Reinstating Greek E-Governance: A Framework for E-Government Benchmarking, Improvement and Government Policies

Abstract

This paper presents the implementation and evolution of e-governance in Greece as well as offering insights, policies and suggestions for the design of e-government benchmarks. The research objectives of this article are to identify the appraisal of Greece in e-government over time and in relation to other countries as well as the role of internal audit and transparency related to digital public services. The method adopted is through an extensive bibliographic review of the Greek, European and international literature of the thematic field of e-government as well as the presentation of several frameworks to structure the discussion of e-government benchmark design based on a benchmarking with key indicators of published surveys from internationally reputable organizations. The findings of this paper are that Greece proceeded at a very slow pace in its digital transformation, shows shortcomings in e-government policies, records delays in adapting the services requested by citizens, and no matter the lack of investment in technological infrastructure, the effectiveness of e-governance presupposes proactiveness. Nevertheless, another key conclusion of the research is that Greece is far from the average performance of e-government in the European Union due to its chronic economic problems, the lack of technological equipment and the lack of overall orientation in e-government. Furthermore, this paper can be a measure of comparison for other countries that have similar characteristics to Greece in order to improve e-governance.

El gobierno electrónico y su eficacia en la mejora de los servicios públicos: revisión sistemática

“…Pero la falta de experiencia y conocimiento en el sector tecnológico es el mayor obstáculo para el desarrollo de políticas públicas hacia el gobierno digital (Idzi & Gomes, 2022). Este obstáculo se convierte en deficiencias en las políticas de gobierno electrónico, retrasando la adaptación de los servicios a las necesidades de los ciudadanos (Kontogeorgis & Varotsis, 2021).…”

Systematic Literature Review: Models of digital transformation in the public sector

“…Source Participation and Empowerment (Missingham, 2001), (Scupola & Zanfei, 2016), (Mattsson, 2016), (Caswell et al, 2017), (Nielsen, 2017), (Fielke et al, 2019), (Issabayeva et al, 2019), (J. P. Roy, 2019), (Rodriguez-Hevía et al, 2020), (C. H. Chen et al, 2020, (Fyshchuk & Evsyukova, 2020), (Agostino et al, 2020), (Mir et al, 2020), (Zerrer & Sept, 2020), (Haase & Buus, 2020), (Menon et al, 2021), (Abdullah et al, 2021), (Pynnönen et al, 2021), (Ponomarenko et al, 2021), (Lageson et al, 2021), (Zakir Hossain, 2021, (Criado & Guevara-Gómez, 2021), (Callanan, 2021), (Kontogeorgis & Varotsis, 2021), (Bhaskara & Bawa, 2021), (Boland et al, 2022), (Tan & Lim, 2022), (T. X. H. Nguyen et al, 2022), (Vasyltsiv et al, 2022), (Zumofen et al, 2022), (Hettiarachchi et al, 2022), (Noor, 2022) Skills and Digital Literacy (Galperin et al, 2013), (Berger et al, 2016), (Palmeiro et al, 2019), (Rowe, 2020), (Ali, 2020), (C. H. Chen et al, 2020), (Špaček et al, 2020), (Zerrer & Sept,...…”

Past, Present, and Future of Digital Government: Insights From Chinese Practices

“…Th e academic discourse on the models of building a digital government can be divided into four main streams. Th e fi rst stream is the theoretical school (Liu and Zhu, 2019; Kontogeorgis and Varotsis, 2021), which delves into the conceptual framework of digital government. Th e second stream is the institutional design school (Chen et al, 2020;Jiang, 2021), which focuses on the systemic structures that facilitate digital governance.…”