INSTITUTIONAL ISOMORPHISM BETWEEN THE TRNC AND TURKEY FOR E-GOVERNMENT STRATEGY: WHAT ENCOURAGES SPONTANEOUS ISOMORPHISM?

Yıl 2011, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1, 121 - 132, 01.06.2011

Mustafa Sağsan Şerife Eyüpoğlu Tülen Saner

Öz

This study aims at reviewing the TRNC e-government studies by considering Turkey’s e-government best practices based on the institutional isomorphism theory with its three mechanisms, namely coercive isomorphism, mimetic processes, and normative pressures. Turkey has a lot of experience with the best practices and their successful application on e-government projects, especially legal issues, technological systems, local and governmental authorities, etc. Thus, the TRNC should make use of this opportunity by utilizing these practices and making its own strategic plan based on the national information policy. The requirements and adaptability points of e-government issues between the countries will be discussed here. Consequently, neither mimetic, normative isomorphism, nor coercive isomorphism is enough to be modeled by the TRNC egovernment efforts. Instead, the concept of ‘spontaneous isomorphism’ was created in the study and discussed as an alternative institutional isomorphism between the TRNC and Turkey based on the Best Practices e-Government Models

Anahtar Kelimeler

e-Government, TRNC, Turkey, institutional isomorphism, spontaneous isomorphism

Kaynakça

• Backus, M. (2001). eGovernance and developing countries: introduction and examples, IICD
• Research Brief, No:3, http://www.ftpiicd.org, [Accessed 15.12.2008].
• Chandler, S. and Emanuels, S. (2002). Transformation Not Automation, Proceedings of 2nd
• European Conference on E-Government, pp. 91-102, Oxford, UK. Fennell, M.L. (1980). The effects of environmental characteristic on the structure of hospital clusters, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 484-540.
• Heeks, R. (2002). E-Government in Africa: Promise and Practice, Information Polity: The International Journal of Government and Democracy in the Information Age, 7(2/3): 97.
• Hinings, B., and R. Greenwood. 1988. The normative prescription of organizations. In Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment, ed. L.G. Zucker, 53–70. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.
• Howard, M. (2001). E-Government across the Globe: How will “e” change Government?,
• Government Finance Review, 17(4): 6-9.pp. Jaffee, D. (2008). Organizational Theory: Tension and Change. McGraw-Hill Education (UK) Ltd.
• Kachwamba, M. and Hussein, A. (2009). Determinants of e-Government maturity: Do organizational specific factors matter?, ICEGOV: Advances in eGovernment and eGovernance
• (Ed. A. Kaplan, A. Balci, C.C.Aktan, Ö.Dalbay), in 67-78pp., Ankara;: SOBİAD and TURKSAT. Laumann, E.O.; Galaskiewicz, J.; Marsden, P. (1978). Community structure as interorganizational linkage, Annual Review of Sociology, 4, 455-484.
• Layne, K. and Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-Government: a four stages model,
• Government Information Quarterly, 18(2):122.p. Mallinson, W. (2005). Cyprus: A modern history. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd.
• Meyer, J.W. (1979). The impact of the centralization of educational funding and control on state and local organizational governance, Stanford University, Program report No: 79-B20.
• Meyer, J.W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–63.
• Misuraca, G. (2006). E-Governance in Africa, from theory to action: a practical oriented research and case studies on ICT for Local governance, ACM International Conference Proceedings Series:
• Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Digital Government Research.
• Mizruchi, M.S. and Fein, L.C. (1999). The Social construction of organizational knowledge: a study of uses of coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, : 653-683.
• Peters, B.G. 2001. Institutional Theory in Political Science: the new institutionalism. London: Continuum.
• Reffat, R. (2003). Developing a successful e-government: opportunity and challenges, The Symposium on e-Government , Muscat: Oman.
• Sagsan, M. (2001). E-Devlet: Toplumların Yeni Umut Işığı mı?, Stratejik Analiz, Kasım, 89- pp.
• Sagsan, M. and Yildiz, M. (2009). E-government in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. (ed. C. Reddick) Comparative E-Government in 409-423 pp., New York: Springer.
• Sozen, C. and Sagsan, M. (2009). Social network versus technical networks: how different social interaction patterns effect information systems utilization in the organizations?, Journal of US
• China Public Administration, 6(7): 65-72. Silcock, R. (2001). What is e-Government, Parliamentary Affairs, 54, 88-101.
• United Nations e-Government Survey (2008). e-Government Survey : from e-Government to
• Connected Governance, New York: UN. White, H.; Boorman, S.A. and Breiger, R.L. (1976). Social Structure from multiple networks. I.
• Blockmodels of roles and positions, American Journal of Sociology, 81:730-780. Yildiz, M. (2009). E-Government policy processes from a grounded theory perspectives: the case of Turkey, Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.