Digital statehood: transitive model and the evolution of methodological paradigms of public administration
Abstract
The article explores the transitive model of digital statehood as a conceptual response to systemic challenges arising from the dynamic digital transformation of public governance. The author argues that traditional models of state administration no longer provide adequate responses to the rapid evolution of digital tools, infrastructures, and agents that operate within new decision-making spaces — from distributed ledgers to autonomous cognitive systems. Therefore, the concept of transitivity is proposed as a theoretical framework to describe the transition from classical hierarchical forms of statehood to complex, open, and dynamic digital architectures.
The methodological foundation of the research combines three complementary approaches: the system-synergetic, institutional-cognitive, and network-platform paradigms. The system-synergetic approach makes it possible to view public governance as a complex open system capable of self-organization and the emergence of new structures in response to external digital impulses. The institutional-cognitive paradigm captures the changing logic of institutional functioning in the context of decentralized knowledge and functions, while the network-platform approach focuses on understanding the state as a digital platform where decisions are formed through the interaction of multiple agents — both human and algorithmic.
Within the proposed transitive model, a three-level architecture of digital statehood is introduced: (1) the institutional core, which undergoes cognitive reconfiguration under the influence of digital agents; (2) the infrastructural level, based on the integration of AI and blockchain technologies into functional management mechanisms; (3) the level of external agents — platforms, networks, and users — that actively participate in shaping public decisions. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of smart contracts as a new institutional unit that enables automated, conditional, and irreversible execution of public governance decisions.
It is demonstrated that the integration of blockchain and artificial intelligence alters the principles of trust formation, legitimacy, and accountability in digital interaction. At the same time, digital logic becomes the driver of institutional evolution — from fixed models to flexible, adaptive mechanisms functioning in a mode of permanent recalibration. The article also reveals the phenomenon of «post-institutional reflexivity,» in which the role of the state is reimagined — not as a monopolist of authority but as a cognitive integrator of data, platforms, and meanings.
The practical value of the study lies in the proposed theoretical construct, which may be applied to the design of digital policy frameworks, the transformation of governance processes in the public sector, and the assessment of risks associated with technological dynamics. The article provides a foundation for further research into the formalization of trust mechanisms, automated decision legitimation, and the synthesis of governance strategies in complex digital environments.
Downloads
References
Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M., The Platform Society (New York, 2018; online edn, Oxford Academic, 18 Oct. 2018)/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001
OECD. (2020). Digital government policy framework: Six dimensions of a digital government. OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, 02, OECD Publishing. 40 pages. URL: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2020/10/the-oecd-digital-government-policy-framework_11dd6aa8/f64fed2a-en.pdf
Mergel, I., Ganapati, S., & Whitford, A. B. (2018). Agile government: Systematic literature review and future research. Public Management Review, 35 (2). Pp. 291-298. URL: https://d-nb.info/1257079514/34. DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.04.003
Antonelli, C., & Gehringer, A. (2017). Technological change, rent and income inequalities: A Schumpeterian approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 115, 85-98. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004016251630347X. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.023
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Martinez-Moyano, I. J. (2007). Understanding the evolution of e-government: The influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 266-290. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.04.005. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0740624X06000815.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press. URL: https://surli.cc/vcvtad
Kettl, D. F. (2022). Weberian bureaucracy and contemporary governance. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 5(2), 111-120. DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvab026. URL: https://academic.oup.com/ppmg/article-abstract/5/2/111/6486462
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3-19. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead-long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 3, 467–494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 371(1987), 20120382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0382
Scupola, A., & Zanfei, A. (2016). Governance and innovation in public sector services: The case of the digital library. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 237-249. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.005
OECD. (2020). Digital government policy framework: Six dimensions of a digital government. OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, 02, OECD Publishing. 40 pages. URL: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2020/10/the-oecd-digital-government-policy-framework_11dd6aa8/f64fed2a-en.pdf
Dunleavy, P., & Margetts, H. (2015). Design principles for essentially digital governance. 111th Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association. URL: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64125/1/Essentially%20Digital%20Governance.pdf
Cordella, A., & Tempini, N. (2015). E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 279-286. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005. URL: https://surl.li/onefir
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Martinez-Moyano, I. J. (2007). Understanding the evolution of e-government: The influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 266-290. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.04.005. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0740624X06000815
Mergel, I. (2019). Digital transformation: From hierarchy to network-centric approaches in public organizations. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(11), 815–826
Janssen, M., & Van der Voort, H. (2020). Agile and adaptive governance in crisis response: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101479. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102180
Plümper, T., & Neumayer, E. (2022, October). The Politics of Covid-19 Containment Policies in europe. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 15;81:103206. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103206. Epub 2022 Aug 8. PMID: 35966416; PMCID: PMC9359755.
Ackoff, R. L. (1994). Systems thinking and thinking systems. System Dynamics Review, 10(2-3), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260100206
Ackoff, R. L. (1971). Towards a system of systems concepts. Management Science, 17(11), 661-671. URL: https://www.inf.ufpr.br/urban/2019-1_205_e_220/205e220_Ler_ver_para_complementar/Ackoff__Towards.pdf
Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. URL: https://archive.org/details/hiddenorderhowad0000holl
Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton University Press.
Arthur, W. B. (2014). Complexity and the Economy. Oxford University Press.
Checkland, P. (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: Includes a 30-Year Retrospective. 416.
Haken, H. (1983). Synergetics: An Introduction: Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions and Self-Organization in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1983.
Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), 52-61. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004
Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), 52-61. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7-19. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3328150
Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174-184. DOI https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0033-3352.00168. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/0033-3352.00168
Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 352.
Criado, J. I., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2019). Creating public value through smart technologies and strategies: From digital services to artificial intelligence and beyond. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(5), 438-450. URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2019-0178/full/pdf?title=creating-public-value-through-smart-technologies-and-strategies-from-digital-services-to-artificial-intelligence-and-beyond
O’Reilly, T. (2011). Government as a platform. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 6(1), 13-40. URL: https://surli.cc/wyogsw
Iansiti M., & Levien R. The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2004.
Scupola, A., & Zanfei, A. (2016). Governance and innovation in public sector services: The case of the digital library. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 237-249. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.005
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications. DOI https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221853
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
