Can The Institutional Theory Of Organizations Be Useful To Understand And Explain E-Government Applications?

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 1, 7 - 22, 14.05.2018

Mete Yıldız , Nadi Leblebici

Öz

Studies about technologies used in the public administration system, more popularly known as e-government, has become an important topic of study in the discipline of public administration. One way of analyzing the e-government phenomenon is by examining it from a rational viewpoint. An alternative way of analysis is to employ the institutional theory of organizations, which helps explain internal conformity to the rules and trends of the institutional environment. Institutional theory necessitates the incorporation of the boundedly-rational, social, and political aspects of decisionmaking, such as concerns of legitimacy, stability, and survival. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

E-Government, Organization theory, Institutional theory of organizations, Legitimacy, Isomorphism

Kurumsal Örgüt Kuramı E-Devlet Uygulamalarını Anlamak ve Açıklamak için Yararlı Olabilir mi?

Öz

Kamu yönetimi sisteminde teknoloji kullanımı ile ilgili çalışmalar veya daha yaygın adıyla e-devlet, kamu yönetimi disiplininin önemli bir çalışma konusu haline gelmiştir. Bu makalede e-devlet alanındaki gelişmeleri incelemede ve anlamada kurumsal örgüt kuramı kullanımının getirdiği olanaklar, e-devlet alan yazınından örnekler yardımıyla ve bu yaklaşımın bazı kısıtlarına dikkat çekilerek ortaya konulmuştur. Varılan sonuç, e-devlet kavramı ve uygulaması hakkında yapılan analizlerde kurumsal örgüt kuramının, alan yazınında hâkim konumdaki yeni kamu işletmeciliği değerleri-odaklı bakış açısına ek olarak, toplumsal/örgütsel meşruiyet arayışları, simgesellik ve moda olma gibi farklı hususları da analize dâhil etmesi nedeniyle yararlı olabileceği yönündedir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

E-Devlet, Örgüt Kuramı, Kurumsal Örgüt Kuramı, Meşruiyet, Eşbiçimlilik

Kaynakça

• Anderson, L., & Bishop, P. (2005). E-Government to e-democracy: Communicative mechanisms of governance. Journal of E-Government, 2(1), 5–26.
• Bannister, F. (2007a). The perspective of Janus: Reflecting on EGPA past and future. Information Polity, 12, 227–231.
• Bannister, F. (2007b). The curse of the benchmark: An assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisons. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(2), 171–188.
• Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York, NY: George Braziller Publishers.
• Bigelow, B., & Stone, M. M. (1995). Why don’t they do what they want: An exploration of organizational responses to institutional pressures in community health centers. Public Administration Review, 55(2), 183–192.
• Cohen, S., & Eimicke, W. (2001). The use of internet in government service delivery. In M. Abramson & G. E. Means (Eds.), E-Government 2001 (pp. 9–43). Oxford, UK: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
• Covaleski, M. A., & Dirsmith, M. W. (1988). An institutional perspective on the rise, social transformation and the fall of a university budget category. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 562–587.
• Demir, Ö. ve Acar, M. (1992). Sosyal bilimler sözlüğü. İstanbul: Ağaç Yayıncılık.
• DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 2, 147–160.
• Du, K., & Dai, Y. (2017). The doctrine of the mean: Reference groups and public information systems development. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.11.003
• Effah, J., & Nuhu, H. (2017). Institutional barriers to digitalization of government budgeting in developing countries: A case study of Ghana. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 82(1), 1–17.
• Flak, L. S., & Rose, J. (2005). Stakeholder governance: Adapting stakeholder theory to e-government. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 642–664.
• Fountain, J. E., & Osorio-Urzua, C. A. (2001). Public sector: Early stages of a deep transformation. In R.E. Litan & A. M. Rivlin (Eds.), The economic payoff from the internet revolution (pp. 235–268). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
• Hassan, S., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2008). Institutional theory and e-government research. Handbook of Research on Public Information Technology, 1, 349–360. Heeks, R. (2005). E-Government as a carrier of context. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 51–74.
• Hirschheim, R., & Newman, M. (1991). Symbolism and information system development: Myth, metaphor and magic. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 29–62.
• Hwang, K., & Choi, M. (2017). Effects of innovation-supportive culture and organiational citizenship e-government information system security stemming from mimetic isomorphism. Government Information Quarterly, 34, 183–198.
• Jing, F., Huayong, N., & Yanli, P. (2013). Study on the conceptual model of e-government standards adoption based on institutional theory. Proceedings of Wuhan International Conference on e-Business (pp. 59–67). Wuhan, P. R. China.
• Kim, S., Kim, H. J., & Lee, H. (2009). An institutional analysis of an e-government system for anticorruption: The case of OPEN. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 42–50.
• Korteland E., & Bekkers, V. (2007). Diffusion of innovations in the Dutch public sector: The case of the digital community policing. Information Polity, 12, 139–150.
• Lawrence, T. B., & Shadnam, M. (2008). Institutional theory. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (pp. 2288–2293). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
• Letch, N. (2001). The emerging e-government research agenda: A report on recent international research. Proceedings of the 4th Western Australian Workshop on Information Systems Research (WAWISR) Conference, 1–8.
• Löfstedt, U. (2005). e-Government: Assessment of current research and some proposals for future directions. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 1, 39–52.
• Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2011). Using institutional theory and dynamic simulation to understand complex e-government phenomena. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 329–345.
• March, J., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78, 734–749.
• Meijer, A. J. (2007). Why don’t they listen to us? Reasserting the role of ICT in public administration, Information Polity, 12, 233–242.
• Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
• Nye, J. S. Jr. (2001). Information technology and democratic governance. In E. C. Kamarck & J. S. Nye Jr., (Eds.), Governance in a networked world (pp. 1–18). Hollis, NH: Hollis Publishing.
• Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145–179.
• Özen, S. (2007). Yeni kurumsal kuram: Örgütleri çözümlemede yeni ufuklar ve yeni sorunlar. S. Sargut ve Ş. Özen (Ed.). Örgüt kuramları (s. 237–331). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
• Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper and Row Publishers.
• Powell, W. W. (2007). The new institutionalism. Retrieved 09.10.2017 from http://web.stanford. edu/group/song/papers/NewInstitutionalism.pdf
• Sadioğlu, U. ve Yıldız, M. (2007). Kamu yönetimi ile bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri: Bir bibliyografik analiz. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(2), 325–359.
• Sağsan, M., Eyüpoğlu, Ş., & Saner, T. (2011). Institutional isomorphism between TRNC and Turkey for e-government strategy: What encourages spontaneous isomorphism? International Journal of eBusiness and eGovernment Studies, 3(1), 121–132.
• Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 493–511.
• Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. London, UK: Sage. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York, NY: Row, Peterson Publications. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1968). Constructing social theories. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.
• Suddaby, R. (2010). Challenges for institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(1), 14–20.
• Suddaby, R., Seidl, D., & Kle, J. (2013). Strategy as practice meets with neo- institutional theory. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 329–344.
• Taylor, J. A., & Lips, A. M. B. (2008). The citizen in the information polity: Exposing the limits of the e-Government paradigm. Information Polity, 13, 139–152.
• Tolbert, C. J., Mossberger, K., & McNeal, R. (2008). Institutions, policy innovation, and e-government in the American states. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 549–563.
• Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (pp. 175–190). London, UK: Sage.
• Wahab, S. A., Rose, R. C., & Osman, S. I. W. (2012). Defining the concepts of technology and technology transfer: A literature analysis. International Business Research, 5(2), 61–71.
• Whitson, T. L., & Davis, L. (2001). Best practices in electronic government: Comprehensive electronic information dissemination for science and technology. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 7–21.
• Wimmer, M. A. (2007). Reflections on the Egovrtd2020 roadmap for e-Government research. Proceedings of ICEGOV 2007 (pp. 417–426). Macao.
• Yang, K. (2003). Neoinstitutionalism and e-government: Beyond Jane Fountain. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 432–442.
• Yıldız, M. & Karakaya Polat, R. (2012). Türkiye’deki e-devlet araştırma ve uygulamalarının eleştirel bir değerlendirmesi ve öneriler. M. Z. Sobacı ve M. Yıldız (Ed.), E-Devlet: Kamu yönetimi teknoloji ilişkisinde güncel yaklaşımlar (s. 623–648). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Yıldız, M. (2007). Uluslararası kuruluşların Türkiye’nin E-devlet siyasalarına etkisi, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 40(2), 39–55.
• Yıldız, M. (2012). Big questions of e-government research. Information Polity, 17(3), 343–355.
• Yıldız, M., & Saylam, A. (2013). E-government discourses: An inductive analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 141–153.
• Yıldız, M.; Sadioğlu, U. ve Babaoğlu, C. (2012). Yönetsel tarih perspektifinden kamu yönetiminde teknoloji kullanımı: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda ulaştırma teknolojileri kullanımı örneği (1823– 1923). M. Z. Sobacı ve M. Yıldız (Ed.), E-Devlet: Kamu yönetimi teknoloji ilişkisinde güncel yaklaşımlar içinde (s. 65–84). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Zheng, D., Chen, J., Huang, L., & Zhang, C. (2013). E-government adoption in public administration organizations: Integrating institutional theory perspective and resource-based view. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(2), 221–234.
• Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42, 726–743.