Abstract

Public governance significantly transformed over the last several decades that is determined by numerous external and internal factors. Digitalization of social and economic relations results in the appearance and implementation of a new kind of innovation in public management – e-governance. Therefore, developing the marketing and management strategy of such innovation as e-governance is considered a necessary precondition for trust in government. The paper aims to determine the impact of e-governance on trust in government and the development of recommendations on marketing and management of it. In the paper, the authors systematized main national and foreign approaches to measuring e-governance efficiency both at the level of central and sub-central governments. It is also realized a bibliometric analysis with VOSviewer v.1.6.16 to identify key contextual directions of scientific research on e-governance, marketing, and management and clarify its intercepts. The paper has developed a scientific hypothesis about the positive influence of e-governance on central and sub-central government brands and citizens’ loyalty. To test this hypothesis, a panel data regression analysis was realized using Stata 12/SE software. In the regression model as a proxy of e-governance efficiency (independent variable), an E-Government Development Index (EGDI) is chosen, which is a composite indicator of three indices such as online service index, telecommunication index, and human capital index. It is chosen as a proxy central and sub-central government brand and citizens’ loyalty (dependent variable), an indicator of Trust in Government that is calculated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and refers to the share of people who report having confidence in the national government. Besides, the regression model includes a sample of control variables such as Worldwide Governance Indicators. The country sample consists of 19 OECD member states (European countries): Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Sweden, Great Britain, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovenia. 2008-2020 (specifically, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020). Under the bibliometric and regression analysis results, a set of practical recommendations on the perspectives of central and sub-central governments’ marketing and management of e-governance

Keywords: marketing, management, innovation, e-governance, trust in government, panel data analysis

JEL Classification: C33, F63, O44, O47.

Cite as: Vysochyna, A., Semenov, V., & Kyrychenko, K. (2021). Marketing and management of innovations in public governance as core determinants of trust. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2, 204-212. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2021.2-17

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Agnihotri, A., & Gupta, S. (2019). Relationship of Corporate Governance and Efficiency of Selected Public and Private Sector Banks in India. Business Ethics and Leadership, 3(1), 109-117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Basel Institute. (2019). New perspectives in e-government and the prevention of corruption. Working paper Retrieved from [Link]
3. Bhandari, M. P. (2019). Sustainable Development: Is This Paradigm The Remedy of All Challenges? Does Its Goals Capture The Essence of Real Development and Sustainability? With Reference to Discourses, Creativeness, Boundaries and Institutional Architecture. SocioEconomic Challenges, 3(4), 97-128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Brimah, B. A., Olanipekun, W. D., Bamidele, A. G., & Ibrahim, M. (2020). Knowledge Management and its Effects on Financial Performance: Evidence from Dangote Flour Mills, Ilorin. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 4(2), 34-42. [CrossRef]
5. Cabotaje, C. E., & Alampay, E. A. (2013). Social media and citizen engagement: Two cases from the Philippines. In Human-Centered System Design for Electronic Governance (pp. 225-238). IGI Global. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Choudrie, J., Weerakkody, V., & Jones, S. (2005). Realising e-government in the UK: rural and urban challenges. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 568-585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Di Tommaso, F., & Gulinelli, A. (2019). What Can Be the Best Corporate Governance Reform?. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 3(1), 75-91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Dove, M., Balasubramanian, A., & Narayanan, B. G. (2020). Transparency as a way of attaining quality, safety and optimal food purchases. SocioEconomic Challenges, 4(4), 48-62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Elgin, C., & Oztunali, O. (2014). Institutions, informal economy, and economic development. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 50(4), 145-162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Elhennawy, E. M. (2019). The Impact of Corporate Governance on the Value of the Company in the Egyptian Stock Market. Business Ethics and Leadership, 3(4), 81-90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Halachmi, A., & Greiling, D. (2013). Transparency, e-government, and accountability: Some issues and considerations. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(4), 562-584. [Google Scholar]
12. Kuznyetsova A. Ya., Zherebylo I. V., Klipkova O. I., Kozmuk N. I. (2019). Creation of the value of national enterprises with the help of the innovation centers in the cluster formations. Financial and credit activities: problems of theory and practice, 2(29), 391-402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Kuznyetsova, A. Y., & Klishchuk, O. V. (2017). Theoretical conception of price stability targeting arrangement: investigation of basic principles of implementation monetary regime. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 2(23), 388-396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Mazzarella, W. (2006). Internet X-ray: e-governance, transparency, and the politics of immediation in India. Public Culture, 18(3), 473-505. [Google Scholar]
15. Molinari, F., Wills, C., Koumpis, A., & Moumtzi, V. (2013). A citizen-centric platform to support networking in the area of e-democracy. In Cases on Progressions and Challenges in ICT Utilization for Citizen-Centric Governance (pp. 265-297). IGI Global. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Molotok, I. F. (2020). Bibliometric and Trend Analysis of Budget Transparency. Business Ethics and Leadership, 4(2), 116-122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Mujtaba, B. G., McClelland, B., Williamson, P., Khanfar, N., & Cavico, F. J. (2018). An Analysis of the Relationship between Regulatory Control and Corruption based on Product and Market Regulation and Corruption Perceptions Indices. Business Ethics and Leadership, 2 (3), 6–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Nur-Al-Ahad, M., Syeda, N., & Vagavi, P. (2019). Nexus Between Corporate Governance and Firm Performance in Malaysia: Supervised Machine Learning Approach. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 3(1), 115-130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. OECD. (2021). Trust in Government. Retrieved from [Link]
20. Paganoni, M. C. (2012). City branding and social inclusion in the glocal city. Mobilities, 7(1), 13-31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Rocheleau, B. (2007). Politics, Accountability, and Information Management. In Modern Public Information Technology Systems: Issues and Challenges (pp. 35-71). IGI Global. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Sahi, G., & Madan, S. (2012). Information security threats in ERP enabled e-governance: Challenges and solutions. In Strategic Enterprise Resource Planning Models for E-Government: Applications and Methodologies (pp. 158-170). IGI Global. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Scopus (2021). Retrieved from: https://www.scopus.com/
24. Stock, W. G. (2011). Informational cities: Analysis and construction of cities in the knowledge society. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(5), 963-986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Tan, C. W., Pan, S. L., & Lim, E. T. (2005). Managing stakeholder interests in e-government implementation: Lessons learned from a Singapore e-government project. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 13(1), 31-53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. The World Bank. (2021). Retrieved from [Link]
27. United Nations. (2021). Retrieved from [Link]
28. VOSviewer. (2021). Retrieved from [Link]
29. World Bank. (2021). Worldwide Governance Indicators. Retrieved from [Link]