Institutional isomorphism, policy networks, and the analytical depreciation of measurement indicators: The case of the EU e-government benchmarking. Issue 3 (May 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Codagnone, Cristiano; Misuraca, Gianluca; Savoldelli, Alberto; Lupiañez-Villanueva, Francisco
• Is Part Of: Telecommunications policy. Volume 39 Issue 3/4(2015)
• Page Start: 305
• Page End: 319
• Publication Date: 2015-05
• Subjects: e-government -- Benchmarking -- Institutional isomorphism -- Policy networks -- Open Method of Coordination -- European Union; Telecommunication -- Periodicals; Télécommunications -- Périodiques; 384
• DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2015.01.005
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0308-5961

Abstract

Abstract: This article discusses the socio-political dimension of measurement in the context of benchmarking e-government within the European Union׳s Open Method of Coordination. It provides empirical evidence of how this has resulted in institutional isomorphism within the self-referential policy network community involved in the benchmarking process. It argues that the policy prominence retained by supply-side benchmarking of e-government has probably indirectly limited efforts made to measure and evaluate more tangible impacts. High scores in EU benchmarking have contributed to increasing the institutionally-perceived quality but not necessarily the real quality and utility of e-government services. The article concludes by outlining implications for policy and practical recommendations for filling the gaps identified in measurement and evaluation of e-government. It proposes a more comprehensive policy benchmarking framework, which aims to ensure a gradual improvement in measurement activities with indicators that reflect and follow the pace of change, align measurement activities to evaluation needs and, eventually, reduce measurement error. Highlights: The socio-politics of measurement is explored focusing on the European e-government benchmarking. It is shown that that such benchmarking has lost analytical value but retained his policy importance. This endured importance is explained in terms of policy network closure and institutional isomorphism. Moreover it has probably limited efforts to gather data on, and evaluate, more tangible outcomes. The article, thus, propose a more comprehensive policy benchmarking framework.