The Leadership of Regional Heads in Strengthening Public Accountability through Smart City Governance

The evolution of the smart city paradigm over the last twenty years has prompted municipal authorities to leverage digital technologies as a mechanism for enhancing operational efficiency, transparency, and the overall quality of public service delivery. Nevertheless, empirical research indicates that the execution of smart city initiatives does not inherently augment public accountability unless it is underpinned by robust leadership and effective governance structures. This research endeavor seeks to scrutinize the pivotal role of regional leaders in fortifying public accountability through the lens of smart city governance. Employing a qualitative methodological framework alongside a case study design, this investigation aims to elucidate the intricate processes, practices, and significations of leadership within the realm of regional digital governance. Data acquisition was achieved via semi-structured, in-depth interviews with local government officials, digital system administrators, and community representatives, complemented by an analytical review of policy documents and selective observations pertaining to the implementation of digital governmental systems. The collected data were subjected to thematic analysis through a systematic approach involving open coding, categorization, and the formulation of analytical themes pertinent to leadership, smart city governance, and public accountability. The findings reveal that the leadership exercised by regional chiefs constitutes a fundamental determinant in propelling the transformation towards digital-centric governance. Regional leaders who possess a pronounced digital vision and unwavering commitment are proficient in steering the amalgamation of information systems, enhancing inter-organizational coordination among regional entities, and fostering shifts in bureaucratic operational modalities towards a more professional and performance-oriented framework. Furthermore, the deployment of digital platforms augments information transparency and civic engagement, thereby reinforcing the frameworks of public accountability and social oversight. The study substantiates the premise that smart cities ought to be conceptualized as an integrated governance structure, rather than mere technological advancements, in the pursuit of cultivating transparent, adaptive, and accountable local governance.

Regional Leadership; Smart City; Digital Governance; Public Accountability; Local Government

1. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2021). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 1–17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2020). The future of e-government. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101410 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bovens, M., Goodin, R. E., & Schillemans, T. (2021). The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2021). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Fox, J. (2020). Social accountability: What does the evidence really say? World Development, 135, 105043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105043 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2020). Digital government and public management research. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101477 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Zhang, J., & Puron-Cid, G. (2020). Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative and multi-dimensional view. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101–113. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Harrison, C., & Donnelly, I. A. (2021). A theory of smart cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 28(1–2),1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2020.1800999 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Janssen, M., Estevez, E., & Janowski, T. (2022). Interoperability in smart government: Challenges and opportunities. Information Polity, 27(1), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Joshi, A., & Fox, J. A. (2021). Accountability amid power asymmetries. World Development, 140, 105340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105340 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika Republik Indonesia. (2023). Evaluasi program gerakan menuju 100 smart city. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Klievink, B., & Janssen, M. (2020). Developing multi-layer information infrastructures. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101420 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2021). Digital government transformation and public sector innovation. Information Polity, 26(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200245 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Margetts, H., & Dorobantu, C. (2022). Rethink government with AI. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(5),1–7.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01312-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Meijer, A. (2022). Transparency and public administration. Public Administration Review, 82(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13459 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2020). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(2), 392–408. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Meijer, A., & Thaens, M. (2020). Urban technological innovation. Public Management Review, 22(4),547–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1643142 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2021). Defining digital transformation. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101385 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2021). Conceptualizing smart governance. Social Science Computer Review, 39(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320909081 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2021). Smart city as urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy, and context. Cities, 115, 103–118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2021). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211012873 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Osborne, S. P. (2021). Public service logic: Creating value for public service users, citizens, and society. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Pereira, G. V., Parycek, P., Falco, E., & Kleinhans, R. (2020). Smart governance in the context of smart cities. Information Polity, 25(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-190152 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Pereira, G. V., Parycek, P., Falco, E., & Kleinhans, R. (2021). Smart governance in the context of smart cities: A literature review. Information Polity, 26(1), 1–19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2022). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Pratama, A. B., & Hanif, N. (2022). Digital governance and local accountability in Indonesian cities. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 15(3), 389–405. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Schillemans, T., & Busuioc, M. (2022). Predicting public sector accountability. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2020). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Stake, R. E. (2020). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2020). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Tummers, L., & Knies, E. (2021). Leadership and meaningful public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13359 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Van Wart, M. (2021). Leadership in public organizations: An introduction. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Vial, G. (2021). Understanding digital transformation. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 1–27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/14487 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2020). Transformational leadership in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13153 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Yin, R. K. (2023). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (7th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Zapata, C., & Hall, R. (2022). Digital governance and accountability in smart cities: A qualitative inquiry. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101723 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2020). Open data policies. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101426. https://doi.org/10.1016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Understanding Academic Leadership: Theory, Practice and Future Horizons
• A Literature Review on Leadership and Cultural Evolution of Adventism in East Africa Region
• Unlocking Employee Creativity Through Empowering Leadership: The Dynamic Interplay of Trust and Engagement
• The Integration of Preachers’ Leadership Competencies in Empowering Preachers for the Orang Asli Community in Malaysia
• Traditional Authority vs. Legacy Leadership: A Comparative Literature Review from the Arab World