Implementation of Digital‐Era Governance: The Case of Open Data in U.S. Cities

Abstract

This article examines the institutional factors that influence the implementation of open data platforms in U.S. cities. Public management scholarship has argued that governance can be transformed by new information technologies that improve transparency and engagement, reduce administrative costs, and support performance management systems. However, this argument ignores key risks for administrators, as well as institutional and political obstacles that can thwart implementation. This article uses hierarchical negative binomial regression to analyze the organizational and institutional features influencing implementation in more than 1,500 departments across 60 cities. Department type and administrative capacity are strongly associated with the number of open data files available, while city‐level institutional characteristics and administrative capacity are not significant factors. Municipal demographics are also identified as a factor, suggesting a potential demand‐side influence from wealthy and technologically proficient residents. Evidence for Practice The implementation of open data policies benefits from targeted approaches at the department level rather than uniform, citywide objectives or requirements. City executive‐level positions such as chief data or information officers are not necessarily associated with successful implementation, measured by the number of open data files made available. Open data implementation involves additional administrative responsibilities and labor at the department level, so city administrators looking to expand the number and variety of data sets available through their open data platforms should devote time and resources to working directly with departments to facilitate and encourage data sharing. Administrators looking to expand the number and variety of data sets available through their open data platforms should consider the costs associated with investing in increasing individual departments’ abilities to balance the additional administrative responsibilities and labor involved.

Service Design and Citizen Satisfaction with E‐Government Services: A Multidimensional Perspective

“…Our research contributes to the literature on public administration in multiple ways. First, our research extends the understanding of citizens' perceptions and attitudes (Wright 2015), complementing the existing body of research primarily focusing on public employees (e.g., Bellé 2013) and local governments (e.g., Ganapati 2011;Young 2020). We focused our investigation on citizens and proposed a research model that relates design characteristics of e-government services to citizens' service experience outcomes.…”

Social Equity and COVID‐19: The Case of African Americans

“…Lastly, while governments have leveraged the internet and social media technologies to foster public engagement (Leighninger 2011; Nabatchi and Mergel 2010; Young 2020), they have arguably dedicated less attention to the digital divide or digital inequality in access to computers, high‐speed internet, and technology (Norris 2001; Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury 2003) experienced by racial and ethnic minorities (Perry and Turner 2019). African Americans will be unable to gain access to critical, potentially lifesaving information necessary to mitigate the spread of COVID‐19—let alone civically engage—if this digital divide persists.…”

Business Process Management Culture in Public Administration and Its Determinants

“…Public sector reforms such as NPM and the ongoing digital transformation are considered a means to overcome the Weberian bureaucracy paradigm and, thus, the strong departmentalization of public administration (Bannister 2001;Ho 2002;Roberts 2011). However, many public administration institutions are still characterized by strong hierarchies and organizational silos, in particular with regard to digitalization efforts such as the interoperability of systems (Klischewski 2004) and open governmental data (Young 2020).…”