneB. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327574IJT0101_4
10.
CarriónG. C.NitzlC.RoldánJ. L. (2017). Mediation analyses in partial least squares structural equation modeling: Guidelines and empirical examples. In Partial least squares path modeling: Basic concepts, methodological issues and applications (pp. 173–195). Springer.
11.
CelikV.YesilyurtE. (2013). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education. Computers & Education, 60(1), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.06.008
12.
CepikuD.Bonomi SavignonA. (2012). Governing cutback management: Is there a global strategy for public administrations?International Journal of Public Sector Management, 25(6/7), 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551211260603
13.
CordellaA.BoninaC. M. (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004
14.
CordellaA.TempiniN. (2015). E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005
15.
CorvoL.SavignonA. B.CepikuD.MeneguzzoM. (2014). Implementation of strategic and performance management reforms in Italian central governments. In Developments in strategic and public management: Studies in the US and Europe (pp. 121–135). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
16.
CroasmunJ. T.OstromL. (2011). Using Likert-type scales in the social sciences. Journal of Adult Education, 40(1), 19–22.
17.
CronbachL. J.MeehlP. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
18.
CurrieW. L. (2012). Institutional isomorphism and change: The national programme for IT–10 years on. Journal of Information Technology, 27(3), 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2012.18
19.
DanneelsL.ViaeneS. (2015). Simple rules strategy to transform government: An ADR approach. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 516–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.006
20.
DawesS. S. (2009). Governance in the digital age: A research and action framework for an uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.12.003
21.
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
22.
ErikssonE.AnderssonT. (2024). The ‘service turn’in a new public management context: A street-level bureaucrat perspective. Public Management Review, 26(7), 2014–2038. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2241051
23.
European Commission. (2013). Communication from the Commission. EU guidelines for the application of state aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband Networks, 26-1-2013, Brussels.
24.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
25.
GeuijenK.MooreM.CederquistA.RonningR.Van TwistM. (2017). Creating public value in global wicked problems. Public Management Review, 19(5), 621–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192163
26.
GlynosJ.HowarthD. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. Routledge.
27.
HairJ. F.AndersonR. E.BabinB. J.BlackW. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7). Pearson.
28.
Hair JrJ. F.MatthewsL. M.MatthewsR. L.SarstedtM. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123.
29.
Hair JrJ. F.SarstedtM.MatthewsL. M.RingleC. M. (2016). Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Part I-method. European Business Review, 28(1), 63–76.
30.
HalfacreeK. H. (1995). Talking about rurality: Social representations of the rural as expressed by residents of six English parishes. Journal of Rural Studies, 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0743-0167(94)00039-C
31.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360
32.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
33.
HayesA. F.ScharkowM. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter?Psychological Science, 24(10), 1918–1927.
34.
HenselerJ.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
35.
IacobucciD.SaldanhaN.DengX. (2007). A meditation on mediation: Evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70020-7
36.
IngramsA. (2015). Mobile phones, smartphones, and the transformation of civic behavior through mobile information and connectivity. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 506–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.007
37.
IraniZ.KamalM. (2016). Transforming government: People, process, and policy. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 10(2), 190–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-03-2016-0016
38.
LundgrenA. S.JohanssonA. (2017). Digital rurality: Producing the countryside in online struggles for rural survival. Journal of Rural Studies, 51, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.02.001
39.
MacayaJ. F.RibeiroM. M.JereissatiT.dos Reis LimaC.CunhaM. A. (2021). Gendering the digital divide: The use of electronic government services and implications for the digital gender gap. Information Polity, 26(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200307
MartinsC.OliveiraT.PopovičA. (2014). Understanding the Internet banking adoption: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application. International Journal of Information Management, 34(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.06.002
42.
MastersE. R. (1974). The relationship between number of response categories and reliability of Likert-type questionnaires 1. Journal of Educational Measurement, 11(1), 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1974.tb00970.x
43.
MazzucatoM.KattelR. (2020). COVID-19 and public-sector capacity. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(Supplement_1), S256–S269. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graa031
44.
NguarK. D. A. (2022). A systematic review of technological innovation and e-government on public management reforms in developing countries. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 14(3), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2022.125883
45.
NguarK. D. A.AppolloniA. (2025). The impact of digital learning and capacity building on employees’ performance in humanitarian organizations. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 23(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2024.2328177
46.
NitzlC.RoldanJ. L.CepedaG. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1849–1864. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2015-0302
47.
NyhlénS.GidlundK. L. (2022). In conversation with digitalization: Myths, fiction or professional imagining?Information Polity, 27(3), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200287
48.
OduroS.Adhal NguarK. D.De NiscoA.AlharthiR. H. E.MaccarioG.BrunoL. (2022). Corporate social responsibility and SME performance: A meta-analysis. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 40(2), 184–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-05-2021-0145
PetersB. G.PierreJ. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024379
51.
PollittC. (2000). Is the emperor in his underwear? An analysis of the impacts of public management reform. Public Management an International Journal of Research and Theory, 2(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030000000009
52.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis-into the age of austerity. Oxford University Press.
53.
PreacherK. J.ZhangZ.ZyphurM. J. (2016). Multilevel structural equation models for assessing moderation within and across levels of analysis. Psychological methods, 21(2), 189.
54.
RobertsE.TownsendL. (2016). The contribution of the creative economy to the resilience of rural communities: Exploring cultural and digital capital. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(2), 197–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12075
55.
RoztockiN.SojaP.WeistrofferH. R. (2019). The role of information and communication technologies in socioeconomic development: Towards a multi-dimensional framework. Information Technology for Development, 25(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2019.1596654
56.
SaleminkK.StrijkerD.BosworthG. (2017). Rural development in the digital age: A systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability, adoption, and use in rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.001
57.
TownsendL.SathiaseelanA.FairhurstG.WallaceC. (2013). Enhanced broadband access as a solution to the social and economic problems of the rural digital divide. Local Economy, 28(6), 580–595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094213496974
58.
WeerakkodyV.OmarA.El-HaddadehR.Al-BusaidyM. (2016). Digitally-enabled service transformation in the public sector: The lure of institutional pressure and strategic response towards change. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 658–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.06.006
59.
WoodsM. (1997). Discourses of power and rurality: Local politics in Somerset in the 20th century. Political Geography, 16(6), 453–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(96)00021-2
60.
YlinenM. (2021). Incorporating agile practices in public sector IT management: A nudge toward adaptive governance. Information Polity, 26(3), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200269
61.
ZhaoX.Lynch JrJ. G.ChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
