Benchmarking Open GovernmentPrinciples: Quantitative Evlauation and Prediction Analysis of Logistics, Health, Agricuture and Economics
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The concept of Open Government is a new idea that the cabinet has recently resolved. Government agencies at different levels, including the central government, regional governments, and local governments, have not been aware of this issue. The result has not been well achieved as it should be. Disclosure is often limited. This research was conducted to study and analyze the current status of Open Government in improving the quality of public services, and analyze the relationship and data opennss that affect the four dimensions of an Open Government: Transparency, Open Data, Accountability, and Governance Network in public health, economy, Transport, and Agriculture. To this end, this research offers Thailand's Open Government policy and the transaction data from the public manual database’s transaction processing and the frequency of data browsing to analyze the gap for Improvement for each dimension in order to improve the quality of operation and public services to support the changes in the future. The key findings illustrated that to promote the Open Government; the government should realize the importance of adopting digital technology in the public administration process by urgently formulating a policy for the development and management of extensive databases which can help analyze and develop public services that respond to the public's needs. Big data is required tosupport proactive and preventive government policies effectively under the drive to integrate public databases and enhance public services quality, as well as monitor and evaluate the data linkages of various agencies periodically.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Inside the matrix: Integrating the paradigms of intergovernmental and network management. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(12), 1401-1422.
Arcelus, J. (2012). Framework for useful transparency websites for citizens. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 83–86.
Barzelay, M. (2001). The new public management: Improving research and policy dialogue. 3rd ed., Oxford: University of California Press.
Bertot, J. C., Gorham, U., Jaeger, P. T., Sarin, L. C., & Choi, H. (2014). Big data, open government and e-government: Issues, policies and recommendations. Information polity, 19(1, 2), 5-16.
Bouckaert, G., and Van de Walle, S. (2003) ‘Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of ‘good governance’: difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators.’ International review of administrative Sciences, 69(3), 329-343.
Bovaird, T. (2005) ‘Public governance: balancing stakeholder power in a network society.’ International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 217-228.
Bryman, A. (2016) Social research methods. 5th ed., Oxford: Oxford university press.
Chan, C.M. (2013). From open data to open innovation strategies: Creating e-services using open government data. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1890–1899.
Daly, M. (2003) ‘Governance and social policy.’ Journal of social policy, 32(1), 113-128.
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The new public service revisited. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 664-672.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2008). Australian e-government in comparative perspective. Australian Political Studies Association, 43(1), 13-26.
Edelenbos, J., and Klijn, E. H. (2005) ‘Managing stakeholder involvement in decision making: a comparative analysis of six interactive processes in the Netherlands.’ Journal of public administration research and theory, 16(3), 417-446.
Estevez, E., & Janowski, T. (2013). Electronic Governance for Sustainable Development—Conceptual framework and state of research. Government information quarterly, 30, S94-S109.
Evans, A. M., & Campos, A. (2013). Open government initiatives: Challenges of citizen participation. Journal of policy analysis and management, 32(1), 172-185.
Forkan, A. R. M., Khalil, I., Ibaida, A., & Tari, Z. (2015). BDCaM: Big data for context-aware monitoring—A personalized knowledge discovery framework for assisted healthcare. IEEE transactions on cloud computing, 5(4), 628-641.
Geiger, C. P., & Von Lucke, J. (2012). Open government and (linked)(open)(government)(data). JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and open Government, 4(2), 265-278.
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.
Harrison, T. M., & Sayogo, D. S. (2014). Transparency, participation, and accountability practices in open government: A comparative study. Government information quarterly, 31(4), 513-525.
Hendler, J., Holm, J., Musialek, C., & Thomas, G. (2012). US government linked open data: semantic. data. gov. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 27(03), 25-31.
Hodge, G. A., and Greve, C. (2005). The challenge of public-private partnerships: Learning from international experience. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons?. Public administration, 69(1), 3-19.
Jaeger, P. T., & Bertot, J. C. (2010). Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 371-376.
Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information systems management, 29(4), 258-268.
Koppenjan, J. F. M., and Klijn, E. H. (2004) Managing uncertainties in networks: a network approach to problem solving and decision making. London: Routledge.
Lambsdorff, J. G. (2007). The methodology of the corruption perceptions index 2007. Internet Center for Corruption Research. University of Passau
Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R. (1992) Policy networks in British government. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Marin, B. and Mayntz, R. (1991). Policy networks: empirical evidence and theoretical considerations. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
Martin, S., Foulonneau, M., Turki, S., & Ihadjadene, M. (2013). Open data: Barriers, risks and opportunities. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on eGovernment: ECEG, 301-309.
Mayntz, R. (1993). Modernization and the logic of interorganizational networks. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 6(1), 3-16.
McLaverty, P. (2002) ‘Civil society and democracy.’ Contemporary politics, 8(4), 303-318.
Meijer, A. J., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: connecting vision and voice. International review of administrative sciences, 78(1), 10-29.
Mutuku, L.N., & Colaco, J. (2012). Increasing kenyan open data consumption: A design thinking approach. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 18–21.
Nam, T. (2012). Citizens’ attitudes toward open government and government 2.0. International review of administrative sciences, 78(2), 346-368.
Newman, J. (2001). Modernizing governance: New Labour, policy and society. London: Sage.
OECD (2018). Open Government Data Report: Enhancing Policy Maturity for Sustainable Impact, OECD Digital Government Studies. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2019). Government at a Glance Southeast Asia 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Osborne, S. P. (2010). ‘Public governance and public services delivery: a research agenda for the future.’ In Osborne, S. P. (Ed.) The new public governance: emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. Oxon: Routledge, 413 – 428.
Piotrowski, S. J., Zhang, Y., Lin, W., & Yu, W. (2009). Key issues for implementation of Chinese open government information regulations. Public Administration Review, 69, S129-S135.
Relly, J. E., & Sabharwal, M. (2009). Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: A cross-national study. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 148-157.
Ren, G. J., & Glissmann, S. (2012). Identifying information assets for open data: the role of business architecture and information quality. In 2012 IEEE 14th International Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing (pp. 94-100). IEEE.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1985). ‘Power dependence, policy communities and intergovernmental networks’, Public administration bulletin, 49, 4–31.
Riggs, F. W. (1966). Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureaucrat Policy. East-West Center.
Rorissa, A., Demissie, D., & Pardo, T. (2011). Benchmarking e-government: A comparison of frameworks for computing e-government index and ranking. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 354-36
Sandoval, R. (2011). The two door perspective: An assessment framework for open government. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 3(2), 166-181.
Socrata (2011). Open Data Benchmark Study Report. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from.
http://www.socrata.com/benchmark-study/download-report/
Stoker, G. (1995) Regime theory and urban politics. London: Sage.
Torfing, J. (2007) ‘Introduction: democratic network governance.’ In Marcussen, M. and Torfing, J. (eds.) Democratic network governance in Europe. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-22.
Veljković, N., Bogdanović-Dinić, S., & Stoimenov, L. (2014). Benchmarking open government: An open data perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 278-290.
Yang, Z., & Kankanhalli, A. (2013). Innovation in government services: The case of open data. In International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT (pp. 644-651). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. 4th ed., London: Sage.