Citizen-Centered Digital Governance: Institutional Determinants of Public Service Quality in Rural Indonesia

Eka Patmasari; Najeminur Najeminur; Herlina Herlina

doi:10.30598/publicusvol4iss2p122-133

Eka Patmasari Puangrimaggalatung Sengkang University
Najeminur Najeminur Puangrimaggalatung Sengkang University
Herlina Herlina Puangrimaggalatung Sengkang University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30598/publicusvol4iss2p122-133

Keywords: Digital Governance, Institutional Capacity, Public Service Quality, Citizen Participation, Rural Governance

Abstract

This study examines the institutional determinants of public service quality within the implementation of citizen-centered digital governance in rural Indonesia. The study is motivated by the growing demand for public services that are efficient, transparent, responsive, and accessible through digital technologies, while rural local governments continue to experience institutional and organizational challenges in implementing digital transformation. A qualitative research approach was employed to explore how institutional capacity, administrative competence, digital technology utilization, transparency, and citizen participation shape public service quality. The research was conducted in Pammana District, Wajo Regency, South Sulawesi, Indonesia, involving twelve purposively selected informants representing government officials, frontline service providers, village representatives, and community members. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, direct observation, and document analysis, and analyzed using the interactive model of Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña consisting of data condensation, data display, and conclusion drawing. The findings indicate that institutional capacity serves as the foundation for successful digital governance implementation, while digital technology functions as an enabling mechanism for improving service efficiency and accessibility. Transparency enhances accountability by providing clearer information regarding public services, whereas citizen participation strengthens service responsiveness through continuous feedback and collaborative interactions. The study further reveals that organizational culture and human resource competence are essential in sustaining digital transformation beyond technological adoption. The novelty of this research lies in the development of an integrated conceptual framework demonstrating how institutional capacity, digital governance, transparency, citizen participation, and organizational adaptability collectively shape citizen-centered public service quality in rural governance contexts. The study recommends strengthening institutional capacity, expanding digital literacy initiatives, fostering adaptive organizational cultures, and promoting participatory governance to support sustainable digital transformation in rural public administration.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.

Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2017). Building state capability: Evidence, analysis, action. Oxford University Press.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Addison-Wesley.

Bouckaert, G., & Van de Walle, S. (2003). Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of good governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(3), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852303693003

Cordella, A., & Tempini, N. (2015). E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

Criado, J. I., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2019). Creating public value through smart technologies and strategies. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(5), 438–450.

Cucciniello, M., Porumbescu, G. A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2017). 25 years of transparency research: Evidence and future directions. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12685

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

Gil-Garcia, J. R., Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2018). Digital government and public management research: Finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 20(5), 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181

Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Meijer, A. J. (2014). Effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: Evidence from an online experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus048

Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS ONE, 15(5), e0232076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076

Janssen, M., & Estevez, E. (2013). Lean government and platform-based governance: Doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly, 30(Suppl. 1), S1–S8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.11.003

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

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2014). The problem-solving capacity of the modern state: Governance challenges and administrative capacities. Oxford University Press.

Meijer, A. J., & 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

Meijer, A., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: Connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311429533

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

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.

Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of co-production. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765

OECD. (2017). Recommendation of the Council on Open Government. OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2020). The OECD digital government policy framework: Six dimensions of a digital government. OECD Publishing.

Osborne, S. P. (2021). Public service logic: Creating value for public service users, citizens, and society. Routledge.

Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927

Painter, M., & Pierre, J. (Eds.). (2005). Challenges to state policy capacity: Global trends and comparative perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.

Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Rev. ed.). Doubleday.

United Nations. (2024). United Nations e-Government Survey 2024: Accelerating digital transformation for sustainable development. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

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

Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505

Wu, X., Ramesh, M., Howlett, M., & Fritzen, S. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.001