Do CIO IT Budgets Explain Bigger or Smaller Governments? Theory and Evidence from U.S. State Governments

References

• Alchian AA, Demsetz H (1972) Production, information costs, and economic organization. Amer. Econom. Rev. 62(5):777–795.Google Scholar
• Alford J, Hughes O (2008) Public value pragmatism as the next phase of public management. Amer. Rev. Public Admin. 38(2):130–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alford J, O’Flynn J (2009) Making sense of public value: Concepts, critiques and emergent meanings. Internat. J. Public Admin. 32(3):171–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev. Econom. Stud. 58(2):277–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J. Econometrics 68(1):29–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Armstrong CP, Sambamurthy V (1999) Information technology assimilation in firms: The influence of senior leadership and IT infrastructure. Inform. Systems Res. 10(4):304–327.Link, Google Scholar
• Astley W, Sachdeva PS (1984) Structural sources of intraorganziational power: A theoretical synthesis. Acad. Management Rev. 9(1):104–113.Google Scholar
• Baker GP, Hubbard TN (2004) Contractibility and asset ownership: On-board computers and governance in U.S. trucking. Quart. J. Econom. 119(4):1443–1479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banker RD, Hu N, Pavlou PA, Luftman J (2011) CIO reporting structure, strategic positioning, and firm performance. MIS Quart. 35(2):487–504.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banks JS (1989) Agency budgets, cost information, and auditing. Amer. J. Political Sci. 33(3):670–699.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banks JS, Weingast BR (1992) The political control of bureaucracies under asymmetric information. Amer. J. Political Sci. 36(2):509–524.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker GS (1983) A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quart. J. Econom. 98(3):371–400.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J. Econometrics 87(1):115–143.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bond SR (2002) Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese Econom. J. 1(2):141–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borcherding TE (1985) The causes of government expenditure growth: A survey of the U.S. evidence. J. Public Econom. 28(3):359–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boston Globe (2013) Deal on automatic spending cuts is unlikely. (February 25), http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/02/25/both-sides-trade-blame-hopes-end-spending-crisis-remain-dim/yceoo2zZTfv4v3xgy5v2jP/story.html.Google Scholar
• Brynjolfsson E (1993) The productivity paradox of information technology. Comm. ACM 36(12):67–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brynjolfsson E, Malone TW, Gurbaxani V, Kambil A (1994) Does information technology lead to smaller firms? Management Sci. 40(12):1628–1644.Link, Google Scholar
• Buckley W (1967) Sociology and Modern Systems Theory (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Coase RH (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4(16):386–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crain WM, O’Roark JB (2004) The impact of performance-based budgeting on state fiscal performance. Econom. Governance 5(2):167–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis OA, Dempster MAH, Wildavsky A (1966) A theory of the budgetary process. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 60(3):529–547.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Devarajan S, Swaroop V, Zou H (1996) The composition of public expenditure and economic growth. J. Monetary Econom. 37(2):313–344.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dewan S, Min C (1997) The substitution of information technology for other factors of production: A firm level analysis. Management Sci. 43(12):1660–1675.Link, Google Scholar
• Dunleavy P, Hood C (1994) From old public administration to new public management. Public Money Management 14(3):9–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dunleavy P, Margetts H, Bastow S, Tinkler J (2005) New public management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 16(3):467–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Emergency Management (2013) New Jersey’s cyber fusion cell collaborates on cyberthreats. Accessed November 11, 2013, http://www.emergencymgmt.com/safety/New-Jerseys-Cyber-Fusion-Cell.html.Google Scholar
• Examiner (2010) Government to get involved in BP oil spill in Gulf of Mexico (Cartoon). Accessed June 21, 2014, http://www.examiner.com/article/government-to-get-involved-bp-oil-spill-gulf-of-mexico-cartoon.Google Scholar
• Feeny DF, Willcocks LP (1998) Core IS capabilities for exploiting information technology. Sloan Management Rev. 39(3):9–21.Google Scholar
• Feeny DF, Edwards BR, Simpson KM (1992) Understanding the CEO/CIO relationship. MIS Quart. 16(4):435–448.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Forman C, McElheran K (2012) Information technology and boundary of the firm: Evidence from plant-level data. Working Paper 12-092, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Garand JC (1988) Explaining government growth in the U.S. states. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 82(3):837–849.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garand JC (1989) Measuring government size in the American states: Implications for testing models of government growth. Soc. Sci. Quart. 70(2):487–496.Google Scholar
• Garicano L, Heaton P (2010) Information technology, organization, and productivity in the public sector—Evidence from police departments. J. Labor Econom. 28(1):167–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gemmell N (1993) Wagner’s law and Musgrave’s hypotheses. Gemmell N, ed. The Growth of Public Sector—Theories and International Evidence (Edward Elgar, Hants, UK), 103–120.Google Scholar
• Geys B (2006) Looking across borders: A test of spatial policy interdependence using local government efficiency ratings. J. Urban Econom. 60(3):443–462.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Government Technology (2008) Missouri accountability portal raises spending questions. Accessed March 21, 2010, http://www.govtech.com/gt/404259.Google Scholar
• Government Technology (2010a) Franklin County, Ohio, uses address verification software to collect millions in unpaid taxes. Accessed March 21, 2010, http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/748657.Google Scholar
• Government Technology (2010b) Hawaii collects $100 million in unpaid taxes with tracking technology. Accessed May 27, 2013, http://www.govtech.com/budget-finance/Hawaii-Unpaid-Taxes-Tracking-Technology.html.Google Scholar
• Government Technology (2013) Will the chief innovation officer transform government? Accessed November 14, 2013, http://www.govtech.com/e-government/Will-the-Chief-Innovation-Officer-Transform-Government.html.Google Scholar
• Grossman PJ, Mavros P, Wassmer RW (1999) Public sector technical inefficiency in large U.S. cities. J. Urban Econom. 46(2):278–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gurbaxani V, Whang S (1991) The impact of information systems on organizations and markets. Comm. ACM 34(1):59–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hackman JD (1985) Power and centrality in the allocation of resources in colleges and universities. Admin. Sci. Quart. 30(1):61–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansen L (1982) Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica 50(3):1029–1054.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitt L (1999) Information technology and firm boundaries: Evidence from panel data. Inform. Systems Res. 10(2):134–149.Link, Google Scholar
• Holcombe RG (1989) The median voter model in public choice theory. Public Choice 61(2):115–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Horn MJ (1995) The Political Economy of Public Administration: Institutional Choice in the Public Sector (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoole FW, Job BL, Tucker HJ (1976) Incremental budgeting and international organizations. Amer. J. Political Sci. 20(2):273–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Im KS, Grover V, Teng JTC (2013) Do large firms become smaller by using information technology? Inform. Systems Res. 24(2):470–491.Link, Google Scholar
• Klase KA, Dougherty MJ (2008) The impact of performance budgeting on state budget outcomes. J. Public Budgeting, Accounting, Financial Management 20(3):277–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Landau DL (1983) Government expenditure and economic growth: A cross-country study. Southern Econom. J. 49(3):783–792.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Landau DL (1985) Government expenditure and economic growth in the developed countries: 1952–1976. Public Choice 47(3):459–477.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lane J-E (2000) New Public Management (Routledge, London).Google Scholar
• Larkey PD, Stolp C, Winer M (1981) Theorizing about the growth of government: A research assessment. J. Public Policy 1(2):157–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee G, Kwak YH (2012) An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government Inform. Quart. 29(4):492–503.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee G, Perry JL (2002) Are computers boosting productivity? A test of the paradox in state governments. J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 12(1):77–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lehr W, Lichtenberg FR (1998) Computer use and productivity growth in U.S. federal government agencies, 1987–92. J. Indust. Econom. 46(2):257–279.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine R, Loayza N, Beck T (2000) Financial intermediation and growth: Causality and causes. J. Monetary Econom. 46(1):31–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis-Beck MS, Rice TW (1985) Government growth in the United States. J. Politics 47(1):2–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lowery D, Berry WD (1983) The growth of government in the United States: An empirical assessment of competing explanations. Amer. J. Political Sci. 27(4):665–694.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lowery D, Konda T, Garand J (1984) Spending in the states: A test of six models. Western Political Quart. 37(1):48–66.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lybeck JA (1988) Comparing government growth rates: The non-institutional vs. the institutional approach. Lybeck JA, Henrekson M, eds. Explaining the Growth of Government (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 29–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mannix EA (1993) Organizations as resource dilemmas: The effects of power balance on coalition formation in small groups. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 55(1):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCubbins MD, Noll RG, Weingast BR (1987) Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. J. Law, Econom., Organ. 3(2):243–277.Google Scholar
• Melville N, Kraemer K, Gurbaxani V (2004) Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS Quart. 28(2):283–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller GJ, Moe TM (1983) Bureaucrats, legislators, and the size of government. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 77(2):297–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moe TM (1984) The new economics of organization. Amer. J. Political Sci. 28(4):739–777.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moore MH (1995) Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Moore MH, Khagram S (2004) On creating public value: What business might learn from government about strategic management. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper 3, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• NASBO (2008) Budget processes in the states—January 2008. Accessed January 14, 2010, http://www.nasbo.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=t2nKFo8b%2b2M%3d&tabid=80.Google Scholar
• NASCIO (2005a) NASCIO 2004–05 Compendium of Digital Governance in the States (NASCIO, Lexington, KY).Google Scholar
• NASCIO (2005b) 2005 best practices in the use of information technology in state government. Accessed March 21, 2009, http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-2005NASCIO-Awards.pdf.Google Scholar
• NASCIO (2006) 2006 best practices in the use of information technology in state government. Accessed March 21, 2009, http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-2006Awards.pdf.Google Scholar
• NASCIO (2007) 2007 best practices in the use of information technology in state government. Accessed March 21, 2009, http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-2007Awards.pdf.Google Scholar
• NASCIO (2008) 2008 best practices in the use of information technology in state government. Accessed September 15, 2011, http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-2008Awards.pdf.Google Scholar
• NASCIO (2009) 2009 best practices in the use of information technology in state government. Accessed September 15, 2011, http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-2009Awards.pdf.Google Scholar
• Nickell S (1981) Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica 49(6):1417–1426.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Niskanen WA (1968) Nonmarket decision making: The peculiar economics of bureaucracy. Amer. Econom. Rev. 58(2):293–305.Google Scholar
• North DC (1985) The growth of government in the United States: An economic historian perspective. J. Public Econom. 28(3):383–399.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Flynn J (2007) From new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications. Australian J. Public Management 66(3):353–366.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pang M-S, Lee G, DeLone W (2014a) IT resources, organizational capabilities, and value creation in the public sector organizations—Public value management perspective. J. Inform. Tech. 20(3):187–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pang M-S, Tafti A, Krishnan MS (2014b) Information technology and administrative efficiency in U.S. state governments—A stochastic frontier approach. MIS Quart. 38(4):1079–1101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Moore WL (1980) Power in university budgeting: A replica and extension. Admin. Sci. Quart. 25(4):637–653.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1974a) Organizational decision making as a political process: The case of a university budget. Admin. Sci. Quart. 19(2):135–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1974b) The bases and use of power in organizational decision making: The case of a university. Admin. Sci. Quart. 19(4):453–473.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Preston DS, Karahanna E (2009) Antecedents of IS strategic alignment: A nomological network. Inform. Systems Res. 20(2):159–179.Link, Google Scholar
• Preston DS, Chen D, Leidner DE (2008) Examining the antecedents and consequences of CIO strategic decision-making authority: An empirical study. Decision Sci. 39(4):605–642.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Public CIO (2009) New York City’s accountability tools pay off in tracking service to citizens. Accessed March 21, 2010, http://www.govtech.com/pcio/articles/620039.Google Scholar
• Rawley E, Simcoe TS (2013) Information technology, productivity, and asset ownership: Evidence from taxicab fleets. Organ. Sci. 24(3):831–845.Link, Google Scholar
• Rodríguez Bolívar MP, Perez CC, Hernandez AML (2007) E-government and public financial reporting: The case of Spanish regional government. Amer. Rev. Public Admin. 37(2):142–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roodman D (2009a) A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxford Bull. Econom. Statist. 71(1):135–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roodman D (2009b) How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. The Stata J. 9(1):86–136.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubinson R (1977) Dependence, government revenue, and economic growth, 1955–1970. Stud. Comparative Internat. Development 12(2):3–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saunders P (1993) Recent trends in the size and growth of government in OECD countries. Gemmell N, ed. The Growth of Public Sector—Theories and International Evidence (Edward Elgar, Hants, UK), 17–33.Google Scholar
• Smith RFI (2004) Focusing on public value: Something new and something old. Australian J. Public Admin. 63(4):68–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stiglitz JE (2000) Economics of the Public Sector, Third ed. (W.W. Norton, New York).Google Scholar
• Stoker G (2006) Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance? Amer. Rev. Public Admin. 36(1):47–51.Google Scholar
• Swilling M (2011) Greening public value: The sustainability challenge. Benington J, Moore MH, eds. Public Value Theory and Practice (Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, UK), 89–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tarschys D (1975) The growth of public expenditures: Nine modes of explanation. Scandinavian Political Stud. 10(A10):9–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wall Street Journal (2009) After the bailouts, Washington’s the boss. Accessed June 21, 2013, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB126195515647306765.Google Scholar
• Williams I, Shearer H (2011) Appraising public value: Past, present, and futures. Public Admin. 89(4):1367–1384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wood CA, Shin H, Devaraj S (2008) Technology’s effect on firm size: Manufacturing vs. service. Boland R, Limayem M, Pentland B, eds. Proc. Twenty Ninth Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (AIS, Paris).Google Scholar