Enrolling citizens as informed consumers in quasi-markets

Abstract

Purpose Many countries today, especially in Europe, provide publicly funded public services in quasi-markets. As these markets commercialize, agencies of various types are providing technologies that support citizens’ choice of services. Citizens’ use of technologies for service provision is studied as e-government under labels of channel management, e-service uptake or adoption. In contrast, by using actor–network theory (ANT), the purpose of this paper is to focus on the marketing devices that are used to enroll citizens to choose technologies in a context with large penetration of quasi-market arrangements. Design/methodology/approach Based on a Swedish case study, this paper uses qualitative data from 11 occurrences of technologies to support citizens’ choice (“market devices”) in education, healthcare and public pension in an analysis of the means taken (“marketing devices”) to increase their use. The study formulates a tentative typology of these devices. Findings The marketing devices are intended to attract citizens’ attention to the possibility of choice (e.g. catalogs, postcards and commercials), invite interaction (e.g. various social media platforms), improve the technological support in line with user needs (e.g. user participation in development), increase visibility of technological support (e.g. search optimization) or directly connect citizens to technological support (e.g. via links). Originality/value The paper contributes to e-government research through a typology of means taken to increase citizens’ technology use based on selected concepts from ANT, and to a discussion of technologies and humans.

Approaching the human in the loop – legal perspectives on hybrid human/algorithmic decision-making in three contexts

“…In some case-studies, furthering the adherence of rules through minimizing differing interpretations or personal factors are viewed as part of the primary objectives of ITsystems, where human discretion is considered costly, inefficient and prone to error. 33 We argue that this approach entangles the analysis of the law with ICT issues, and therefore runs the risk of obscuring complex legal issues relating to discretionary determinations and interpretations of law, rather than acknowledging the need for sensitive observation and judgement.…”