D-Government and Performance Management in Caribbean Public Service

Introduction and Background

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development calls on states across the world to build inclusive, just, and peaceful societies based on good governance, accountable institutions, effective rule of law, and respect for human rights at all levels (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021). Goal 16 of the Agenda recognizes the crucial role that public institutions play in the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the need for reforms that enhance inclusivity, accountability, and effectiveness in the public sector.

As part of the 2030 Agenda, Article XVII of the Charter of the Civil Society for the Caribbean Community calls for states to adopt measures that ensure accountable, open, and just governance (Caribbean Community Secretariat, 1997). Section 5 of Article XVII requires states to ensure that the public service is cost-effective and addresses the people's needs. Further, the Article requires that public officials treat all people with fairness and dignity as a means of supporting the development process (Caribbean Community Secretariat, 1997). Article XVII imposes upon states a duty to respect and preserve the public service's independence and to ensure that it is innovative, adaptive, and responsive in rendering services to the public (Caribbean Community Secretariat, 1997).

The focus on effective governance and its role in sustainable development led the United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration to develop 11 Principles to guide UN member states towards realizing the SDGs through effective governance (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021). One of the 11 Principles is collaboration through Digital Government for Effective Delivery in the public service (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021). Other fundamental principles include Transparency and Ethics, Institutional Arrangements to Enhance Coherence in Policy Implementation, Risk-Informed Governance, Independent Oversight, Leaving No One Behind, Sound Policy-Making, and Intergenerational Equity (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021).

The idea of digitization in government was first coined by Tim O'Reilly in his landmark paper, "Government as a Platform" (O'Reilly, 2011). The paper focused on how governments could apply Web 2.0 collaborative technologies to solve problems at different administrative levels (O'Reilly, 2011). O'Reilly envisioned a situation where governments would use internet technologies to enhance public participation and ensure that "every man… feels he is a participator in the government affairs, not merely at an election one day in the year, but every day" (O'Reilly, n.p.). According to O'Reilly (2011), internet technologies present a high potential to enhance transparency in government by allowing citizens to participate in government decision-making and deliberations in ways not previously imagined. He criticizes the traditional system of vending machine-like governance, where citizens pay taxes and expect government services, and when such services are not delivered, the best they can do is protest — which he equates to shaking the machine (O'Reilly, 2011). In his view, collaborative Web 2.0 technologies present an opportunity to move to a bazaar system of governance (Government 2.0), where the government is run as an open platform that allows people both within and outside government to interact, innovate, and collectively participate in creating solutions and making decisions (O'Reilly, 2011).

In the Caribbean region, the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) coordinates regional efforts aimed at fostering the development of d-government (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021). CARICOM brings together fifteen member states and five associate members. It commits to creating a productive, resilient, inclusive, and integrated community that is a competitive force globally (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2020). CARICOM recognizes that a regional approach would be a good way to mobilize resources by interfacing with other countries outside the region and would also help legitimize national policy reforms (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021).

Findings of the e-government survey carried out by the UN in 2020 showed that most Caribbean countries continue to rank low in the E-Government Development Index (EGDI), which is an indicator of the level of e-government adoption (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2020). CARICOM recognizes that the primary challenges hindering public sector digitization in the Caribbean are lack of skills among officials working in the public sector, poor internet access (more than 50% of households have no internet access), emigration of skilled and educated individuals, lack of accountability and trust among public officials, and inadequate political will (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2020). On its part, CARICAD, the region's focal point for public sector reform, identified the following additional challenges to digitization: lack of political support, inadequate budgetary allocations for digital transformation units, and inadequate communication across government agencies and departments (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021).

The proposed study seeks to determine the extent to which the Caribbean public service applies the d-government innovation in performance management. It identifies the challenges hindering the use of d-government innovations in performance management and the potential strategies for addressing them.

Problem Statement and E-Government Development Index

The E-Government Development Index (EGDI) serves as a measure of progress in the use of e-government innovations (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021). It is a composite index that incorporates the Online Service Index (OSI), Human Capital Index (HCI), and the Telecommunications Infrastructure Index (TII) (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2020). The OSI measures the willingness and capability of a government to communicate with and offer services to its citizens electronically (Sadiq, 2021). The TII measures the infrastructure available to allow citizens to take part in e-government (Sadiq, 2021). Finally, the HCI measures the ability of citizens to make use of e-government innovations (Sadiq, 2021).

An e-government survey carried out in 2020 involving 16 CARICOM states found the average EGDI value of those states to be 0.5644, which is lower than the 0.6 global average (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021). This indicates that CARICOM states rank relatively lower than states in other parts of the world in the use of e-government innovations. The survey further found that the 16 CARICOM countries did not report any significant changes in their EGDI-level groups since 2018 (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021). There were no noticeable movements of CARICOM states from the low EGDI-level group to higher groups, pointing to a slow rate of EGDI growth in CARICOM states relative to the rest of the world (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021). According to the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2021), slow EGDI growth indicates that CARICOM countries continue to face persistent challenges that inhibit their efforts to improve human capital development, online services provision, and telecommunications infrastructure.

Table 1 below shows that generally, CARICOM states report high HCI values, indicating that the region's human capital allows for rapid e-government development. However, the poorly developed technological infrastructure measured by the TII remains a significant hindrance to progress.

Table 1: EGDI and Component Indices for CARICOM Countries
(Source: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021, p. 20)

Antigua & Barbuda: OSI 0.4471 | HCI 0.7518 | TII 0.6176 | EGDI 2020: 0.6055 | EGDI 2018: 0.7229 | Rating: H2
Bahamas: OSI 0.6765 | HCI 0.7546 | TII 0.6739 | EGDI 2020: 0.7017 | EGDI 2018: 0.6552 | Rating: HV
Barbados: OSI 0.5765 | HCI 0.8549 | TII 0.7523 | EGDI 2020: 0.7279 | EGDI 2018: 0.644 | Rating: HV
Belize: OSI 0.2647 | HCI 0.6919 | TII 0.4079 | EGDI 2020: 0.4548 | EGDI 2018: 0.5726 | Rating: MH
Cuba: OSI 0.2588 | HCI 0.8215 | TII 0.2514 | EGDI 2020: 0.4439 | EGDI 2018: 0.6554 | Rating: MH
Dominica: OSI 0.4471 | HCI 0.6698 | TII 0.6871 | EGDI 2020: 0.6013 | EGDI 2018: 0.5906 | Rating: H2
Dominican Republic: OSI 0.7647 | HCI 0.7419 | TII 0.5279 | EGDI 2020: 0.6782 | EGDI 2018: 0.5794 | Rating: H3
Grenada: OSI 0.3412 | HCI 0.8576 | TII 0.5449 | EGDI 2020: 0.5812 | EGDI 2018: 0.593 | Rating: H2
Guyana: OSI 0.4647 | HCI 0.6462 | TII 0.3619 | EGDI 2020: 0.4909 | EGDI 2018: 0.5306 | Rating: MH
Haiti: OSI 0.1882 | HCI 0.3839 | TII 0.2449 | EGDI 2020: 0.2723 | EGDI 2018: 0.4660 | Rating: M1
Jamaica: OSI 0.3882 | HCI 0.7142 | TII 0.5151 | EGDI 2020: 0.5392 | EGDI 2018: 0.4697 | Rating: H1
Saint Kitts and Nevis: OSI 0.3941 | HCI 0.8035 | TII 0.7080 | EGDI 2020: 0.6352 | EGDI 2018: 0.4773 | Rating: H2
Saint Lucia: OSI 0.3824 | HCI 0.7205 | TII 0.5302 | EGDI 2020: 0.5444 | EGDI 2018: 0.4316 | Rating: H1
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: OSI 0.4706 | HCI 0.7214 | TII 0.4894 | EGDI 2020: 0.5605 | EGDI 2018: 0.4115 | Rating: H2
Suriname: OSI 0.2882 | HCI 0.7098 | TII 0.5482 | EGDI 2020: 0.5154 | EGDI 2018: 0.4101 | Rating: H1
Trinidad and Tobago: OSI 0.6118 | HCI 0.7434 | TII 0.6803 | EGDI 2020: 0.6785 | EGDI 2018: 0.3047 | Rating: H3

Seven of the 16 countries rank above the global EGDI average of 0.6, indicating that the Caribbean region could improve its overall rating through enhanced interactions between countries, which provide opportunities to learn from one another and exchange policy ideas.

CARICOM states could improve their EGDI scores and application of the digital government innovation by enhancing interactions between the online presence, human capital, and infrastructure indices. Evidence points to great potential given that 7 of the 16 countries already rank above the global EGDI average. The region could improve its EGDI ranking by developing its technological infrastructure to complement the relatively high human capital index. This calls for addressing the persistent challenges that hinder states from improving the online services needed for effective application of digital government tools.

The proposed study will provide insights into these challenges and the extent to which countries in the Caribbean region apply d-government in the area of performance management in the public service. The findings will go a long way towards ensuring that governance processes respond to citizens' needs and that the public service is adaptive, efficient, and effective in line with Article XVII of the Charter of Civil Society for the Caribbean Community.

The study pursues the following objectives:

(i) To determine the extent to which the Caribbean public service applies the d-government innovation in performance management processes.
(ii) To determine the challenges that hinder the application of d-government innovations in performance management in Caribbean countries.

Literature Review: Theories and Concepts

The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) argues that behavioural intention dictates the likelihood of adopting and using technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Behavioural intention is the direct result of four constructs: effort expectancy, performance expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2003). However, the effect of these constructs is mediated by other factors, including voluntariness, experience, age, and gender (Kim & Crowston, 2012).

Venkatesh et al. (2003) define performance expectancy as the extent to which one believes that adopting a technology will improve their job performance. The authors rank it as the strongest determinant of intention (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Studies have consistently shown that performance expectancy significantly influences the intention to adopt in both mandatory and voluntary settings (Venkatesh et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2010).

Social influence, on the other hand, is the extent to which important people in one's life use or believe the individual would benefit from using the technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003). In other words, the perceptions of others influence the intention to adopt technology. However, studies have yielded conflicting findings on the strength of the social influence construct. Zhou et al. (2010) found the social influence construct to have a significant effect on behavioural intention, while Chauhan and Jaiswal (2016) found an insignificant relationship. Venkatesh et al. (2003) argue that social influence may have a stronger effect on intention in cases where adoption is mandatory, and people are forced to use technology as a means of compliance rather than personal preference. In the authors' view, this explains the inconsistencies in reported findings (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

The third construct, effort expectancy, has to do with the ease of using technology. People are more likely to adopt a technology if the effort expectancy is low (Chauhan & Jaiswal, 2016). However, Venkatesh et al. (2003) caution that the effect of effort expectancy becomes insignificant with extended use.

Finally, facilitating conditions measures how well the available infrastructure is organized to support adoption and use of a technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Studies have reported a significant positive relationship between facilitating conditions and intention to use (Venkatesh et al., 2003). However, since its effect grows insignificant with extended use, Kim and Crowston (2012) categorize facilitating conditions as a use construct rather than an intention construct.

The moderating factors of age, gender, voluntariness, and experience have different effects. Voluntariness only moderates the effect of social influence and has no effect on the other three constructs (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Experience moderates the effect of facilitating conditions, social influence, and effort expectancy, while gender moderates the effect of social influence and both performance and effort expectancy (Venkatesh et al., 2003). According to Venkatesh et al. (2003), age is the only factor that has a moderating effect on all four constructs.

Sources give varied definitions of e-governance. The general definition by West (as cited in Durrant, 2005) is that e-governance is the use of the internet and other digital platforms to deliver services and information. Conversely, Heeks (as cited in Durrant, 2005) defines e-governance as the application of information and communication technologies (ICT) in the public service to improve performance. The definition by Heeks promotes the view that e-government should not be restricted to internet-based technologies only, or to improved interactions between governments and citizens only (Durrant, 2005). Rather, it envisages the use of e-government for the improvement of public sector activities in general.

The more commonly adopted definition is the Commonwealth Secretariat's, which states that e-governance is the use of ICT systems that enable electronic productivity, voting, workflow, and service delivery, with the aim of enhancing interactions within the government as well as between a government and its citizens (Williams & Marius, 2016). In differentiating between e-government and e-governance, Williams and Marius (2016) state that e-government is a public sector structure that facilitates e-governance. In other words, e-government is the framework within which e-governance takes place (Broome, 2015).

According to Williams and Marius (2016), the overall aim of e-governance is to deepen democracy, enhance efficiency in the public service, and improve transparency. Durrant (2005) holds a similar view, that e-governance is aimed at enhancing government, business, and democratic aspects of governance. Broome (2015) holds that the fundamental aim of e-governance is to enhance communications and interactions between the governed and those governing them, the result of which is a harmonious society.

Perhaps the most simplified explanation of the value of e-governance and digitization in public service is offered by Twizeyimana and Andersson (2019). The authors conducted a literature review into the public value of digitization in government. They defined public value as "citizens' collective expectations in respect to government and public services" (Twizeyimana & Andersson, 2019, p. 167). They summarized their findings from 53 articles into six values: improved well-being and social value, improved confidence and trust in government, improved professionalism and ethical behaviour, Open Government (OG) capabilities, improved administrative efficiency, and improved public services.

Upon grouping related values together, the study identified three overarching values: improved social value, improved administration, and improved public services (Twizeyimana & Andersson, 2019). The authors defined improved social value as improved well-being and trust resulting from increased transparency and increased public participation in government decisions. Further, e-governance leads to improved administration resulting from higher efficiency levels, better resource management, and increased collaboration between the government and its citizens. Finally, digitization improves communication, ensures better access to government information, and fosters efficiency as government services become conveniently accessible online (Twizeyimana & Andersson, 2019).