Abstract:

Public ICT (Information Communication Technologies) investments do not necessarily result in improvement of effectiveness or efficiency regarding public services. Hungary has been spending around 1,2 billion Euros using funds from the European Social Cohesion and Structural Funds during the period of 2007-2018 for modernizing its public administration. Taking the investments into other sectors as a comparison, this means that more than 25% of ICT development projects go to the public sector, which is in the magnitude of the financial, commercial and media sectors of Hungary. While the effects of digital transformation are unquestionable in these latter sectors, effectiveness of public ICT spending is problematic. When we look at the measurement scoreboards used in the EU and UN, we find Hungary not even improved its position, but in some areas has lost competiveness and fell behind. In this paper we show using some elements of earlier findings in digital innovation studies on public administration, that four key factors should be analysed in detail to find out reasons behind this phenomenon, Infrastructural questions, although need constant development and improvement, do not seem to be key explaining factors of lack of productivity improvement. Nor the techno-legislative institutions seem to be obstacles in Hungary´s case, but rather some alignment in policy objectives and consistency.

References:

[1] BANNISTER F ; CONNOLLY R, “Forward to the past: Lessons for the future of egovernment from the story so far,” Information Polity, vol. 17, no. 3-4, pp. 211-226, 2012.[2] JUKIC, T.; TODOROVSKI L.; NEMESLAKI, A. “Investigation of E-government Research Field: What Has Been Done and How to Proceed?,” in 23rd NISPAcee Annual Conference, Tbilisi, Georgia, 2015. May 21–23, 2015.[3] ZABUKOVSEK, S; BOBEK, S; VOSNER, S; SEBJAN, U. “Bibliometric Analysis of E-government Research,” in Multi-Level (e) Governance: Is ICT a means to enhance transparency and democracy? CEE e-Dem and e-Gov Days 2016, Vienna-Budapest, 2016.[4] BARRETT, M.; DAVIDSON, E.; PRABHU, J.; VARGO, L. “Service Innovation In The Digital Age: Key Contributions And Future Directions,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 135-154, 2015.[5] UNITED NATIONS, United Nations E-Government Survey 2016, New York: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2016.[6] UNPAN, “United Nations E-Government Survey 2014: E-Government for the Future we Want,” United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New-York, 2014.[7] RANA, N.; WILLIAMS, M.; DWIVEDI, Y.; WILLIAMS, J. “Theories and Theoretical Models for Examining the Adoption of E-Government Services,” e-Service Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 26-56, 2012.[8] SZÁDECZKY, T. “Information Security - Strategy, codification and awareness,” in ICT Driven Public Service Innovation, Budapest, Publisher of the National University of Public Service, 2014, pp. 99-112.[9] KADAR, K.; “Good Governance: International Dimension”, Budapest: National University of Public Service, 2015.[10] DAVENPORT, T.: “Process Innovation: Reengineering work through information technology”, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1993.[11] VANDER ELST, S.; DE RYNCK, F. “Diving in the Dynamics of Alignment Process in Public Organizations: Lessons for a Reconceptualized Alignment Framework,” in EGPA Conference, Speyer, Germany, 2014.[12] ALHARBI, A.; KANG, K.; HAWRYSZKIEWYCZ, I. “The Influence of Trust and subjective Norms on Citizens’ Intentions to Engage in E-participation on E-government Websites,” in Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Adalaide, 2015.[13] LIN, F.; FOFANAH, S.; LIANG, D. “Assessing citizen adoption of e-Government initiatives in Gambia: A validation of the technology acceptance model in information systems success,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 271-279, 2011.[14] WELCH, E.; HINNANT, C.; MOON, J. “Linking Citizen Satisfaction with E-Government and Trust in Government,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 371–391, 2009.[15] CSO, Az infokommunikációs technológiák és szolgáltatások helyzete Magyarországon 2015 (Status of ICT and related services in Hungary-2015) - in Hungarian, Budapest: Central Statistical Office, 2016.[16] KAISER, T. Ed., “Jó Állam Jelentés (Good Governance Report) 2016 “- in Hungarian, Budapest: NKE Kiadó, Improved and Abridged Edition, 2016.[17] CSUHAI, S. Ed., “Jelentés a Jó Állam Véleményfelmérésről (Report on the Opinion Survey of the Good Governance Report)” - in Hungarian, Budapest: NKE Kiadó, 2016.[18] HAMMERSCHMID, G.; OPRISOR, A.; ŠTIMAC, V. “COCOPS Executive Survey on Public Sector Reform in Europe,” Coordination for Cohesion in the Public Sector of the Future (COCOPS): www.cocops.eu, 7th Framework Programme, 2013.[19] GELLÉN, M. “Bureaucrats As Innovators? Statistical Analysis On Innovative Capacity Within The Hungarian Central Civil Service,” Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. Special Issue, pp. 38-54, 2016.[20] MEDAGLIA, R. “eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006–2011),” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 3, p. 346–360, 2012.[21] IRANI, Z.; WEERAKKODY, V.; KAMAL, M.; HINDI NITHAM, M.; ANOUZE, O.; EL‐HADDADEH, R.; LEE, H.; OSMANI M.; AND AL‐AYOUBI, B. “An analysis of methodologies utilised in e-government research: A user satisfaction perspective,” Journal of Enterprise Information Management, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 298-313, 2012.[22] BROWN, D. “Electronic government and public administration,” International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 71, no. 2, p. 241.254, 2005.[23] ARANYOSSY, M.; NEMESLAKI, A.; FEKÓ, A. “Empirical Analyis of Public ICT Development Project Objectives in Hungary,” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 45-54, 2014.[24] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, “Scoreboard 2014 - Developments in eGovernment in the EU 2014,” 28 05 2014. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/scoreboard-2014-developments-egovernment-eu-2014. [Accessed 26 11 2014].[25] NEMESLAKI, A. “The theory of "IT-Government Alignment": Assessment of strategic fit in Hungary´s case,” in Multi-Level (e) Governance: Is ICT a means to enhance transparency and democracy? CEE e-Dem and e-Gov Days 2016, Vienna-Budapest, 2016.[26] CORDELLA, A.; TEMPINI, M. “E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 3, p. 279–286, 2015.[27] BALTHASAR, A.; GOLOB, B.; HANSEN, H.; MÜLLER-TÖRÖK, R.; NEMESLAKI, A.; PICHLER, J.; PROSSER, A.; “Multi-Level (e) Governance: Is ICT a means to enhance transparency and democracy? CEE e-Dem and e-Gov Days 2016”, A. Balthasar, B. Golob, H. Hansen, R. Müller-Török, A. Nemeslaki, J. Pichler and A. Prosser, Eds., Vienna-Budapest: Austrian Computer Society, 2016, pp. 259-272.[28] OCSKAY, GY. “ICT enabled cross-border governance,” in ICT Driven Public Service Delivery: Comparative Approach Focusing on Hungary, Budapest, National University of Public Service, 2014, pp. 123-136[29] RODRIGUEZ, B.; MANUEL, P.; MEIJER, A. “Smart Governance: Using Literature Review and Empirical Analysis to Build a Research Model,” SOCIAL SCIENCE COMPUTER REVIEW , vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 673-692, 2016.[30] PEE, L.; KANKANHALLI, A. “Interactions among factors influencing knowledge management in public-sector organizations: A resource-based view.,” Governement Information Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 188-199, 2016[31] KISILOWSKI, A.; KISILOWSKA, I. “Administrategia (in Hungarian)”, Budapest: HVG, 2017.