Consolidation of the activities of regulatory institutions while implementing e-government solutions
In the context of globalization, information technology development and transformation not only the needs of the society are changing, structural changes are taking place in the management of the activities of the regulatory institutions as well, because their main function is to meet the changing needs of society. While this process is happening, it becomes difficult to balance activities of the regulatory institutions with the needs of the society and business. This is why optimization of the regulatory institutions functions is one the European Union᾽s priorities. One of the most efficient ways to increase the quality of public services, reduce expenses, encourage cooperation between institutions and make decision making process more efficiently is to create an evaluation system that allows assessment of the efficiency of the consolidation of regulatory institutions functions during the implementation of e-government. In order to solve issues, the analysis of scientific literature, multiple criteria and expert evaluation were applied. The proposed system for evaluation of the consolidation of the activities of the regulatory institutions while implementing solutions of e-government allows complete assessment of the factors and criteria, identification of drawbacks of the process and also enables to create decisions for solutions of the problems.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Anthopoulos, L., Reddick, C. G., Giannakidou, I., & Mavridis, N. (2016). Why e-government projects fail? An analysis of the Healthcare.gov website. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 161-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.003
Baldwin, R., & Black, J. (2008). Really responsive regulation. Modern Law Review, 71(1), 59-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2008.00681.x
Baldwin, R., & Black, J. (2016). Driving priorities in risk-based regulation: what’s the problem? Journal of Law and Society, 43(4), 565-595. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12003
Baldwin, R., Black, J., & O’Leary, G. (2014). Risk regulation and transnationality: institutional accountability as a driver of innovation. Transnational Environmental Law, 3(02), 373-390. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102514000120
Benz, A., & Eberlein, B. (1999). The Europeanization of regional policies: patterns of multi-level governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(2), 329-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/135017699343748
Blanc, F. (2013). Inspection reforms: why, how, and with what results. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/regreform/Inspection reforms - web -F. Blanc.pdf
Blendinger, G., & Michalski, G. (2018). Long-term competitiveness based on value added measures as part of highly professionalized corporate governance management of German DAX 30 corporations. Journal of Competitiveness, 10(1), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2018.02.01
Blockmans, S., Hoevenaars, J., Schout, A., & Wiersma, J. M. (2014). From subsidiarity to better EU governance: a practical reform agenda for the EU. CEPS Essay, 10, 1-13.
Boer, Y., Arendsen, R., & Pieterson, W. (2016). In search of information: investigating source and channel choices in business-to-government service interactions. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 40-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.11.010
Boer, Y., Pieterson, W., Arendsen, R., & Dijk, J. (2017). Towards a model of source and channel choices in business-to-government service interactions: a structural equation modeling approach. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 434-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.07.002
Brunelli, M. (2015). Introduction to the analytic hierarchy process. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12502-2
Carroll, P., & Head, B. (2010). Regulatory reform and the management of intergovernmental relations in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45(3), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2010.509310
Ceicyte, J., & Petraite, M. (2018). Networked responsibility approach for responsible innovation: perspective of the firm. Sustainability, 10(6), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061720
Cheng, K. T. (2014). From public management reform to regulatory governance. International Journal of Management and Innovation, 6(1), 94-105. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=874a9f03-b42e-4239-b9c6-de3e0d6b1ebf%40sessionmgr4006
Choi, H., Park, M. J., & Rho, J. J. (2017). Two-dimensional approach to governmental excellence for human development in developing countries: combining policies and institutions with e-government. Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 340-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.03.002
Choudrie, J., Zamani, E. D., Umeoji, E., & Emmanuel, A. (2017). Implementing E-government in Lagos State: understanding the impact of cultural perceptions and working practices. Government Information Quarterly, 34, 646-657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.11.004
Christiansson, M. T., Axelsson, K., & Melin, U. (2015). Inter-organizational public e-service development: emerging lessons from an inside-out perspective. In Electronic Government: Proceedings of the14th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2015 (pp. 183-196). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22479-4_14
Cledou, G., Estevez, E., & Soares Barbosa, L. (2018). A taxonomy for planning and designing smart mobility services. Government Information Quarterly, 35(1), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.11.008
Foremny, D., Sacchi, A., & Salotti, S. (2017). Decentralization and the duration of fiscal consolidation: shifting the burden across layers of government. Public Choice, 171(3-4), 359-387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-017-0441-0
Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2012). Towards a smart State? Inter-agency collaboration, information integration, and beyond. Information Polity, 17(3, 4), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-2012-000287
Ginevičius, R., & Ostapenko, A. (2015). A quantitative evaluation of the company environment for the formation of its effective expansion strategy. Intellectual Economics, 9(2), 130-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intele.2016.02.004
González, M. M., Perelman, S., & Trujillo, L. (2009). Tracking the stepwise effects of regulatory reforms over time: a ‘back-door’ approach. Applied Economics, 41(2), 211-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840600994294
Hampton, P. (2005). Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement. Norwich: HM Treasury.
Janssen, M., & Voort, H. (2016). Adaptive governance: towards a stable, accountable and responsive government. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.02.003
Juell-Skielse, G., Lönn, C. M., & Päivärinta, T. (2017). Modes of collaboration and expected benefits of inter-organizational E-government initiatives: a multi-case study. Government Information Quarterly, 34, 578-590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.10.008
Kersbergen, K. V., & Waarden, F. V. (2004). “Governance” as a bridge between disciplines: cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research, 43(2), 143-171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00149.x
Klievink, B., Bharosa, N., & Tan, Y. H. (2016). The collaborative realization of public values and business goals: governance and infrastructure of public–private information platforms. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 67-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.12.002
Larsson, H., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). Sustainable eGovernance? Practices, problems and beliefs about the future in Swedish eGov practice. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 105-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.11.002
Layfield, C. (2014). Opportunities in E-Government utilizing cloud computing: an Eu perspective. International Journal on Information Technologies & Security, 2, 2-25.
Luna-Reyes, L. F., Picazo-Vela, S., Luna, D. E., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2016). Creating public value through digital government: lessons on inter-organizational collaboration and information technologies. In The Proceedings of 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 2840-2849). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.356
Macharis, C., Springael, J., De Brucker, K., & Verbeke, A. (2004). PROMETHEE and AHP: the design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis: strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 153(2), 307-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00153-X
Maegli, M., & Jaag, C. (2013). Competition and the social cost of regulation in the postal sector. In Center-for-Research-in-Regulated-Industries (CRRI) 20th Conference on Postal and Delivery Economics (pp. 294-305). St. Helier, Jersey.
Maegli, M., Jaag, C., Koller, M., & Trinkner, U. (2011). Postal markets and electronic substitution: implications for regulatory practices and institutions in Europe. In Center-for-Research-in-Regulated-Industries (CRRI) 18th Conference on Postal and Delivery Economics (pp. 109-122). Zurich, University of Zurich. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849805964.00013
Maume, P. (2013). The financial markets authority: a model example for regulatory consolidation? New Zealand Universities Law Review, 25(3), 26. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2448184
Miyazaki, T. (2018a). Examining the relationship between municipal consolidation and cost reduction: an instrumental variable approach. Applied Economics, 50(10), 1108-1121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.1352077
Miyazaki, T. (2018b). Internalization of externalities and local government consolidation: empirical evidence from Japan. Empirical Economics, 54(3), 1061-1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-017-1242-5
Mohan, A. K., & Parthasarathy, B. (2016). From hierarchy to heterarchy: the state and the Municipal Reforms Programme, Karnataka, India. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 427-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.05.007
Mueller, D. C. (2003). Public choice III (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813771
Navarro-Galera, A., Alcaraz-Quiles, F. J., & Ortiz-Rodríguez, D. (2016). Online dissemination of information on sustainability in regional governments. Effects of technological factors. Government Information Quarterly, 33, 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.12.003
Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process−what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 161-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8
Scupola, A., & Zanfei, A. (2016). Governance and innovation in public sector services: the case of the digital library. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 237-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.005
Sultan, A., AlArfaj, K. A., & AlKutbi, G. A. (2012). Analytic hierarchy process for the success of e‐government. Business Strategy Series, 13(6), 295-306. https://doi.org/10.1108/17515631211286146
Urban, B., & Joubert, G. C. D. S. (2017). Multidimensional and comparative study on intellectual capital and organisational performance. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2016.1255990
Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(2), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500036
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Vilutienė, T., & Lepkova, N. (2017). Integrated group fuzzy multi-criteria model: case of facilities management strategy selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 82, 317-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.03.072
Zemanovicova, D., & Vasakova, L. (2016). Independent regulatory institutions in the global economy. In 16th International Scientific Conference on Globalization and its Socio-Economic Consequences (pp. 2498-2504). Rajecke Teplice, Slovak Republic, University of Zilina.