Kamu Yönetiminde Dijitalleşme Endekslerinin İçerikleri Üzerine Kavramsal Analiz

Öz

21 yüzyılda öne çıkan dijital dönüşüm, yaşam alışkanlıklarından, kurum kültürlerine, devlet yönetimine kadar her alanın değişimine neden olmuştur. Bu süreçte insanlar ve kurumlar gibi kamu yönetimi sistemi de çeşitli adaptasyon zorlukları yaşamıştır. Dijital dönüşüm sürecinin avantaj ve dezavantajları her yenilik gibi ülkelere göre farklı etkiler yaratmıştır. Bu yönü ile dijital dönüşüm sürecinde yenilikçilik yaratan Uzakdoğu ülkeleri, dijital dönüşüm altyapısına yatırım yapabilen gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkeler ve dijital dönüşüm sürecinin gerisinde kalan ülkeler ayrımı oluşmuştur. Dijital dönüşüm sürecinde ülkeler arasında kıyaslama yapabilmek adına endeksler oluşturmak sosyal bilim alanında çeşitli eleştirilere neden olmuştur. Endeksleme süreçlerinde genellikle ülkeler sıralamada üste çıkabilmek için rekabet halindedir. Bu noktada endekslerin ölçümleri ve kriterleri ne derece adaletli ya da gerçeği gösterdiği sorunsalı ortaya çıkabilir. Benzer şekilde ele alınan kriterler ölçülürken içeriklerinin hangi politik altyapıya göre belirlendiği, bu kriterleri belirleyen politika yapıcılarının kimler olduğu incelemeye değer bir konudur. Dolayısıyla, çalışmanın amacı kamu yönetiminde dijital dönüşüme yönelik endekslerin içeriklerini karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektir. Çalışma nitel bir yaklaşım ile ele alınmıştır. Çalışmanın amacı doğrultusunda e-devlet endekslerine ilişkin temel veri, rapor ve yayınların derlenerek, yorumlanması planlamıştır. Çalışma sonucunda karşılaştırmalı olarak e-devlet endeksleri ele alınarak, endekslere daha detaylı bir bakış açısı getirileceği düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kamu yönetimi
• dijital dönüşüm
• e-devlet
• uluslararası endeksler

Conceptual Analysis on the Contents of Digitalization Indexes in Public Administration

Öz

The digital transformation that has come to the fore in the 21st century has caused changes in every field, from living habits to institutional cultures and state administration. In this process, the public administration system, like people and institutions, has experienced various adaptation difficulties. The advantages and disadvantages of the digital transformation process, like every innovation, have had different effects on different countries. In this respect, a distinction has been formed between Far Eastern countries that have created innovation in the digital transformation process, developed and developing countries that can invest in digital transformation infrastructure, and countries that are lagging in the digital transformation process. Creating indexes to make comparisons between countries in the digital transformation process has caused various criticisms in the field of social sciences. In indexing processes, countries are generally in competition to be able to move up in the rankings. At this point, the question of how fair or true the measurements and criteria of the indexes may arise. Similarly, it is worth examining the political infrastructure according to which the content of the criteria considered is determined while measuring them and who the policy makers are who determine these criteria. Therefore, the aim of the study is to comparatively examine the content of the indexes for digital transformation in public administration. The study was approached with a qualitative approach. In line with the purpose of the study, it was planned to compile and interpret basic data, reports and publications related to e-government indexes. As a result of the study, it is thought that a more detailed perspective will be brought to the indexes by considering e-government indexes comparatively.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public administration
• digital transformation
• e-government
• international indexes

Kaynakça

1. Alharbi, N., Papadaki, M., & Dowland, P. (2014). Security factors influencing end users’ adoption of e-government. Journal of Internet Technology and Secured Transactions, 3(4).
2. Alshehri, M., & Drew, S. (2010, July). E-government fundamentals. In Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference ICT, Society and Human Beings (pp. 35–42).
3. Asgarkhani, M. (2005). Digital government and its effectiveness in public management reform: A local government perspective. Public Management Review, 7(3), 465–487.
4. Ayanso, A., Chatterjee, D., & Cho, D. I. (2011). E-government readiness index: A methodology and analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 28(4), 522–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.07.002
5. Borčić, N., & Holy, M. (2022). The argumentative potential of media discourses using the example of various messages on the Digital Economy and Society Index subtopic (DESI). Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://www.croris.hr/crosbi/publikacija/prilog-knjiga/72917
6. Boyer-Wright, K. M., & Kottemann, J. E. (2015). E-government and related indices: Telecommunications infrastructure, human capital, institutional efficacy, and online services. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 11(4), 24–37.
7. Chandler Institute of Governance. (n.d.-a). Chandler Good Government Index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://chandlergovernmentindex.com/
8. EEA. (n.d.-a). Citizen Participation Index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://index.fgu.bg/en

9. European Commission. (n.d.-a). Digital Decade 2024: eGovernment Benchmark. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/digital-decade-2024-egovernment-benchmark
10. European Commission. (n.d.-b). Digital public services in the Digital Economy and Society Index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/desi-digital-public-services
11. Feijóo, C., Ramos, S., Armuña, C., Arenal, A., & Gómez-Barroso, J. L. (2018). A study on the deployment of high-speed broadband networks in NUTS-3 regions within the framework of Digital Agenda for Europe. Telecommunications Policy, 42(9), 682–699.
12. Filgueiras, F. (2022). The politics of AI: Democracy and authoritarianism in developing countries. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 19(4), 449–464.
13. Fillet, S. (2023, January 4). 5 indices & frameworks to evaluate e-participation. Go Vocal. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://www.govocal.com/blog/5-ways-to-measure-evaluate-e-participation
14. Fougner, T. (2008). Neoliberal governance of states: The role of competitiveness indexing and country benchmarking. Millennium, 37(2), 303–326.
15. Gaaloul, H., & Khalfallah, S. (2014). Application of the “benefit-of-the-doubt” approach for the construction of a digital access indicator: A revaluation of the Digital Access Index. Social Indicators Research, 118, 45–56.
16. Gabryelczyk, R. (2020). Has COVID-19 accelerated digital transformation? Initial lessons learned for public administrations. Information Systems Management, 37(4), 303–309.
17. Giannone, D., & Santaniello, M. (2019). Governance by indicators: The case of the Digital Agenda for Europe. Information, Communication & Society, 22(13), 1889–1902.
18. Girish, J., Yates, D. J., & Williams, C. B. (2012, January). Understanding the impact of political structure, governance and public policy on e-government. In 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2541–2550). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.246
19. GSMA. (n.d.-a). Mobile Connectivity Index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://www.mobileconnectivityindex.com/index.html
20. Heeks, R. (2006, July). Understanding and measuring e-government: International benchmarking studies. Paper presented at UNDESA Workshop “E-Participation and E-Government,” Budapest, Hungary.
21. Heeks, R. (2008). Benchmarking e-government: Improving national and international measurement, evaluation and comparison. In Evaluating information systems (pp. 257–301). Routledge.
22. Humphrey, A., & Mayoka, K. G. (2016). A framework for usability of e-government services in developing countries. Global Advanced Research Journal of Social Science, 5(1), 1–10.
23. International Telecommunication Union. (n.d.-a). Gauging ICT potential around the world. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://www.itu.int/itunews/manager/display.asp?lang=en&year=2003&issue=10&ipage=digitalAccess
24. International Telecommunication Union. (n.d.-b). The ICT Development Index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/IDI/default.aspx
25. Karpenko, O., Zaporozhets, T., Tsedik, M., Vasiuk, N., & Osmak, A. (2023). Digital transformations of public administration in countries with transition economies. European Review, 31(6), 569–588.
26. Krasnykov, Y., Ninyuk, I., Storozhenko, L., Marukhlenko, O., & Kruhlov, V. (2024). Impact of digital public services on governance efficiency. Revista de Estudios Interdisciplinarios en Ciencias Sociales, 26, 35–51.
27. Marcus, J. S., & Elixmann, D. (2012). Re-thinking the Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE): A richer choice of technologies [Report]. Liberty Global.
28. Martínez, Y., Clastornik, J., & Campos, O. A. (2022, October). eGovernment measuring frameworks: A comparative analysis of different indexes based on their taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 397–403). ACM.
29. Matteucci, N. (2020). Digital agendas, regional policy and institutional quality: Assessing the Italian broadband plan. Regional Studies, 54(9), 1304–1316.
30. National Cyber Security Index. (n.d.-a). National Cyber Security Index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://ncsi.ega.ee/ncsi-index/
31. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). OECD Digital Government Index 2023. https://doi.org/10.1787/1a89ed5e-en
32. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (n.d.-a). Open Government Data. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://web-archive.oecd.org/temp/2022-05-20/253891-open-government-data.htm
33. Open Knowledge International. (n.d.-a). Global Open Data Index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://urenio.org/2017/06/26/open-knowledge-international-global-open-data-index/
34. Our World in Data. (n.d.-a). Women's civil society participation index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/women-civil-society-participation-index
35. Our World in Data. (n.d.-b). Political participation index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/political-participation-index-eiu
36. Oxford Insights. (n.d.-a). Government AI Readiness Index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://oxfordinsights.com/ai-readiness/ai-readiness-index/
37. Przeybilovicz, E., Cunha, M. A., & Ribeiro, M. M. (2023, July). Decolonizing e-government benchmarking. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 570–582). ACM.
38. Radu, A. F., & Petcu, I. (2021). Intrinsic aspects of e-government consolidation across the European Union: Case study – Romania. Romanian Journal of Information Technology & Automatic Control, 31(4).
39. Ratuva, S. (2021). Social indexology, neoliberalism and racialised metrics: Legitimising the ‘inferiority’ of Global South countries. Third World Quarterly, 42(9), 2096–2114.
40. Rorissa, A., Demissie, D., & Pardo, T. (2011). Benchmarking e-government: A comparison of frameworks for computing e-government index and ranking. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 354–362.
41. SIDA Civil Society Center. (n.d.-a). Civil Society Index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://cdn.sida.se/publications/files/sida36966en-civil-society-index.pdf
42. Seo, J., Kim, B., & Kwon, H. Y. (2021, June). Open data policies analysis disputes mediation cases in Korea: Based on OUR Data Index and ODB. In DG.O 2021: The 22nd Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 153–167). ACM.
43. Skargren, F., & Garcia Ambrosiani, K. (2022). The practitioners’ guide to a digital index: Unearthing design-principles of an abstract artefact. Information Polity, 27(1), 21–41.
44. Storozhenko, L., Krasnykov, Y., Kaganovska, T. E., Babichev, A., & Rossikhina, H. (2023). Digital competence of society as a component of modern public administration. Revista Amazonia Investiga, 12(72), 123–134.
45. The Global Economy. (n.d.-a). Political stability – Country rankings. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/wb_political_stability/
46. Todoruţ, A. V., & Tselentis, V. (2018). Digital technologies and the modernization of public administration. Calitatea-Access la Success, 19(165), 73–78.
47. Transparency International UK. (n.d.-a). Corporate Political Engagement Index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://www.transparency.org.uk/corporate-political-engagement-index
48. Tornhill, S. (2013). Index politics: Negotiating competitiveness agendas in Costa Rica and Nicaragua [Doctoral dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin]. https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/19632
49. Trung, N. Q., & Toan, T. P. K. (2020, August 17). Spurring e-government initiatives. Vietnam Investment Review. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://vir.com.vn/spurring-e-government-initiatives-75704.html
50. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2024). E-Government Survey 2024: Accelerating digital transformation for sustainable development. United Nations.
51. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Public Institutions. (2024). Measurement and Evaluation Tool for Citizen Engagement and e-Participation. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://publicadministration.un.org/en/Capacity-Building/Tools/METEP
52. United Nations. (n.d.-a). E-Government Development Index (EGDI). Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/Overview/-E-Government-Development-Index
53. United Nations. (n.d.-b). UN Online Service Index (OSI). Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://prosperitydata360.worldbank.org/en/indicator/WB+GTMI+I+18
54. United Nations. (n.d.-c). Local Online Service Index (LOSI). Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/E-Government-at-Local-Level/Local-Online-Service-Index-LOSI
55. United Nations. (n.d.-d). E-Participation Index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/Overview/E-Participation-Index
56. Weaver, R. K. (2010). Automatic government: The politics of indexation. Brookings Institution Press.
57. World Intellectual Property Organization. (n.d.-a). Global Innovation Index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://www.wipo.int/en/web/global-innovation-index
58. Whitmore, A. (2012). A statistical analysis of the construction of the United Nations E-Government Development Index. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 68–75.
59. World Bank Group. (n.d.-a). UN Telecommunication Infrastructure Index (TII). Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://prosperitydata360.worldbank.org/en/indicator/WB+GTMI+I+16
60. World Bank Group. (n.d.-b). Human Capital Index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0038030/Human-Capital-Index
61. World Bank Group. (n.d.-c). Worldwide Governance Indicators. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/worldwide-governance-indicators
62. World Bank Group. (n.d.-d). GovTech Maturity Index: The state of public sector digital transformation. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/5b2c81db-9bd3-5a41-b05d-14f878abe03d
63. World Bank Group. (n.d.-e). Civil society participation index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://prosperitydata360.worldbank.org/en/indicator/VDEM+CORE+v2x_cspart
64. Yıldırım, S., & Bostancı, S. (2022). Covid-19 krizi etkisinde dijital ekonomide yaşanan gelişmelere yönelik nitel bir yaklaşım. Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 7(1), 32–44.
65. Yıldırım, S., Bostancı, S. H., Yıldırım, D. Ç., & Erdoğan, F. (2021a). Rethinking mobility of international university students during COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 15(2), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-01-2021-0014
66. Yıldırım, S., & Bostancı, S. H. (2021b). The efficiency of e-government portal management from a citizen perspective: Evidence from Turkey. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 18(3), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-04-2021-0049
67. Younus, M., Pribadi, U., Nurmandi, A., & Rahmawati, I. Z. (2023). Comparative analysis of E-Government Development Index: A case study of South Asian countries. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 17(4), 552–574.
68. Youth Democracy Court. (n.d.-a). Youth Political Participation Index. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://youthdemocracycohort.com/youth-political-participation-index/