International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 9, Issue 8 (August 2022), Pages: 41-48

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Main directions for improving public administration mechanisms in Ukraine

 Author(s): Progoniuk Lyudmila *, Husenko Anzhela

 Affiliation(s):

 Department of Public Administration and International Economics, Mykolaiv National Agrarian University, Mykolaiv, Ukraine

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0376-5079

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2022.08.005

 Abstract:

The aim of this study is to determine the prerogatives of digital modernization of the public administration system based on the assessment of the development of digital government and the identification of major barriers. That involves both organizational and procedural changes and cultural changes in public authorities, personnel and qualification structures, interaction with citizens, and the effectiveness of public services. In the course of the study, statistical methods were used (qualitative and quantitative analysis), and empirical methods. Despite the automation of public authorities in recent years, the results of the transfer of public services to electronic format remain unsatisfactory. Digital modernization of the public administration system involves expanding methods for analyzing and evaluating the implementation of state programs, including auditing the effectiveness of their implementation. Currently, the assessment involves calculating the degree of achievement of the target values of performance indicators of projects, and monitoring is the assessment of the share of key events (activities) that occurred on time. The use of technologies of predictive analytics, and artificial intelligence has significantly changed the quality of information and analytical support of decisions. "Big data" processing technologies contribute to the adaptation of public policy measures to the needs and characteristics of the recipients of regulation.

 © 2022 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Public administration, Digitalization, Modernization, Digital government

 Article History: Received 22 February 2022, Received in revised form 10 May 2022, Accepted 16 May 2022

 Acknowledgment 

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Lyudmila P and Anzhela H (2022). Main directions for improving public administration mechanisms in Ukraine. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 9(8): 41-48

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

----------------------------------------------    

 References (30)

  1. Alcaide Muñoz L, Rodríguez Bolívar MP, and López Hernández AM (2017). Transparency in governments: A meta-analytic review of incentives for digital versus hard-copy public financial disclosures. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(5): 550-573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016629008   [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen B, Tamindael LE, Bickerton SH, and Cho W (2020). Does citizen coproduction lead to better urban services in smart cities projects? An empirical study on e-participation in a mobile big data platform. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1): 101412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101412   [Google Scholar]
  3. Belcher B and Palenberg M (2018). Outcomes and impacts of development interventions: Toward conceptual clarity. American Journal of Evaluation, 39(4): 478-495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018765698   [Google Scholar]
  4. Boin A, Brock K, Craft J, Halligan J, ‘t Hart P, Roy J, and Turnbull L (2020). Beyond COVID‐19: Five commentaries on expert knowledge, executive action, and accountability in governance and public administration. Canadian Public Administration, 63(3): 339-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12386   [Google Scholar]
  5. DESA (2018). United nations e-government survey 2018. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  6. DESA (2020). United nations e-government survey 2020. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Effah J, Owusu-Oware E, and Boateng R (2020). Biometric identification for socioeconomic development in Ghana. Information Systems Management, 37(2): 136-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2020.1732528   [Google Scholar]
  8. Fischer C and Proeller I (2019). Zukunftsszenarien für die digitale Verwaltung: Ergebnisse eines studentischen Beratungsprojekts. University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.   [Google Scholar]
  9. Fukumoto E and Bozeman B (2019). Public values theory: What is missing? The American Review of Public Administration, 49(6): 635-648. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018814244   [Google Scholar]
  10. Heuberger M and Schwab C (2021). Challenges of digital service provision for local governments from the citizens’ view: Comparing citizens’ expectations and their experiences of digital service provision. In: Bergström T, Franzke J, Kuhlmann S, and Wayenberg E (Eds.), The future of local self-government: 115-130. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56059-1_9   [Google Scholar]
  11. Heuermann R, Tomenendal M, and Bressem C (2018). Digitalisierung in Bund, Ländern und Gemeinden. Springer, Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54098-5   [Google Scholar]
  12. Homburg V (2018). ICT, e-government and e-governance: Bits and bytes for public administration. In: Ongaro E and Van Thiel S (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe: 347-361. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_18   [Google Scholar]
  13. Hwang S and Murphy P (2017). Mapping out e-government research literature: How interdisciplinary was it for the blooming decades? Electronic Government, an International Journal, 13(3): 224-241. https://doi.org/10.1504/EG.2017.086684   [Google Scholar]
  14. Jacob DW, Fudzee MFM, Salamat MA, and Herawan T (2019). A review of the generic end-user adoption of e-government services. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(4): 799-818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852319861895   [Google Scholar]
  15. Jehan SN and Alahakoon MUI (2020). Digitalization of public services-An input output logit analysis. Applied System Innovation, 3(4): 56‏. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi3040056   [Google Scholar]
  16. Kompella L (2020). Socio-technical transitions and organizational responses: Insights from e-governance case studies. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 23(2): 89-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2020.1752082   [Google Scholar]
  17. Lemke F, Ehrhardt K, and Popelyshyn O (2021). Support and resistance of public officials towards current eGovernment initiatives–A case study on Ukraine and Germany [Unterstützung und Ablehnung von Angestellten des öffentlichen Sektors gegenüber aktuellen eGovernment-Initiativen‒eine vergleichen]. Dms–der Moderne Staat–Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 14(1): 61-80. https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v14i1.08   [Google Scholar]
  18. Lindgren I, Madsen CØ, Hofmann S, and Melin U (2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3): 427-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.002   [Google Scholar]
  19. Mergel I (2019). Digitale transformation als Reformvorhaben der deutschen öffentlichen Verwaltung. Dms–der Moderne Staat–Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 12(1): 162-171. https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v12i1.09   [Google Scholar]
  20. Mergel I, Edelmann N, and Haug N (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4): 101385‏. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002   [Google Scholar]
  21. Nabatchi T (2018). Public values frames in administration and governance. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(1): 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvx009   [Google Scholar]
  22. Ranerup A and Henriksen HZ (2019). Value positions viewed through the lens of automated decision-making: The case of social services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4): 101377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.004   [Google Scholar]
  23. Schwanholz J, Zinser L, and Hindemith J (2021). Measuring policy effects: Online participation on the municipal level [Policy-Effekte messen: Online-Partizipation auf kommunaler Ebene]. Dms–der Moderne Staat–Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 14(1): 43-60. https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v14i1.10   [Google Scholar]
  24. Sterrenberg G (2017). A conceptual framework for evaluating E government systems success: A service ecosystem approach. In the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa Village, USA: 2529-2538. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.306   [Google Scholar]
  25. Tai KT, Porumbescu G, and Shon J (2020). Can e-participation stimulate offline citizen participation: An empirical test with practical implications. Public Management Review, 22(2): 278-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1584233   [Google Scholar]
  26. Tetley-Brown L and Klein E (2021). Exploring data-in-use: The value of data for Local Government [Data-in-Use: Der Wert von Daten für die Kommunalverwaltung]. Dms–der Moderne Staat–Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 14(1): 81-100. https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v14i1.07   [Google Scholar]
  27. Twizeyimana JD and Andersson A (2019). The public value of e-government–A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2): 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001   [Google Scholar]
  28. Veeramootoo N, Nunkoo R, and Dwivedi YK (2018). What determines success of an e-government service? Validation of an integrative model of e-filing continuance usage. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2): 161-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.03.004   [Google Scholar]
  29. Wirtz BW and Daiser P (2018). A meta-analysis of empirical e-government research and its future research implications. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(1): 144-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315599047   [Google Scholar]
  30. Wouters S, Lember V, and Crompvoets J (2021). Coordinating the digital transformation of inter-organizational public services–The case of e-invoicing in Belgium [Koordination der Digitalen Transformation organisationsübergreifender öffentlicher Dienstleistungen-Der Fall der elektronischen Rechnu]. Dms–der Moderne Staat–Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 14(1): 121-139. https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v14i1.06   [Google Scholar]