E-Government and human capital in the Italian Public Administration. A medium-term perspective

Journal title PRISMA Economia - Società - Lavoro
Author/s Nicola Matteucci
Publishing Year 2020 Issue 2019/2 Language Italian
Pages 27 P. 31-57 File size 437 KB
DOI 10.3280/PRI2019-002003
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

L’Italia è risalita nella classifica UE delle Agende Digitali (indice DESI), ma rimane in coda per l’e-government, dove presenta ancora forti criticità, specie per i servizi pubblici digitali. Perdurando la scarsità di dati micro e territoriali, questo lavoro sistematizza le principali evidenze aggregate, e le rilegge alla luce di vari filoni di let-teratura in modo trans-disciplinare. Da un lato, si conferma che il ritardo digitale della Pubblica Amministrazione (PA) italiana affonda in un peculiare mix di criticità istituzionali, tra cui cultura giuridica legalistica, caos normativo, instabilità poli-tica e clientele: questi fattori ostacolano le esigenze di chiarezza e semplificazione dei processi e di razionalizzazione del back-office presupposte dall’e-government. Dall’altro, ipotizziamo che anche le politiche del pubblico impiego e quelle di au-sterità (blocco del turnover della PA) abbiano giocato un crescente impatto negati-vo sulla quantità e qualità dell’offerta di servizi pubblici digitali. Esse sembrano aver creato un caso inedito di adozione tecnologica disgiunta dagli indispensabili investimenti nel capitale umano e organizzativo della PA (offerta di e-government inadeguata). Infine, il presente lavoro, nel demandare all’agenda futura l’ulteriore esplorazione di questo caso, ricorda il deficit statistico e di open Government data che affligge lo studio dell’Agenda Digitale del Paese.

Keywords: E-government, capitale umano, Pubblica Amministrazione, Agen-da Digitale, Italia

  1. Amici M., Giacomelli S., Manaresi F., Tonello M. (2016) “Red tape reduction and firm entry: New evidence from an Italian reform”, Economics Letters, 146, pp. 24-27.
  2. Aran (2013) “Anzianità ed età del personale pubblico” Aran Occasional paper 3/2013, -- http://www.aranagenzia.it/index.php/statistiche-e-pubblicazioni/.
  3. Arduini D., Belotti F., Denni M., Giungato G., Zanfei A. (2010) “Technology adoption and innovation in public services the case of e-government in Italy”, Information Economics and Policy, 22(3), pp. 257-275.
  4. Arduini D., Denni M., Lucchese M., Nurra A., Zanfei A. (2013) “The role of technology, organization and contextual factors in the development of e-Government services: An empirical analysis on Italian Local Public Administrations”, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, pp. 177-189.
  5. Arvanitis S., Loukis E.N. (2009) “Information and communication technologies, human capital, workplace organization and labour productivity: A comparative study based on firm-level data for Greece and Switzerland”, Information Economics and Policy, 21(1), pp. 43-61.
  6. Black S.E., Lynch L.M. (2001) “How to Compete: The Impact of Workplace Practices and Information Technology on Productivity”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(3), pp. 434-445.
  7. Bratti, M., Matteucci, N. (2005) “Is There Skill-Biased Technological Change in Italian Manufacturing? Evidence From Firm-Level Data”, Brussels Economic Review, 48(1-2), pp. 153-182.
  8. Castelnovo W., Sorrentino M., De Marco M. (2016) “Italy’s One-Stop Shop: A Case of the Emperor’s New Clothes?”. In: Rossignoli C., Gatti M., Agrifoglio R. (eds) Organizational Innovation and Change. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, Vol 13. Springer, pp. 27-39.
  9. Castelnovo W., Sorrentino M. (2017) “The digital government imperative: a context-aware perspective”, Public Management Review, 20(5), pp. 709-725.
  10. Ceccobelli M., Gitto S., Mancuso P. (2012) “ICT capital and labour productivity growth: A non-parametric analysis of 14 OECD countries”, Telecommunications Policy, 36(4), pp. 282-292.
  11. Cordella A., Tempini N. (2015) “E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery”, Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), pp. 279-286.
  12. David P. (1990) “The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox”, The American Economic Review, 80(2), pp. 355-361.
  13. European Commission (2016a) eGovernment Benchmark 2016. A turning point for eGovernment development in Europe? Volumes I and II, Brussels.
  14. European Commission (2016b) EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020 Accelerating the digital transformation of government, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, 19.4.2016 COM(2016) 179 final.
  15. European Commission (2017) eGovernment Benchmark 2017. Taking stock of user-centric design and delivery of digital public services in Europe, Volumes I and II, Brussels.
  16. European Commission (2018) eGovernment Benchmark 2018. Securing eGovernment for all. Background report, Luxembourg.
  17. European Commission (2019) eGovernment Benchmark 2019. Empowering Europeans through trusted digital public services. Background report, Luxembourg.
  18. FPA (2016) 25 anni di riforme della PA: troppe norme, pochi traguardi. La riforma Madia vista da quattro prospettive di analisi, Dicembre, FPA - Collana Ricerche.
  19. FPA (2017) Burocrazia difensiva. Come ne usciamo, Indagine su Panel PA 2017, Maggio, FPA - Collana Ricerche.
  20. Friesenbichler K., Fritz O., Hölzl W., Misch F., Streicher G., Yeter M. (2014) The efficiency of EU public Administration in helping firms grow, European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry, Brussels.
  21. Geroski P. (2000) “Models of Technology Diffusion”, Research Policy, 29(4-5), pp. 603-625.
  22. Hempell T., Zwick T. (2008) “New Technology, Work Organisation, and Innovation”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17(4), pp. 331-354.
  23. Hidalgo A., Gabaly S., Morales-Alonso G., Urueña A. (2020) “The digital divide in light of sustainable development: An approach through advanced machine learning techniques”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119754,
  24. Hooghe L., & Marks G. (2003) “Unraveling the Central State, but how? Types of Multi-level governance”, American political science review, 97(2), pp. 233-243.
  25. ISTAT (2017) “Le tecnologie dell’informazione e della comunicazione nella Pubblica amministrazione locale”, report, 3 gennaio, ISTAT, Roma.
  27. Janowski T. (2015) “Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization”, Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), pp. 221-236.
  28. Layne K., Lee J. (2001) “Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model”, Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), pp. 122-136.
  29. Matteucci, N. (2008a) “Multiplatform Competition and State Aid in EU Digital Television: A Comparative Assessment”, Proceedings of the EuroCPR Conference, 31 March-1April, ITPS-JRC EU Commission, Seville.
  30. Matteucci N. (2008b) “Open Standards and Interoperability in EU Digital TV: Economics and Policy Issues”, Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 5(2), pp. 45-70.
  31. Matteucci N. (2009) “Interoperability Provision in Next Generation Communications: The Case of Italian DTV”, Info, 11(6), pp. 30-50.
  32. Matteucci N. (2014) “L’investimento nelle reti NGA a larga banda: la ‘questione settentrionale’”, Economia e Politica Industriale, 41(4), pp. 9-25.
  33. Matteucci N. (2015) “La valutazione delle agende digitali regionali. Un modello per gli investimenti pubblici in banda larga”, L’Industria, 36(4), pp. 551-582.
  34. Matteucci N. (2019) “The EU State aid policy for broadband: An evaluation of the Italian experience with first generation networks”, Telecommunications Policy, 43(9), 101830.
  35. Matteucci N. (2020) “Digital agendas, regional policy and institutional quality. Assessing the Italian broadband plan”, Regional Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2020.1782876
  36. Matteucci N., O’Mahony, M., Robinson C., Zwick, T. (2005) “Productivity, Workplace Performance and ICT: Industry and Firm Level Evidence for Europe and the US”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 52(3), pp. 359-386.
  37. Matteucci N., Seri P. (2015) “Editoriale”, Prisma, 1, pp. 5-17.
  38. Melis G. (1996) Storia dell’amministrazione italiana, 1861-1993, Bologna: il Mulino.
  39. Milio S. (2008) “How political stability shapes administrative performance: The Italian case”, West European Politics, 31(5), pp. 915- 936.
  40. Nam T. (2014) “Determining the type of e-government use”. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), pp. 211-220.
  41. North D.C. (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.
  42. OECD (2017) Government at a Glance 2017, Paris: OECD Publishing,
  43. Piattoni S., Polverari L. (2016) Handbook on Cohesion Policy in the EU, Chelthenham: Edward Elgar.
  44. Pick J.B., Sarkar A., Johnson J. (2015) “United States digital divide: State level analysis of spatial clustering and multivariate determinants of ICT utilization”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 49, pp. 16-32.
  45. Rodríguez-Pose A. (2013) “Do institutions matter for regional development?”, Regional Studies, 47, pp. 1034-1047.
  46. Seri, P., Zanfei, A. (2013) “The co-evolution of ICT, skills and organization in public administrations: Evidence from new European country-level data”, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, pp. 160-178.
  47. Seri P., Bianchi A., Matteucci N. (2014) “Diffusion and usage of public e-services in Europe: an assessment of country level indicators and drivers”, Telecommunications Policy, 38(5-6), pp. 496-513.
  48. Sorrentino M., De Marco M., Depaoli P. (2017) “ICT policies, the Mediterranean tradition and the Italian diet of discontinuity”, Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), pp. 707-716.
  49. Sotiropoulos D.A. (2004) “Southern European Public Bureaucracies in Comparative Perspective”, West European Politics, 27(3), pp. 405-422.
  50. Tams S., Grover V., Thatcher J. (2014) “Modern information technology in an old workforce: Toward a strategic research agenda”, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23(4), pp. 284-304.
  51. Twizeyimana, J.D., Andersson A. (2019) “The public value of E-Government – A literature review, Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), pp. 167-178.
  52. United Nations (2016) United Nations E-Government Survey 2016: E-Government in Support of Sustainable Development, -- https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/reports/un-e-government-survey-2016.
  53. Williamson O. E. (2000) “The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead”, Journal of Economic Literature, 38, pp. 595-613.

  • Corporate social responsibility and technological perspectives in healthcare: An exploratory analysis of the evolution of the anti‐corruption system through multiple case studies Maura Campra, Paolo Esposito, Valerio Brescia, in Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management /2023 pp.2816
    DOI: 10.1002/csr.2517

Nicola Matteucci, E-government e capitale umano nella Pubblica Amministrazione italiana. Una prospettiva di medio periodo in "PRISMA Economia - Società - Lavoro" 2/2019, pp 31-57, DOI: 10.3280/PRI2019-002003