Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2019 | 19 | nr 1 | 1--15
Tytuł artykułu

Voice and Accountability and Information Technology for Latin America

Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
By using conglomerate analysis, discriminate analysis and ANOVA analysis, this article aims to evaluate whether or not there are differences in the levels in which digital technology is being implemented between Latin American countries and their main business partners (China, the Unites States and Canada). The article also aims to evaluate if such differences could impact levels of Voice and Accountability. In the empirical study, two clusters of countries were formed, and the results obtained prove that first cluster has incorporated digital technology into society in a more decisive manner and the second not. Also, for the first cluster, its levels of Voice and Accountability are higher than in those comprising the second cluster, which has a lesser degree of incorporation of both variables. The authors conclude that the incorporation of digital technology into society can make a difference in the way citizens participate (Voice) and take a more demanding role (Accountability). (original abstract)
Opis fizyczny
  • School of Humanities and Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, México
  • School of Humanities and Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, México
  • Business School, Tecnologico de Monterrey, México
  • Aguaded, J. (2002). Investigar para superar la Brecha Digital [Investigate to Overcome The Digital Breach]. Comunicar, 18, 7-10 [in Spanish].
  • Asu, K., Patrick, N., Park, E., & Adjei, E. (2018). Evaluation of the implementation of electronic government in Ghana. Information Polity, 23(1), 81-94.
  • CLAD. (June, 2007). Carta Iberoamericana De Gobierno Electrónico [Ibero American Letter Abot Electronic Government]. IX Conferencia Iberoamericana de Ministros de Administración Pública y Reforma del Estado [IX Ibero American conference of public administration ministries and state reform]. Retrieved June 2018, from:
  • Colombia Digital. (June, 2017). E-Government En Colombia: Llegó La Hora De Los Servicios Ciudadanos Digitales [e-Government in Colombia: Time for citizens' digital services]. Retrieved June 2018, from
  • Coria, S., Pérez, M., Mendoza, E., & Martínez, R. (2011). Brecha Digital Y Pobreza Digital En El Estado De Oaxaca [Digital breach and digital poverty in Oaxaca State]. Conciencia Tecnológica, 42, 19-25 [in Spanish].
  • Duit, A., & Galaz, V. (2008). Governance and complexity. Emerging issues for governance theory. Governance, 21(3), 311-335.
  • Gómez, L. (2015). La Complejidad Del Régimen Internacional Y La Gobernanza Regional: Evidencia De Latinoamérica [The complexity of the international regime and regional governance: Latin American evidence]. Foro internacional, 55(2), 503-539 [in Spanish].
  • Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. (2003). Principles for good governance in the 21st century. Toronto: Institute on Governance.
  • Hufty, M. (2011), Investigating policy processes: The governance analytical framework (GAF). Research for sustainable development: foundations, experiences, and perspectives, pp. 403-424, U. Wiesmann, H. Hurni, ed., Geographica Bernensia, 2011. Retrieved June 2018, from:
  • Jang, K. (2018). A study on activation of resident's budget participation system through utilizationof electronic government. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 13(5), 1183-1188.
  • Keay, A., & Zhao, J. (2018). Transforming corporate governance in Chinese corporations: A journey, not a destination. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, 32(2), 187-232.
  • Krishman, S., Teo, T., & Lymm, J. (2017). Determinants of electronic participation and electronic government maturity: Insights from cross-country data. International Journal of Information Management, 37(4), 297-312.
  • Lindón, A. (2012). Democracia, Ciudadanía y Participación [Democracy, citizenship and participation]. Iztapalapa, Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 73, 5-12 [in Spanish].
  • Mehdi, S. (2010). A model of successful factors toward e-government implementation. Electronic Government and International Journal, 7(1), 60-74.
  • Monteiro, M., Do Rosário, M., & Meuleman, L. (2018). A comparative analysis on how different governance contexts may influence strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review (72), 79-87.
  • OECD (2016). Digital government in Chile. Strengthening the institutional and governance framework. Paris: OECD.
  • UN (2003). E-Government at the crossroads. World Public Sector report 2003. Nueva York: ONU.
  • Palanisamy, R. (2004). Issues and challenges in e-Governance planning. Electronic Government and International Journal, 1(3), 253-272.
  • Petrakaki, D. (2018). Re-locating accountability through technology: From bureaucratic to electronic ways of governing public sector work. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31(1), 31-45.
  • Pradana, G., Fanida, E., & Niswah, F. (2018). Intranet and village community: Optimization of public service based on electronic government at the local level. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 953(1), 121-260.
  • Prasad, S. (2013). Innovation with information technology: Coalition governments and emerging economies - fighting corruption with electronic governance. International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets, 5(1), 46-66.
  • Quintero, C. (2017). Gobernanza y Teoría De Las Organisaciones [Governance and theory of the organisations]. Perfiles latinoamericanos, 50, 39-57 [in Spanish].
  • Quintero, J., Sulbaran, N., & Pe?a, M. (2014). Balance De La Implementación Del Gobierno Electrónico En La Gestión Pública En Venezuela [Balance of the implementation of electronic government in the public administration in Venezuela]. Negotium, 10(28), 46-60 [in Spanish].
  • Ramírez, D. (2011). Brecha Digital. La Complejidad De Un Término [Digital Breach. The complexity of a term]. PAAKAT: Revista de Tecnología y Sociedad, 1(1), 2011-2012 [in Spanish].
  • Rana, N., Dwivendi, Y., Williams, M., & Weerakkody, V. (2015). Investigating success of an e-Government initiative: Validation of an integrated IS success model. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(1), 127-142.
  • Rodríguez, J., Batlle, J., & Ayerbe, D. (2007). Estudios Europeos Sobre E-Gobierno En Las Ciudades [European studies on e-Government in cities]. Revista de los Estudios de Derecho y Ciencia Política de la UOC (5), 1-8 [in Spanish].
  • Roy, J. (2008). E-government in Canada. Transformation for the Digital Age. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
  • Sánchez, C., & Muriel, J. (2007). Participación Ciudadana en la Democracia? [Citizen participation in democracy?]. Civilizar. Ciencias Sociales y Humanas, 7(12), 11-29 [in Spanish].
  • Serrano, A. (2015). La Participación Ciudadana En México [Citizen participation in Mexico]. Estudios Políticos, 9(34), 93-116 [in Spanish].
  • Singh, I. (2016). E-Government in China: Status, challenges, and progress. Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
  • Smith, P., & Smythe, E. (1999). Globalization, citizenship and technology: The MAI meets the internet. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 7(2), 83-105.
  • Spirakis, G., Spirakis, C., & Nikolopoulos, K. (2010). The impact of electronic government on democracy: e-democracy through e-participation. Electronic Government and International Journal, 7(1), 75-88.
  • World Bank (June, 2007). Proyectos u Operaciones [Projects and transactions]. Retrieved June 2018, from Costa Rica e-Government modernization: [in Spanish].
  • World Bank (April, 2014). Tecnologías De La Información y Las Comunicaciones: Resultados Del Sector [Information and communication technologies: Results from the sector]. Retreived April 2018 from [in Spanish].
  • World Bank (2016). The worldwide governance indicators project. Retrieved June 2018, from
  • World Bank (2017). Uruguay advances in the digitalization of public services with improvements in e-Government. Retrieved June 2018, from
  • Vargas, J. (2004). Collective action theory, civil society and new social movements in the new forms of governability in Latinoamerica. Nómadas. Critical Journal of Social and Juridical Sciences, 9. Retrieved June 2018, from
  • WEF (2016). The Global Informatio Technology Report 2016. New York: World Economic Forum.
  • West, D. (2008). State and Federal electronic government in the United States. Atlanta: Governance Studies at Brookings.
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.