IMPLEMENTATION OF IT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES – BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES

Snežana Đorđević

Abstract

State and local governments in e-tools have important instruments of quality management and the creation and implementation of sectoral policies. Smart city projects provide excellent services to citizens, increase the transparency and accountability of authorities, as well as citizens’ satisfaction with services.

Participative e- decision-making is useful because citizens are indispensable for expressing their needs, assessing the quality of services, and setting requests and initiatives (co-production). On the other hand, it is also important to include public servants who ensure that decisions are optimally shaped and that services are tailored according to the needs of specific people (personalization of services) and the community.

Serbia has a systemic problem of centralization, a top-down approach to management, weak participation of citizens and weak involvement of experts in the work of e-government. Good practice indicates that e-government cannot function without the active involvement of citizens, so our system needs to be changed and improved. These changes would also modernize management, decision making and policy making (evidence based decision and policy making). The consequence would be the creation of services according to the needs of citizens, which increases citizens’ satisfaction with the quality of services. In addition, these processes strengthen the socialization of citizens, strengthen democratic capacities of communities, and raise the motivation of employees to contribute to the quality of work (strengthening of professionalization, motivation and dignity of public servants).

References

Caragliu, Andrea, Chiara Del Bo, and Peter Nijkamp. 2011. “Smart Cities in Europe.” Journal of Urban Technology 18 (2): 65‒82. doi:10.1080/10630732.2011.601117.

Cordella, Antonio, and Nicollo Tempini. 2011. E-Government and Bureaucracy: The Role of Functional Simplification in the Case of the Venice Municipality, Gov. Workshop 2011, West London: Brunel Univercity UB8 3PH.

Curwell, Steve, Mark Deaklin, Ian Cooper, and Kressimira Paskaleva. 2005. “Citizens’ Expectations of Infomation Cities: Implications for Urban Planning and Design.ˮ Building Research & Information 33 (1). 55‒66. doi: 10.1080/0961321042000329422.

De Boer, Noortje, and Nadine Raaphorst. 2021. “Automation and discretion: explaining the effect of automation on how street-level bureaucrats enforce.” Public Management Review 25 (1): 42‒62. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2021.1937684.

Đorđević, Snežana. 2019 “Smart Policies and Innovative Services.ˮ In The Future of Cities, ed. Borislav Stojkov, 361‒374. Beograd: Academy of Engineering sciences, BU, Faculty of Geography.

Đorđević, Snežana. 2021. „Digitalizacija koja podržava participativnu demokratiju i održivi razvoj.ˮ U Građani u doba dezinformacija, ur. Aleksandra Krsti, 107‒126. Beograd: UPNS, FPN.

Ersoy, Aksel. 2017. “Smart Cities as a Mechanism towards a broader Understanding of Infrastructure Interdependencies.” Regional Studies, Regional Science 4 (1): 26‒31 doi: 10.1080/21681376.2017.1281154.

Fugini, Mariagrazia, Enrico Bracci, Mariafrancesca Sicilia Eds. 2016. Co-production in the Public Sector Experiences and Challenges. Milano: Politecnico di Milano, Springer.

Fung, Archon. 2004. Empowered Participation, Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ministarstvo državne uprave i lokalne samouprave. 2022. Program razvoja e-uprave u RS za period od 2023 di 2025 sa akcionim planom za njegovo sprovođenje, Beograd.

Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Re-Inventing Government. MA: Addison Wesley.

Ostrom, Elinor. 1999. “Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy and development.ˮ In Polycentric Governance and Development, Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, ed. M.D. McGinnis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Paletti, Andrea. 2016. “Co-production Through ICT in the Public Sector: When Citizens Reframe the Production of Public Services.ˮ In Digitally Supported Innovation, eds. Caporarello Leonardo, Fabrizio Cesaroni, Raphael Giesecke and Michele Missikoff. 141‒152. Berlin: Springer.

Pestoff, Victor. 2008. A Democratic Architecture for the Welfare State: Promoting citizen participation, the third sectora and coproduction. London, New York: Routledge.

Pestoff, Victor. 2009. “Toward a Paradigm of Democratic Participation: Citizen Participation and Co-production of Personal Social Services in Sweden.ˮ Annals of Public and Cooperative Ecoonomics 80 (2): 197–224, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8292.2009.00384.x.

Schou, Jannick, and Marten Hjelholt. 2018. Digitalization and Public Sector Transformation. Palgrave: Macmillan.

Swiss Pro. 2019. Procena stanja elektronske uprave u jedinicama lokalne samouprave – Swiss PRO indeks razvoja e – uprave. Beograd: Swiss PRO, DCG, SDC, UNOPS, SKGO.

Thomann Eva, Nadine van Engen, and Lars Tummers. 2018. “The Necessity of Discretion: A Behavioral Evaluation of Bottom-Up Implementation Theory.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28 (4): 583–601. doi:10.1093/jopart/muy024.

Tummers, Lars and Juliano Bekkers. 2014. Policy Implementation, Street-level Bureaucracy, and the Importance of Discretion, Public Management Review 16 (4): 527‒547. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.841978.