Government Technology (GovTech) is increasingly seen as a catalyst for digital transformation in public administration, yet its conceptual foundations remain fragmented and underexamined. This study analyzes the sociotechnical imaginaries driving European GovTech discourse by identifying key narratives influencing its definition, adoption, and policy direction. Drawing on structured document analysis of national initiatives, think tank reports, and international organizations, we apply public value theory to evaluate how GovTech is framed in terms of vision, technology, organizational design, and context. We identify two dominant imaginaries: one focused on innovation-led transformation, the other on state-driven digital sovereignty. These imaginaries are often implicit, with emphasis placed on eficiency and cost-cutting over public governance, citizen participation, and regulation. Our findings also reveal significant fragmentation in GovTech approaches across Europe. For policymakers and practitioners, the study points to critical areas for improving the design and governance of 0000-0002-2682-6009 (B. Niehaves) Proceedings ceur-ws.org
Public institutions worldwide are facing increasing challenges [
A key driver of this dissatisfaction is the absence of modern digital solutions and citizen-friendly
service oferings [
In response to these challenges, GovTech, a portmanteau of ”government” and ”technology”, has
emerged as a potential solution. GovTech promises more afordable, tailored digital services by fostering
transfer innovation into public administrations by emans of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
rather than relying solely on large multinational technology firms [
CEUR Workshop
ISSN1613-0073
traction in both academic and policy circles, with increasing recognition of its role in modernizing public
administration [
Given this landscape, there is a need to critically assess the space between what GovTech can and should provide and how public debates frame its potential. To do so, we employ the concept of sociotechnical imaginaries [13][14], which allows us to examine the visions and expectations that shape GovTech discourse.
Accordingly, our research seeks to address the following question: RQ: Which sociotechnical imaginaries shape European GovTech discourse?
In the following, we analyze the sociotechnical imaginaries shaping European GovTech discourse through a structured document analysis of diverse documents. Using public value theory framework, we assess how GovTech is framed in terms of vision, solution, technology provider and user, and environmental factors.
Our findings show that GovTech imaginaries remain largely implicit, with eficiency and cost reduction dominating the discourse, while public governance and citizen engagement receive less attention. We identify two dominant imaginaries, one emphasizing market-driven innovation, the other state-led digital sovereignty, highlighting the fragmentation of GovTech approaches across Europe.
Government Technology (GovTech) has become an increasingly significant topic across economic,
policy, and academic discussions, reflecting its growing role in shaping digital governance and public
service modernization [
One prominent perspective comes from Bharosa, who defines GovTech in terms of its potential to
enhance government operations while also highlighting inherent risks, such as the ”Trojan horse”
challenge, where external solutions introduce vulnerabilities or dependencies that compromise autonomy
[
A diferent perspective is ofered by the European Union, which has framed GovTech within its
legislative agenda, particularly through the Interoperable Europe Act. This regulation, in conjunction
with e.g. the Digital Markets Act and Artificial Intelligence Act, seeks to standardize and regulate
the role of technology in public administration across EU member states [
The economic potential of GovTech has also been recognized at a global level. The World Economic
Forum (WEF) estimates the market impact of GovTech at approximately 9.8 trillion euros, highlighting
its capacity to drive significant economic growth and innovation [ 17][18]. This immense financial
potential has spurred the establishment of specialized agencies and institutions dedicated to GovTech,
such as those documented in reports by Mergel et al. [
Empirical studies, however, suggest that GovTech is often leveraged not for public sector digitization but as a tool for economic development policy. According to Niehaves and Klassen’s JRC report [15], many GovTech initiatives prioritize competitiveness and digital industry growth over direct improvements in public administration services. This dual function of GovTech, both as a means for digital government transformation and as an economic policy instrument, raises important questions about its true role and beneficiaries, as noted by Niehaves and Klassen [ 15].
To analyze the value provided by GovTech initiatives, or at least the value propositions and objectives associated with them within the European GovTech discourse, we employ the lens of Public Value Theory. Public Value Theory, as conceptualized by Moore [19], posits that the ultimate aim of government initiatives is to create social value for citizens rather than to focus solely on financial eficiency and private interests logics.
Historically, IT adoption in government was primarily driven by a ’eficiency imperative’, where digital technologies were seen as tools to streamline operations, reduce costs and improve productivity [20][21][22]. However, this focus has shifted, particularly with the emergence of new technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI). AI, in particular, has been argued to have a more profound impact on public value creation than traditional e-government tools [23], with its distinct potential for public value co-creation through collaborative interactions between governments and citizens [24][25].
To analyze the diverse ways in which value is associated with GovTech, various taxonomies [26] and frameworks of public value (in e-government) can be applied [27][21][28]. Rose et al. [21] propose four value positions that capture the potential value outcomes of e-government initiatives, which can be adapted to analyze GovTech’s role in public service delivery. These positions — Professional Ideal, Eficiency Ideal, Service Ideal, and Engagement Ideal — represent diferent ways in which governments seek to create value for citizens through technology.
Table 1 summarizes these four value positions, each of which emphasizes diferent aspects of public administration, ranging from eficiency and accountability to citizen engagement and democratic deliberation. The integration of GovTech into public administration raises important questions about which of these value positions is most emphasized in current discourse and how these priorities align with the broader goals of public administration in democratic societies.
Providing an independent, robust and consistent administration, governed by a rule system based on law, resulting in the public record, which is the basis for accountability Providing lean and eficient administration, which minimises waste of public resources gathered from taxpayers Engaging with civil society to facilitate policy development in accordance with liberal democratic principles; articulating the public good Value for money, cost reduction, productivity, and performance Maximising the utility of government to civil society by provid- Public service, citizen ing services directed towards the public good centricity, service level, and quality Democracy, deliberation, and participation Representative Values Durability, equity, legality, and accountability
In addition to identifying these four value positions within the GovTech discourse, it is essential to understand the relationships between them. Rose et al. [21] diferentiate between two main types (and various subcategories) of relationships: congruent and divergent relationships, highlighting the complex dynamics at play in the adoption and implementation of GovTech solutions.
Thus, Public Value Theory provides a structured framework for assessing the objectives and outcomes
of GovTech initiatives. Since GovTech is embedded in a dynamic landscape of expectations, aspirations,
and normative visions of technological progress [
GovTechs meaning and impact remain subject to various forces that shape interpretation. They stem
from difering political, economic, and public-sector perspectives, each pulling in distinct directions
regarding the value that GovTech is said to create. As a result, GovTech operates within a complex
sociotechnical environment, where technological innovation is deeply intertwined with governance
structures, economic agendas, and public value considerations [
It is insuficient to merely analyze the public and economic debates surrounding GovTech. Instead, we aim to explore the idealized visions of value that GovTech is claimed to provide [14]. These visions are often shaped by aspirations, expectations, and collective beliefs about the role of technology in government, rather than purely empirical assessments of its actual impact.
To frame our analysis, we adopt Jasanof and Kim’s concept of sociotechnical imaginaries [ 13][29]. Originally developed in the context of energy markets, sociotechnical imaginaries ofer a theoretical perspective that is well suited to analyzing how technology evolves within public institutions. Unlike other conceptual tools, sociotechnical imaginaries focus on the collective visions that shape action and governance debates around emerging technologies [30]. This makes them especially relevant for understanding how GovTech is envisioned, justified, and implemented in diferent governance contexts.
In this paper, we follow Levenda et al.’s approach [31], which highlights the importance of
distinguishing between regional sociotechnical imaginaries. This distinction is particularly relevant for
GovTech, as previous studies have shown that national GovTech ecosystems are already forming in
various countries [32][
To construct a dataset reflecting the landscape of European GovTech, we systematically gathered data from national GovTech initiatives, hubs, or equivalent institutions across all EU member states. Where such entities were absent, we substituted data with oficial documents and policy statements available through government websites. This data collection process was built upon Kuziemski et al.’s initial analysis of European GovTech ecosystems [12], ensuring continuity and comparability across our ifndings. Where necessary we translated sources using DeepL. We thus followed the steps for scoping: 1. assess all national initiatives as provided by Kuziemski et al., 2. enrich data basis by searching for ”GovTech OR government technology” on oficial website of national government, and 3. search for ”GovTech OR government technology” on Google viewing up to page three of results.
Recognizing the potential for political bias in national government narratives, we incorporated additional perspectives by consulting independent organizations. To this end, we selected the ten highest-ranked think tanks in Europe, as identified by the Brookings Institute [ 33] supplemented by further internationally relevant organizations such as the World Economic Forum or World Bank. We see the potential for adding bias to the debate through this measure, but see the need to supplement them as they are both strongly dominated by the European narratives, as well as have given way to establish the GovTech field as a whole. For this see e.g. the World Banks GTMI Data Dashboard. In total we assessed 100 documents and links without available resources, see Table 2. The full list is available under: https://tinyurl.com/yyn4rz9k
For each source, we assessed between one and three primary documents, ensuring a diverse yet manageable dataset, counting websites with sub-links as one each. The combination of oficial governmental sources and independent policy analysis provides a diverse understanding of how GovTech is framed, promoted, and contested across diferent levels of governance and discourse.
Our study applies a structured document analysis of sociotechnical imaginaries within GovTech, guided by a theoretical framework rooted in public value theory [34]. This approach allows us to systematically categorize the diferent visions, solution types, providers and users, and environmental conditions that shape GovTech implementation and discourse.
From our initial dataset, we extracted key indicators associated with sociotechnical imaginaries [34]. However, due to practical constraints and the need for a more structured analytical lens, we refined these indicators by applying findings from Niehaves and Klassen’s (2024) [ 15] framework reducing it to 14, see 3. This allowed us to cluster the identified sociotechnical imaginaries indicators into four primary categories:
Core Vision and Values that encompasses overarching idealized narratives that define the role of GovTech in public governance, digital transformation, and citizen participation.
Solutions covering the technological components, digital infrastructures, and interoperability mechanisms employed within GovTech ecosystems.
Technology Providers and Users analyzing structures, policies, and governance shaping GovTech adoption at both national and European levels.
Environment evaluating the broader regulatory, economic, and sociopolitical factors influencing the development and deployment of GovTech solutions.
Based on Rose et al.’s [21] public value framework, the key values identified across European contexts are categorized under the four ideals of professional, eficiency, service, and engagement.
The Professional Ideal is strongly present in the GovTech discourse across Europe, where there is a clear emphasis on improving the quality, reliability, and accountability of public administration by leveraging government technology. The core vision is to enable government institutions to operate with high standards of professionalism, rooted in legal and institutional frameworks that guarantee fairness and consistency in service delivery [35][36]. Additionally, digital sovereignty has emerged within this context, reinforcing the Professional Ideal by emphasizing (European) governmental control over digital infrastructure. Ensuring that European institutions maintain strategic oversight over digital systems aligns with the principles of professionalism by safeguarding institutional integrity, reducing dependency on external actors, and enhancing long-term public trust [15].
The Eficiency Ideal is still the most dominant theme in various national GovTech discourses. The use of technology to streamline government operations, reduce operational costs, and maximize resource allocation is a key value across many countries [37][35][38][39][36][40].
The Service Ideal reflects the vision of a public sector that is oriented around the needs of citizens, ensuring that services are accessible, high-quality, and responsive to the demands of the public. Key values such as citizen-centricity, universal accessibility, and quality of service are prominent[35][39].
The Engagement Ideal underscores the role of GovTech in fostering democratic participation, dialogue, and collaboration between citizens and the state. This ideal stresses the importance of government technology not only as a tool for eficiency but as a means to enhance civic involvement in public decision-making [25]. Countries like France [38] and Greece [40] emphasize the importance of involving citizens in the policy-making process and creating opportunities for collaborative governance through digital platforms.
The technological dimensions of GovTech can be categorized based on solutions ofered to public administrations. While some solutions focus on basic digitization of government services [35], others push the boundaries of technological innovation through advanced research-driven applications and citizen-facing services [41]. Based on our analysis, GovTech solutions can be classified into three primary categories:
Public Administration Digitization Solutions including all forms of technologies aimed at digitizing public administrations functions, such as automation, e-government portals, and interoperability frameworks. Estonia’s model serves as a well-known example of such eforts [ 35][37].
Research-Driven Digital Innovation emerging from deep R&D in fields such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and cybersecurity. These innovations are often introduced through public-private partnerships, pilot projects, or experimental regulatory frameworks that allow for safe, controlled implementation in public sector contexts [12].
Client-/Citizen-Facing Services following technologies designed for direct citizen interaction, such
as digital healthcare platforms, smart city applications, and chatbots for public service inquiries. These
solutions are intended to increase accessibility, eficiency, and personalization in government services,
thereby enhancing citizen satisfaction and engagement [42][
The organizational factors influencing GovTech adoption can be examined from two primary perspectives: The Supply-Side – The companies and organizations that develop GovTech solutions, and The Buy-Side – The public organizations that procure and implement these technologies. Procurement processes are particularly significant within the European GovTech discourse, as they directly reflect and operationalize the sociotechnical imaginaries embedded within the procuring institutions.
Despite increasing relevance of (GovTech) procurement policies, discourse on buy-side dynamics of
GovTech remains underdeveloped. Most studies treat public institutions as passive buyers and users of
digital solutions, rather than active co-shapers of the GovTech ecosystem. Only a few sources, such as
Mergel et al.’s analysis [
Given the absence of a clear, unified definition of GovTech providers, the term is often used implicitly rather than explicitly [15]. However, we identify three primary understandings of GovTech providers based on how they position themselves in the market and their relationship with the public sector:
General Providers of Government Technology Solutions – this broadest definition includes any company supplying technology to the public sector, regardless of size, specialization, or market focus. These firms range from large IT service providers to specialized government software firms [ 41][37].
Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises with Public Sector Oferings – Some definitions restrict
GovTech providers to SMEs that specifically develop solutions for public sector clients. This framing
aligns with the EU’s policy goal [
Startups Supplying Primarily to the Public Sector – A more specific categorization focuses on startups that develop explicitly targeted at public administrations needs. According to the European Startup Monitor, this segment is gaining prominence, with increasing numbers of GovTech-focused startups entering the market [15][44][26].
The environmental context in which GovTech operates is shaped by market forces and regulatory
frameworks. As with many emerging digital markets, the successful development of GovTech ecosystems
requires a balance between enabling innovation and implementing appropriate regulatory mechanisms
that safeguard public value provision [
To analyze the environmental factors influencing GovTech, we draw upon Niehaves et al.’s research [15], which provides a relevant analytical framework due to the lack of pre-existing empirical data on singular national GovTech ecosystems [45][15]. Our analysis identifies the following five environmental factors shaping the evolution of GovTech across European contexts:
Digital Market Creation and Development Policy – Several EU member states have adopted targeted policies aimed at fostering GovTech market ecosystems, either through direct government interventions, public funding schemes, or the establishment of specialized GovTech hubs [46][15]. These eforts are driven by the recognition that GovTech markets do not naturally emerge in the same way as traditional technology sectors.
Public Procurement Policies – An enabler of GovTech development and scaling is the structuring of
public procurement processes to favor SMEs. Initiatives such as the Interoperable Europe Act emphasize
the need for open, transparent, and innovation-friendly procurement policies to allow GovTech solutions
to scale within the public sector [47][
Government-Led Market Promotion – Many semi-public organizations and governmental agencies play a role in marketing GovTech and framing digital transformation as a mission-driven endeavor [17][38]. By fostering awareness and legitimacy, these institutions serve as intermediaries [15]. The framing of GovTech within the broader ”mission-driven public sector digitalization” narrative often serves to justify public investments and the development strategies.
Export-Supporting Policies – Some countries, particularly Estonia, have pursued GovTech export strategies, leveraging their domestic digital governance expertise to position themselves as leaders in global public sector technology solutions [35]. As such, the intersection of industrial policy and digital government strategy plays a significant role in determining how GovTech ecosystems evolve within and beyond the EU [15].
Public-Private Partnership Professionalization – As GovTech increasingly requires collaborative models between governments and private technology firms, the professionalization of public-private partnerships has emerged as a key factor in ensuring efective implementation and governance [ 49]. Establishing clear contracting frameworks, risk-sharing mechanisms, and accountability structures has been a central focus of recent policy eforts, particularly in relation to AI governance, cloud infrastructure, and cross-border interoperability initiatives.
Our analysis reveals variation in GovTech understanding across contexts. While discussion frequently
emphasizes technological solutions and organizational structures, environmental factors receive
considerably less attention. These factors are often treated as external constraints, rather than integral
components of GovTech development [
Rather than a single unified understanding of GovTech, we observe a matrix-like structure, where GovTech providers interact with GovTech solution users. How Govtech is used and what it means, strongly depends on the narrative forced by the speaker. However, regulatory and infrastructural dimensions remain ill-defined, often being used implicitly in policy discussions [ 15]. From this, we identify two overarching sociotechnical imaginaries, each reflecting a simplified narrative about what GovTech is, who drives it, and how it should be developed:
STI-1 The Innovation-Driven GovTech Imaginary: This sociotechnical imaginary envisions GovTech as a catalyst for digital innovation, with startups and SMEs positioned as key drivers of publicsector modernization [41]. The narrative surrounding this imaginary emphasizes: market-led digital transformation; public sector as a facilitator, not a leader; cross-sectoral collaboration; and scalability and exportability. This imaginary is particularly prominent in countries like France, Netherlands, and the UK, where GovTech accelerators, innovation hubs, and startup-driven ecosystems have gained momentum [35][46][15]. Best visible as from the Netherlands: ”GovTech is the application of new technologies and business models - primarily driven by partnerships with startups and scaleups - to improve the design and delivery of public services” [43][48].
STI-2 The State-Directed Digital Sovereignty Imaginary: In contrast to the innovation-driven
imaginary, this sociotechnical imaginary portrays GovTech as a strategic tool for national and European
digital sovereignty. It emphasizes: government-led digital infrastructure; reduced dependence on
BigTech; and interoperability and standardization. This imaginary aligns with the European
Commission’s approach, as seen in the Interoperable Europe Act [
Our analysis demonstrates that the visions and values associated with GovTech broadly encompass all
four public value dimensions—the professional ideal, eficiency ideal, service ideal, and engagement
ideal [21]. However, we find that eficiency and cost reduction are the most frequently emphasized
objectives. GovTech is primarily framed as a tool for optimizing administrative processes, reducing
operational costs, and improving government eficiency through technological innovation [
Although the literature acknowledges the complex relationships between diferent public values, including congruent and divergent relationships [21], the current GovTech discourse does not fully reflect this debate. In particular, discussions surrounding GovTech solutions rarely engage with questions of value prioritization or potential trade-ofs between competing values. For instance, while GovTech is often framed as enhancing eficiency, this objective may sometimes conflict with the professional ideal (which emphasizes institutional robustness and legal accountability) or the service ideal (which prioritizes accessibility and citizen-centric service quality). The lack of explicit discourse on such trade-ofs suggests a need for more critical engagement with the normative dimensions of GovTech implementation.
Furthermore, while we observe patterns in sociotechnical GovTech imaginaries [29], discourse
remains fragmented and utopian visions are inconsistent. Diferent narratives coexist, ranging from
innovation-driven digital markets [35] to state-directed sovereignty models [41], yet there is no singular,
cohesive vision guiding GovTech’s long-term trajectory. This ambiguity reflects the early-stage
development of GovTech ecosystems, where multiple actors are still negotiating their roles and responsibilities
[
Our findings contribute to the theoretical understanding of GovTech imaginaries by demonstrating that sociotechnical imaginaries are often latent rather than explicitly articulated [ 29]. , allowing for multiple interpretations and strategic ambiguity. This finding suggests that future GovTech research should move beyond merely identifying discursive patterns and instead analyze the mechanisms through which imaginaries become institutionalized in policy and governance frameworks. Moreover, our study highlights the gap between theoretical discussions on public values and real-world GovTech discourse. While academic literature recognizes the interdependencies and tensions between diferent public value ideals, these debates are not yet fully reflected in GovTech narratives.
For practitioners and policymakers, our findings emphasize several areas for improvement in the design and governance of GovTech ecosystems: 1. clarifying GovTech imaginaries – policymakers should explicitly define the role of GovTech within public administration, distinguishing between market-driven, innovation-focused approaches and state-directed digital sovereignty strategies. Without clear vision alignment, policy fragmentation may hinder scalability and interoperability in GovTech adoption, 2. developing a public value framework for GovTech – current GovTech policies lack explicit engagement with public value trade-ofs. Governments should integrate value-driven decision-making frameworks when designing procurement strategies, funding mechanisms, and regulatory structures to ensure GovTech solutions align with broader democratic governance principles, 3. enhancing GovTech procurement structures – given that procurement is a key bottleneck in GovTech adoption, structured mechanisms—such as innovation-friendly procurement models, cross-border regulatory alignment, and SME-focused funding programs—should be developed to diversify GovTech ecosystems and reduce reliance on dominant IT providers, and 4. bridging the regulatory and market divide – the regulatory environment for GovTech remains underdeveloped, with digital infrastructure and interoperability frameworks often treated as secondary concerns. Policymakers might prioritize regulatory road maps balancing market-driven innovation with strong state oversight to ensure secure, ethical, and scalable GovTech solutions.
This study examined the sociotechnical imaginaries shaping GovTech in Europe [
A major finding is the implicit nature of sociotechnical imaginaries in GovTech discourse. While visions are present, they are often vaguely articulated, leaving room for multiple interpretations and allowing for policy flexibility but also inconsistency [ 15]. Additionally, the debate surrounding GovTech does not fully reflect the theoretical discussions in public value research, which recognize tensions and trade-ofs between diferent governance ideals, such as eficiency, professionalism, service orientation, and democratic engagement [21].
While our study provides insights into the nature of GovTech imaginaries within the European
discourse, it is beset with limitations. Analysis is constrained by availability of documents, which may
not capture the full range of perspectives. Additionally, as GovTech remains a rapidly developing field,
its discourse is subject to continuous evolution, meaning that findings presented here may require
periodic reassessment as new policies, regulations, and market dynamics emerge [
Future research should build upon these findings by conducting empirical case studies of specific national GovTech ecosystems, examining how diferent countries implement and adapt GovTech policies regarding socioeconomic, sociotechnical and cultural aspects of government innovation. Further investigation into the institutionalization of sociotechnical imaginaries would also be beneficial, particularly in understanding how certain narratives become dominant in policy-making and what role governments, public administrations, private companies, and international organizations play in shaping them. Additionally, given the increasing reliance on public-private partnerships in GovTech [49], future research should explore the long-term implications of private sector involvement in public-sector digital transformation, particularly concerning public governance, procurement practices, and regulatory capture risks.
During the preparation of this work, the authors used Grammarly, DeepL, and ChatGPT in order to: Grammar and spelling check, Paraphrase and reword. After using this service, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the publication’s content. [12] M. Kuziemski, I. Mergel, P. Ulrich, A. Martinez, GovTech Practices in the EU, Publications Ofice of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022. [13] S. Jasanof, S.-H. Kim, Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the united states and south korea, Minerva 47 (2009) 119–146. [14] A. Burton-Jones, B. S. Butler, S. V. Scott, S. X. Xu, Examining assumptions: Provocations on the nature, impact, and implications of is theory, MIS Quarterly 45 (2021) 453–498. [15] B. Niehaves, G. Klassen, GovTech in Europe: Influencing Factors, Common Requirements and
Recommendations, Publications Ofice of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2024. [16] N. Davies, K. McBride, M. Kleinaltenkamp, Move fast and break things? barriers to govtech procurement in the united kingdom, in: International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2025), volume 1, 2025, pp. 1–15. doi:10.59490/dgo.2025.972. [17] World Economic Forum, The global public impact of govtech, https://www.weforum.org/ publications/the-global-public-impact-of-govtech/, 2025. Accessed: 2025-03-10. [18] J. Westermann, G. Klassen, L. T. Bauer, R. Fritzsche, Breaking tech monopolies: The role of public procurement in fostering sme-led innovation in europe, in: International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2025), volume 1, 2025, pp. 1–15. doi:10.59490/dgo.2025.973. [19] M. H. Moore, Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997. [20] F. Bannister, R. Connolly, Ict, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research, Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 119–128. [21] J. Rose, J. S. Persson, L. T. Heeager, Z. Irani, Managing e-government: value positions and relationships, Information Systems Journal 25 (2015) 531–571. [22] A. Cordella, C. M. Bonina, A public value perspective for ict enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection, Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012) 512–520. [23] F. Selten, A. Meijer, Managing algorithms for public value, International Journal of Public
Administration in the Digital Age (IJPADA) 8 (2021) 1–16. [24] M. Scutella, C. Plewa, C. Reaiche, Virtual agents in the public service: Examining citizens’ value-in-use, Public Management Review 26 (2024) 73–88. [25] A. P. Rodriguez Müller, C. Casiano Flores, V. Albrecht, T. Steen, J. Crompvoets, A scoping review of empirical evidence on (digital) public services co-creation, Administrative Sciences 11 (2021) 130. [26] L. Daßler, T. Ruckstuhl, A. Hein, H. Krcmar, From complexity to clarity - a taxonomy of govtech startup business models for public sector innovation, in: International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2025), volume 1, 2025, pp. 1–15. doi:10.59490/dgo.2025.971. [27] J. d. l. C. Twizeyimana, A. Andersson, The public value of e-government–a literature review,
Government Information Quarterly 36 (2019) 167–178. [28] C. M. Bonina, A. Cordella, Public sector reforms and the notion of ’public value’: Implications for egovernment deployment, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Government (EGOV), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 1–8. [29] T. Forsyth, S. Evans, W. Firestone, B. Hurlbut, S.-H. Kim, L. Vinsel, Sociotechnical imaginaries and science and technology policy: A cross-national comparison, Harvard Business Review 1 (2010). [30] S. Sismondo, Sociotechnical imaginaries: An accidental themed issue, Social Studies of Science 50 (2020) 505–507. [31] A. M. Levenda, J. Richter, T. Miller, E. Fisher, Regional sociotechnical imaginaries and the governance of energy innovations, Futures 109 (2019) 181–191. [32] M. Hoekstra, A. F. Van Veenstra, N. Bharosa, Success factors and barriers of govtech ecosystems: A case study of govtech ecosystems in the netherlands and lithuania, in: Proceedings of the 24th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2023, pp. 280–288. [33] J. G. McGann, 2019 global go to think tank index report, Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, University of Pennsylvania, 2020. Available at: https://webmaster.iit.edu/files/ifsh/ 2019-global-go-to-think-tank-index-report.pdf.