Legal Mechanisms and Information and Technological Support for the Strategic Management of State Social Development
Authors/Creators
Description
The paper analyzes the interdependence of the digital transformation of the public sector, the effectiveness of public governance, and the quality of legal institutions in the context of ensuring social progress. The level of social development of states was assessed based on the Social Progress Index, the state of digital governance was assessed using the e-Government Development Index and the GovTech Maturity Index, and the capacity of the legal system was assessed using the Rule of Law Index of the World Justice Project. The empirical base includes states for which complete statistical data for 2024–2025 are available. To verify the proposed provisions, a set of statistical methods was used, including Spearman's rank coefficient, Kruskal–Wallis criterion, least squares method, categorical regression modeling, and a number of diagnostic procedures. Particular attention was paid to identifying multicollinearity, checking the independence of residuals, and assessing the stability of the resulting models. The results showed a close and statistically confirmed relationship between the level of social progress, the development of digital governance and compliance with the principles of the rule of law. The most pronounced relationship with social progress was demonstrated by the indicator of the development of e-government. The legal quality of institutions is also characterized by a consistent positive impact. At the same time, the GovTech indicator turned out to be less stable and largely depended on the chosen specification of the regression model. The identified interregional differences confirm the unevenness of social development, but do not refute the general trend. The proposition that sustainable social progress is formed primarily as a result of the interaction of digital management capabilities with effective legal institutions is substantiated.
Files
18-5-2-YANA-UKARAINE.pdf
Files
(1.9 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:f1ab2fc6b927dbb5518848fcadd377ee
|
1.9 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Related works
- Is supplement to
- Journal article: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wlVzczrctJxOSuTmEXk7sXYKIAB4GJwX/view (URL)
Dates
- Available
-
2026-10-03https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wlVzczrctJxOSuTmEXk7sXYKIAB4GJwX/view
References
- Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012) Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Publishing Group-A Division of Random House, Inc., New York. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1836336
- Buryk, Z. (2025). Digital governance and innovative management in the public and private sectors: strategic, social, and humanistic dimensions [Editorial]. Revista Administração em Diálogo - RAD, 27(si), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.23925/2178-0080.2025v27iSI.74238
- Buryk, Z., Zhuk, O., Boryshkevych, I., Piatnychuk, I., Horohotska, N., & Varenia, N. (2019). Mechanisms of management of social and economic security of the state on the basis of data formalization (case of Ukraine). In Vision 2025: Education excellence and management of innovations through sustainable economic competitive advantage (Proceedings of the 34th International Business Information Management Association (IBIMA) Conference, Madrid, Spain, November 13–14, 2019, pp. 11133–11135). International Business Information Management Association (IBIMA). https://lib-old.pnu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/5643/1/Mechanisms%20of%20Management%20of%20Social%20and%20Economic%20Security.pdf
- Dener, C., Nii-Aponsah, H., Ghunney, L. E., & Johns, K. D. (2021). GovTech maturity index: The state of public sector digital transformation. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1765-6
- Dias, G. P. (2020). Determinants of e-government implementation at the local level: an empirical model. Online Information Review, 44(7), 1307–1326. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-04-2020-0148
- Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.001
- Krishnan, S., Teo, T. S. H., & Lymm, J. (2017). Determinants of electronic participation and electronic government maturity: Insights from cross-country data. International Journal of Information Management, 37(4), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.03.002
- Lips, M. (2019). Digital Government: Managing Public Sector Reform in the Digital Era (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315622408
- Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining Digital Transformation: Results from Expert Interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36, 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
- North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2247051
- OECD. (2009). Rethinking e-Government Services: User-Centred Approaches. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264059412-en
- OECD. (2020a). Digital government index: 2019 results (OECD Public Governance Policy Papers No. 3). OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/digital-government-index_4de9f5bb-en.html
- OECD. (2020b). The OECD digital government policy framework: Six dimensions of a digital government (OECD Public Governance Policy Papers No. 2). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f64fed2a-en
- OECD. (2021). The E-Leaders Handbook on the Governance of Digital Government. OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ac7f2531-en
- Porter, M. E., Stern, S., & Green, M. (2017). Social Progress Index 2017. Social Progress Imperative. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=3087491
- Pustovit, Y., Herasymchuk, R., Kotsur, V., Nunyuk, I., & Buryk, Z. (2025). Legal Instruments for Administrative Control Over Transparency and Accountability in Public Finance Management in the Context of Cooperation Between the State and the Private Sector. Revista Administração Em Diálogo - RAD, 27(SI), 132–151. https://doi.org/10.23925/2178-0080.2025v27iSI.73114
- Rodrik, D. (2008). Second-Best Institutions. American Economic Review, 98(2), 100–104. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.2.100
- Sachs, J. D., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., & Woelm, F. (2021). Sustainable development report 2021. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009106559
- Social Progress Index Dashboard. (2026). Explore global social progress trends visually and interactively. https://spi-eight.vercel.app/
- United Nations. (2022). UN E-Government Survey 2022. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/reports/un-e-government-survey-2022
- United Nations. (n.d.). United Nations E-Government Knowledgebase. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Data-Center
- Warf, B. (2014). E-Government in the OECD: A Comparative Geographic Analysis. In S. Baum & A. Mahizhnan (Eds.), E-Governance and Social Inclusion: Concepts and Cases (pp. 148-163). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6106-6.ch009
- World Bank. (2025). GovTech dataset. https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0037889/govtech-dataset
- World Bank. (n.d.). GovTech Maturity Index (GTMI). World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/govtech/gtmi
- World Justice Project. (2023). The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2023. https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/downloads/WJPIndex2023.pdf
- World Justice Project. (2025). WJP Rule of Law Index: Global data. https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global