Public sector use of new technology: opportunities and challenges

This symposium originated from a workshop at Sun Yat Sen University, Guangzhou, in November 2019 with the theme, “Taking Advantage of New Technology”. There have been extraordinary developments in new technology and its utilisation in recent years, China and Australia being two exemplars in the Asia Pacific region. Governments in these two countries are increasingly conscious that citizens expect them to deliver services as conveniently and responsively as the best private sector services, utilising the latest technology. They also recognise the potential efficiency gains involved. But there are also many challenges, and lessons that are internationally relevant.

In the lead article, “Improving public services using artificial intelligence: possibilities, pitfalls, governance”, Paul Henman describes how many governments are developing and deploying artificial intelligence. He outlines four major challenges: ensuring accuracy and avoiding bias and discrimination; upholding administrative justice and meeting legal and due process requirements; ensuring accountability, transparency and explainability; and, appropriately managing the power of AI to control people and groups of people. Some of these challenges are not new, but are exacerbated by AI; some are new as AI enables people, and governments, to do things not possible before.

In the following article, “Understanding the evolution of public–private partnerships in Chinese e-government: four stages of development”, Te Liu, Xuemin Yang and Yueping Zheng examine the trajectory of China’s use of information and communications technology, highlighting the changing relationship between government and private sector suppliers. To gain the greatest benefits from emerging technologies, China is now pursuing collaborative approaches through joint ventures where risks as well as investments are shared. Many of the challenges identified will be familiar to those outside China, including managing public-private collaborations and ensuring accountability for the public resources involved. Clarifying the boundaries and respective responsibilities is particularly challenging in China, however, where the overall boundaries between government, the market and civil society are blurred and still evolving.

In “Managing technology in large public organisations”, Dennis Trewin, a former Australian Statistician, provides detailed practical advice for senior executives of agencies like national statistical bureaus that rely heavily on modern technology, for example, to manage big data. He emphasises the importance of projects being business-driven not technology-driven, of careful risk management and of appreciation of the “externalities” involved such as the impact on privacy.

In “Enhancing civil service capability: emergence of the professions model”, Richard Bartlett, a senior executive in the Australian Public Service Commission, describes Australia’s “professions model” aimed to foster core professional skills across the public service, including in information technology development and management. The model is intended to address recent concerns about public sector capability, concerns also being raised in other countries. The model should therefore be of wide international interest.

Meili Niu and Muhua Lin (“When the power of the purse meets the power of technology: a case study of Guangzhou People's Congress in China”) examine an initiative by the Guangzhou People’s Congress to improve its capacity to oversee the city’s budget. Like other legislatures in China, the Guangzhou People’s Congress has limited resources and time to scrutinise budget proposals or to review final expenditures. The initiative involves using new technology systems to link agencies’ data, monitor the process of new policy and project development, identify changes (and errors) and relate actual spending to approved budgets and targets. Peoples Congresses are not independent of the party-state and are not democratically elected, but Guangzhou’s initiative is facilitating greater public scrutiny and providing a check (albeit still limited) on the executive. It is attracting attention in other cities and provinces across China.

Rob Bray, Matthew Gray and David Stanton (“Performance management and evaluation meets culture and politics: Australia's experience”) review developments in Australia’s longstanding use of performance management to promote “results-based” public administration. While the application of new technologies and big data opens up some opportunities for strengthened evidence-based policy, it does not overcome the tension between a disciplined results-based approach and the inherently political nature of government decisions. Indeed, in exploring debates about the scope of evaluations and their degree of independence, and the ways in which programme objectives and performance indicators are set, the article suggests that political considerations in Australia remain central (arguably excessively so); also, there are ethical as well as technical challenges in the use of big data, requiring political consideration.