This article investigates which public values are prioritized in e-government policies, what the connection is to governance approaches and how the public value prioritization can be explained. Strategic horizontal e-government policy documents are analysed from 2000 to 2018 in Belgium, the United Kingdom and the European Union. A public value typology is developed which connects three-ideal type governance approaches: (1) hierarchy, (2) market and (3) network. The results show that market related public values often play a dominant role in e-government policy documents, but so do – to a lesser degree – network related public values. Hierarchy related public values are seldom dominant. At the national level, four factors explain the prioritization: The attention for a specific governance approach at a given time, the influence of politics, the specific topic of the e-government policy document and the role of authors. Power distribution at the EU level plays a key role in defining the public values balance. This articles contributes to the knowledge on public values in e-government policies, the wider discussion on governance approaches in public administration and the need to understand the relation between public values and public value creation.
BannisterF., & ConnollyR. (2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly31(1): 119-28. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002.
2.
BannisterF., & ConnollyR. (2018). The fourth power: ICT and the role of the administrative state in protecting democracy. Information Polity23: 307-23.
3.
BouckaertG.PetersB.G., & VerhoestK. (2010). Shifting Patterns of Public Management The Coordination of Public Sector Organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
BozemanB. (2002). Public-value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review62(2): 145-61.
5.
BozemanB. (2009). Public values theory: Three big questions. International Journal of Public Policy4(5): 369-75.
6.
BrymanA. (2016). Social Research Methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
BrysonJ.M.CrosbyB.C., & BloombergL. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review74(4): 445-56.
8.
De ConinckI., & Van HeckeS. (2018). The regional transposition of EU directives: A comparison of flemish, walloon and scottish performances. European Politics and Society19(1): 79-102. doi: 10.1080/23745118.2017.1346562.
9.
CordellaA., & BoninaC.M. (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly29(4): 512-20. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004.
10.
CordellaA., & PalettiA. (2018). ICTs and value creation in public sector: Manufacturing logic vs service logic. Information Polity23: 125-41.
11.
DepréR., & HondghemA. (2005). De Copernicushervorming in Perspectief: Veranderingsmanagement in de Federale Overheid. Brugge: Vanden Broele.
12.
DickinsonH. (2010). From New Public Management to New Public Governance: The Implications for a ‘New Public Service.’ In The Three Sector Solution: Delivering Public Policy in Collaboration with Not-for-Profits and Business, eds. John Butcher and David Gilchrist. Canberra: ANU Press – The Australian National University, pp. 41-61.
13.
DunleavyP.MargettsH.BastowS., & TinklerJ. (2006). New public management is dead – long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16(3): 467-94.
14.
Van EijkC., & SteenT. (2016). Why engage in co-production of public services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence. International Review of Administrative Sciences82(1): 28-46. http://ras.sagepub.com/content/82/1/28.abstract.
15.
European Commission. 2018. Building Data-Based Economy in the EU. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-18-3365_en.htm (January 23, 2019).
16.
de GraafG.HubertsL., & SmuldersR. (2016). Coping with public value conflicts. Administration and Society48(9): 1101-27.
17.
HaugA.V. (2018). Innovation and network leadership: The bureaucracy strikes back? Information Polity23: 325-39.
18.
HighC.PellingM., & NemesG. (2005). Understanding Informal Institutions: Networks and Communities in Rural Development. Budapest.
19.
HoS.CrompvoetsJ., & StoterJ. (2018). 3D geo-information innovation in europe’s public mapping agencies: A public value perspective. Land7: 1-16.
20.
HondeghemA. (2017). Van Bureaucratie over New Public Management Naar New Public Governance. In Handboek Bestuurskunde, eds. HondeghemA., et al. Brugge: Vanden Broele, p. 493.
21.
HoodC. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration69: 3-19.
22.
HoodC. (1995). The ‘new public management’ in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting Organizations and Society20(2/3): 93-109.
23.
HoogheL., & MarksG. (2001). Multi-Level Governance and European Integration. Lanham/Boulder/New York/Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
24.
HoogheL., & MarksG. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review97(2): 233-43.
25.
HubertL., & van HoutE. (2011). Goed bestuur: Kiezen of delen? Bestuurkunde2: 53-62.
26.
JaspersS., & SteenT. (2018). Realizing public values: Enhancement or obstruction? Exploring value tensions and coping strategies in the co-production of social care. Public Management Review1-22.
27.
JørgensenT.B. (2007). Public Values, Their Nature, Stability and Change. The Case of Denmark. Public Administration Quarterly30(4): 365-98.
28.
JørgensenT.B., & BozemanB. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society39(3): 354-81.
29.
JørgensenT.B., & VrangbaekK. (2011). Value dynamics: Towards a framework for analyzing public value changes. International Journal of Public Administration34(8): 486-96.
30.
De Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers. 2014. De Belgische Regeringen – Historisch Overzicht.
31.
KarkinN., & JanssenM. (2014). Evaluating websites from a public value perspective: A review of turkish local government websites. International Journal of Information Management34(3): 351-68.
32.
KellyG.MulganG., & MuersS.2002. Creating Public Value – An Analytical Framework for Public Service Reform. London.
33.
KickertW.J.M.1997. Public governance in the netherlands: An alternative to anglo-american ‘managerialism’. Public Administration75: 731-52.
34.
KickertW.J.M.2001. Public management of hybrid organizations: Governance of quasi-autonomous executive agencies. International Public Management Journal4: 135-50.
35.
KluckhohnC.1952. Values and Value-Orientations in the Theory of Action: An Exploration in Definition and Classification. In Towards a General Theory of Action, eds. ParsonsT., & ShillsE.A. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 388-433.
36.
LevyR.2003. Critical success factors in public management reform: The case of the european commission. International Review of Administrative Sciences69: 553-66.
37.
MeijerA., & BekkersV.2015. A metatheory of e-government: Creating some order in a fragmented research field. Government Information Quarterly32: 237-45.
38.
MeulemanL.2008. Theoretical Framework. In Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets, ed. Louis Meuleman. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 9-86.
39.
MeulemanL.2014. Governance Frameworks. In Global Environmental Change, ed. Bill Freedman. Dordrecht: Springer ScienceBusiness Media, pp. 885-901. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63524-2.00013-0.
40.
MisuracaG., & ViscusiG.2015. Shaping public sector innovation theory: An interpretative framework for ICT-enabled governance innovation. Electronic Commerce Research15(3): 303-22.
41.
MooreM.H.1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
42.
Palmhøj NielsenC.2003. Værdierne Vogtere. Om Regulerende Organisationer i Staten. In På Sporet Af En Offentlig Identitet. Værdier i Stat, Amter Og Kommuner, ed. Torben Beck Jørgensen. Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
43.
PollittC.2010. Technological change: A central yet neglected feature of public administration. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy and Policy3(2): 31-53. doi: 10.2478/v10110-010-0003-z.
44.
PollittC., & BouckaertG.2011. Oxford University Press Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis – New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State.
45.
PollittC., & BouckaertG.2017. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis – Into the Age of Austerity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
Publications Office of the European Union. 2016. Division of Competences within the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Aai0020 (November 23, 2019).
47.
RaeijmaekersD., & MaeseeleP.2014. Ideologisch pluralisme in vlaamse nieuwsmedia: De belgische regeringsformatie 2010–2011. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap42(2): 145-64.
48.
ReinoA., & JaaksonK.2014. Value conflicts embedded in service-oriented academic professions. Industry and Higher Education27(1): 15-25.
49.
RhodesR.A.W.1996. The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies44(4): 652-67.
50.
RijkeJ., et al. 2012. Fit-for-purpose governance: A framework to make adaptive governance operational. Environmental Science and Policy22: 73-84. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.010.
51.
SavoldelliA.CodagnoneC., & MisuracaG.2014. Understanding the e-government paradox: Learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption. Government Information Quarterly31: S63-71. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.008.
52.
SteenT.NabatchiT., & BrandD.2016. Introduction: Special Issue on the Coproduction of Public Services. International Review of Administrative Sciences. doi: 10.1177/0020852315618187.
53.
TerzisG.2017. Austerity is an algorithm. Logic Magazine3.
54.
UK Government. History – Past Prime Ministers. https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers (January 22, 2019).
55.
VrangbækK.2003. Værdilandskabet i Den Offentlige Sektor. Resultater Fraen Survey. In På Sporet Af En Offentlig Identitet. Værdier i Stat, Amter Og Kommuner, ed. Torben Beck Jørgensen. Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, pp. 105-33.
56.
VrangbækK.2009. Public sector values in denmark: A survey analysis. International Journal of Public Administration32(6): 508-35.
57.
van der WalZ.de GraagG., & LawtonA.2011. Competing values in public management. Public Management Review13(3): 331-41.
