Factors influencing the prioritization of rival public value positions in Brazilian digital government initiatives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-11-2023-0225Keywords:
Public value, Value positions, Digital government, e-government, Digital services, Public servicesAbstract
PurposeThis study aims to identify factors influencing the prioritization of rival public values, with Brazilian state governments as locus. The paper also proposes a conceptual model comprising the intervening factors and their relationships with the public and the value positions.
Design/methodology/approachThis exploratory study used a qualitative cross-sectional design. A focus group was used as the method of data collection, with 27 civil servants from 13 Brazilian states, representing all geographic regions, serving as respondents. Data analysis was based on the rhetoric of public managers’ discourses in counterpoint to their practical actions regarding decisions on prioritizing public value positions.
FindingsThe government side was analyzed; however, the quantitative validation of the theoretical model remains to be conducted in further research.
Research limitations/implicationsThe data analysis revealed that political issues are the primary variable influencing digital government decisions. Therefore, political leadership is the decisive factor driving the choices regarding digital initiatives. It may also indicate why the values adopted differ from those defended by political agents and explain the imperative of efficiency, as political decision-making can interfere with internal factors. The media was the only external factor identified.
Practical implicationsThis research contributes to understanding the factors and variables that influence decision-making regarding digital government projects.
Social implicationsThe study can help in understanding public value positions, promoting transparency, inclusion and improving governance. Government social media efforts are key in cultivating digital participation and engagement. This digital transformation in government is vital, aligning with the growing expectations of digital experiences, thus empowering citizens and enhancing the relationship between government and citizens.
Originality/valueThe proposed conceptual model makes a relevant theoretical contribution by illustrating the dynamics of prioritizing rival public value positions.
Downloads
References
Busch, P. A. and Henriksen, H. Z. (2018). “Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion”. Information Polity, 23(1), pp. 3–28. doi: 10.3233/ip-170050.
Cordella, A. and Bonina, C. M. (2012). “A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection”. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), pp. 512–520. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004.
Chan, F. K., Thong, J. Y., Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2025). “Design characteristics and service experience with e-government services: A public value perspective”. International Journal of Information Management, 80, 102834. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2024.102834.
Criado, J. I. and Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2019). “Creating public value through smart technologies and strategies: From digital services to artificial intelligence and beyond”. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(5), pp. 438–450. doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-07-2019-0178.
Distel, B., and Lindgren, I. (2019). “Who are the users of digital public services?: A critical reflection on differences in the treatment of citizens as ‘users’ in e-government research”. Proceedings of the 11th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2019, (pp. 117–129). Springer International Publishing.
Durst, S. and Leyer, M. (2022). “The influence of institutional conditions on firms’ process innovation – evidence from firms based on a multi-country analysis”. The Bottom Line Managing Library Finances, 35(4), pp. 161–184. doi: 10.1108/bl-11-2021-0105.
Gupta, J. and Suri, P. (2017). “Measuring public value of e-governance projects in India: citizens’ perspective”. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. doi: 10.1108/TG-07-2016-0043.
Hyytinen, A., Tuimala, J., and Hammar, M. (2022). “Enhancing the adoption of digital public services: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment”. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), p. 101687. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101687.
Janowski, T. (2015). “Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization”. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), pp. 221–236. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.001.
Ju, J. et al. (2023). “Citizen preferences and government chatbot social characteristics: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment”. Government Information Quarterly, (101785). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101785.
Madsen, C. Ø., Lindgren, I., and Melin, U. (2022). “The accidental caseworker – How digital self-service influences citizens’ administrative burden”. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1), p. 101653. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101653.
Moore, M.H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
Naveed, S., Farooqi, M. R., and Salman, Y. (2025). “Wicked problems and value co-destruction in service ecosystems: navigating the tension between public and private value”. International Journal of Public Sector Management. Ahead of print. doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-11-2023-0319.
Pedersen, K. (2018). “E-government transformations: Challenges and strategies”. Transforming Government - People Process and Policy, 12(1), pp. 84–109. doi: 10.1108/tg-06-2017-0028.
Persson, A. and Goldkuhl, G. (2010). “Government value paradigms—bureaucracy, new public management, and E-government”. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 27. doi: 10.17705/1cais.02704.
Persson, J. S. et al. (2017). “Value positions in e-government strategies: Something is (not) changing in the state of Denmark”. Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems. The Association for Information Systems (AIS), pp. 904-917.
Ranerup, A. and Henriksen, H. Z. (2019). “Value positions viewed through the lens of automated decision-making: The case of social services”. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), p. 101377. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.004.
Rose, J. et al. (2015a). “How e-Government managers prioritise rival value positions: The efficiency imperative”. Information Polity, 20(1), pp. 35–59. doi: 10.3233/ip-150349.
Rose, J. et al. (2015b). “Managing e‐Government: Value positions and relationships: Value paradigms for e-Government”. Information Systems Journal, 25(5), pp. 531–571. doi: 10.1111/isj.12052.
Rose, J. and Flak, L. S. (2018). “Stakeholder theory for the E-government context: Framing a value-oriented normative core”. Government Information Quarterly, 35(3), pp. 362–374. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2018.06.005.
Rose, J. and Persson, J. (2012). “E-government value priorities of Danish local authority managers”. In: Rose, Kræmmergaard, & Nielsen (Eds.), IT Management in Local Government: The DISIMIT Project. (pp. 27- 56). Software Innovation, Aalborg University.
Roth, T. et al. (2023). “Blockchain as a driving force for federalism: A theory of cross-organizational task-technology fit”. International Journal of Information Management, 68, 102476. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102476.
Scholta, H. et al. (2018). “From one-stop shop to no-stop shop: An e-government stage model”. Government Information Quarterly, 36(1), pp. 11–26. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2018.11.010.
Soe, R.-M. and Drechsler, W. (2018). “Agile local governments: Experimentation before implementation”. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), pp. 323–335. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2017.11.010.
Stoker, G. (2006). “Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance?”. The American Review of Public Administration, 36, pp. 41–57.
Sundberg, L. (2016). “Risk and decision in collaborative e-Government: An objective-oriented approach”. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 14(1), pp. 35–46.
Thabit, S., Sancino, A., and Mora, L. (2024). “Strategic public value (s) governance: A systematic literature review and framework for analysis”. Public Administration Review, 85(3), pp. 885-906.
Tangi, L. et al. (2020). “Barriers and drivers of digital transformation in public organizations: Results from a survey in the Netherlands”. Proceedings of the 12th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2020. Springer International Publishing, pp. 42–56. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-57599-1_4.
Toll, D. et al. (2020). “Values, benefits, considerations, and risks of AI in government: A study of AI policies in Sweden”. JeDEM - eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 12(1), pp. 40–60. doi: 10.29379/jedem.v12i1.593.
Twizeyimana, J. and Andersson, A. (2019). “The public value of E-Government: A literature review”. Government Information Quarterly. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001.
Van der Wal, Z. and van Hout, E. T. J. (2009). “Is public value pluralism paramount? The intrinsic multiplicity and hybridity of public values”. International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3–4), pp. 220–231. doi: 10.1080/01900690902732681.
Wilson, C. (2022). “Public engagement and AI: A values analysis of national strategies”. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1), p. 101652. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101652.
Xanthopoulou, P. (2020). “From e-Government to Public Value creation”. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), (3). doi: 10.21275/SR20316155905.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Karen Lopes, Edimara Mezzomo Luciano, Guilherme Costa Wiedenhöft
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Management Department of the School of Economics, Management and Accounting of the University of São Paulo.
The publication of article segments is allowed, subject to prior authorization and source identification.
Copyright is regulated under Licença Creative Commons Attribution
