Content uploaded by Regina Connolly
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Regina Connolly on Aug 26, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and
programme for research
Frank Bannister
a,
⁎,ReginaConnolly
b
a
School of Computer Science and Statistics, Trinity College,Dublin 2, Ireland
b
Dublin City University School of Business, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland
abstractarticle info
Available online 4 January 2014
Keywords:
eGovernance
eGovernment
Sustainability
Complexity
Literature review
Many adjectives are usedin the context of transforming governmentincluding making it more open,transparent,
participative, agile, responsive and so forth. Most, if not all, of these adjectives are either in themselves public
values or reflect one or more underlying public values. This paper examines the relationship between informa-
tion and communications technology (ICT), transformative government and such public values and proposes a
frameworkfor further research. A study of the literature on public values isused to develop a typology of public
sector valueslikely to be affected by ICT.This impact is examinedfor a number of these values. For others hypoth-
eses about the impact of ICT on other values are then posited. It is argued that ICTs can and do have transforma-
tional impacts on public values, though not alwaysfor the better, concludes that values are a potentialpowerful
lens for considering such impacts and sets out a programme of research into these relationships.
© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Transformation is about change, but more than mere change. Trans-
formation implies a degree of change that, inter alia,createsarecognisable
and significant difference in the ex ante and ex post states of the trans-
formed entity. When considered in the context of government, transfor-
mation may take the form of a new modus operandi,animportantnew
service or a major shift in a level of performance (Bannister & Connolly,
2011a).
It may also involve a change in values or in the value system. This ar-
ticle will argue that no matter what form transformation in government
takes, the outcome involves a change of some nature in, or related to,
one or more public sector values. This may take the form of a new
value, it may involve a change in the importance of an existing value
or a step change in the delivery of a value. The term ‘value’has yet to
be defined and this will be done in the next section, but almost any
transformation that is discussed in this context is value-based; other-
wise it would have little purpose. Sometimes the value in question is
single and explicit in the form of the transformation itself, for example
greater transparency or efficiency. On other occasions multiple values
are implicit in a given change. Transforming responsiveness, for exam-
ple, enjoins values of efficiency, effectiveness and possibly accountabil-
ity and other values.
This paper provides a theoretical examination of the relationship be-
tween ICT and public sector values. In doing so, it seeks to build upon
and extendthe ideas proposed by Bonina and Cordella (2009) on the re-
lationship between e-government and public value. A key objective is to
enquire whether values can be used as a method of defining what is
meant by the otherwise ambivalent term ‘transformation’.‘Transforma-
tion’has been a frequent theme of e-government discourse in recent
years, but what differentiates transformation from mere change has
yet to be adequately explained. This paper endeavours not only to clar-
ify this difference, but also to question what makes technology-enabled
change transformative and to what extent ICT can and does transform
public sector values? One uncomfortable conclusion that will emerge
from this discussion is that when such transformation occurs it can be
for worse as well as for better. Either way, a deeper understanding of
technology-enabled transformation can help government to use ICT to
deliver beneficial improvements in these values.
2. The nature of public sector values
2.1. Value and values
The English word ‘value’has a number of related meanings and am-
biguity about whichof those meanings is intended can sometimes cloud
discussions of the subject. Two interpretations are widely used in public
sector discourse and it is necessary at the outset to distinguish between
them. One way to make this distinction is to put the words ‘the’and ‘a’
before ‘value’. When discussing the value of something, we are, broadly
speaking, referring to what it is worth. Economists, for example, talk
Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 119–128
⁎Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Frank.Bannister@tcd.ie (F. Bannister), Regina.Connolly@tcd.ie
(R. Connolly).
0740-624X/$ –see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Government Information Quarterly
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf
about value in exchange; governments talk about ‘value for money’or
‘value for the taxpayer’and both theorists and practitioners talk about
‘public value’(see Subsection 2.2). Value in this sense can in principle
be measured although this may often be difficult to do in practice
(Bannister & Remenyi, 2000; Remenyi, Bannister, & Money, 2007). The
second meaning relates to a value that is held by people (and can be
held collectively by organisations). The exact meaning of ‘values’in
this sense is similarly difficult to define with precision. For the purpose
of this paper therefore, a value will be defined as a mode of behaviour, ei-
ther a way of doing things or an attribute of a way of doing things, that is
held to be right. Whilst not a perfect definition, it is a tractable one.
In defining the word ‘values’, it is worth noting that there is a debate
about the exact meanings of the three words: values, ethics and princi-
ples. The definition of values presented here is similar to, but not the
same as, that sometimes used for ethics. Ethics is concerned with the
nature of right and wrong, but some definitions of public sector values
extend well beyond this conceptualization of ethics. Often public sector
values are described as ‘new’values, examples of which include leader-
ship and innovation. Henry (1998) maintainsthat values may be ethical,
non ethical or unethical. The same issue exists in relation to principles.
Principles are broader than values, although, as Kernaghan (2003)
points out, the words ‘principles’and ‘values’are often used as if they
are interchangeable. The definition of values that is employed in this
paper embodies a broader sense of the word ‘right’than is normally un-
derstood in ethics. For example, being efficient is considered the right
thing for public servants to be, but efficiency is, at best, a borderline
case for consideration as a question of morality. This will turn out to
be a subtle, but important, distinction when considering the impact of
ICT on values.
Three further comments are worth making. The first is that the def-
inition of public sector values used in this paper implies that values are
expressible using a verb. Thus, using this definition, ‘efficiency’is not a
value, but ‘doing things in an efficient manner’is. In stating a value it
is unnecessary pedantically to include a verb every time provided it is
clear that an action or mode of behaviour is implicit in the value stated.
Whilst this may seem like a slightly odd way of defining values, it has
the advantage that it avoids other potential problems with meaning.
Secondly there is the important question of ‘held to be right’by
whom? Traditional answers to this include the public, citizens or the
so-called ‘reasonable man’.Inanattempttoaddressaparallelquestion
in ethics, Pemberton (1998) suggests an ‘Ethical Litmus Test’of eleven
questions including ‘Would you be happy with this action if your role
and that of the subject of your action were reversed?’and ‘Is there any-
one, particularly your mother, from whom you would like to conceal
this action?’Despite such ingenious attempts to deal with this question,
it remains problematic. There are values such as transparency about
which there exists a broad spectrum of views (Bannister & Connolly,
2011b). In this article, something will be considered to be right when
all or nearly all citizens of the state consider it to be right.
Thirdly there are other definitions of ‘values’. Economists sometimes
define values as tastes or utility functions (Aaron, Mann, & Taylor,
1993). Yankelovich (1993) discusses values in terms of beliefs that peo-
ple hold dear. He defines a set of American core values which include
some that fall broadly within the definition used in this article (fairness;
equality of opportunity) and some which clearly do not (achievement;
luck). Waldo (1980) talks of ‘ethical obligations’. Some of the other def-
initions are discussed below. The approach used in this article will be to
consider how public servants or, more broadly, public administrations
should behave. To be meaningful in the context of ICT, values must
therefore be convertible intosome behaviouralform that ICT has the po-
tential to modify or transform.
2.2. Public value and e-governance
A further distinction worth making at the outset is the distinction
between public sector values and the broader concepts of public value
and (good) e-governance. The concepts of both value and values come
together in the managerial concept of public value as set out by Moore
(1995) (see also the discussion of public value management by Stoker
(2006) and the various contributions in Bennington and Moore
(2011)). Kelly, Mulgan and Myers (2002) propose a typology of public
value as services, outcomes and trust. This typology has been adopted
by a number of scholars, for example by Castelnovo and Simonetta
(2007) in their examination of public value in Lombardy and by
Kearns (2004) in his discussion of public value and e-government.
A parallel thread in the literature is the relationship of ICT and good
governance. Bonina and Cordella (2009) analyse values as those
supporting public sector reform and thosesupporting good governance,
i.e. between managerial values and democratic values. Other authors
have examined the role of technology in public governance and tried
to develop the concept of e-governance though the latter has proved a
somewhat slippery concept (Bannister & Connolly, 2012; Grindle,
2010; Löffler, 2003; Misuraca, 2012; Misuraca, Alfano, & Viscusi, 2011;
Misuraca, Reid, & Deakin, 2011). Whilst public value and good gover-
nance per se are beyond the scope of this paper, what is clear from the
literature is that public sector values underpin both public value and
good governance in a variety of ways. A pertinent illustration of this is
provided by Kearns (2004, p21) when he comments on the fact that
fairness of access is “not the guiding principle of e-government policy
in the UK”. Any transformation in a value will therefore have implica-
tions for both of these. This issue is discussed further in the recommen-
dations for further research at the end of this paper.
2.3. Scope of this paper
Both ICT in government and public sector values are large fields of
study. To keep the scope manageable, discussion of value/ethical issues
in ICT/e-government will be confined to the field of public administra-
tion, here meant in the European sense of the core civil service that ad-
ministers the state, and the judicial systems (policing, prisons and
courts). Wider public domains such as health and education are not
considered. This is in part because they are not, with some exceptions,
generally considered in the public administration value literature and
in part because fields like health give rise to ethical and value questions
that are less matters of politically neutral public administration than of
political or even religious conviction. Furthermore, in many countries,
health and education are partially or even wholly in the private sector
and the applicability of many public values (such as equality of access
or accountability) in such circumstances is problematic. Whilst this con-
straint risks omitting some sector specific values from this discussion,
the focus will be on values which are universally accepted or as near
to this as makes no difference. For the purposes of this article, ICT in gov-
ernment is therefore defined to mean the use of ICT to facilitate the ad-
ministration of the state by the central civil service and local or state/
municipal government and the services that these bodies and their di-
rect agents provide, as well as thedelivery of such services electronically
(via the Internet, the Web, SMS or other electronic media) to citizens.
The nature of the central administrations varies considerably, even
within Europe (Andersen & Eliassen, 1993; Brans, 1997; Frissen,
Brussaard, Snellen, & Wolters, 1992). Whilst much of the discussion
that follows is based on the UK/Irish model, the concepts and values
discussed are applicable in most democratic states.
ICT impacts on the majority of public service values because itis both
an enabler and an embedder.
1
It is an enabler in the sense that it makes
possible actions or activities that would be impractical in its absence. It
is an embedder in the sense that it is possible to build values into sys-
tems. In discussions of ICT ethics/values in the public sector, certain
1
‘Embedder’is not a word in dictionary English. It is used here in the sense of some-
thing into which one can build (embed) values.
120 F. Bannister, R. Connolly / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 119–128
values, notably privacy, tend to dominate the stage. This article will seek
to widen thedebate by examining the impact, actual or potential, of ICT
on a range of values in the public sphere.
2.4. Research approach
Afirst requirement of this enquiry was to establish acomprehensive
list of broadly accepted public values. A secondary objective was to ex-
plore typologies of such values. To do this two approaches were used. A
number of public documents including the Nolan report (Nolan, 1995)
and American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) Code of Ethics
as well as several widely cited papers were taken as starting points.
Using the reference lists in these publications, other papers were exam-
ined in a form of snowball sampling. In parallel a series of searches for a
number of related terms including “public value”,“public values”,“public
ethics”and “public sector values”were carried out using Google Scholar.
The objective was to achieve saturation, i.e. to arrive at a point where no
new values were being identified. In some cases this required interpreta-
tion where what were in essence the same or similar values were
expressed in different ways. This was particularly true of the longest list
found, the 72 values proposed by Beck Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007)
which is discussed below. Many of these sets of values were classified
into typologies. In practice, saturation was reached fairly quickly. The
list of values identified was then filtered and values (such as ‘luck’)
which were not compatible with the definition set out in Subsection 2.1
were eliminated. The key papers identified from this process are
discussed in the following section.
3. Public sector values and ICT
3.1. Categorizing values
With a small number of exceptions (privacy and transparency being
two) there is surprisingly little to be found in the literature on the sub-
ject of ICT and public sector values. One early contribution is a model for
establishing which public sector values are affected by ICT that waspro-
posed by Hood in 1991.Hood suggested the concept of core administra-
tive values which he classified as sigma,theta and lambda values. Sigma
values were related to economy and responsibility, theta values to recti-
tude and lambda value to security and reliability. Hood suggested that
the lambda values were the most recent and therefore most likely to
be affected by the emergence of ICT. It is not obvious that this is so
and to date there has been no empirical investigation of this claim.
With regard to sigma values, notwithstanding a lengthy list of public
sector ICT disasters (ComputerWorld, 2004; House of Commons,
2000; Mathieson, 2007; Purao & De Souza, 2011), good, technology en-
abled, transaction, information and reporting systems have facilitated
the delivery of ever more efficient and effective public services. The im-
pact of ICT on Hood's theta values is more ambiguous. ICT is unlikely to
impact much on a civil servant's rectitude, but (to take but one value) it
could impact on fairness where, say, those with better education and ac-
cess have better access to information and services than the socially or
economically disadvantaged and steps are not taken to remedy such
an imbalance. Similarly the impact of ICT on transparency remains am-
bivalent (Breton, Galeoitti, Salmon, & Winrobe, 2007; Fiorini, 2007;
Grimmelikhuijsen, 2009; Hood & Heald, 2006)andtheimpactonlambda
values is equally unclear. The ability of ICT to increase robustness and
adaptability has historically been somewhat mixed, though modern
middleware and application software tools have become progressively
less locked into the rigidities of older technologies.
During the 1990s the influence of new public management changed
the debate about public sector values both in terms of emphasis and in
the emergence of new values such as being entrepreneurial. Writing
only a few years after Hood's contribution, Gray and Jenkins (1995) ex-
amined this change in thinking about public administration and the
emergence of the new paradigm of public management in the UK
from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s suggesting that over this peri-
od there had been many challenges to traditional public sector ad-
ministration concepts (although they do not define these). Perhaps
the contribution which most accurately reflected this shift at the
time was Osborne and Gaebler's (1993) ‘Reinventing Government’.
For Osborne and Gaebler the re-invention of government required
structures that were mission driven, decentralised and entrepre-
neurial. Such concepts brought with them changing ideas about pub-
lic sector values.
3.2. Defending traditional values
Against this tide of change, the traditional civil service and its value
systems have had their defenders. In the same year that Gray and
Jenkins were reflecting on the shift in emphasis to new values,
Chapman and O'Toole (1995) presented a robust defence of the tradi-
tional values and ethos of the UK civil service. The civil service, they
claimed, had been adversely compared with business, the assumption
being that business management is much more efficient and effective.
They argued, however, that:
“…the values and traditions that, in the past, inspired and motivated
many devoted public servants, have been insufficiently appreciated
and consequently, they have been undermined by the new empha-
sis.”(p3)
They claim that the traditional British civil service (and by implica-
tion the Irish civil service which is based on the British model) has
often been the envy of other countries. There is a particular ethos and
code that is absorbed by the process of learning on the job. The process-
es of socialisation used by the civil service to achieve this are easy to car-
icature, but their real value is underestimated.
“While the government maygenuinely believe that the values of im-
partiality, integrity, objectivity, selection and promotion on merit
and accountability are vital to the civil service, it may be arguedthat
the current reform programmes do little to protect these values.”
(p11).
Chapman and O'Toole argued that, in the public sector, citizens often
put higher value on personal freedoms and opportunities to participate
in decision making and demand far more accountability than one finds
in the bestmotivated managerialist arrangements. This has implications
for values. Bowman, Berman, and West (2001, p195) go so far as to as-
sert that:
“A near-consensus exists about the values that underpin public life:
responsiveness, fairness, economy, integrity and competence. While
authors vary, virtually all believe that these values constitute admin-
istrative responsibility.”
The transition from traditional government use of ICT to internet-
enabled e-government which occurred in the 1990s overlapped with
this shift in thinking and it was inevitable that the two would become
intertwined. Whilst technology was occasionally invoked by politicians
as part of this reforming process, as already noted, scholarly discussion
of the relationship between technology and public sector values has
remained relatively muted though there have been some interesting
contributions. For example Cordella and Willcocks (2010) emphasise
the importance of what they call a “distinctive public services manage-
ment ethos”in the use of outsourcing by the public sector. Similarly, Jos
and Tompkins (2009) defend traditional values and in particular their
role in protecting multiple constituencies, in their words, “multiple pub-
lics and diverse administrative settings”(p1080), against the modern
conceptualisation of the citizen as a customer.
121F. Bannister, R. Connolly / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 119–128
3.3. Sources of values
Whether or not they “constitute administrative responsibility”
Bowman's list cited above is far from a complete set of public sector
values. In fact, notwithstanding the large literature on public adminis-
tration, there is no neat, comprehensive body of theory from which
one can draw a ready-made set of universally agreed values for public
administration though, as will be seen, there is no shortage of candidate
lists. A first task, as outlined in Subsection 2.3, is therefore to examine
some of these sources and try to distill out a set of public values that is
likely to have strong support from the public as a whole.
As noted, there are many other sources from which lists of public ad-
ministration values can be drawn. Van Wart (1998) (modestly) sets out
to create a field of public administration values and states that there are
five value sources for decision-makingin the public sector, which he de-
fines as:
•Individuals' values;
•Professional values;
•Organisational values;
•Legal values; and
•Public Interest values.
These align with the American Society for Public Administration
(ASPA) Code of Ethics (Van Wart, 1998, pp 24–25). Van Wart's defini-
tion of values is somewhat different from the one used in this article
and more difficult to operationalise in the context of ICT in government.
For example, Van Wart contends that the key individual values are
strong civic integrity, access to basic citizen/human rights and belief in
the right of public administration to make unique contributions. How-
ever, none of these are modes of behaviour. The first can be expressed
in this form (‘behave with integrity’), but the latter two cannot. Further-
more, the second, access to civil rights, may be a right, but cannot be
interpreted as a public sector value in any conventional sense.
Another approach is to examine academic and public statements of
ethical values. Hood's core values have already been outlined. Nolan
(1995) suggests seven principles governing public life namely:
•Selflessness;
•Integrity;
•Objectivity;
•Accountability;
•Openness;
•Honesty; and
•Leadership.
Sherman (1998), drawing on the work of the Nolan Committee, sug-
gests a number of personal values for civil servants such as: integrity;
commitment; prudence; temperance; impartiality; respect for the
law; respect for persons; responsiveness; objectivity; openness; ac-
countability; leadership; economy; and efficiency.
These arebetter lists, but they are stillnot without difficulties. Objec-
tivity (behaving in an objective manner) is clearly a value, but what is
meant by ‘leadership’? Is each public servant expected to behave as if
(s)he were a leader? Would such a state of affairs be desirable? Ac-
countability, a widely cited public sector value, is also a difficult concept.
For a start it is an Anglophone word with no exact equivalent in many
other European languages (Dubnick, 1998). Secondly, it cannot be de-
scribed as a mode of behaviour in the same way that being objective
or being honest can be. Being accountable is not something the individ-
ual controls; accountability generally comes from within neither the in-
dividual nor the organisation (although taking personal responsibility is
a plausiblevalue), but from above or outside respectively. Furthermore,
to whom is the public servant accountable
2
? Whilst accountability is
probably better regarded as a desirable (or even mandatory) feature
of the public service or a public servant's job description, because it is
so commonly regarded as a ‘value’, the definition can be stretched to
‘behaving in an accountable manner’even if the meaning of this in prac-
tice is not entirely clear. This problem is discussed further below when
the impact of ICT on values is considered.
Looking further afield, there are sources, which whilst not specifical-
ly concerned with public administration, suggest values for the wider
public sector; many of which are applicable to the civil service. Exam-
ples of these are the OECD Consumer Protection Guidelines and the
Hague Treaty on Jurisdiction: Alternative Dispute Resolution. The latter
suggests organisational values which include:
•Protecting the privacy of individuals;
•Preventing unfair discrimination against individuals;
•Preventing the unfair exploitation of individuals;
•Enforcing of equity;
•Promoting social cohesion; and
•Protecting the security of individuals.
Kernaghan provides a list of public service values which he divides
into four categories as shown in Table 1.
In an empirical study of the view of public administers in the
American Midwest, Molina and McKowen (2012) used a set of 30 values
that they drew from van de Wal and Huberts (2008). These includes
many values in the lists above as well as some distinctly problematic
ones such as profitability, obedience and self interest. Possibly the most
ambitious attempt to identify a comprehensive range of public values is
that by Beck Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007).Theyidentifynolessthan
72 public values which they divide into seven constellations namely:
1. Public's contribution to society;
2. Transformation of interests to decisions;
3. Relationship between public administrators and politicians;
4. Relationship between public administrators and their environment;
5. Interorganizational aspect of public administration;
6. Behaviour of public sector employees;
7. Relationship between public administration and the citizens.
The authors compile their list of values from a wide range of sources.
The result is eclectic as it encompasses both citizens, users and politics
as well as public administration. Political values include such values as
local governance and citizen involvement. Other values are curious,
for example, voice of the future, enthusiasm and parsimony (which is
similar to the value of ‘economy’in other compilations). It is not clear
how many of the items on the list translate into modes of behaviour.
Some values, e.g. majority rule, are not matters for civil servants or pub-
lic administration unless it is suggested that civil servants should refuse
to carry out the instructions of a minority government. The authors
present a robust defence of their list, but it is not as coherent, as useful
or as tractable a list as Kernigan's or Hood's.
In conclusion, drawingup a list of genuinevalues which are political-
ly and ideologically neutral and acceptable to the assumed reasonable
citizen is a non-trivial task and, as can be seen, even the extensive
2
The permanent head of the organisation? The political head of the organisation? A
parliamentary policy or expenditure committee? Parliament itself? The general public?
The courts? The tabloid press?
Table 1
Categories of public service values (Kernaghan, 2003, p712).
Ethical Democratic Professional People
Integrity Rule of law Effectiveness Caring
Fairness Neutrality Efficiency Fairness
Accountability Accountability Service Tolerance
Loyalty Loyalty Leadership Decency
Excellence Openness Excellence Compassion
Respect Responsiveness Innovation Courage
Honesty Representativeness Quality Benevolence
Probity Legality Creativity Humanity
122 F. Bannister, R. Connolly / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 119–128
work by Beck Jørgensen and Bozeman is not without problems. A num-
ber of the would-be values are in practice attributes or qualities that
civil servants or public administration should have, but in order to be-
come values in a values/ethical framework, they must be capable of
being operationalised (which certainly rules out ‘luck’). This character-
istic will provide quite a useful filter when separating values potentially
affected by ICT from other types of values, hence the definition used
here of a value as a mode of behaviour.
It is possible to present many other such lists, but the above are suf-
ficient for the purpose of this article. A positive aspect of these lists is
that, when one compares them, there is a reasonable degree of overlap.
A problematic aspect is that definitions often lack sufficient clarity and
in particular the definition of what is meant by a value is sometimes un-
clear or even unstated. It is not appropriate here to engage in an in-
depth discussion of semantics, but a sense of the problems involved
can be obtained by considering the meaning of some of the values in
the above lists. The meaning of terms such as (say) legality or respon-
sivenessis relatively clear. Others, such as fairness are less easy to define
in an unambiguous manner. Then there are values that are not univer-
sally accepted, several of those deriving from NPM being cases in
point (Kane & Patapan, 2006; Kolthoff, Huberts, & van den Heuvel,
2007; Larson, 1997; O'Toole, 2006). A number of proposed values are
questionable and/or problematic. Leadership, as noted above, is a good
example and whilst ‘enthusiasm’(one of Beck Jørgensen and Bozeman's
values) readily translates into a form of behaviour, as a candidate public
value it is ambivalentin the sense that it is quite possible tobe enthusi-
astic about the wrong things. One way to assess the validity of a value
would be to adopt a Kantian approach and to ask what would happen
if everybody behaved in this way? If everybody is honest or efficient
or decent, this presents no problem. If everybody starts to behave like
a leader it is likely to lead to anarchy. Loyalty, too, is not an unalloyed
virtue and can lead to problems like groupthink (Janis, 1972) and, as
history demonstrates, loyalty can all too often be misguided. Even wide-
ly promoted values such as transparency are not self evidently a univer-
sal good (Bannister & Connolly, 2011b). Many problems might arise if
the entire public sector were to behave in a fully transparent manner.
3.4. An alternative taxonomy of public sector values
All values are not of the same type and, as is has been seen from the
discussion of the literature, it is possible to classify values in a number of
differentways. Some values are in essence personal (integrity, honesty)
whilst others are primarily organisational (transparency, responsive-
ness). Some values are what might be called house-keeping in nature
(efficiency, prudence) whilst others are core ethical issues (impartiality,
objectivity) and so on. Using a classification is useful if only for provid-
ing a clearer framework for discussion of ICT. Four classifications,
those of Hood, Van Wart, Kernaghan and Beck Jørgensen and Bozeman
have been presented. For the purpose of this discussion, a different tax-
onomy of values, adapted from Hood's taxonomy, but modified to suit
an analysis of the impact of ICT on public administration will be used.
This is as follows:
Values which
are…
Encompassing:
Duty oriented Values that broadly correspond to Hood's (1991) sigma values, but
take a broader view incorporating non-financial aspects of the duty
of the civil servant to government and to the state.
Service
oriented
Values which fall within of Hood's lambda values, but cover the
responsibility of public administrators to provide a high level of
service to the citizen in the same manner as a commercial company
would provide good service to a customer or client. Inasmuch as
reliability and resilience form part of this, they incorporate Hood's
lambda values.
Socially
orientated
These would broadly correspond to Hood's theta values, but
incorporate a wider, quasi-political view encompassing broader
social goals.
From the above lists, the set of values in Table 2 emerges:
These represent one possible core set of administrative values. The
traditional themes in the study of public administration, i.e. accountabil-
ity, responsibility, responsiveness, control, equity, justice and democra-
cy are implicit in these core values. Other values are also implicit. For
example, ‘respect for the individual’and ‘protecting the citizens from
exploitation’together enjoin:
•Respecting and protecting the privacy of individuals;
•Preventing unfair discrimination against individuals;
•Preventing the unfair exploitation of individuals; and
•Protecting the security of individuals.
Whilst there are many other possible classifications, this provides a
convenient structure for an analysis of the impact of ICT on values. A
number of these values will be examined in the next section and a
table of hypothesised impacts proposed.
4. Values, public administration, ICT and transformation
4.1. The impact of ICT
Almost any ICT implementation in the public sector will have impli-
cations for public values. Furthermore, differentICTs are likely to impact
in different ways and on different sets of values as well as on public ex-
pectations. Not only is technology itself not value free (Winner, 1985.
Albrechtslund, 2007), but also whether or not to deploy ICT and how
to deploy ICT generally requires judgments about and sometimes
choices between values. There is, as has been seen, a reasonable literature
on general public sector values and there is no shortage of published ma-
terial on either ethics in government and public administrati on (Bowman,
1991; Chapman, 1993; Cooper, 1994; Denhardt, 1997; Frederickson,
1993; Gilman & Lewis, 1996; Hondeghem, 1998; Nigro & Richardson,
1990)oronethicsinthebroadfields of ICT and information systems prac-
tice (Córdoba, 2007; Cougar, 1989; Haque, 2003; Hilton, 2000; Maner,
1996; Mason, 1995; Mathieson, 2007; Oz, 1992; Pierce & Henry, 1996;
Stichler & Hauptman, 1997; Tavani, 2001; Vitell & Davis, 1990). There is
ajournal(EthicsandInformationTechnology)dedicatedtothissubject.
As noted above, value issues in public administration ICT on the other
hand is not, to date, a subject that has attracted much academic attention,
although some researchers have considered particular aspects of it (for
example Moss, 2002; Snijkers, 2005; Udas, Fuerst, & Paradice, 1996;
Vitell & Davis, 1990).
The key questions of interest here are whether ICT can have or does
have a transformational effect on public values. This question is related,
but again subtly different, to the questions of the impact of ICT (or lack
Table 2
A proposed taxonomy of public values for assessing the impact of ICT.
Duty orientated Service oriented Socially oriented
Responsibility to the citizen Service to thecitizen in his or
her different roles
Inclusiveness
Responsibility to the elected
politicians of the day
Respect for the individual Justice
Proper use of public funds Responsiveness Fairness
Compliance with the law Effectiveness Equality of treatment
and access
Efficient use of public funds Efficiency Respectfor the citizen
Integrity and honesty Transparency Due process
Facilitating the democratic
will
Protecting citizen
privacy
Accountability to
government
Protecting citizens
from exploitation
Economy/parsimony Protecting citizen
security
Rectitude Accountability to the
public
Consultingthe citizen
Impartiality
123F. Bannister, R. Connolly / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 119–128
of same) on governance (O'Neill, 2009; Woodley, 2001) and public
value (Grimsley & Meehan, 2007; Meijer, Bannister, & Thaens, 2012).
This is in effect a new form of an older question. Two decades ago
Muid (1992, p125) asked a related question: “Are citizens ready to
have theirgovernments led by technological innovation?”.Thequestion
of the transformational impact of ICT on public value can be further re-
fined into three parts:
•Are there any new ethical or values-related issues raised by ICT?
•Which, if any, traditional values or ethical issues are changed by ICT?
•Are any of the latter changes transformational?
In answer to the first of these questions, Pemberton (1998) argues
that there are no new issues raised by ICT that did not exist with older
technologies. It has long been possible for government to intercept
mail, tap telephones, act ultra vires, treat people in different ways and
so on. More recently, the emergence of social networking has led
some observers to suggest that new values (in the sense used in this ar-
ticle) may be emerging, at least at community level. One such value is
‘informality’(Huijboom et al., 2009). This is discussed further below.
However, even if ICT does not create any new values, it doesconvert cer-
tain heretofore theoretical or remote possibilities into real and present
concerns and this, in the light of the definition given in the opening sec-
tion, can be classified as potentially transformational. For example, it has
always been possible to intercept mail, but in practice governments could
only intercept and read a tiny fraction of citizens' private correspondence.
It has always been possible to intercept e-mail, but it is now possible for
governments to intercept and to read all e-mail. ICT also greatly amplifies
the impact of certain actions on other values and thus changes the impor-
tance of the values themselves. From a values standpoint, the transforma-
tional impact of ICT can be classified under the five broad headings of
scale,scope,integration,speed and capability. There is insufficient space
here to consider the impact of ICT on all possible public sector values. In
the following sections, a small number of the values and the impact of
ICT on them will be brieflyexaminedusingthisframework.
4.2. Transparency
The impact of ICT on transparency is the subject of a growing litera-
ture (Bannister & Connolly, 2011b; Bertot, Jaeger, & Grimes, 2010;
Lathrop & Ruma, 2010; Relly & Sabharwal, 2009). Transparency is
often cited as a value that can be delivered in radically new ways by
ICT (as, for example, in the Korean Open System (Lee & Lee, 2009;
Moon, 2003)). One impact of ICT on transparency that is not much
discussed is that it has changed the nature of the debate and, as a conse-
quence, has changedthe importance of transparency as a value. ICT does
this by reifying hitherto purely theoretical ideas, creating new possibil-
ities and/or by enabling the extensive exercise of what were previously
a limited or restricted set of possible actions. In so doing, ICT has altered
the nature of the debate about transparency and led to new ways of
thinking about it as a public value.
Evolution in thinking about transparency has been occurring for
some time as evidenced by the progressive enactment of Freedom of In-
formation acts in many countries though theimpact of these on corrup-
tion is mixed (Escaleras, Lin, & Register, 2010). The role of ICT in
changing the nature of the discussion is well illustrated by a long run-
ning current court case in Ireland (The Irish Times, 2012). As part of
this case the plaintiff is seeking certain data from the Irish tax authori-
ties (the Revenue) over a period going back to 1993. In 2007, the Reve-
nue had installed a new computer system which had all of these data
from that time readily accessible, however prior to this data were stored
in a number of different formats including a tape archive and in paper
records. The plaintiff argued that all of the records going back to 1993
should have been easy to provide; the Revenue argued that it was not
reasonable to expect systems from 20 years ago to provide the same de-
gree of ease of data access one would expect today. What would be
expected as reasonable for transparency today would not have been
reasonable 20 years ago.
Over time, technology alters expectations and thus one type of
transformative effect of ICT on a public value can be that it alters public
expectations aboutthat value. Today users expect their cars to be almost
totally reliable. Most citizens in 1950 would not have. In the 1980s, PC
crashes were frequent and many users had experienced the wonder-
fully named ‘blue screen of death’. Today it is taken for granted that
operating systems are stable. In the same way that attitudes to and
expectations about reliability change, citizens today expect informa-
tion to be easily available in a way that their grandfathers would not
have and this affects contemporary attitudes to and thinking about
transparency. When transparency was not a practical option, only a
few people gave it much thought. For example, the potential (and
possibly even disruptive) impact of Web 2.0 and mobile technology
on transparency and accountability has the been the subject of a
number of reports (Ala-Mutka et al., 2009; Huijboom et al., 2009).
In this case, not only can the impact of ICT on government can be
said to be transformative in scope, scale and capability, but also
that the full impact is yet to emerge.
4.3. Equality of treatment and access
Equality of treatment and access has not until relatively recently
been a core public value. The American Declaration of Independence,
grounded in enlightenment thinking, held it to be self-evident that all
men are created equal, but it has taken nearly two centuries for ideas
such as equality of opportunity, equality before the law and equality
of esteem to have become a firmly embedded part of the lexicon of
the political life ofdemocratic states. Today it is expected that publicad-
ministrators should treat all citizens in a fair and equitable manner and
this includes, inter alia, access to state services. However, theory and
practice are, of course, sometimes far apart. In many modern states
there are echoes of Orwell's (1945) famous phrase about all animals
being equal, but some being more equal than others. Nonetheless, this
does not lessen the importance of the principle of equality of access
and the need to strive to improve it.
ICT changes the nature of access and this has implications for equity
of access. This impact can be for better or worse. Many scholars have
discussed this under the headings of e-exclusion (or e-inclusion)
(Ebbers, Pieterson, & Noordman, 2009; EU, 2009; Stephens et al.,
2006, Millard, 2006; Mancinelli, 2007), the digital divide (Norris,
2001; van Dijk, 2005; Warren, 2007) and even digital apartheid
(Warschauer, 2004). In this instance, the impact of ICT on equity of ac-
cess is partially a consequence of its effects on the values of efficiency
and economy (as it offers a much less expensive mode of access than
face to face or telephone) and partially a consequence of instrumental
rationality. Governments, under pressure to reduce public expenditure,
are likely to seek to eliminate more expensive traditional channels for
the delivery of public services. Thus, in 2011, the UK government's IT
strategy formally declared a policy of digital by default for the delivery
of public services (Cabinet Office, 2011); Denmark has adopted a similar
approach. Furthermore, this is a self reinforcing trend. For example, as
the number of ‘off-line’users of services declines, such services become
relatively more expensive further incentivising their discontinuation.
As with the rural bus service that quietly disappears when the affluent
take to their cars, those who cannot afford or master the new technolo-
gy will be leftstanding bythe wayside. Thus, transformation in this case
relates to capability and may in fact be negative.
4.4. Integrity and honesty
Prima facie, it might appear that ICT is unlikely to have material im-
pact on honesty except, perhaps, as a consequence of increased trans-
parency. However, whilst it is undoubtedly true that technology of
itself may not make people more honest, it can make them behave in
124 F. Bannister, R. Connolly / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 119–128
a more honest manner. There is, for example, some interesting research
emerging about the impact of e-government and the internet on gov-
ernment corruption in the third world (Andersen, 2009; Garcia-
Murillo, 2013; Shim & Eom, 2008). As this is early stage research, it is
possibly too soon to evaluate accurately the impact of technology on
dishonest behaviour, but in the longer term, there are other ways
in which ICT could effect at least a mildly transformative effect on
the these values. As Anderson observes (p210): “implementing e-
government significantly reduces corruption, even after controlling for
any propensity for corrupt governments to be more or less aggressive in
adopting e-government initiatives”.
Certain third world countries regard e-government as a critical tool
in increasing honesty and reducing corruption (Hanna, 2010; Quah,
2011; Selke, Mallick, & Halzbach, 2008) There are other possibilities.
One such is that e-government can be used to deliver better compliance
with the lawand deliver greater fairness by removing humans from the
process and the decision-making chain. For example, the process of for-
malizingrules in a system and embedding them in code could reduce or
even eliminate the risk of corruption and abuse of the law by public ser-
vants. Another development is the use of technologies such as data min-
ing and analytics for detection of fraud (Cleary, 2011).
4.5. Respect for the citizen
As more services that were hitherto provided by people are provided
by machines, the flexibilities inherent in human systems are often lost
in the more rigid world of machine rules. The multi-level nature of
human intercourse is also lost. Values of respecting the citizen, respon-
siveness and their associated traits such as courtesy and empathy (not
to mentionhumanity) are important and are not to be found in the cur-
rent generation of automated response systems though this many
change with time (it is not yet clear how the public will respond
when these systems become difficult to distinguish from real people—
an embryonic development at the time of writing).
But creativity and imagination when faced with a citizen's particular
circumstances are often important determinants of citizen satisfaction
and electronic services cannot currently provide this type of agility,
nor is it obvious that they will be able to do so in the near future. On
the positive side, e-government may improve some services by allowing
those services that can be automated to be done by machine thus free-
ing up time for officials to give greater personal attention to those citi-
zens that need it. This will only happen in a balanced way if the values
of efficiency and cost minimisation do not dominate the value of respect
for the individual. As there is good evidence that this has been the case
in the past (Bekkers & Frissen, 1992; Bellamy, 1996; Pye, 1992), it is im-
portant to ensure that e-government continues to keep the state away
from such narrow ground.
4.6. Summary: a programme for further research
The above discussions are necessarily brief. Nonetheless, some ten-
tative conclusions can be drawn from them. Using the above approach,
the potential impact of Table 3 shows hypothesised impacts of ICT in
government on public sector values. Each potential impact was assessed
based on a brief assessment of various ICTs on that value. This was done
in a similar manner to the analyses of the values discussed in the pre-
ceding three sections. To go through all values would take more space
than is available. In some instances the hypothesised impacts are
drawn from the existing literature (for example, in the case of social ex-
clusion, from the literature on the digital divide). In other cases, the im-
pacts have been assessed on the basis of reasoning. For example, there is
no strong reason to believe that ICT will have a significant impact on jus-
tice as a value, though it could lead to additional or more reliable forms
of evidence such as CCTV or DNA testing or speedier processing of cases.
Given the nature of justice systems however, it seems probable that
these impacts will be moderate. It is stressed that these are hypotheses;
research will be required to determine how valid they are.(See Table 3.)
This table provides a tableau of potential lines of future research. To
date the impact of ICT on the values in Table 3 has only been examined
in a small number of cases and in only a subset of these (suchas efficien-
cy and transparency) has reasonably extensive research been undertak-
en. This brief examination suggests that most of the values itemized in
the above table are all affected by ICT to some degree and that in
many cases, that impact can be either significantly to enhance or impair
the delivery of that value. However at this stage, these remain largely
conjectures. Whilst the evidence would seem to support Pemberton's
assertion that no new values are introduced by ICT, it is clear that the
importance and dynamics of some public sector values are profoundly
affected and others may also be. What is clear is that ICT alters the land-
scape of public service values and ICT is not value neutral.
5. Reflections and conclusion
This paper has used an extensive review of the literature to argue
five things namely that:
•Examination of the critical transformational impact of ICT, namely its
effect on public sector values, has been neglected;
•Such values underlie all other forms of transformation;
•Not all ICT driven or enabled transformation is for the better;
•Some values have the potential to be transformed by ICT; for others
the impact is not significant;
•There is scope for extensive research into this subject.
When politicians, practitioners and scholars discuss the transforma-
tive impact of ICT on government, they are, with rare exceptions, think-
ing in terms of the positive, beneficial changes that ICT can (they hope
or believe) bring about in public services, government structures, public
management or democracy. This group includes techno-optimists fore-
casting, with little or no real evidence or argument, great (though usu-
ally vague or generalised) changes to come. There are optimists whoare
more measured. Snijkers (2005), for example, whilst noting that there
are inherent conflicts between different values, argues that ICT offers
new opportunities to balance such conflicts. In so doing, he draws on a
rich literature from the Netherlands (unfortunately much of this is in
Table 3
Impact of ICT on public sector values.
Value Potential for
Positive
impact of ICT
Negative
impact of ICT
Transformational
impact of ICT
Proper stewardship of public funds
Efficiency High Low Moderate
Effectiveness High Low Moderate
Economy High Low High
Equality of treatment and access Moderate High Low
Serving the citizen High Moderate Moderate
Integrity/honesty Moderate Neutral Moderate
Fairness Moderate Moderate Moderate
Social inclusion Moderate High High
Justice Moderate Low Low
Respect for the citizen Low Moderate Moderate
Impartiality High Low Moderate
Transparency High Moderate High
Consultation High Low High
Due process Moderate Moderate Moderate
Enabling self governance Moderate Low High
Accountability Moderate Moderate Moderate
Protecting the privacy of citizens Moderate High High
Preventing unfair exploitation of
citizens
Moderate Moderate Low
Protecting the security of citizens High Moderate High
Facilitating the democratic will Moderate Moderate Moderate
125F. Bannister, R. Connolly / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 119–128
Dutch and thus only indirectly accessible to most scholars). Snijkers is
optimistic about the impact of ICT on values such as privacy and sug-
gests that ICT can be introduced in such a way as to “improve legal
values”. He argues, for instance, that ICT can be used to create new
forms of horizontal control in the classic Weberian bureaucracy and to
improve social equity. He also notes (again as in this paper), that ICT
can alter the existing balance between values, and that ICT is not a neu-
tral instrument. Snijkers proposes that the remedy for this is to have
clear objectives in relation to values before the start of any ICT project.
The difficulty with this line of reasoning is well put by Albrechtslund
(2007): whilst one can try to setobjectives and even tryto design values
into systems, what emerges in use is not so easily controlled and may be
quite different from the designer's original intentions, an effect often de-
scribed as the law of unintended consequences. Others take a more dys-
topian view. This paper does not seek to take sides in this debate; its
objective is to establish that both perspectives contain some validity,
but equally that both need to be viewed critically.
One of the criticisms of transformative government is the semantic
vagueness of the word ‘transform’(Bannister & Connolly, 2011a;
West, 2004). Too often, what is claimed to be transformative is largely
incremental; nothing substantial changes. Does making a system run
twice or ten or fifty times faster transform that system? Whether it
does or not depends on context. If the system underlies a service that
nobody will use at the slower speed, but which is widely taken up at
the higher, this might qualify as a transformational change. If its effect
is to reduce an already sub-second transaction time by a factor of ten,
that may have no material impact at all on usage levels or efficiency.
In such cases it may be an improvement, but it is not a transformation.
In practice, therefore, between incremental change and transformation,
as between kaizen and radical businessprocess reengineering, there is a
wide and continuous spectrum the greater part of which is not transfor-
mational. Looking atunderlying values and how they are affected by ICT
enabled or driven change provides a different lens and enables us to
consider transformation in a rather different light. But each value
must be considered independently and the impacts of ICT on that
value must be closely observed.
This latter point can be consider by a brief return to transparency. It
was argued above that people's view of transparency as a value has
changed. It may also change again as the implications of ICT-enabled
transparency become better understood. If this were to happen, the
value itself might undergo a degree of transformation. Such a potential
change in the understanding of a value is not confined to transparency.
It has been argued that different generations have different attitudes to
privacy; that privacy as a value has changed because of technology
(Bélanger & Crossler, 2011; Lusoli, Lupiañez, Andrade, Monteleone, &
Maghiros, 2012; Lusoli & Miltgen, 2009). The jury is out onthis question,
but even the possibility that it might be true changes the nature of the
question regarding what transformation means. Other values lead to
more nuanced questions. ICT can be used in a wide variety of ways to
make people behave more honestly, but doesthis make people more in-
herently honest or they aresimply afraid of the consequences ofdishon-
esty and behave accordingly? The question therefore remains as to
whether this is truly a transformation, or simply a better form of polic-
ing? Other questions include, but are not limited to:
•Does ICT and/or e-government increase fairness?
•Does ICT and/or e-government improve or disimprove inclusivity?
•Does ICT and/or e-government make public servants more or less ac-
countable to the citizen?
•Is the impact of ICT in any of these cases essentially neutral; its impact
depending entirely on how it is used?
This paper provides a brief exploration of what is a complex and
complicated subject. It proposes a different perspective on the transfor-
mational effect of ICT on government and a different lens through which
to view transformation. It posits that public sector values are the
foundation from which the idea of genuine transformation ultimately
derives. A key implication of this proposed programme is that in ad-
dressing the question of what is the transformational impact of ICT on
government, the impact of technology on public sector values is a po-
tentially powerful tool. As such, it may offer one approach to resolving
the problematic question of what constitutes transformation and in
doing so provide a substantive theoretical base on which to build and
progress future research in this area.
References
Aaron, H., Mann, T., & Taylor, T. (1993). Introduction. In H. Aaron, T. Mann, & T. Taylor
(Eds.), Values and public policy. Washington: The Brookings Institution.
Ala-Mutka, K., Broster, D., Cachia,R., Centeno, C., Feijóo, C., Haché,A., et al. (2009). The im-
pact of social computing on the EU information society and economy. In Y. W. Lusoli
Punie, C. Centeno, G. Misuraca, & D. Broste (Eds.), JRC scientific and technical reports.:
Institute for Prospective Technology Studies (EUR number 24063 EN Available at:
http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2819)
Albrechtslund, A. (2007). Ethics and technology design.Ethics and Information Technology,
9,63–72.
Andersen, T. B. (2009). E-government as an anti-corruption strategy. I nformation
Economics and Policy,21(3), 201–210.
Andersen, S., & Eliassen, K. (1993). Making policy in Europe: The europeification of national
policy-making. London: Sage.
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2011a). Trust andtransformation:A proposed framework for
research. Government Information Quarterly,28(2), 137–147.
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2011b). The trouble with transparency: A critical view of
openness in e-government. Policy & Internet,3(1), 158–187.
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2012). Defining e-Governance.e-Services Journal,8(2), 3–25.
Bannister, F., & Remenyi, D. (2000). Acts of faith: Value, instinct and IT investment deci-
sions. Journal of Information Technology,15(3), 231–241.
Beck Jørgensen, T., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration and
Society,39(3), 354–381.
Bekkers, V., & Frissen, P. (1992). Informatization and administrative modernisation: A
comparative analysis. In P. Frissen, V. Bekkers, B. Brussaard, I. Snellen, & M. Wolters
(Eds.), European public administration and informatization (pp. 479–489). Amsterdam:
IOS Press.
Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011). Privacy in the digital age: A review of information
privacy research. MIS Quarterly,35(4), 1017–1042.
Bellamy, C. (1996). Transforming socia l security bene fits administrati on for the
twenty-first century: Towards one stop services and the client group principle?
Public Administration,74,159–179.
Bennington, J., & Moore, M. H. (Eds.). (2011). Public value: Theory and practice.Houndmills,
Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bertot, J., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J.M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparen-
cy: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for socie-
ties. Government Information Quarterly,27(3), 264–271.
Bonina, C. M., & Cordella, A. (2009). Public sectorreforms and the notionof ‘public value’:
Implications for egovernment deployment. Proceedings of the 15th Americas Confer-
ence on Information Systems, 6th–9th August, San Francisco, CA (Available at: http://
eprints.lse.ac.uk/43672/. Retrieved February 12th, 2013)
Bowman, J. (Ed.). (1991). Ethical frontiers in public management. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bowman, J., Berman, E., & West, J. (2001). The profession of public administration: An
ethics edge in introductory textbooks. Public Administration Review,61(2), 194–205.
Brans, M. (1997) . Challenges to the practi ce and theory of public administ ration in
Europe. Journal of Theoretical Politics,9(3), 389–415.
Breton, A., Galeoitti, G., Salmon, P., & Winrobe, R. (2007). Introduction. In A. G. Breton, G.
Galeoitti , P. Salmon, & R. Winro be (Eds.), The economics of transparency in politics.
Aldershot: Ashgate Press.
Cabinet Office (2011). Government ICT Strategy—Strategic Implementation Plan
Moving from the ‘what’to the ‘how’.Accessed5thNovember2012at:www.
cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/governme nt-ict-strategy-strategic-implemen tation-
plan
Castelnovo, W., & Simonetta, M. (2007). The Evaluation of e-Government projects for
Small Local Government Organisations. The Electronic Journal of e-Government,5(1),
21–28.
Chapman, R. (Ed.). (1993). Ethics in public service. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press.
Chapman, R., & O'Toole, B. (1995). The role of the civil service: A traditional view in a pe-
riod of change. Public Policy and Administration,10(2), 3–20.
Cleary, D. (2011). Predictive analytics in the public sector: Using data miningto assist bet-
ter target selection for audit. In M. Klun, & M. Decman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th
European Conference on e-Government (pp. 166–176). Reading: ACPI.
ComputerWorld (2004). U.K. government hit with another large computer failure, 26th
November 2004. Accessed 22nd F ebruary 2011 a t: www.computerworld.com/
governmenttopics/government/itgovernment/story/0,10801,97853,00.html
Cooper, T. (Ed.). (1994). Handbook of administrative ethics. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Cordella, A., & Willcocks, L. (2010). Outsourcing, bureaucracy and public value:
Reappraising the notion of the “contract state”.Government Information Quarterly,
27(1), 82–88.
Córdoba, J. -R. (2007). A critical system view of power-ethics interactions in information
systems evaluation. Information Resources Management Journal,20(2), 74–89.
Cougar, J. (1989). Preparing IS students to deal with ethical issues. MIS Quarterly,211–218.
126 F. Bannister, R. Connolly / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 119–128
Denhardt, K. (19 97). The manage ment of ideals: A po litical perspective on ethics.
International Journal of Public Administration,2(5), 1091–1115.
Dubnick, M. (199 8). Clarifying accountability: An ethical theory framework. In C.
Sampford, N. Preston, & C. -A. Bois (Eds.), Public sector ethics: Finding and
implementing values (pp. 68–81). London: The Federation Press, Routledge.
Ebbers, W., Pieterson, W., & Noordman, H. (2009). Electronic government: Rethinking
channel management strategies. Government Information Quarterly,25,181–201.
Escaleras, M., Lin, S., & Register, C. (2010). Freedom of information acts and public sector
corruption. Public Choice,145,435–460.
EU (2009). MC-eGov: Study on Multi-channel Delivery Strategies and Sustainable
Business Models for Public Services addressing Socially disadvantaged Groups.
Accessed 22nd February 2011 at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/
activities/einclusion/library/studies/docs/mc_egov_final_report.pdf
Fiorini, A. (2007). Introduction: The battle over transparency. In A. Fiorini (Ed.), The right
to know (pp. 1–18). New York: Columbia University Press.
Frederickson, H. G. (Ed.). (1993). Ethics and public administration. Armonk, New York:
M.E. Sharpe.
Frissen,P., Brussaard, B., Snellen, I. Th. M., & Wolters, M. (1992).Introduction. In P. Frissen,
B. Brussaard, I. Snellen, & M. Wolters (Eds.), European pu blic administration and
informatization: A comparative research project into policies. Systems, Infrastructures
and Projects, Oxford: IOS Press.
Garcia-Murillo, M. (2013). Does a government web presence reduce perceptions of cor-
ruption? Information Technology for Development,19(2), 151–175.
Gilman, S., & Lewis, C. (1996). Public service ethics: A global dialogue. Public Administration
Review,56(6), 517–524.
Gray, A., & Jenkins, B. (1995). From public administration to public management:
Reassessing a revolution. Public Administration,73,75–99.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2009). Do transparent government agencies strengthen trust?
Information Polity,14,173–186.
Grimsley, M., & Meehan, A. (2007). e-Government information systems: Evaluation-led
design for public value and client trust. European Journal of Information Systems,16,
134–148.
Grindle,M. S. (2010). Good governance: The inflation of an idea. HKS faculty research work-
ing paper series, RWP10–02 3. : John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University.
Hanna, N. (2010). Transforming government and building the information society. New York:
Springer.
Haque, A. (2003). Information technology, GIS and democratic values: Ethical implications
for IT professional in public service. Ethics and Information Technology,5(1), 39–48.
Henry, N. (1998). Foreword. In Chan ging public sector values. New York: Garland
Publishing.
Hilton, T. (2000). Information systems ethics: A practitioner survey. Journal of Business
Ethics,28(4/2), 279–284.
Hondeghem, A. (Ed.). (1998). Ethics and accountability in a context of governance and new
public management.Amsterdam:IOSPress.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration,69(1), 3–19.
Hood, C., & Heald, D. (2006). Transparency, the key to better governance. Proceedings of
the British Academy. Oxford: OUP.
House of Commons (2000). Annex A: Information Technology Projects Examined By The
Committee Of Public Accounts And The Comptroller And Auditor General Session
1999–2000, Public Accounts—First Report. Accessed 22nd February 2011 at: www.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmpubacc/65/6509.htm
Huijboom, N., van den Broek, T., Frissen, V., Kool, L., Kotterink, B., Meyerhoff Nielsen, M.,
et al. (2009). Public Services 2.0: The impact of social computing on public services.
In Y. Punie, G. Msaucura, & D. Osimo (Eds.), JRC scientific and technical reports. : Insti-
tute for Prospective Technology Studies (EUR number 24080 EN Available at: http://
ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2820)
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychologicalstudy of foreign-policy decisions and
fiascos. Oxford, England: Houghton Mifflin.
Jos, P., & Tompkins, M. E. (2009). Keeping it public: Defending public service values in a
customer service age. Public Administration Review,69(6), 1077–1086.
Kane, J., & Patapan, H. (2006). In search of prudence: The hidden problem of managerial
reform. Public Administration Review,66(5), 711–724.
Kearns, I. (2004). Public value and E-government. London: Institute for Policy Research
(Available at: www.ippr.org. Accessed February 15th 2013)
Kelly, G.,Mulgan, G., & Muers, S. (2002). Creating Public Value: An AnalyticalFramework for
Public Service Reform, Discussion paper prepared by the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit.
United Kingdom: Cabinet Officer.
Kernaghan, K. (2003). Integrating values into public service: The values statement as
centrepiece. Public Administration Review,63,711–719.
Kolthoff, E., Huberts, L., & van den Heuvel, H. (2007). The ethics of new public manage-
ment: Is integrity at stake? Public Administration Quarterly,399–439.
Larson, P. (1997). Public and private values at odds: Can private sector values be
transplanted into public sector institutions? Public Administration and Development,
17,131–139.
Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (Eds.). (2010). Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and
participation in practice. California: O'Reilly Media.
Lee, K. R., & Lee, K. -S. (2009). The Korean government's electronic record management
reform: The promise and perils of digital democratization. Government Information
Quarterly,26,525–535.
Löffler, E. (2003). Governance and government: Networking with external stakeholders.
In T. Bovaird, & E. Löffler (Eds.), Public management and governance (pp. 163–174).
London: Routledge.
Lusoli, W. M. Bacigalupo, Lupiañez, F., Andrade, N., Monteleone, S., & Maghiros, I. (2012).
Pan-European survey of practices, attitudes and policy preferences as regards personal
identity data management. JRC scientific and technical reports. : In stitute for
Prospective Technology Studies (EUR number 25295 EN, Available at: http://ipts.jrc.
ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=5020)
Lusoli, W., & Miltgen, C. (2009). Young people and emerging digital services: an explor-
atory survey on motivations, perceptions and acceptance of risks. In W. Lusoli, R.
Compañó, & I. Maghiros (Eds.), JRC scientific and technical reports. : Institute for Pro-
spective Technology Studies (EUR number 23765 EN, Available at: http://ipts.jrc.ec.
europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2119)
Mancinelli, E. (2007). e-Inclusion in the Information Society, Netis. Retrieved 22nd
February 2011 from: http://isp.uni-corvinus.hu/fileadmin/user_upload/hu/
gazdalkodastudomanyi_kar/files/ISC/course_material/pad361/ISP361_e-inclus.
pdf
Maner, W. (1996). Unique ethical problems in information technology. Science and
Engineering Ethics,2(2), 137–154.
Mason, R. (1995). Ethics and information technology issues. Communications of the ACM,
38(12), 55–57.
Mathieson, S. (2007). UK government loses data on 25 million Britons.
ComputerWeekly.com, 20th November, 2007. Retrieved 22nd February 2011
from: www.comp uterweekly.com/Articles/2007/11/20/228216/uk-governme nt-
loses-data-on-25-million-britons.htm
Meijer, A., Bannister, F., & Thaens, M. (2012). ICT, public administration and democracy in
the coming decade. Information Polity,17(3/4), 201–207.
Millard, J. (2006). E-governance and E-participation: Lessons in promoting inclusion
and empowerment. e-participation and e-government: understanding the present
and creating the future. Report of the Ad Hoc Expert Group Meeting, Budapest,
Hungary, 27th–28th July 2006 (pp. 91–113). New York: Depart ment of Economic
and Social Affairs Division for Public Administration and Development Manage-
ment United N ations.
Misuraca, G. (2012). e-Governance: Past, present and future: A theoretical frame-
work for prospective policy analysis. September 2012. In M. Finger, & F.
Sultana (Eds.), eGovernance, a global journey,Volume 4.(pp.185–199)
Amsterdam: IOS Press, BV.
Misuraca, G., Alfano, G., & Viscusi, G. (2011). A multi-level framework for ICT-enabled
governance: Ass essing the non-technical dimensions of ‘government openness’.
Electronic Journal of e-Government ,9(2), 152–165 (Retrieved 20th February 2013
from www.ejeg.com)
Misuraca, G., Reid, A., & Deakin, M. (2011). Exploring emerging ICT-enabled governance
models in European cities: Analysis of the Mapping Survey to identify key city gover-
nance policy areas most impacted by ICTs. In G. Misuraca (Ed.), JRC technical notes,
July (Retrieved 26th February 2013 from: http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/
pub.cfm?id=4419)
Molina, A.D., & McKowen, C. L. (2012). The heart of the profession: Understanding public
service values. Journal of Public Affairs Education,18(2), 375–396.
Moon, M. J. (2003). Can IT help government to restore public trust? Declining public
trust and potential pr ospects of IT in the publ ic sector. Proceedings of the 36th An-
nual Hawaii Conference on Systems Sciences (Retrieved 22nd February 2011 from:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu.10.1.1.2.2836.pdf)
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in governance. Cambridge
MA: Harvard University Press.
Moss, J. (2002). Power and the digital divide. Ethics and Information Technology,4(2), 159.
Muid, C. (1992). New public management and informatisation: A natural combination?
Public Policy and Administration,7(3), 75–79.
Nigro, L., & Richardson, W. (November/December). Between citizen and administrator:
Administrative ethics and PAR. Public Administration Review,623–635.
Nolan, M. (1995). First report of the Committee on Stand ards in Public Life. London:
HMSO.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet
worldwide. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
O'Neill, R. (2009). The transformative impact of e-government on public governance in
New Zealand. Public Management Review,11(6), 751–770.
O'Toole, B. (2006). The ideal of public service: Reflections on the higher public service in Britain.
UK: Routledge.
Orwell, G. (1945). Animal farm. UK: Harcourt.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T.(1993). Reinventing government.How the entrepreneurialspirit is
transforming the public sector. New York: Penguin Group.
Oz, E. (1992). Ethicalstandards for information systems professionals: A case for a unified
code. MIS Quarterly,423–433.
Pemberton, J. M. (1998). Through a glass darkly: Ethics and information technology.
Record Management Quarterly,76–94.
Pierce, M., & Henry, J. (1996). Computer ethics: The role of personal, informal and formal
codes. Journal of Business Ethics,15,425–437.
Purao, S., & De Souza, K. (2011). Looking for clues to failures in large-scale, public sector
projects: A case study. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii Conference on Information Sys-
tems Sciences, Kauai (pp. 1–10).
Pye, R. (1992). An overview of civil service computerisation, 1960–1990. Dublin: Economic
and Social Research Institute.
Quah, J. T. (2011). Curbing corruption in Asian countries. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing
Group.
Relly, J. E., & Sabharwal, M. (2009). Pe rceptions of transparency of gov ernment
policymaking: A cross-national study. Government Information Quarterly,26(1),
148–157.
Remenyi,D., Bannister, F., & Money, A. (2007).The effective measurement and management
of ICT costs and benefits. Oxford: Elsevier.
Selke, A., Mallick, B., & Halzbach, A. (2008). e-Honest: Technical potential and social risks
of local e-government strategy in Bangladesh forsupporting the fight againstcorrup-
tions. In D. Remenyi(Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th EuropeanConference on e-Government
(pp. 475–482). Reading: ACPI.
127F. Bannister, R. Connolly / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 119–128
Sherman, T. (1998) Public Sector Ethics: Prospects and Challenges. In C. Sampford and
N. Preston with C-A. Bois, Public Sector Ethics: Finding and Implementing Values
(pp. 13–25) The Federation Press, London, Rou tledge.
Shim, D. C., & Eom, T. H. (2008). E-government and anti-corruption: Empirical anal-
ysis of international data. International Journal of Public Administration,31,
298–316.
Snijkers, K. (2005). e-Government: ICT from a public management perspective. Paperpre-
sented at the 13th Annual NISPAceee Conference, 19th–21st May, 2005.Russia:Moscow
State University.
Stephens, S., McCusker, P., O'Donnell, D., Newman, D., & Honor Fagan, G. (2006). On the
Road from Consultation Cynicism to Energising E-Consultation. The Electron ic
Journal of e-Government,4(2), 87–94.
Stichler, R., & Hauptman, R. (1997). Ethics, information and technology: Readings. Jefferson,
N.C. USA: McFarland, & Co.
Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance?
American Review of Public Administration,36(1).
Tavani,H. T. (2001). Informationand CommunicationsTechnology (ICT) ethics: A bibliog-
raphy of recent books. Ethics and Information Technology,3(1), 77–81.
The Irish Times (2012). Importer of used cars in challenge to VRT tax. (7th March
2012).
Udas, K., Fuerst, W., & Paradice, D. (1996). An investigation of ethical perceptions of public
sector MIS professionals. Journal of Business Ethics,15,721–734.
van de Wal, Z.,& Huberts, L. (2008). Value solidity: Differences,similarities and conflicts be-
tween the organizational values of government and business. (PhD dissertation).
Amsterdam: VU University.
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. UK:
Sage Publications.
Van Wart, M. (1998). Changing public sector values. New York: Garland Publishing.
Vitell, S., & Davis, D. (1990). Ethical belief of MIS professionals: Thefrequency and oppor-
tunity for unethical behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics,9,63–70.
Waldo, W. (1980). Public administration and ethics. In D. Waldo (Ed.), The enterprise of
public administration. Novato, CA: Chandler & Sharpe.
Warren, M. (2007). The digital vicious cycle: Links between social disadvantage
and digital exclusion in rural areas. Telecommunications Policy,31(6/7),
374–388.
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
West, D.M. (2004). E-Government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen
attitudes. Public Administration Review,64,15–27.
Winner, L. (1985). Do artifacts have politics? In D. MacKenzie, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The
social shaping of technology: How the re frigerator got its hum. Milton Keynes, UK:
Open University Press.
Woodley, B. (2001). The Impact of Transformative Technologies on Governance, Institute On
Governance, Ottawa. Availab le at: http://dspace.cigilibrary.o rg/jspui/bitstream/
123456789/11340/1/The%20Impact%20of%20Transformative%20Technologies%
20on%20Governance.pdf?1 (Retrieved February 9th, 2013)
Yankelovich, D. (1993). How changes in the economy are reshaping American values. In
H. Aaron, T. Mann, & T. Taylor (Ed s.), Values and public policy. Washington: The
Brookings Institution.
Frank Bannister is an Associate Professor of InformationSystems and Head of theDepart-
ment of Information Systems in Trinity College. Dublin. Prior to becoming an academic in
1995, he workedin the Irish civil service and for Price Waterhouse (now PwC) as a man-
agement consultant. His research interests include e-government, e-democracy, IT value
and evaluation and on-line privacy and trust. He is an editor of the Electronic Journal of
e-Government and is on the editorial boards of a number of other journals. He is a Co-
Director of the Permanent student Group on e-Government in the European Group for Public
Administration. Frank is a Fellow of Trinity College, a Fellow of the Institute of Management
Consultants in Ireland, a Fellow of the Irish Computer Society and a Chartered Engineer.
ReginaConnolly is a senior lecturerin InformationSystems at Dublin CityUniversity Busi-
ness School, Dublin, Ireland and is the programme director of the MSC in Electronic Com-
merce. In her undergraduate degree she received the K ellogg Award for outstanding
dissertation and her MSc degree was awarded with distinction. She was conferred with
a PhD in Information Systems from Trinity College Dublin. Her research interests include
e-government, IT value and evaluation in the public sector,online trust and privacy issues,
website service quality and strategic information systems. She has served on the expert
eCommerce advisory group for the DublinChamber of Commerce, which has advised na-
tional government on eCommerce strategic planning.
128 F. Bannister, R. Connolly / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 119–128
