Digital Transformation and Public Service Performance: A Cross-National Configurational Analysis
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Digital transformation has become a central component of public administration reform, yet its contribution to public service performance remains dependent on institutional capacity and citizen engagement. This study examines the relationship between digital transformation and public service performance, focusing on the institutional and technological conditions associated with better outcomes across European countries. Drawing on 124 country-year observations from 31 countries over four biennial waves between 2018 and 2024, the research integrates data from the United Nations E-Government Development Index, Eurostat digital public service indicators, and the World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators. The methodological framework combines ordinary least squares regression, cross-group comparisons, and Necessary Condition Analysis to examine statistical associations, performance differences, and minimum conditions for achieving high public service performance. The findings reveal strong positive associations between digital transformation, governance quality, and public service performance, with the combined regression model explaining 99.8% of the variance in the composite performance index. Significant differences are identified across digital capacity groups, with high-digital observations outperforming moderate- and low-digital observations. Necessary Condition Analysis identifies governance quality as the strongest performance bottleneck (d = 0.073), followed by citizen e-government interaction (d = 0.034) and digital transformation (d = 0.033). The findings further indicate that reaching the 90th percentile of public service performance requires minimum levels of governance quality (0.850), digital transformation (0.841), and citizen e-government interaction (89.0%). The study contributes to digital governance research by integrating statistical associations and necessary-condition thresholds within a cross-national analytical framework. It highlights the importance of aligning technological development with institutional effectiveness and citizen participation to improve public service performance.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Andersen, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 236-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2005.11.008
Bekkers, V. J. J. M., Edelenbos, J., & Steijn, B. (Eds.). (2011). Innovation in the public sector: Linking capacity and leadership. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230307520
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445-456. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12238
DiMaggio, P., Harittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2011). Excerpts from “Digital Inequality: From Unequal Access to Differentiated Use”. In J. Bruggemann (Ed.), Inequality in the United States: A reader (pp. 98-113). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003071709-13
Dul, J. (2016). Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA): Logic and Methodology of “Necessary but Not Sufficient” Causality: Logic and Methodology of “Necessary but Not Sufficient” Causality. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 10-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115584005
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead – long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467-494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
Eurostat. (2026). E-government activities of individuals via websites [Data set]. https://doi.org/10.2908/isoc_ciegi_ac
Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is governance? Governance, 26(3), 347-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12035
Goertz, G. (2017). Multimethod research, causal mechanisms, and case studies: An integrated approach. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400888568
Gordon, F. (2019). Virginia Eubanks (2018) Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York: Picador, St Martin’s Press. Law, Technology and Humans, 1, 162-164. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v1i0.1386
Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., & Aguilera, R. V. (2018). Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization, 16(4), 482-495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018786487
Hair, J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.
Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People’s Online Skills. First Monday, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v7i4.942
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2-20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 221-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.001
Krogslund, C., Choi, D. D., & Poertner, M. (2015). Fuzzy sets on shaky ground: Parameter sensitivity and confirmation bias in fsQCA. Political Analysis, 23(1), 21-41. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpu016
Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1
Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
Mergel, I., Ganapati, S., & Whitford, A. B. (2021). Agile: A new way of governing. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 161-165. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13202
Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00196
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
Osborne, S. P. (Ed.). (2010). The New Public Governance?: Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203861684
Painter, M., & Peters, B. G. (2010). Administrative traditions in comparative perspective: Families, groups and hybrids. In M. Painter and B. G. Peters (Eds.), Tradition and public administration (pp. 19-30). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230289635_2
Peeters, R., & Widlak, A. (2018). The digital cage: Administrative exclusion through information architecture – The case of the Dutch civil registry’s master data management system. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 175-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.02.003
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis into the age of austerity. Oxford University Press.
Ragin, C. C. (2009). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press.
Ragnedda, M., & Muschert, G.W. (Eds.). (2013). The Digital Divide: The Internet and Social Inequality in International Perspective. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203069769
Robinson, L., Cotten, S. R., Ono, H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch, G., Chen, W., … Stern, M. J. (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 569-582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532
Scholl, H. J. (2006). Is E-Government Research a Flash in the Pan or Here for the Long Shot? In M. A. Wimmer, H. J. Scholl, Å. Grönlund, and K. V. Andersen (Eds.), Electronic Government. EGOV 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 13-24). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/11823100_2
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage.
Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11), 2322-2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189
Tangi, L., Janssen, M., Benedetti, M., & Noci, G. (2021). Digital government transformation: A structural equation modelling analysis of driving and impeding factors. International Journal of Information Management, 60, 102356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102356
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of E-Government – A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2024). E-Government Survey 2024: Accelerating digital transformation for sustainable development. https://desapublications.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/2024-09/(Web%20version)%20E-Government%20Survey%202024%201392024.pdf
van Deursen, A. J., & van Dijk, J. A. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society, 16(3), 507-526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487959
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229812
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Vis, B., & Dul, J. (2018). Analyzing Relationships of Necessity Not Just in Kind But Also in Degree: Complementing fsQCA With NCA: Complementing fsQCA With NCA. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(4), 872-899. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115626179
Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595-613. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.38.3.595
World Bank. (2026). Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology for measuring governance using perception data [Data set]. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/worldwide-governance-indicators