Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences

GÖNDERBİLGİ
EnglishTürkçe

Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/siyasal.2018.27.1.0002   IUP :10.26650/siyasal.2018.27.1.0002    Tam Metin (PDF)

Kurumsal Örgüt Kuramı E-Devlet Uygulamalarını Anlamak ve Açıklamak için Yararlı Olabilir mi?

Mete Yıldız, Doğan Nadi Leblebici

Kamu yönetimi sisteminde teknoloji kullanımı ile ilgili çalışmalar veya daha yaygın adıyla e-devlet, kamu yönetimi disiplininin önemli bir çalışma konusu haline gelmiştir. Bu makalede e-devlet alanındaki gelişmeleri incelemede ve anlamada kurumsal örgüt kuramı kullanımının getirdiği olanaklar, e-devlet alan yazınından örnekler yardımıyla ve bu yaklaşımın bazı kısıtlarına dikkat çekilerek ortaya konulmuştur. Varılan sonuç, e-devlet kavramı ve uygulaması hakkında yapılan analizlerde kurumsal örgüt kuramının, alan yazınında hâkim konumdaki yeni kamu işletmeciliği değerleri-odaklı bakış açısına ek olarak, toplumsal/örgütsel meşruiyet arayışları, simgesellik ve moda olma gibi farklı hususları da analize dâhil etmesi nedeniyle yararlı olabileceği yönündedir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler: E-Devlet, Örgüt Kuramı, Kurumsal Örgüt Kuramı, Meşruiyet, Eşbiçimlilik
DOI :10.26650/siyasal.2018.27.1.0002   IUP :10.26650/siyasal.2018.27.1.0002    Tam Metin (PDF)

Can The Institutional Theory Of Organizations Be Useful To Understand And Explain E-Government Applications?

Mete Yıldız, Doğan Nadi Leblebici

Studies about technologies used in the public administration system, more popularly known as e-government, has become an important topic of study in the discipline of public administration. One way of analyzing the e-government phenomenon is by examining it from a rational viewpoint. An alternative way of analysis is to employ the institutional theory of organizations, which helps explain internal conformity to the rules and trends of the institutional environment. Institutional theory necessitates the incorporation of the boundedly-rational, social, and political aspects of decisionmaking, such as concerns of legitimacy, stability, and survival. 

Anahtar Kelimeler: E-Government, Organization theory, Institutional theory of organizations, Legitimacy, Isomorphism

GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


Before employing institutional theory when analyzing e-government, one must be cautious about its key concepts, measures, and methods, since some argue that the theory itself is not yet standardized. Nonetheless, the theory is a useful tool for analyzing e-government development because it explains the reasons behind organizations being similar. Widespread use of information and technologies makes organizations more similar by enforcing service provision standards, such as setting up formal organizational web sites and/or official social media pages. Therefore, homogenization in structure or behavior regarding Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in government can be understood by using the institutional theory. 

Organizational structure is an adaptive vehicle, continually changing and growing with the times. Institutionalization refers to organizational evolution, symbolism, and adaptation. Government organizations are a good example of the phenomenon of symbolic action. ICT use by government organizations has many symbolic meanings. Using ICT to electronically deliver government information and services to various parties (citizens, businesses, and other government agencies) symbolizes a variety of concepts like decentralization, democratic participation, informed citizenry, public information networks, and so on, which are also considered potential solutions to the crises of legitimacy of and trust in representative democracies. One may argue that the establishment of an online presence by public organizations somewhat relates to the symbols, such as being ahead of the game by using cutting-edge technology, that ICTs use within the government. 

Institutional theory suggests that formal organizations have symbolic as well as action-generating properties. Arguably, the social evolution of organizations and their survival rests on the observations of formalized structure. Therefore, it is possible that government organizations use ICT in their operations and management due to the pressures of symbolic meanings (social legitimacy), and pressures to conform to commonly adopted action-orienting properties (efficiency and productivity). This thought process sheds light on the rationale of some government ICT projects that are kept alive for legitimacy reasons, even if they are not financially feasible in the shortterm. In short, from an institutional theory perspective, government organizations go online for legitimization and resulting isomorphic pressures. There are three main types of isomorphic processes: coercive, mimetic, and normative. 

Coercive isomorphism suggests that government organizations use ICT either as the result of mandates and/or informal pressures of other similar government and private organizations already successfully using ICT. The political decision-makers and directors of government organizations may decide to use ICT in their agencies and/or programs for enhanced legitimacy, perceived efficiency gains, and citizen demand—and thus, perceived legitimacy. Federal mandates on government organizations to establish a web presence or have certain characteristics on their web sites is a representation of this process. 

Mimetic isomorphism suggests that government organizations model themselves after similar organizations they perceive as more legitimate and successful. Imitating organizations that are successfully using ICT enhances their legitimacy by demonstrating that they are at least trying to improve the conditions of their service and/or information provision. Mimetic isomorphism is observed in network settings when network members turn to other members for information and new ideas.

Normative isomorphism suggests that government organizations use ICT due to newly emerging professional norms of public service, such as online interactivity, virtual service, and transparency and accountability. For example, in an environment where online transaction capabilities via websites are a norm, all government agencies would try to have that kind of capability. 

Institutional pressures can be divided into objective and subjective. Subjective institutional pressures exist only when the manager perceives pressure on the organization. On the other hand, objective pressures occur when a higher-level government organization or an administrative/financial authority (e.g., the EU, the UN, and the World Bank) mandates or imposes a certain program or method on lower level organizations. This is the assumption of coercive isomorphism. 

Normative isomorphic pressures, such as emerging professional practices requiring compliance from the members of a professional group, are only absolute if public managers recognize them. Therefore, it is the public managers’ subjective judgments that decide whether those institutional pressures exist. This duality has implications for the research design of the following study, which is designed in such a way that can recognize, grasp, and examine both subjective and objective elements of institutional pressures.

Finally, a note of caution is warranted: the institutional theory perspective is a very useful analytical tool for examining organizations’ abilities to provide electronic government information and services, however, implicit within the theory is the assumption that organizations are the passive recipients of institutional pressure. Still, it is argued that organizations will show a range of responses to institutional pressures such as conformity, compromise, avoidance, resistance, and manipulation, all of which enriches our understanding of the process in question.

Using the aforementioned framework, this article discusses the possibility to use the institutional theory of organizations in analyzing and understanding the developments in e-government with the help of examples from the e-government literature and an emphasis on the limitations of such an approach. The article concludes that the institutional theory of organizations may be useful in analyzing e-government, as it includes the issues of societal/organizational legitimacy, symbolism, and trends, in addition to the current dominating analysis of e-government based on new public management value concepts.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Anderson, L., & Bishop, P. (2005). E-Government to e-democracy: Communicative mechanisms of governance. Journal of E-Government, 2(1), 5–26. google scholar
  • Bannister, F. (2007a). The perspective of Janus: Reflecting on EGPA past and future. Information Polity, 12, 227–231. google scholar
  • Bannister, F. (2007b). The curse of the benchmark: An assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisons. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(2), 171–188. google scholar
  • Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York, NY: George Braziller Publishers. google scholar
  • Bigelow, B., & Stone, M. M. (1995). Why don’t they do what they want: An exploration of organizational responses to institutional pressures in community health centers. Public Administration Review, 55(2), 183–192. google scholar
  • Cohen, S., & Eimicke, W. (2001). The use of internet in government service delivery. In M. Abramson & G. E. Means (Eds.), E-Government 2001 (pp. 9–43). Oxford, UK: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. google scholar
  • Covaleski, M. A., & Dirsmith, M. W. (1988). An institutional perspective on the rise, social transformation and the fall of a university budget category. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 562–587. google scholar
  • Demir, Ö. ve Acar, M. (1992). Sosyal bilimler sözlüğü. İstanbul: Ağaç Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 2, 147–160. google scholar
  • Du, K., & Dai, Y. (2017). The doctrine of the mean: Reference groups and public information systems development. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.11.003 google scholar
  • Effah, J., & Nuhu, H. (2017). Institutional barriers to digitalization of government budgeting in developing countries: A case study of Ghana. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 82(1), 1–17. google scholar
  • Flak, L. S., & Rose, J. (2005). Stakeholder governance: Adapting stakeholder theory to e-government. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 642–664. google scholar
  • Fountain, J. E., & Osorio-Urzua, C. A. (2001). Public sector: Early stages of a deep transformation. In R.E. Litan & A. M. Rivlin (Eds.), The economic payoff from the internet revolution (pp. 235–268). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. google scholar
  • Hassan, S., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2008). Institutional theory and e-government research. Handbook of Research on Public Information Technology, 1, 349–360. Heeks, R. (2005). E-Government as a carrier of context. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 51–74. google scholar
  • Hirschheim, R., & Newman, M. (1991). Symbolism and information system development: Myth, metaphor and magic. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 29–62. google scholar
  • Hwang, K., & Choi, M. (2017). Effects of innovation-supportive culture and organiational citizenship e-government information system security stemming from mimetic isomorphism. Government Information Quarterly, 34, 183–198. google scholar
  • Jing, F., Huayong, N., & Yanli, P. (2013). Study on the conceptual model of e-government standards adoption based on institutional theory. Proceedings of Wuhan International Conference on e-Business (pp. 59–67). Wuhan, P. R. China. google scholar
  • Kim, S., Kim, H. J., & Lee, H. (2009). An institutional analysis of an e-government system for anticorruption: The case of OPEN. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 42–50. google scholar
  • Korteland E., & Bekkers, V. (2007). Diffusion of innovations in the Dutch public sector: The case of the digital community policing. Information Polity, 12, 139–150. google scholar
  • Lawrence, T. B., & Shadnam, M. (2008). Institutional theory. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (pp. 2288–2293). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. google scholar
  • Letch, N. (2001). The emerging e-government research agenda: A report on recent international research. Proceedings of the 4th Western Australian Workshop on Information Systems Research (WAWISR) Conference, 1–8. google scholar
  • Löfstedt, U. (2005). e-Government: Assessment of current research and some proposals for future directions. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 1, 39–52. google scholar
  • Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2011). Using institutional theory and dynamic simulation to understand complex e-government phenomena. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 329–345. google scholar
  • March, J., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78, 734–749. google scholar
  • Meijer, A. J. (2007). Why don’t they listen to us? Reasserting the role of ICT in public administration, Information Polity, 12, 233–242. google scholar
  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. google scholar
  • Nye, J. S. Jr. (2001). Information technology and democratic governance. In E. C. Kamarck & J. S. Nye Jr., (Eds.), Governance in a networked world (pp. 1–18). Hollis, NH: Hollis Publishing. google scholar
  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145–179. google scholar
  • Özen, S. (2007). Yeni kurumsal kuram: Örgütleri çözümlemede yeni ufuklar ve yeni sorunlar. S. Sargut ve Ş. Özen (Ed.). Örgüt kuramları (s. 237–331). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi. google scholar
  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper and Row Publishers. google scholar
  • Powell, W. W. (2007). The new institutionalism. Retrieved 09.10.2017 from http://web.stanford. edu/group/song/papers/NewInstitutionalism.pdf google scholar
  • Sadioğlu, U. ve Yıldız, M. (2007). Kamu yönetimi ile bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri: Bir bibliyografik analiz. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(2), 325–359. google scholar
  • Sağsan, M., Eyüpoğlu, Ş., & Saner, T. (2011). Institutional isomorphism between TRNC and Turkey for e-government strategy: What encourages spontaneous isomorphism? International Journal of eBusiness and eGovernment Studies, 3(1), 121–132. google scholar
  • Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 493–511. google scholar
  • Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. London, UK: Sage. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York, NY: Row, Peterson Publications. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1968). Constructing social theories. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World. google scholar
  • Suddaby, R. (2010). Challenges for institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(1), 14–20. google scholar
  • Suddaby, R., Seidl, D., & Kle, J. (2013). Strategy as practice meets with neo- institutional theory. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 329–344. google scholar
  • Taylor, J. A., & Lips, A. M. B. (2008). The citizen in the information polity: Exposing the limits of the e-Government paradigm. Information Polity, 13, 139–152. google scholar
  • Tolbert, C. J., Mossberger, K., & McNeal, R. (2008). Institutions, policy innovation, and e-government in the American states. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 549–563. google scholar
  • Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (pp. 175–190). London, UK: Sage. google scholar
  • Wahab, S. A., Rose, R. C., & Osman, S. I. W. (2012). Defining the concepts of technology and technology transfer: A literature analysis. International Business Research, 5(2), 61–71. google scholar
  • Whitson, T. L., & Davis, L. (2001). Best practices in electronic government: Comprehensive electronic information dissemination for science and technology. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 7–21. google scholar
  • Wimmer, M. A. (2007). Reflections on the Egovrtd2020 roadmap for e-Government research. Proceedings of ICEGOV 2007 (pp. 417–426). Macao. google scholar
  • Yang, K. (2003). Neoinstitutionalism and e-government: Beyond Jane Fountain. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 432–442. google scholar
  • Yıldız, M. & Karakaya Polat, R. (2012). Türkiye’deki e-devlet araştırma ve uygulamalarının eleştirel bir değerlendirmesi ve öneriler. M. Z. Sobacı ve M. Yıldız (Ed.), E-Devlet: Kamu yönetimi teknoloji ilişkisinde güncel yaklaşımlar (s. 623–648). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Yıldız, M. (2007). Uluslararası kuruluşların Türkiye’nin E-devlet siyasalarına etkisi, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 40(2), 39–55. google scholar
  • Yıldız, M. (2012). Big questions of e-government research. Information Polity, 17(3), 343–355. google scholar
  • Yıldız, M., & Saylam, A. (2013). E-government discourses: An inductive analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 141–153. google scholar
  • Yıldız, M.; Sadioğlu, U. ve Babaoğlu, C. (2012). Yönetsel tarih perspektifinden kamu yönetiminde teknoloji kullanımı: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda ulaştırma teknolojileri kullanımı örneği (1823– 1923). M. Z. Sobacı ve M. Yıldız (Ed.), E-Devlet: Kamu yönetimi teknoloji ilişkisinde güncel yaklaşımlar içinde (s. 65–84). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Zheng, D., Chen, J., Huang, L., & Zhang, C. (2013). E-government adoption in public administration organizations: Integrating institutional theory perspective and resource-based view. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(2), 221–234. google scholar
  • Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42, 726–743. google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Yıldız, M., & Leblebici, D.N. (2018). Kurumsal Örgüt Kuramı E-Devlet Uygulamalarını Anlamak ve Açıklamak için Yararlı Olabilir mi?. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, 27(1), 7-22. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2018.27.1.0002


AMA

Yıldız M, Leblebici D N. Kurumsal Örgüt Kuramı E-Devlet Uygulamalarını Anlamak ve Açıklamak için Yararlı Olabilir mi?. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences. 2018;27(1):7-22. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2018.27.1.0002


ABNT

Yıldız, M.; Leblebici, D.N. Kurumsal Örgüt Kuramı E-Devlet Uygulamalarını Anlamak ve Açıklamak için Yararlı Olabilir mi?. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, [Publisher Location], v. 27, n. 1, p. 7-22, 2018.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Yıldız, Mete, and Doğan Nadi Leblebici. 2018. “Kurumsal Örgüt Kuramı E-Devlet Uygulamalarını Anlamak ve Açıklamak için Yararlı Olabilir mi?.” Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences 27, no. 1: 7-22. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2018.27.1.0002


Chicago: Humanities Style

Yıldız, Mete, and Doğan Nadi Leblebici. “Kurumsal Örgüt Kuramı E-Devlet Uygulamalarını Anlamak ve Açıklamak için Yararlı Olabilir mi?.” Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences 27, no. 1 (Apr. 2025): 7-22. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2018.27.1.0002


Harvard: Australian Style

Yıldız, M & Leblebici, DN 2018, 'Kurumsal Örgüt Kuramı E-Devlet Uygulamalarını Anlamak ve Açıklamak için Yararlı Olabilir mi?', Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 7-22, viewed 30 Apr. 2025, https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2018.27.1.0002


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Yıldız, M. and Leblebici, D.N. (2018) ‘Kurumsal Örgüt Kuramı E-Devlet Uygulamalarını Anlamak ve Açıklamak için Yararlı Olabilir mi?’, Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, 27(1), pp. 7-22. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2018.27.1.0002 (30 Apr. 2025).


MLA

Yıldız, Mete, and Doğan Nadi Leblebici. “Kurumsal Örgüt Kuramı E-Devlet Uygulamalarını Anlamak ve Açıklamak için Yararlı Olabilir mi?.” Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, vol. 27, no. 1, 2018, pp. 7-22. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2018.27.1.0002


Vancouver

Yıldız M, Leblebici DN. Kurumsal Örgüt Kuramı E-Devlet Uygulamalarını Anlamak ve Açıklamak için Yararlı Olabilir mi?. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences [Internet]. 30 Apr. 2025 [cited 30 Apr. 2025];27(1):7-22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2018.27.1.0002 doi: 10.26650/siyasal.2018.27.1.0002


ISNAD

Yıldız, Mete - Leblebici, DoğanNadi. “Kurumsal Örgüt Kuramı E-Devlet Uygulamalarını Anlamak ve Açıklamak için Yararlı Olabilir mi?”. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences 27/1 (Apr. 2025): 7-22. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2018.27.1.0002



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim15.01.2017
Kabul07.03.2018

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.