There is much interest in the application of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve the quality, performance, and responsiveness of public sector Institutions thereby potentially Improving trust. However, there is little empirical evidence about the interaction of ICT Implementations on institutional trust of the public sector. This article extends our understanding of the interplay of ICTs in the public sector and Institutional trust through an in-depth comparative case-study of two successful Chilean e-servlces. The article begins by developing a relational conception of institutional trust of which Institutional trustworthiness is a component of that relationship. It then analyses the two cases separately with respect to three dimensions of institutional trustworthiness: good performance, aligned incentives, and the values of fairness and distributive justice. Following this, a comparative analysis of the two cases shows that while the implementation of technology may bring anticipated efficiency, effectiveness, and transparency gains, there are fundamental limitations to improving institutional trustworthiness through technological interventions. In particular, where points of discretion and ambiguity remain, or power asymmetries are exacerbated, trustworthiness is challenged. Furthermore, drawing on the cases and the relational conception of institutional trust, the article argues that enhancing trustworthiness is a constrained optimisation problem in an environment of competing and often conflicting values.
AED (2003). Digital Opportunities for Development: A sourcebook on access and applications, Washington, DC: AED.
2.
AndersonK.V. (2004). E-Government and Public Sector Process Rebuilding: Dilettantes, wheel barrows, and diamonds, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3.
ArcherM. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The morphogenetic approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
AvgerouC., CiborraC., CordeliaA., KallinikosJ., and SmithM. L. (2005). The Role of Information and Communication Technology in Building Trust in Governance: Toward effectiveness and results, Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
5.
AvgerouC., CiborraC., CordeliaA., KallinikosJ., and SmithM. L. (2006). E-Govemment and Trust in the State: Lessons from electronic tax systems in Chile and Brazil, LSE Department of Information Systems Working Paper Series #146 [www document] http://is2.lse.ac.uk/wp/pdf/WP146.PDF.
6.
AvgerouC., GanzaroliA., PoulymenakouA., and ReinhardN. (2009). Interpreting the Trustworthiness of Government Mediated by Information and Communication Technology: Lessons from electronic voting in Brazil, Information Technology for Development15(2): 133–148.
7.
BarberB. (1983). The Logic and Limits of Trust, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
8.
BarrazaF., and HervíasA. (2006). Pre-Filled Tax Return Systems & Third Party Reporting Systems: Electronic invoice (Vat), OnFifth Meeting of the FTA Taxpayer Services Sub-Group[PPT]. Instanbul: Servicios de Impuestos Internos.
9.
BekkersV., and HomburgV. (2007). The Myths of E-Govemment: Looking beyond the assumptions of a new and better government, The Information Society23: 373–382.
10.
BellamyC., and TaylorJ.A. (1998). Governing in the Information Age, Buckingham: Open University Press.
11.
BhatnagarS. (2004). E-Govemment: From vision to implementation, London: Sage Publications Ltd.
12.
BlackburnS. (1998). Trust, Cooperation, and Human Psychology, in BraithwaiteV., and LeviM. (eds.) Trust and Governance, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 28–45.
13.
BlendonR.J., BensonJ.M., MorinR., AltmanD.E., BrodieM., BrossardM., and JamesM. (1997). Changing Attitudes in America, in NyeJ.S., ZelikowP.D., and KingD.C. (eds.) Why People Don't Trust Government, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 205–216.
14.
BokD. (1997). Measuring the Performance of Government, in NyeJ.S., ZelikowP.D., and KingD.C. (eds.) Why People Don't Trust Government, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
15.
BovensM., and ZouridisS. (2002). From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control, Public Administration Review62(2): 174–184.
16.
BrewerG.A., NeubauerB.J., and GeiselhartK. (2006). Designing and Implementing E-Government Systems: Critical implications for public administration and democracy, Administration & Society38(4): 471–499.
17.
ChanleyV.A., RudolphT.J., and RahnW.M. (2000). The Origins and Consequences of Public Trust in Government: A time series analysis, Public Opinion Quarterly64: 239–256.
18.
ColemanJ.S. (1994). Foundation of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA: First Harvard University Press.
19.
CookK.S., HardinR., and LeviM. (2005). Cooperation without Trust?New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
20.
CordeliaA. (2007). E-Government: Towards the e-bureaucratic form?Journal of Information Technology22: 265–274.
21.
DanzigerJ.N., DuttonW.H., KlingR., and KraemerK.L. (1982). Computers and Politics: High technology in American local governments, New York: Columbia University Press.
22.
DasguptaP. (1988). Trust as a Commodity, in GambettaD. (ed.) Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations, New York: Basil Blackwell, Inc, pp. 49–72.
23.
DCCP (2002). Public Procurement System: Strategic plan 2002-2004, Santiago: Dirección de Compras y Contratación Publica, Ministry of Finance, Government of Chile.
24.
DCCP (2006a). Balance De La Reforma Al Mercado De Las Compras Publicas: Memoria 2003-2006, Santiago: Dirección de Compras y Contratación Publica, Ministry of Finance, Government of Chile.
25.
DCCP (2006b). Informe Mipe Chilecompra Período 2005-2006, Santiago: Dirección de Compras y Contratación Publica, Ministry of Finance, Government of Chile.
26.
DCCP (2007). Informe De Gestion Chilecompra: Balance Año 2006, Santiago: Dirección de Compras y Contratación Publica, Ministry of Finance, Government of Chile.
27.
DíazÁ., and RivasG. (2005). Innovacíon Technológica Y Desarrollo Digital: El Aporte De Los Gobiernos De La Concertación, in MillerP. (ed.) La Paradoja Aparente. Equidad Y Eficiencia: Resolviendo El Dilema, Santiago: Taurus, pp. 473–528.
28.
DunleavyP., MargettsH., BastowS., and TinklerJ. (2006). Digital Era Governance: It corporations, the state, and e-government, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
EisenhardtK.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research, The Academy of Management Review14(4): 532–550.
30.
EspinalR., HartlynJ., and KelleyJ.M. (2006). Performance Still Matters: Explaining trust in government in the Dominican republic, ComparativePolitical Studies39(2): 200–223.
31.
FarrellH. (2004). Trust, Distrust and Power, in HardinR. (ed.) Distrust, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
32.
GambettaD., and HamillH. (2005). Streetwise: How taxi drivers establish their customers’ trustworthiness, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
33.
GeldersD. (2005). Public Information Provision about Policy Intentions: The Dutch and Belgian experience, Government Information Quarterly22: 75–95.
34.
GerringJ. (2007). Case Study Research: Principles and practices, New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
GiddensA. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
36.
GigliJ. (2006). Chile: Operación Renta 2006 Marca Récord De 97, 04%
GlaserH. (1999). Service Delivery Satisfaction and Willingness to Pay Taxes: Citizen recognition of local government performance, Public Productivity & Management Review23(1): 48–67.
39.
GrimsleyM., and MeehanA. (2007). E-Government Information Systems: Evaluation-led design for public value and client trust, European Journal of Information Systems16: 134–148.
40.
HardinR. (1991). Trusting Persons, Trusting Institutions, in ZeckhauserR.J. (ed.) Strategy and Choice, Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 185–209.
41.
HardinR. (1993). The Street-Level Epistemology of Trust, Politics & Society21(4): 505–529.
HardinR. (1999). Do We Want Trust in Government? in WarrenM.E. (ed.) Democracy and Trust, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 22–41.
44.
HardinR. (2000). The Public Trust, in PharrS.J., and PutnamR.D. (eds.) Disaffected Democracies, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 31–51.
45.
HardinR. (2002). Trust & Trustworthiness, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
46.
HarréR. (1999). Trust and Its Surrogates: Psychological foundations of political process, in WarrenM.E. (ed.) Democracy and Trust, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 249–272.
47.
HetheringtonM.J. (1998). The Political Relevance of Political Trust, The American Political Science Review92(4): 791–808.
48.
HirschmannA.O. (1970). Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organisations and states, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
HussmannA.A. (2004). La Promesa De Las Compras Públicas Electrónicas:
50.
El Caso De Chilecompra (2000-2003), Unpublished Masters, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
IntronaL.D., and NissenbaumH. (2000). Shaping the Web: Why the politics of search engines matters, The Information Society16(3): 169–185.
53.
Kallinikos, J. (2004). The Social Foundations of the Bureaucratic Order, Organization11(1): 13–36.
54.
KearnsI. (2004). Public Value and E-Government, London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
55.
KeeH.W., and KnoxR.E. (1970). Conceptual and Methodological Considerations in the Study of Trust and Suspicion, The Journal of Conflict Resolution14(3): 357–366.
56.
KlingR., and IaconoS. (1984). The Control of Information Systems Developments after Implementation, Communications of ACM27(12): 1218–1226.
57.
KumlinS. (2004). The Personal and the Political: How personal welfare state experiences affect political trust and ideology, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
58.
LeviM. (1998). A State of Trust, in BraithwaiteV., and LeviM. (eds.) Trust and Governance, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 77–101.
59.
LeviM., and StokerL. (2000). Political Trust and Trustworthiness, Annual Review of Political Science3: 475–507.
60.
LewisJ.D., and WeigertA. (1985). Trust as a Social Reality, Social Forces63(4): 967–985.
61.
MarakasG.M., JohnsonR.D., and PalmerJ.W. (2000). A Theoretical Model of Differential Social Attributions toward Computing Technology: When the metaphor becomes the model, International Journal of Human-ComputerStudies52: 719–750.
62.
MayerR.C., DavisJ.H., and SchoormanF.D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust, The Academy of Management Review20(3): 709–734.
63.
MeijerA.J. (2007). Publishing Public Performance Results on the Internet: Do stakeholders use the internet to hold Dutch public service organizations to account?Government Information Quarterly24: 165–185.
64.
MishlerW., and RoseR. (1997). Trust, Distrust and Skepticism: Popular evaluations of civil and political institutions in post-communist societies, The Journal of Politics59(2): 418–451.
65.
MoonM.J. (2003). Can IT Help Government to Restore Public Trust? Declining Public Trust and Potential Prospects of It in the Public Sector, in 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Hawaii, 2003); Washington, DC.
66.
MurphyK. (2004). The Role of Trust in Nurturing Compliance: A study of accused tax avoiders, Law and Human Behavior28(2): 187–209.
67.
NoirC., and WalshamG. (2007). The Great Legitimizer: ICT as myth and ceremony in the Indian healthcare sector, Information Technology and People20(4): 313–333.
68.
NoordegraafM., and AbmaT. (2003). Management by Measurement? Public Management Practices Amidst Ambiguity, Public Administration81(4): 853–871.
69.
NorrisP. (1999). Introduction: The growth of critical citizens? in NorrisP. (ed.) Critical Citizens: Global support for democratic government, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
70.
NyeJ.S.Jr. (1997). Introduction: The decline of confidence in government, in NyeJ.S., ZelikowP.D., and KingD.C. (eds.) Why People Don't Trust Government, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 1–18.
71.
NyeJ.S.Jr. (2002). Information Technology and Democratic Governance, in KamarckE.C., and NyeJ.S.Jr. (eds.) Governance. Com: Democracy in the information age, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
72.
NyeJ.S.Jr., and ZelikowP.D. (1997). Conclusions: Reflections, conjectures, and puzzles, in NyeJ.S., ZelikowP.D., and KingD.C. (eds.) Why People Don't Trust Government, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 253–281.
73.
O'HaraK. (2004). Trust: From Socrates to spin, Duxford, Cambridge: Icon Books Ltd.
74.
OffeC. (1999). How Can We Trust Our Fellow Citizens? in WarrenM.E. (ed.) Democracy and Trust, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 42–87.
75.
OffeC. (2006). Democracy and Trust, in AnkersmitF.R., and te VeldeH. (eds.) Trust: Cement of democracy, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 1–12.
76.
OrrenG. (1997). Fall from Grace: The public's loss of faith in government, in NyeJ.S., ZelikowP.D., and KingD.C. (eds.) Why People Don't Trust Government, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 77–107.
77.
PanayiotouN.A., GayialisS.P., and TatsiopoulosI.P. (2004). An E-Procurement System for Governmental Purchasing, International Journal of Production Economics90: 79–102.
78.
PanzardiR., CalcopietroC., and IvanovicE.F. (2002). Electronic Government and Governance: Lessons for Argentina, Washington, DC: The World Bank.
79.
ParentM., VandebeekC.A., and GeminoA.C. (2004). Government Information Quarterly: Building Citizen Trust through E-Government, Government Information Quarterly22(4): 720–736.
80.
PegnatoJ.A. (1997). Is a Citizen a Customer?Public Productivity & Management Review20(4): 397–404.
81.
PetitP. (1995). The Cunning of Trust, Philosophy and Public Affairs24: 202–205.
82.
PietersonW., EbbersW., and van DijkJ. (2007). Personalization in the Public Sector: An inventory of organizational and user obstacles towards personalization of electronic services in the public sector, Government Information Quarterly24: 148–164.
83.
PUCV (2006). Estudio De Efectos Del Sistema Chilecompra: Informe Final: Estimación Del Impacto En Procesos, Santiago: Centro de Estudios y Asistencia Legislativa Chile, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso.
84.
ReddickC.G. (2005). Citizen Interaction with E-Government: From the streets to servers?Government Information Quarterly22: 38–57.
85.
ReedM. I. (2001). Organization, Trust and Control: A realist analysis, Organization Studies22(2): 201–228.
86.
RobeyD., and BoudreauM. C. (1999). Accounting for the Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Technology: Theoretical directions and methodological implications, Information Systems Research10(2): 167–185.
87.
SánchezO. (2005). The Political Economy of Tax Policy in Chile and Argentina, Oxford: University of Oxford.
88.
SchotJ. (2003). The Contested Rise of a Modernist Technology Politics, in MisaT.J., BreyP., and FreenbergA. (eds.) Modernity & Technology, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 257–278.
89.
SmithM. L. (2006). Overcoming Theory-Practice Inconsistencies: Critical realism and information systems research, Information and Organization16(13): 191–211.
90.
SmithM. L. (2010). Testable Theory Development for Small-N Studies: Critical realism, middle-range, & case-specific theory, International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach3(1): 41–56.
91.
SmithM.L., NoormanM.E., and MartinA.K. (2010). Automating the Public Sector and Organizing Accountabilities, Communications of the Association for Information Systems26: 1–16.
92.
SnellenI. T. M. (1998). Street Level Bureaucracy in an Information Age, in SnellenI.T.M., and van de DonkW.B.H.J. (eds.) Public Administration in an Information Age, Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 497–504.
93.
SolomonR. C., and FloresF. (2001). Building Trust: In business, politics, relationships, and life, New York: Oxford University Press.
94.
SztompkaP. (1999). Trust: A sociological theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
95.
TaleroE. (2001). Electronic Government Procurement: Concepts and country experiences, Washington, DC: The World Bank.
TianoS. (1986). Authoritarianism and Political Culture in Argentina and Chile in the Mid-1960s, Latin American Research Review21(1): 73–98.
98.
TolbertC., and MossbergerK. (2006). The Effects of E-Govemment on Trust and Confidence in Government, Public Administration Review66(3): 354–369.
99.
Transparency International (2006). Handbook for Curbing Corruption in Public Procurement, Berlin, Germany: Transparency international.
100.
Tschannen-MoranM., and HoyW.K. (2000). A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Nature. Meaning, and Measurement of Trust, Review of Educational Research70(4): 547–593.
101.
TylerT.R. (1998). Trust and Democratic Governance, in BraithwaiteV., and LeviM. (eds.) Trust and Governance, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 269–294.
102.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2003). World Public Sector Report 2003: E-government at the crossroads, New York: United Nations.
103.
ValenzuelaA. (1995). Chile: Origins and consolidation of a Latin American democracy, in DiamondL., LinzJ. J., and LipsetS. M. (eds.) Politics in Developing Countries: Comparing experiences with democracy, 3rd edn, Boulder, Co: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc, pp. 67–118.
104.
WarrenM.E. (1999). Democratic Theory and Trust, in WarrenM.E. (ed.) Democracy and Trust, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 310–345.
105.
WarrenM.E. (2004). Trust in Democratic Institutions, in AnkersmitF., and te VeldeH. (eds.) Trust: Cement of Democracy, Vol. 49-69. Leuven: Peeters.
106.
WeareC. (2002). The Internet and Democracy: The causal links between technology and politics, International Journal of Public Administration25(5): 659–691.
107.
WebsterF. (2002). Theories of the Information Society, 2nd edn, London: Routledge.
108.
WestD.M. (2004). E-Govemment and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes, Public Administration Review64(1): 15–27.
109.
WestD. M. (2005). Digital Government: Technology and public sector performance, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
110.
WilliamsB. (1988). Formal Structures and Social Reality, in GambettaD. (ed.) Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd, pp. 3–13.
111.
WinnerL. (1986). Do Artefacts Have Politics, in WinnerL. (ed.) The Whale and the Reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 19–39.
112.
WongW., and WelchE. (2004). Does E-Government Promote Accountability? A Comparative Analysis of Website Openness and Government Accountability, Governance: An international journal of policy, administration, and institutions17(2): 275–297.
113.
World Bank (2001). Chile Poverty and Income Distribution in a High-Growth Economy: 1987-1998 (No. 22037-CH), Washington, DC: World Bank.
114.
World Bank (2004). Republic of Chile: Country procurement assessment report (No. 28914-CL), Washington, DC: World Bank.
115.
YinR.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and methods, 3rd edn, Vol. 5. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
116.
ZuckerL.G. (1986). Production of Trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920, Organizational Behavior8: 53–111.
