Digital Governance and the Efficiency of Public Service Delivery in Developing Countries: Evidence from Local Governments

This article examines how digital governance shapes the efficiency of public service delivery in local governments in developing countries, with particular attention to selected local governments in Uganda. The article is anchored in Digital Era Governance, which treats digital reform not simply as the automation of existing procedures but as the reintegration of fragmented processes, the redesign of services around citizens’ needs, and the digitization of administrative routines. A convergent mixed-methods design was used. Quantitative data were generated through structured questionnaires administered to 120 respondents drawn from local government officials, ICT personnel, and service users, while qualitative evidence was obtained through key informant interviews and document review. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data were interpreted through thematic analysis and then integrated with survey findings. The results show that electronic document management systems, online tax payment platforms, digital land records, and online service portals are increasingly used in local governments and are associated with shorter service processing time, greater transparency, and improved citizen satisfaction. However, the findings also reveal that the benefits of digital governance are uneven because financial constraints, weak ICT infrastructure, poor internet connectivity, and limited digital skills continue to restrict implementation. The article argues that digital governance improves service delivery most effectively when technological adoption is supported by organizational capacity, process redesign, and inclusive citizen access. Its main contribution is to move beyond descriptive accounts of e-government by offering a clearer theoretical framing of digital governance, a more critical review of competing perspectives, and a methodologically stronger account of how local government evidence can be generated and interpreted in developing-country settings.

Digital Governance, Digital Era Governance

1. Ahmad, N., et al. (2024). Application of Cronbach’s alpha in research instruments for reliability analysis. Universiti Teknologi MARA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Amirova, A. (2025). Advancing citizen-centered public services in Kazakhstan: Legal, institutional, and digital governance perspectives. Frontiers in Political Science, 7, 1679601. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1679601 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Boden-Stuart, Z., et al. (2026). Ethical research for all: Protection from harm, informed consent, and the right to withdraw. International Journal of Educational Research Open. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in reflexive thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health, 24(1), 1–6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Buyannemekh, B., Picazo-Vela, S., Luna, D. E., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2024). Understanding value of digital service delivery by governments in Mexico. Government Information Quarterly, 41(2), 101936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101936 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Digital Impact Alliance. (2024). Uganda case study. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Edelsbrunner, P. A., et al. (2025). The Cronbach’s alpha of domain-specific knowledge tests before and after learning: A meta-analysis of published studies. Educational Psychology Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Eom, S.-J., & Lee, J. (2022). Digital government transformation in turbulent times: Responses, challenges, and future direction. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101690 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Government of Uganda. (2025). Local Government Management of Service Delivery Performance Assessment 2024 national synthesis report. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Handerer, F., et al. (2024). Development and content validation of a questionnaire to assess the social determinants of mental health in clinical practice. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15, 1377751. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Holtz, B., et al. (2025). Enhancing comprehension of online informed consent. Ethics & Behavior. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kurtaliqi, F., et al. (2024). Using advanced mixed methods approaches: Combining PLS-SEM and qualitative studies. Journal of Business Research, 175, 114486. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Lochmiller, C. R., Cho, Y., & Lester, J. N. (2026). Designing trustworthy qualitative HRD research: Methodological considerations. Human Resource Development Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Mangai, M. S., & Ayodele, A. A. (2025). Reimagining public service delivery: Digitalising initiatives for accountability and efficiency. Administrative Sciences, 15(12), 477. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15120477 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Mars, M. (2025). A call for progressive qualitative methodologies and transparent reporting of trustworthiness. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Masuwai, A., Zulkifli, H., & Hamzah, M. I. (2024). Evaluation of content validity and face validity of a secondary school teacher self-assessment instrument. Cogent Education, 11(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Memon, M. A., et al. (2025). Purposive sampling. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. (2025). Digital transformation annual monitoring report FY 2024/25. Government of Uganda. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Ministry of ICT and National Guidance. (2024, April 14). PS, Ministry of ICT & National Guidance conducts review meeting for local government digital transformation progress. Government of Uganda. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Ministry of ICT and National Guidance. (2023/2024–2027/2028). Digital transformation roadmap. Government of Uganda. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Miteu, G. D., et al. (2024). Ethics in scientific research: A lens into its importance, history, and future. Heliyon, 10(9), e30078. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Mofokeng, S., Ramolobe, K. S., & Bogopa, D. L. (2025). Assessing the impact of digital technologies on service delivery in local government. Journal of Local Government Research and Innovation, 6, a234. https://doi.org/10.4102/jolgri.v6i0.234 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Mokkink, L. B., et al. (2025). Content validity: Judging the relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of an outcome measurement instrument. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 184, 111647. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Morte Nadal, T., & Esteban-Navarro, M. Á. (2026). Improving digital inclusion in e-government services in the European Union: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515261435201 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Noor, S., et al. (2022). Simple random sampling. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 7(5). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). OECD good practice principles for public service design and delivery in the digital age. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). 2023 OECD digital government index. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2025). Government at a glance 2025. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2026). Delivering digitally enabled public services that meet user needs. In Digital government review of Biscay, Spain. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Page-Reeves, J., et al. (2025). Interpreting discordant results in mixed-method research: Data triangulation, participant voices, and epistemic issues in health research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Popescu, M. A. M., Barbu, A., Moiceanu, G., Costea-Marcu, I.-C., Militaru, G., & Simion, P. C. (2024). Citizens’ perception of digital public services: A case study among Romanian citizens. Administrative Sciences, 14(10), 259. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14100259 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Rana, K., & Chimoriya, R. (2025). A guide to a mixed-methods approach to healthcare research. Encyclopedia, 5(2), 51. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Repke, L., Birkenmaier, M., & Lechner, C. (2024). Validity in survey research: From research design to measuring the validity of survey data. GESIS Survey Guidelines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Scheytt, C., et al. (2024). Ethical challenges in qualitative sociology: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Sociology, 9, 1458423. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Schlunegger, M. C., Zumstein-Shaha, M., & Palm, R. (2024). Methodologic and data-analysis triangulation in case studies: A scoping review. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 46(8), 611–622. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Stahl, N. A., & King, J. R. (2020). Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 26–28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. United Nations. (2024). United Nations e-government survey 2024: Accelerating digital transformation for sustainable development. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Xu, X., & Dai, M. (2024). Evaluation of local government digital governance ability and sustainable development: A case study of Hunan Province. Sustainability, 16(14), 6084. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146084 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Xu, Z., Wang, Y., & Qian, Y. (2025). The design and application of in-depth interviews in primary care research. Chinese General Practice Journal, 2(2), 100062. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Yang, C., Gu, M., & Albitar, K. (2024). Government in the digital age: Exploring the impact of digital transformation on governmental efficiency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 208, 123722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123722 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Regional Development Planning Strategy Through the Integration of Strengthening Village-Owned Enterprises and the Transparency Utilisation of Village Funds
• Corporate Governance, Corruption and Financial Performance of Listed Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) Companies in Nigeria.
• The Impacts of Digital Governance in Strengthening Tax Compliance and Enhanced Revenue Mobilisation in Sierra Leone
• Gender Impact of Values Education and Good Governance on National Development: A Study of Bangladesh
• Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices towards Infrastructural Developments along the Riparian Ecosystem of the Nairobi River Basin, Kenya