St Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
UDC 338
Introduction. The emergence of “corruption traps” is associated with a number of factors: a reduction in the probability of detecting and punishing public officials, inefficiency of the judicial system, a decrease in transaction costs for participants in corruption schemes, the need to provide a greater number of services at lower costs, the presence of legislative gaps, and a reduction in the tax and resource base. The use of digital technologies can eliminate most of these factors by removing information asymmetry in the interaction between public authorities, business, and the community. Purpose. To analyse empirical data and research findings regarding the impact of e-government ICT implementation on three areas: the activities of public authorities, business operations, and the dynamics of corruption. Methods. Corruption was assessed using comparative analysis methods based on the following corruption perception indices: the World Bank’s Control of Corruption Index (CCI), the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), and the International Country Risk Guide (ICRG) Corruption Index developed by the PRS Group. Results. ICTs are an effective tool for combating corruption; however, in order to fully realise their potential, collective action by public authorities, business, and society is required. The results of empirical research support the thesis that the use of e-government can play an important role in increasing the transparency and accountability of public authorities. Access to information regarding public service delivery processes, including required documentation and procedural steps, enhances both transparency and the quality of work performed by responsible public officials. The implementation of the e-government concept increases the transparency of the functioning of public authorities, promotes the accountability of public officials, and limits the discretionary powers of the bureaucracy.
e-government, corruption, empirical assessment, information and communication technologies
1. Ageev, Vyacheslav Ni. 2023. “"Informacionnye tekhnologii kak sredstvo protivodejstviya korrupcii v Rossijskoj Federacii” [“Information technologies as a means of combating corruption in the Russian Federation”] (In Rus.) Nacional'naya bezopasnost' / nota bene [National security / nota bene], no. 6 (December):49–60. https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0668.2023.6.69405
2. Mamitova, Natalia V., and Anastasia D. Seliverstova. 2019. “Cifrovoe gosudarstvo: problemy postroeniya v Rossijskoj Federacii” [“The digital state: problems of building in the Russian Federation”] (In Rus.). Gosudarstvennaya sluzhba [Public service] 118, vol. 21, no. 2 (April):16–22. https://doi.org/10.22394/2070-8378-2019-21-2-16-22
3. Minbaleev, Aleksey V., and Kirill S. Evsikova. 2021. “"Informacionnye tekhnologii protivodejstviya korrupcii” [“Information technologies for combating corruption”] (In Rus.). Zhurnal Sibirskogo federal'nogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki [Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities and Social Sciences] 14, no. 11 (November):1674–89. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0849
4. Utkin, Valery A., and Ekaterina V. Utkina. 2016. “Korrupciya i informacionnye tekhnologii” [“Corruption and information technologies”] (In Rus.). Bezopasnost' biznesa [Business security], no. 1 (March):45–8.
5. Yufereva, Anastasia S. 2016. “Elektronnoe pravitel'stvo kak sposob protivodejstviya korrupcii v usloviyah processa mediakonvergencii” [“Electronic government as a way to counter corruption in the context of the media convergence process”] (In Rus.). Juvenis scientia, no. 1 (February):106–8.
6. Adam, Isabelle, and Mihaly Fazekas. 2021. “Are emerging technologies helping win the fight against corruption?A review of the state of evidence.” Information Economics and Polic 57, no. 3 (September):100950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2021.100950
7. Andersen, Thomas B. 2009. “E-Government as an anti-corruption strategy.” Information Economics and Policy 21, no. 3 (August):201–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2008.11.003
8. Castro, Conceicao, and Cristina Lopes. 2023. “E-government as a tool in controlling corruption.” International Journal of Public Administration 46, no. 16 (May):1137–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2022.2076695
9. Elbahnasawy, Nasr G. 2014. “E-government, internet adoption, and corruption: an empirical investigation.” World Development, no. 57 (May):114–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.12.005
10. Forghani Bajestani, Mahdi, and M. Mahdi Moeini Gharagozloo, Shaomin Li. 2024. “Digital Technologies: Anti or Pro Corruption?” Journal of Global Information Technology Management 27, no. 3 (July):182–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2024.2372553
11. Kim, Chon-Kyun. 2014. “Anti-corruption initiatives and e-government: a cross-national study.” Public Organization Review 14, no. 3 (September):385–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-013-0223-1
12. Malik, Ashish, and Fabian J. Froese. 2022. “Corruption as a perverse Innovation: The dark side of digitalization and corruption in international business.” Journal of Business Research 145, no. 5 (June):682–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.032
13. Merhi, Mohammad I. 2022. “The effect of digital transformation on corruption: A global analysis.” Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems 14, no. 2 (March):42–58. https://doi.org/10.17705/1pais.14204
14. Ojha, Amitabh, and Shailendra C. Palvia. 2022. “E-government and the fight against corruption: conceptual modeland five case studies from India.” Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research 14, no. 4 (July):11–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2012.10845710
15. Park, Chul Hyun, and Koomin Kim. 2018. “E-government as an anti-corruption tool: Panel data analysis across countries.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 86, no. 4 (November):691–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318822055
16. Zhao, Xuejiao, and D. Xu. 2015. “E-government and corruption: A longitudinal analysis of countries.” International Journal of Public Administration 38, no. 6 (February):410–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.942736
