The Influence of E‐government on Administrative Discretion: The Case of Local Governments in Egypt

Abstract

SUMMARYOne important but often understudied area of research in public administration is the effect of e-government on administrative discretion. This article examines e-government factors that influence administrative discretion through a survey of local governments. The focus of this study is on Egyptian local governments, which are using e-government to modernise public service delivery. Through a survey of administrative officials in these governments, this study found evidence that e-government factors of collaboration and organisational change influenced administrative discretion. Other common factors noted in the literature such as size of the local government and demand by citizens for e-government did not register an effect on administrative discretion. The results of this study imply that local governments should do more to enhance e-government to reduce administrative discretion, especially in the area of increasing collaboration.

The Role of Contextual Factors in the Influence of ICT on Street-Level Discretion

“…This use is highly dependent on the task to be controlled and other contextual factors [3,19]. While street-level bureaucrats can alternate between a personalizedflexible and distant-rigid strategy in face-to-face encounters, this is less possible using technology and thus restricts street-level discretion [20]. Additionally, computerized procedures may restrict street-level bureaucrats simply because the number of options is reduced, and could even provide them with an excuse; "the computer says what the computer says" [21, p. 574] thus hiding the discretion effectively used [14].…”

Neo-cadastres: innovative solution for land users without state based land rights, or just reflections of institutional isomorphism?

“…The Larasita program in Indonesia started in December 2008 in Klaten, Central Java (Reddick et al, 2011). The program offers a mobile land registration service for local rural communities.…”

“…The Tirtomulyo village in the Bantul district in the Yogyakarta province was among the first villages where the Larasita province was tested. Reddick et al (2011) investigated in this village how the project officers executed these tests, and compared it to the process of land registration where Larasita was not present, the village of Donotirto, a neighbouring village of Tirtomulyo. In a similar way, Djoko (2013) and Megawati (2013) investigated the practice of Larasita in Banjar (south Kalimantan) and Kalitenga in region (kabupaten) Sidoarjo respectively.…”

“…The process of registration was also through the Dukuh. The Dukuh announced the first village meeting; the Dukuh visited every house to explain the land registration process; the villagers fill in the registration form with the support of the Dukuh; checking of the documents and payments of the fees is done through the Dukuh; boundary conflicts are solved with the mediation of the Dukuh; the announcement of the certificate is done through the Dukuh; the certificates are handed out by the Dukuh (Reddick et al 2011). In summary, the relation of the villagers to the Dukuh is crucial:…”

“…The message of Larasita goes from the Dukuh to the village community. (…) Because the village community trusts the Dukuh as their leader, the Dukuh has the power to talk to the community and influence them to trust Larasita (Reddick et al, 2011). For those who do not agree with the results of the registration the interviews revealed that the villagers are somewhat detached from the formalities involved in the Larasita process:…”