South Asian Journal of Management

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Seva, Swaraj, and Digital India:Sustaining Digitalization for Good-Governance


Affiliations
1 Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode (IIMK), IIM Road, Kunnamangalam, Kozhikode 673570, Kerala, India
2 Alliance University, Anekal, Bengaluru 562106, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Digital India (DI) is a social change program to provide good-governance promoted by the government of India. Like many other e-governance programs, DI is still evolving and yet to gain full public trust. For sustainability, social change programs need to be bottom-up, participatory, and inclusive. In this regard, we propose a stakeholder consortium, comprising representatives from different sections of society, as DI’s new governance mechanism. When it functions following Seva– and Swara–j, a social enterprise effecting digitalization for goodgovernance can be created. This can lead to social justice, public trust, and finally, the social facts that can establish it as a social institution. A conceptual framework is developed that can sustain digitalization for good-governance in India. Contributions to research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

Digital India, Good-Governance, Seva, Stakeholder Concept, Swaraj.
User
Subscription Login to verify subscription
Notifications
Font Size

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 267-299.

  • Allen, B. A., Juillet, L., Paquet, G., & Roy, J. (2001). E-governance & government on-line in Canada: Partnerships, people & prospects. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 93-104.

  • Allingham, M. (2014). Distributive justice. New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1997). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

  • Bobocel, D. R., Son Hing, L. S., Davey, L. M., Stanley, D. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1998). Justice-based opposition to social policies: Is it genuine? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 653-669.

  • Bornstein, D. (2007). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Bouckaert, G., & Van de Walle, S. (2003). Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of ‘good-governance’: Difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69, 329-343.

  • Burnes, B. (2009). Reflections: Ethics and organizational change – Time for a return to Lewinian values. Journal of Change Management, 9, 359-381.

  • Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

  • Cecchini, S., & Scott, C. (2003). Can information and communications technology applications contribute to poverty reduction? Lessons from rural India. Information Technology for Development, 10, 73-84.

  • Chakravorti, B., & Chaturvedi, R. S. (2017). Digital planet 2017: How competitiveness and trust in digital economies vary across the world. Retrieved from https://sites.tufts.edu/digitalplanet/files/2017/05/Digital_Planet_2017_FINAL.pdf

  • Cole, M. (1995). Socio-cultural-historical psychology: Some general remarks and a proposal for a new kind of cultural-genetic methodology. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Río, A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 187-214). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., & Sincharoen, S. (2006). Understanding affirmative action. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 585-611.

  • Danermark, B., Ekström, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. C. (2002[1997]). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.

  • Daniels, N. (1989). Equal liberty and unequal worth of liberty. In N. Daniels (Ed.), Reading Rawls: Critical studies on Rawls’ ‘A Theory of Justice’ (pp. 253-281). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

  • Dees, J. G. (2001). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship”. Retrieved from https://entrepreneurship.duke.edu/news -item/the-meaning-of- social-entrepreneurship/

  • Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (2013). An uncertain glory: India and its contradictions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Durkheim, E. (2013[1964]). Rules of sociological method and selected texts on sociology and its method (S. Lukes, Ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

  • Dutton, J. (2010). ‘Non-western’ utopian traditions. In Gregory Claeys (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Utopian Literature (pp. 223-258). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Edelman (2009). 2009 Edelman trust barometer. Retrieved from http:// www.edelman.com/assets/uploads/2014/01/2009-Trust-Barometer-Global-Deck.pdf

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409-421.

  • Freeman, S. (2007). Rawls. New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

  • Gilson, L. (2003). Trust and the development of health care as a social institution. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1453-1468.

  • Glenn, S. S. (2004). Individual behavior, culture, and social change. The Behavior Analyst, 27(2), 133-151.

  • Greve, C. (2015). Ideas in public management reform for the 2010s. Digitalization, value creation and involvement. Public Organization Review, 15, 49-65.

  • Hansen, H. K., & Salskov-Iversen, D. (2005). Remodeling the transnational political realm: Partnerships, best-practice schemes, and the digitalization of governance. Alternatives, 30, 141-164.

  • Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy: Theory and process. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

  • Hickman, G. R. (2010). Leading change in multiple contexts: Concepts and practices in organizational, community, political, social, and global change settings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 221-236.

  • Johnston, M. (1998). Fighting systemic corruption: Social foundations for institutional reform. The European Journal of Development Research, 10, 85-104.

  • Knuuttila, T., & Kuorikoski, J. (2011). Idealized Representations, Inferential Devices and Cross-Disciplinary Tools: Theoretical Models in Social Sciences. In I. C. Jarvie & J. Zamora-Bonilla (Eds.), The Sage handbook of the philosophy of social sciences (pp. 530-550). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 122-136.

  • Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflict: Selected papers on group dynamics. G. W. Lewin (Ed.). London: Harper & Row Publishers.

  • Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 446-454.

  • McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1996). Introduction: Opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processes – toward a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 1-20). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • McKinsey (2017). Culture for a digital age. Retrieved frrom http:// www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights/culture-for-a-digital-age

  • MEITY (2016). Electronics and information technology: Annual report 2015-16. Retrieved from http://meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/annual-report-2015%E2%80%9316.pdf

  • MEITY (2017a). The Digital India: Introduction. Retrieved from http://digitalindia.gov.in/content/introduction

  • MEITY (2017b). Management structure: Programme management structure for digital India programme. Retrieved from http://digitalindia.gov.in/content/management-structure

  • Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672-682.

  • Shim, D. C., & Eom, T. H. (2008). E-government and anti-corruption: Empirical analysis of international data. International Journal of Public Administration, 31, 298-316.

  • Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 11-35.

  • Olken, B. A., & Pande, R. (2012). Corruption in developing countries. Digitalization for good-governance. Annual Review of Economics, 4, 479-509.

  • Otjacques, B., Hitzelberger, P., & Feltz F. (2007). Interoperability of e-government information systems: Issues of identification and data sharing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 29-51.

  • Pekonen, O. (2014). Adoption of parliamentary models in Finland: Question of free mandate in the early debates on the procedures of the Finnish Eduskunta. In K. Palonen, J. M. Rosales, & T. Turkka (Eds.), The politics of dissensus: Parliament in debate (pp. 349-374). Santander, Spain: Cantabria University Press / McGraw-Hill Education.

  • Rãdoi, M., & Lupu, A. (2017). In A. Maturo, Š. Hošková-Mayerová, D-T. Soitu, & J. Kacprzyk (Eds.), Recent trends in social systems: Quantitative theories and quantitative models (pp. 11-22). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice, Revised ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement, E. Kelly (Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

  • Reinwald, A., & Kraemmergaard, P. (2012). Managing stakeholders in transformational government — A case study in a Danish local government. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 133-141.

  • Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 145-157.

  • Sassen, S. (2000). Digital networks and the state: Some governance questions. Theory, Culture & Society, 17, 19-33.

  • Sayer, R. A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

  • Searle, J. (1990). Collective intentions and actions. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 401-416). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York, NY: Free Press.

  • Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Searle, J. R. (2014). Are there social objects? In M. Gallotti & J. Michael (Eds.), Perspectives on social ontology and social cognition (pp. 17-26).London: Springer.

  • Segal, E. A. (2011). Social empathy: A model built on empathy, contextual understanding, and social responsibility that promotes social justice. Journal of Social Service Research, 37, 266-277.

  • Sen, B. (2016). Digital politics and culture in contemporary India: The making of an info-nation. New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Shannon, M. (1987). Forest planning: Learning with people. In M. L. Miller, R. P. Gale, & P. J. Brown (Eds.), Social science in natural resource management systems (pp. 233-252). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

  • Sinclair, S., & Bramley, G. (2011). Beyond virtual inclusion – Communications inclusion and digital divisions. Social Policy and Society, 10, 1-11.

  • Smith, P. D., & McDonough, M. H. (2001). Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. Society & Natural Resources, 14, 239-249.

  • Strauss, A. (1978). A social world perspective. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 1, 119-128.

  • Subuddhi, K. (2009). Development of IT-infrastructure for rural connectivity: A pro-poor approach to e-governance for rural development in India. In J. Zajda & D. Gibbs (Eds.), Comparative information technology: Languages, societies and the Internet (pp. 121-138). Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Springer.

  • Sustainable Development Solutions Network & Bertelsmann Stiftung (2016). Global responsibilities: International spillovers in achieving the goals. Retrieved from http://www.sdgindex.org/assets/files/2017/2017-SDG-Index-and-Dashboards-Report—full.pdf

  • Turner, J. H. (1997). The institutional order: Economy, kinship, religion, polity, law, and education in evolutionary and comparative perspective. New York: Longman.

  • Turner, M., & Hulme, D. (1997). Governance, administration and development: Making the state work. London: Macmillan.

  • UNCTAD & ITU (2007). World information society report 2017: Beyond WSIS. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/publications/worldinformationsociety/2007/WISR07_full-free.pdf

  • United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2016). World Economic and Social Survey 2014/2015: Learning from national policies supporting MDG implementation. New York: United Nations Publication.

  • United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2009). What is good-governance? Retrieved from http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/good-governance.pdf

  • United Nations General Assembly (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

  • Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Verma, J., & Triandis, H. C. (1999). The measurement of collectivism in India. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, D. K. Forgays, & S. A. Hayes (Eds.), Merging past, present, and future in cross-cultural psychology: Selected papers from the fourteenth international congress of the international association for cross-cultural psychology (pp. 256-265). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

  • Wade, R. H. (2002). Bridging the digital divide: New route to development or new form of dependency? Global Governance, 8, 443-466.

  • Wahi, N. (2016). Property. In S. Choudhry, M. Khosla, P. B. Mehta (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the Indian constitution (pp. 943-963). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  • Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? The Academy of Management Review, 14, 490-495.

  • Whitehouse, L. (2003). Corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship and the Global Compact: A new approach to regulating corporate social power? Global Social Policy, 3, 299-318.

  • Whiteman, G. (2009). All my relations: Understanding perceptions of justice and conflict between companies and indigenous peoples. Organization Studies, 30, 101-120.

  • World Bank (2016). World development report 2016: Digital dividends. Washington, DC: Publishing and Knowledge Division, World Bank.

  • Zadek, S. (2001). The civil corporation. New York: Earthscan.

  • Zak, P. J., & Knack, S. (2001). Trust and growth. The Economic Journal, 111, 295-321.


Abstract Views: 144

PDF Views: 0




  • Seva, Swaraj, and Digital India:Sustaining Digitalization for Good-Governance

Abstract Views: 144  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Siddharth Mohapatra
Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode (IIMK), IIM Road, Kunnamangalam, Kozhikode 673570, Kerala, India
Pratima Verma
Alliance University, Anekal, Bengaluru 562106, India

Abstract


Digital India (DI) is a social change program to provide good-governance promoted by the government of India. Like many other e-governance programs, DI is still evolving and yet to gain full public trust. For sustainability, social change programs need to be bottom-up, participatory, and inclusive. In this regard, we propose a stakeholder consortium, comprising representatives from different sections of society, as DI’s new governance mechanism. When it functions following Seva– and Swara–j, a social enterprise effecting digitalization for goodgovernance can be created. This can lead to social justice, public trust, and finally, the social facts that can establish it as a social institution. A conceptual framework is developed that can sustain digitalization for good-governance in India. Contributions to research and practice are discussed.

Keywords


Digital India, Good-Governance, Seva, Stakeholder Concept, Swaraj.

References