Strategic e-government development and the role of benchmarking Endrit Kromidha School of Management, Royal Holloway University of London, United Kingdom, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK abstract article info Available online 9 August 2012 Keywords: e-Government International assistance Benchmarking Benchlearning Neoinstitutionalism Donor–benchmarker duality Developing information systems and e-government requires a lot of strategic and financial resources that de- veloping countries often do not have. Facing such challenges, some countries are supported by international assistance and donors. This research contributes to explain how such assistance on the development of national information and communication technology (ICT) strategies and programs is related to e-government development. This comparative study of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, (Former Yugoslav Republic of) Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia takes a Rational Neoinstitutionalist perspective to look at longitudinal changes in these developing countries. Quantitative data such as the amount of foreign aid for national ICT strategies and the e-government index are combined with qualitative information from reports and documents. The research suggests that the effect of international assistance on e-government is generally positive in less developed countries. The analysis of benchmarking and benchlearning as e-government policy-making tools is another aim of this study, providing a critical discussion of their role and that of the donor–benchmarker duality. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction on international e-government assistance The purpose of this study is to explore how foreign assistance from international donors on national ICT strategies and programs is related to e-government development. In a theoretical level, the fast developments in information systems and e-government literature highlight a persisting problem with the absence of theoretical consen- sus (Archer, 1982; Heeks & Bailur, 2007; Orlikowski & Robey, 1991) beyond technology adaptation (Layne & Lee, 2001) or acceptance models (Davis, 1986; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003). More specifical- ly, Yildiz (2007) points out at the problem of e-government research suffering from definitional vagueness, oversimplification of processes within complex institutional environments and various methodologi- cal limitations. Considering his suggestions and ways forward, this research attempts to fill some of these gaps by advancing the neoinstitutionalist debate on e-government development. Beyond the significant work done in the context of companies to analyze how people interact with technology (Geels & Schot, 2007; Harrison, Koppel, & Bar-Lev, 2007; Orlikowski, 1992; Orlikowski, 2008; Poel, 2003; Walsham & Waema, 1994), this study focuses on the policy level of public sector information systems. By default, government assistance is given and received based on certain needs (Alesina & Dollar, 2000; Burnside & Dollar, 2000; Collier & Dollar, 2002), aiming at some positive results for both the donor and recipient (Crawford, 2001). In the case of post-communist Western Balkan countries aiming to join the European Union and other Euro-Atlantic organizations, democratic governance (March & Olsen, 1995, 2004) has always been a priority. The term is not only about representation rights (Franck, 1992), but refers also as the insti- tutionalization of representation beyond national states into interna- tional organizations (March & Olsen, 2004). The aim of international assistance practice in this case “is to strengthen the democratic pro- cess […] and help public institutions become efficient and account- able. It tracks governance policy, promotes knowledge sharing, innovation and leadership, and contributes to influencing the regional discourse on governance” (UNDP Europe and CIS, 2010). In the West- ern Balkan countries analyzed in this research, institutional priorities are often related to international integration, democratic governance and rule of law. The assumption here is that an elaborate institutional environment is expected to stabilize both external and internal organizational forces and relationships among states, associations and coalitions (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The discussion of a number of theoretical approaches on the role of international e-government assistance and benchmarking as institutionalized practices continues in the following part. 2. Theory: neoinstitutionalizm and e-government development In early neoinstitutionalist research it is noted that “organizations are structured by phenomena in their environments” as well as “by technical and exchange interdependencies” (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). This initial idea of organizational institutionalization of technology was not new and could be traced back to a number of previous stud- ies (Aiken & Hage, 1968; Hawley, 1950; Thompson, 1967). However it Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 573–581 E-mail address: Endrit.Kromidha.2009@live.rhul.ac.uk. 0740-624X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2012.04.006 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Government Information Quarterly journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf