Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mandatory innovation in a decentralised system: The adoption of an e-government innovation in Dutch municipalities

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Acta Politica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Local governments, especially in decentralised states, are increasingly performing tasks previously the responsibility of national government as well as new tasks. This research studies the conditions affecting the adoption of a mandated e-government innovation – ‘Basic Registration Addresses and Buildings’ (BAG), in Dutch municipalities (N=429) between 2008 and 2011. In contradiction to what theory suggested, a great deal of variation in the timing of adoption was found. The results of Event History Analysis (EHA) show that early adoption of BAG was primarily the result of a municipality’s command over resources. More resourceful municipalities, that is, with better past e-government performance, that are better informed, and included in more extensive policy networks were more likely to adopt this innovation relatively early. Of the motivational factors included in our study, the degree of political alignment between the municipal council and national government proved an important factor in the timing of a municipality’s adoption. This is a surprising finding, as it is an uncontroversial and technical governance innovation. This research also shows that classical diffusion explanations play a role, even in the case of a mandated innovation for which the time frame, and thus the time to learn from other governments, was relatively short.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There were neither incentives nor disincentives for fast or slow municipalities, except that municipalities connecting to the nationwide BAG facility in 2011 had to pay for the audit themselves. However, by the end of the year 2010, the Ministry of VROM intensified the guidance and support for possible late adopters.

  2. Because we define the adoption of a policy new to the respective municipality as innovation, we are aware that the adoption of a mandated policy might be less of an innovation than the voluntary adoption of a new policy. Nevertheless, we argue that they both represent a certain level of readiness to engage in policy change.

  3. In line with rational choice theory, and in line with Mohr (1969), we assume methodological individualism which means that we consider municipalities as unified decision makers. We abstract from the individual actors within a municipality to the organisation as a whole that allows for ascribing the concepts of motivation, obstacles and resources to municipalities.

  4. In the final overview of VROM ‘Adoption dates of all municipalities’ [In Dutch: Plandata BAG van alle Gemeenten] there were 429 municipalities that had adopted BAG. In the period of our study there was a reduction in the number of municipalities, because of municipal amalgamation. There were 443 municipalities in 2008, 441 municipalities in 2009, 431 municipalities in 2010 and 418 municipalities in 2011. We consider this not to be a problem because our statistical method (EHA) only requires information about municipalities up to the moment of adoption. For example, Abcoude adopted BAG in 2010 (month 33) and amalgamated in January 2011; this means that the amalgamation does not influence our data collection because Abcoude is ‘at risk’ until month 33, and from the next month is removed from our dataset.

  5. In October 2005 all Dutch municipalities (N=467) were phoned by BMC Consultancy and Management and introduced to the survey ‘Baseline measurement Basic Registration Addresses and Buildings’ [In Dutch: Nulmeting BAG]. Hereafter municipalities were asked which official could be approached as a contact person. All theses contacts were asked, by e-mail, to complete the online questionnaire. The exact question asked for this variable was: ‘What rating would you give to the current quality of the addresses registration in your municipality (scale of 1 to 10; 1=lowest, 10 is highest rating)’. We are aware the question asked is a subjective measurement of problem severity, but we assume that someone designated as a contact person by the municipality itself could make a good estimate when answering this question. Because we wanted to keep as many municipalities as possible in the analysis, for 148 municipalities we replaced the missing value with the average score of all other municipalities. This adjustment did not alter the outcomes of our results. Furthermore, although this variable was measured at the beginning of 2006, and BAG legislation came into effect in 2008, in our view it is a good baseline measurement that is able to distinguish between municiaplities.

  6. National elections were held in November 2006 and June 2010. Local elections were held in March 2006 and March 2010. From January 2008 (month 1) to June 2010 (month 24) we compare the results of the local elections in 2006 with the results of the national elections in 2006. From July 2010 (month 25) to April 2011 (month 38) we compare results from the local elections in 2010 with the results of the national elections in 2010. For some municipalities values were missing (N=29 in 2006 and N=34 in 2010). Because most missing values were because of amalgamation, we were able to find election results (from other dates, but valid in the same periods) on municipalities’ Websites.

  7. Local elections were held in March 2006 and March 2010. From January 2008 (month 1) to June 2010 (month 24) we use the results of the local elections in 2006, and from July 2010 (month 25) to April 2011 (month 38) we use results from the local elections in 2010. For some municipalities values were missing (N=29 in 2006 and N=34 in 2010). Because most missing values were because of amalgamation we were able to find election results (from other dates, but valid in the same period) on municipalities’ Websites.

  8. Although the number of buildings is measured at the end of 2011, and BAG-adoptions took place between the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2011, we consider it to be a good estimate because it is not a variable that is substantially subject to change. Also, the fact is that the number of buildings per municipality only became known after entering the buildings in the database (put differently, it does not measure progress for the filling of the database, it measures only the final amount). To decrease the influence of municipalities with many buildings we use a log-transformation.

  9. The E-Government Monitors of 2007 and 2009 are examined by Daadkracht in cooperation with TNS NIPO, and is commissioned by ICTU (program Overheid heeft Antwoord© / BZK). The E-Government Monitor of 2008 is examined by Panteia and commissioned by ICTU (program Overheid heeft Antwoord© / BZK). The E-Government Monitor of 2010 is examined by Daadkracht in cooperation with TNS NIPO, and is commissioned by ICTU (program RENOIR / BZK). In the last months of every year researchers examined the Websites of all Dutch municipalities using a standard questionnaire. In 2007 the standard questionnaire consisted of five main themes that were reviewed on the basis of 78 aspects (i) Standards (N of questions=9, relative importance=15 per cent); (ii) Public access to government information, and citizen involvement (N of questions=29, relative importance=15 per cent); (iii) Service provision (N of questions=8, relative importance=25 per cent); (iv) Personalised service provision (N of questions=8, relative importance=20 per cent); (v) Participation (N of questions=5, relative importance=10 per cent); (vi) Accessibility (N of questions=1, relative importance=15 per cent). In 2008 the standard questionnaire consisted of five main themes that were reviewed on the basis of 89 aspects (i) Standards (N of questions=12, relative importance=15 per cent); (ii) Transparency: public access to government information (N of questions=19, relative importance=15 per cent); (iii) Service provision (N of questions=34, relative importance=20 per cent); (iv) Personalised service provision (N of questions=9, relative importance=15 per cent); (v) Citizen involvement and participation (N of questions=13, relative importance=20 per cent); (vi) Accessibility (N of questions=2, relative importance=15 per cent). In 2009 and 2010 the standard questionnaire consisted of five main themes that were reviewed on the basis of 101 aspects (i) Standards (N of questions=13, relative importance=17 per cent); (ii) Transparency: public access to government information (N of questions=12, relative importance=15 per cent); (iii) Service provision (N of questions=33, relative importance=25 per cent); (iv) The citizen centred (N of questions=29, relative importance=25 per cent); (v) Interactive references (N of questions=7, relative importance=3 per cent); (vi) Accessibility (N of questions=7, relative importance=15 per cent). Missing values were replaced with scores from later years (N=4 in 2007 and N=4 in 2008).

  10. For this variable, the same background knowledge applies as for the variable problem severity discussed in footnote 3. We are aware the question asked is a subjective measurement of information, but we assume that the person designated as a contact person by the municipality itself is the most important person for the ingestion of information provided by VROM. The exact questions asked were: ‘Do you know the Website bag.vrom.nl?’, and ‘Are you subscribed to the newsletter about the basic registrations addresses and buildings?’ To keep as many municipalities as possible in the analysis, for 108 municipalities we replaced the missing value with the average score of all other municipalities. This adjustment did not alter the outcomes of our results. Furthermore, as BAG legislation came into effect in 2008, and this variable was measured at the beginning of 2006, it is possible that municipalities began to familiarise themselves with the BAG Website and the BAG newsletter after legislation was passed. As we have not been able to solve any such misspecification (that is, the timing of when municipalities took steps to acquire more information could have affected the timing of BAG-adoptions) it is possible that this variable might not adequately measures what it wants to.

  11. For size we used three measures; total population, fulltime-equivalent and municipal fund. Total population was log transformed to decrease the influence of larger municipalities, and after that transferred into z-scores. Missing values were replaced with values from later years (N=5 in 2008 and N=3 in 2009). FTE was log transformed to decrease the influence of larger municipalities, and after that transferred into z-scores. Missing values were replaced with values from later years (N=1 in 2008 and N=1 in 2009). Municipal fund was log transformed to decrease the influence of larger municipalities. Missing values were replaced with values from later years (N=5 in 2008 and N=3 in 2009). A factor analysis and a subsequent reliability test indicated that one size scale could be constructed (for all years: α>0.786 and eigenvalue>2.174).

  12. The Ministry of VROM developed, together with a few pilot municipalities, a guidebook for other municipalities to help prevent common pitfalls. Municipalities that participated in the BAG pilot project were; Amstelveen, Apeldoorn, Arnhem, Barneveld, Borne, Boxmeer, Doetinchem, Eindhoven, Haarlemmermeer, Helmond, Horst aan de Maas, Lelystad, Nieuwegein, Reiderland, Scheemda, Tilburg, Vlaardingen, Waalre and Winschoten. These municipalities had already begun work on their implementation of BAG in 2006. The ministry of VROM did not select the municipalities randomly to act as a pilot; it was the state of progress of BAG implementation that formed the basis for selection.

  13. The table in Appendix C shows a comparison of alternative specifications for time (based on calculations proposed by Singer and Willett (2003, Chapter 12)) on which basis (the x2 value for the deviance statistic is way above the critical value for the 0.01 significance level for both the model for the cubic polynomial compared with the quadratic polynomial, and for the cubic polynomial model compared with the model with time dummies (general)) we conclude that the model with the cubic polynomial (cubic) for time functions best, as it performs almost as well as the model with time dummies (general), and that given its lowest values for AIC and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) it outperforms the quadratic polynomial (quadratic) for time. The figure in Appendix C shows us that the cubic polynomial of time is quite capable of recovering the baseline hazard. This is in line with recent methodological advice by Carter and Signorino (2010).

  14. Results are robust to the alternatives of probit and complementary log-log (cloglog) models (Buckley and Westerland, 2004).

References

  • Ahn, M.J. (2011) Adoption of applications in U.S. municipalities: The role of political environment, bureaucratic structure, and the nature of applications. The American Review of Public Administration 41 (4): 428–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, N., Gleditsch, K.S. and Beardsley, K. (2006) Space is more than geography: Using spatial econometrics in the study of political economy. International Studies Quarterly 50 (1): 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beetham, D. (1996) Theorising democracy and local government. In: D. King and G. Stoker (eds.) Rethinking Local Democracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 28–49.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, F.S. and Berry, W.D. (1990) State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review 84 (2): 395–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, F.S. and Berry, W.D. (2007) Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In: P.A. Sabatier (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, (second) pp. 223–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • BMC Consultancy and Management (2006) Baseline Measurement Basic Registration Addresses and Buildings, [In Dutch: Nulmeting BAG]. The Hague: BMC Consultancy and Management.

  • Boehmke, F.J. and Witmer, R. (2004) Disentangling diffusion: The effects of social learning and economic competition on state policy innovation and expansion. Political Research Quarterly 57 (1): 39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S.M. (2005) Interdependent and domestic foundations of policy change: The diffusion of pension privatization around the world. International Studies Quarterly 49 (2): 273–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, J. and Westerland, C. (2004) Duration dependence, functional form, and corrected standard errors: Improving EHA models of state policy diffusion. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 4 (1): 94–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BZK (2008a) Distribution of payments from the municipal fund [In Dutch: Verdeling van de uitkeringen uit het gemeentefonds] [Data file], http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/gemeenten/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/2011/07/28/verdeling-van-de-uitkeringen-uit-het-gemeentefonds.html, accessed 21 August 2012.

  • BZK (2008b) Municipalities’ budget analyses [In Dutch: Begrotingsanalyse gemeenten] [Data file], http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/, accessed 21 August 2012.

  • Carter, D.B. and Signorino, C.S. (2010) Back to the future: Modeling time dependence in binary data. Political Analysis 18 (3): 271–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daley, D.M. and Garand, J.C. (2005) Horizontal diffusion, vertical diffusion, and internal pressure in state environmental policymaking, 1989–1998. American Politics Research 33 (5): 615–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denters, B. (2005) Towards local governance? In: B. Denters and L.E. Rose (eds.) Comparing Local Governance: Trends and Developments. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 246–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denters, B. and Mossberger, K. (2006) Building blocks for a methodology for comparative urban political research. Urban Affairs Review 41 (4): 550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E-overheid.nl (2012) Ambulances navigate on BAG [In Dutch: Ambulances navigeren op de BAG], http://www.e-overheid.nl/actueel/nieuwsberichten/intItem/ambulances-navigeren-op-de-bag-/1430, accessed 21 February 2012.

  • Fliegel, F.C. and Kivlin, J.E. (1966) Attributes of innovations as factors in diffusion. American Journal of Sociology 72 (3): 235–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Füglister, K. (2011a) Cantons as policy laboratories of the federal state? The diffusion of health insurance subsidy policies among the Swiss cantons. Dissertation. Zürich: University of Zürich.

  • Füglister, K. (2011b) Where does learning take place? The role of intergovernmental cooperation in policy diffusion. European Journal of Political Research 51 (3): 316–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goggin, M.L., Bowman, A.O., Lester, J.P. and O’Toole, L. (1990) Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward a Third Generation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, M. (2005) A new intergovernmentalism? In: B. Denters and L.E. Rose (eds.) Comparing Local Governance: Trends and Developments. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 228–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, M. and Page, E.C. (2010) Changing Government Relations in Europe : From Localism to Intergovernmentalism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldthorpe, J.H. (1996) The quantitative analysis of large-scale data-sets and rational action theory: For a sociological alliance. European Sociological Review 12 (2): 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, V. (1973) Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. The American Political Science Review 67 (4): 1174–1185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, V. (1994) Competition, emulation, and policy innovation. In: L.C. Dodd and C. Jillson (eds.) New Perspectives on American Politics. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly, pp. 230–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M.B. (2011) Antecedents of organizational innovation: The diffusion of new public management into Danish local government. Public Administration 89 (2): 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, V., Dijkshoorn, A. and Thaens, M. (2013) Diffusion of personalised services among Dutch municipalities: Evolving channels of persuasion. Local Government Studies 40 (3): 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICTU (2007–2010) E-government ranking municipalities [In Dutch: Overheid.nl monitor gemeenten] [Data file], http://www.e-overheid.nl/onderwerpen/voortgang-en-planning/overheidnl-monitor/gemeenten, accessed 22 March 2011.

  • Kamerstukken II (2005–2006) Bijlage bij Kamerstuk 29362, (nr. 90), 1–7, https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-29362-90-b1.html, accessed 31 January 2012.

  • Karch, A. (2006) National intervention and the diffusion of policy innovations. American Politics Research 34 (4): 403–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karch, A. (2007a) Democratic Laboratories. Policy Diffusion Among the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Karch, A. (2007b) Emerging issues and future directions in state policy diffusion research. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7 (1): 54–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesraad (2011) Election results. [In Dutch: Verkiezingsuitslagen] [Data file], http://www.verkiezingsuitslagen.nl/Na1918/Verkiezingsuitslagen.aspx/, accessed 13 May 2014.

  • Krause, R.M. (2011) Policy innovation, intergovernmental relations, and the adoption of climate protection initiatives by U.S. cities. Journal of Urban Affairs 33 (1): 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laakso, M. and Taagepera, R. (1979) The ‘effective’ number of parties: ‘A measure with application to West Europe’. Comparative Political Studies 12 (1): 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makse, T. and Volden, C. (2011) The role of policy attributes in the diffusion of innovations. The Journal of Politics 73 (01): 108–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeal, R.S., Tolbert, C.J., Mossberger, K. and Dotterweich, L.J. (2003) Innovating in digital government in the American states. Social Science Quarterly 84 (1): 52–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, L.B. (1969) Determinants of innovation in organizations. The American Political Science Review 63 (1): 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, M.J. (2002) The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review 62 (4): 424–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, D.F. and Moon, M.J. (2005) Advancing e-government at the grassroots: Tortoise or hare? Public Administration Review 65 (1): 64–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapat, A. (2004) Devolution and innovation: The adoption of state environmental policy innovations by administrative agencies. Public Administration Review 64 (2): 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J.D. and Willett, J.B. (2003) Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Soss, J., Schram, S.F., Vartanian, T.P., O’Brien, E., Brien, E.O. and Mawr, B. (2001) Setting the terms of relief: Explaining state policy choices in the devolution revolution. American Journal of Political Science 45 (2): 378–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Netherlands (2011) The Netherlands regional. [In Dutch: Nederland regionaal] [Data file], http://www.statline.cbs.nl/, accessed 21 August 2012.

  • Sugiyama, N.B. (2008) Theories of policy diffusion: Social sector reform in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies 41 (2): 193–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traut, C.A. and Emmert, C.F. (2003) Death penalty exemptions for juveniles: An event history analysis of state policy adoption. Politics & Policy 31 (2): 296–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volden, C. (2006) States as policy laboratories: Emulating success in the children’s health insurance program. American Journal of Political Science 50 (2): 294–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VROM (2009) Legal arrangement basic registrations addresses and buildings [In Dutch: Regeling Basisregistraties Adressen en Gebouwen]. Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, 8 juni 2009, nr. BJZ2009038757, http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0025961, accessed 9 November 2011.

  • VROM (2011) Adoption dates of all municipalities [In Dutch: Plandata BAG van alle Gemeenten]. Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, http://bag.vrom.nl/, accessed 19 April 2011.

  • Walker, J.L. (1969) Diffusion of innovations among American states. American Political Science Review 63 (3): 880–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R.M. (2006) Innovation type and diffusion: An empirical analysis of local government. Public Administration 84 (2): 311–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R.M., Avellaneda, C.N. and Berry, F.S. (2011) Exploring the diffusion of innovation among high and low innovative localities. Public Management Review 13 (1): 95–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weare, C., Musso, J.a. and Hale, M.L. (1999) Electronic democracy and the diffusion of municipal web pages in California. Administration & Society 31 (3): 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Twente, Institute for Innovation and Governance Studies (IGS), PO Box 217, Enschede, 7500 AE, The Netherlands

    Wouter Jans, Bas Denters, Ariana Need & Minna Van Gerven

Authors
  1. Wouter Jans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bas Denters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ariana Need
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Minna Van Gerven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wouter Jans.

Appendices

Appendix A

Table A1

Table A1 Major events and timelines of the adoption of BAG
Full size table

Appendix B

Table B1

Table B1 BAG-adoption by month
Full size table

Appendix C

Figure C1

Figure C1
figure 6

Fitted hazard function for number of months until BAG adoption, with cubic polynomial for the main effect of time (Months).

Full size image

Table C1

Table C1 Justification for the specification of the control variable time
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jans, W., Denters, B., Need, A. et al. Mandatory innovation in a decentralised system: The adoption of an e-government innovation in Dutch municipalities. Acta Polit 51, 36–60 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2014.36

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2014.36

Keywords

Search

Navigation