The e-government paradox in post-Soviet countries

• Published date: 02 August 2019
• Pages: 600-615
• Date: 02 August 2019
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-08-2018-0173
• Author: Colin Knox,Saltanat Janenova
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management

The e-government paradox in

post-Soviet countries

Colin Knox and Saltanat Janenova

Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to investigate the emergence of e-government in post-Soviet countries

using Kazakhstan as a case study. Extant research on e-government in developing countries highlights

significant benefits including improved public services, reduced corruption, and more open and inclusive

government. The paper asserts the presence of an e-government paradox which limits its potential to improve

public services.

Design/methodology/approach –Primary data were collected from a number of sources: 6 focus groups

with central government agencies, local authorities and civil society organisations; 25 structured and semi-

structured interviews; and participant observation.

Findings –The research finds evidence of an e-government paradox in five forms: an emphasis on

technological development; transactional services are faster but have displaced attention from core public

services; petty corruption has been reduced but grand corruption remains; isomorphic mimicry; and greater

participation by citizens has been limited.

Research limitations/implications –The focus of the research is Kazakhstan. Applying the lessons

learned to other post-So viet countries has limi tations given their diffe rent stages of developm ent

since independence.

Practical implications –The key practical implication of this research is that countries can become

absorbed by e-government technology without questioning the fundamental business model which underpins

how public services are delivered. Ultimately, this impacts on the social value of e-government.

Originality/value –While existing research has examined how e-government has been implemented in

developing countries, this paper focusses on Kazakhstan as an authoritarian state with wider implications for

post-Soviet countries.

Keywords Kazakhstan, E-government, Post-Soviet countries

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Public services improvement is a significant component in the agenda of developing

countries, not least because citizens judge the progress of development through the lens of

better education, healthcare, social welfare, public housing and so on (Knox, 2019).

Improvements in key public services often give citizens a greater sense of well-being and

awareness of a better quality of life. One important aspect of the public services

improvement agenda is the use of electronic government, about which many advantages are

offered (Weerakkody et al., 2012). For developing countries, the persistent issue of

corruption can be reduced, at least in part, through removing personal transactions between

officials and service users. Citizens witness faster, more efficient, services that avoid several

exchanges of documents with multiple state agencies that may have different and complex

bureaucratic requirements. Technical developments in electronic government are opening

up new linked services using personal data gathered from service users. Children registered

at birth, for example, can be allocated kinder garden and school places, allowing better

strategic planning by state agencies.

Using a case study of Kazakhstan, this paper examines what we describe as the

“e-government paradox”. Here, we suggest that post-Soviet countries select legacy issues of

International Journal of Public

Sector Management

Vol. 32 No. 6, 2019

pp. 600-615

© Emerald PublishingLimited

0951-3558

DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-08-2018-0173

Received 23 August 2018

Revised 29 December 2018

18 February 2019

Accepted 24 February 2019

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the British Academy International Partnership and

Mobility Grant PM150036 and the kind assistance of the Astana Civil Service Hub in organising the

workshop with participants from post-Soviet countries.

600

IJPSM

32,6

pervasive bureaucratic processes and corruption to persuade international development

agencies that e-government is a panacea when, in reality, there is research evidence

of significant failures or as Heeks (2002, p. 1) put it starkly “most information

systems –including current ICT projects –in developing countries fail either totally or

partially”. The aim of this paper is to investigate the features, attributes and consequences

of the e-government paradox. The paper is structured in three parts. First, we locate the

process of e-government, as part of a wider public services improvement agenda, in the

research literature. Second, we offer an in-depth analysis of the e-government paradox in

Kazakhstan, a country which has achieved significant success in the international rankings

and is being used as an exemplar to benchmark other developing countries. Third, we

consider possible explanations for the e-government paradox and ways to ameliorate its

consequences more widely in post-Soviet countries.

E-government research in developing countries

The World Bank defines e-government as:

The use of information technologies that have the ability to transform relations with citizens,

businesses, and other arms of government. These technologies can serve a variety of different ends:

better delivery of government services to citizens, improved interactions with business and

industry, citizen empowerment through access to information, or more efficient government

management. The resulting benefits can be less corruption, increased transparency, greater

convenience, revenue growth, and/or cost reductions. (World Bank, 2015a, p. 1)

Important in the detail of this definition is the use of the word “can serve a variety of ends;

resulting benefits can be less corruption […]”. Such caveats underline the potential

limitations of e-government for transitional economies (Mahmood, 2013). Heeks (2003), for

example, claimed that most e-government projects in the developing world fail because of

what he described as the “design-reality gaps”. Following the analysis of 40 e-government

case study countries, he concluded that only 15 per cent could be deemed to be successful.

Specifically, he defined some 50 per cent of the e-government projects as partial failures due

to the fact that “the major goals for the initiative were not attained and/or there were

significant undesirable outcomes”(Heeks, 2003, p. 2).

Dada (2006) in reviewing the literature on the application and implementation of

e-government in developing countries is doubtful about claims of early success and concurs

with Heeks’assessment (see also Domi

́

nguez et al., 2011; Knox and Janenova, 2019). He

draws on the work of several scholars specifically highlighting that e-government on its

own will not lead to better governance in developing countries (Ciborra, 2005; Ebrahim and

Irani, 2005). It is not a panacea for problems such as corruption, rent seeking, distortions of

the market and the absence of democracy. Instead, a “service delivery state”is needed

“before (our emphasis) e-government can be implemented within it”(Dada, 2006, p. 3).

Of specific relevance to the research in this paper, Brimkulov and Baryktabasov (2018)

examine e-government development in the Central Asian States (see also Bowe et al., 2012). They

identify Kazakhstan as the leader in e-government development within the region which is

linked directly to the fact that it has the strongest economy in Central Asia (Janenova and Kim,

2016; Bhuiyan, 2011). However, Brimkulov and Baryktabasov (2018, p. 150) conclude:

“In Kazakhstan the country specific model of ‘alternative access’service delivery was not able to

implement in-depth changes in the work of the public sector and improve service quality”.

Comparing Russia and Kazakhstan, Zherebtsov (2016) identified important differences between

these two countries in the pace and level of development of e-government. He argued that

“Kazakhstan was able to achieve a deeper penetration of information and communication

technologies into administrative practices than Russia”mainly because of political commitment

at the highest level, including the president of Kazakhstan (Zherebtsov, 2016, p. 20).

601

The

e-government

paradox