Implications of Private- Sector Tools and Methods in Public Administration:

A Review of The Most Crucial Reforms of Public Administration

Panagiota I. XANTHOPOULOU
University of Western Macedonia, Kozani, Greece
pattyxanth@gmail.com

Ioannis ANTONIADIS
University of Western Macedonia, Kozani, Greece
iantoniadis@uowm.gr

Sotiria Α. TRIANTARI
University of Western Macedonia, Kozani, Greece
striantari@uowm.gr

Abstract
Public sector worldwide faces increasingly pressing challenges. In recent years, it is commonly accepted that adopting
practices and tools from the private sector, such as “strategic thinking”, “customer focus”, “performance measurement”,
“new technologies” and “continuous improvement” is the best way to address many of the problems in public sector’s
management. The current paper presents some of the most important and contemporary tools and practices of the private
sector that were introduced in public administration especially from the New Public Management reform until today. The
current study followed the integrative or critical review approach which aims to evaluate, analyze, and synthesize the
literature on a study issue in a way that encourages the emergence of new theoretical frameworks and viewpoints. The
importance of the study lies in two points, first the research approach is not common on the administration literature and
secondly it adds more information from the current literature, and this could help researchers and policymakers to identify
the key best practices that will increase the quality of public services. Findings showed that while there are many reforms
in the Greek public administration, some of them failed to reach their final aim due to issues such as corruption,
mismanagement, and maladministration. However, the Greek public administration significantly introduced a strategic way
of thinking and managing the organisations.

Keywords: Public sector reforms, Performance Measurement, Strategic Management, Digitalization

Introduction
By the time that the governments started to get involved in the production of pure public goods, and sometimes private
ones, public administration became subject to control. Public organizations and services with a strategic value for the
socioeconomic welfare and development are all part of the economic activity in Greece. For their proper operation there is
a need for a contemporary and efficient system of administration and management, supported by scientifically educated
and effective staff. Greek government’s operations generate a wide range of goods, which causes parallels between public
and private organisations. Public and private entities can be distinguished by their differing goals and purposes. More
specifically, the main goal of private organisations, also known as companies, is to maximize social welfare while being
financially successful and profitable. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish the borders between public and private sector
due to the increasing involvement of the private and non-governmental organizations in the fields of public administration
and its policies. Partnerships between the private and public sector (PPPs), in which the public sector contracts with private
organisations to provide some services, are a common practice of such coordination. Furthermore, public sector strongly
affects entrepreneurship and has a strong impact on people’s intention to become entrepreneurs, while there are also public
organisations that cooperate with startups especially to exchange knowledge and best practices (Sahinidis et al., 2021).
Table 1 presents another significant difference between the two sectors regarding the employment status. Specifically,
there are less distinctions between public employees with (public law status) and those with (private law status) in the
majority of EU nations. For example, a more thorough examination of the rights and obligations of these two employment
types reveals that, in many EU Member States, the differences are not as significant as their legal status might suggest. In
countries such Bulgaria, Greece, Croatia, and Italy there are high differences among these two types of employment.

________________
Cite this Article as: Panagiota I. XANTHOPOULOU, Ioannis ANTONIADIS and Sotiria Α. TRIANTARI “Implications
of Private- Sector Tools and Methods in Public Administration: A Review of The Most Crucial Reforms of Public
Administration” Proceedings of the 40th International Business Information Management Association (IBIMA),
23-24 November 2022, Seville, Spain, ISBN: 979-8-9867719-0-8, ISSN: 2767-9640

994
 Table 1. Differences between public employees and civil servants
High Medium Low
BG, EL, HR, IT BE, CZ, FR, HU, LT, MT, PL, PT, SI, AT, CY, DK, DE, EE, ES, FI,
UK IE, LU, LV, NL, RO, SE, SK

Source: EC, 2018 “A comparative overview of public administration characteristics and performance in EU28”

The following paragraphs include the review of the literature regarding the most important reforms that took place in the
Greek public administration and the main conclusions that arise.

Literature Review

The administrative reform of New Public Management and its core values

The importance of the strategic management and the performance measurement within the public sector was developed
mainly by the reform of the New Public Management (NPM) which aimed to adjust the performance measurement
methods applied in private organizations for the public ones to be more effectively organized thus satisfying people’s needs
and creating public value (Bracci et al., 2017; Xanthopoulou, 2022;Ammons, 2019; Holzer and Zhang, 2019; Kearney,
2018; Mayne and Zapico-Goñi, 2017; Janita and Miranda, 2018; Kearney, 2018). The values of the New Public
Management soon widened, as it was commonly accepted that a reform should include more economic parameters to be
effective. Economy, efficiency, and effectiveness were the main criteria for measuring the performance of public services,
however today there are more qualitative indicators such as the social responsibility and actions, the effective
organisational culture, the accountability and the transparency, the participation and the interaction with the citizens, the
levels of trust etc. (Mansoor, 2021; Xanthopoulou et al., 2022). This focus on measuring the efficiency and reducing the
cost of public services in several areas of public policy (such as social policy, public health, education/training, and
employment), has led in several cases to the deterioration of the provided services and to limited or even negative results
(Lapuente and Van de Walle, 2020; Elkomy et al., 2019). According to international experience, there is a need for a
holistic measurement in all three key areas while at the same time it is crucial to consider the citizens’ satisfaction in order
to evaluate the quality of services and the real results of a policy’s implementation (He and Ma, 2021; Suzuki and
Demircioglu, 2021; Bauhr and Carlitz, 2021). It became obvious that there was a need for a good governance.
“Governance” as a term is mainly used to describe the complexity of the reform processes while it emphasizes to the
human factor (mainly the citizens). There are two core values of a good governance system, the “legitimacy” and
“accountability”. Legitimacy is associated with the democratic process and the people’s right to agree or disagree with the
actions of the public state. The existence of mechanisms is very important for questioning the government. Accountability
strongly relates with Legitimacy and means the responsibility of the politicians and public servants regarding the use of
public resources and their general actions. Accountability symbolizes the “good governance” and according to Abdou
(2021) it is a main condition to ensure transparency.

The most recent trends of reforms which have been observed include: (a) the partial or total privatization of selected public
services and organisations, the adoption of private sector practices and the creation of internal markets (b) the participation
of public officials in decision-making process and in citizen’s empowerment; (c) regulatory reforms based on deregulation
and (d) flexible governance that advocates the development of adaptable systems to better and more quickly address
contemporary concerns (Ongaro and Kickert, 2020; Lapuente and Van de Walle, 2020; Mylona and Mihail, 2019;
Lampropoulou and Oikonomou, 2018; Bracci et al., 2021; Cestari, et al., 2018). Digital governance is a modern reform that
makes use of information technology to enhance government while also enhancing public engagement in the democratic
process. Figures 1 and 2 below present the institutional (Figure 1) and economic-management (Figure 2) reforms that took
place in Greece from the late 80’s until today.

995
2
 Law 3528/2007 on
Development of the
Local government-first transparent selection
human resources of public
level (LAW 1622/1986) criteria for heads of
organizations
administrative units

New inspection and

Local government-second New public administration control bodies ("Public
level code- Law 2683/1999 Administration
Inspectors" (Law
2477/1997), "General
Inspector Service",
created in 2002 (Law
3074/2002)
Compulsory merger of first
Supreme Council for Civil
level local government
Personnel Selection
units under the Law
(ASEP) (Law 2190/1994
2539/1997

Elements of e-government Creation of the

and ICT Independent Authorities

Fig 1. Institutional reforms of the Greek Public Administration

Source: authors own work

90s-2000s: redefining the Gradual privatization

Public-Private Partnerships
90's: cuts in the public sector boundaries of the public and
(PPPs) Creation of Public Enterprises
private sectors

Reduction of bureaucracy: Law

Introduction of new 1943/91736, Law 1947/1991737,
Creation of Regulatory Open governance (Law
management techniques (BMS, Law 2000/1991738,
Authorities 4305/2014)
BPR, CAF, etc.) Law.4179/2013740, Law
3230/2004 and more

Law 4250/2014 (Official Gazette

Electronic Government Action Continuous education and
Transparency and accountability 74/Α΄/26.03.2014), abolition of
Plan 2014-2020 training of Human Resources
licensing

Fig 2. Management and Economic Reforms of the Greek Public Administration

Source: authors own work

Performance Measurement
In recent decades, one of the most intensively explored issues in public administration literature has been the importance of
performance measurement (Broadbent and Guthrie, 2008). As public organizations strive to deploy new measuring
techniques to support their aims, it is gaining more attention (Ohemeng et al., 2018). Performance measurement (PM) is
one of key tools, which help to assess the present situation and to make decisions based on specific data, when it is also
strong related with the quality of provided services. The measurement of organization's performance has been understood
as one of management functions (Balabonienė and Večerskienė, 2015). The most quoted definition of performance
measurement comes from Neely et al.’s. (2005, p. xiii) who describe it as “the process of quantifying the efficiency and
effectiveness of past actions”. Additionally, PM describes the organizational improvement and effectiveness through

996
3
measuring the final outcomes. In public sector, the importance of performance measurement was developed even more by
New Public Management which aimed to adjust the performance measurement methods applied in private organizations
for the public ones in order to be better and more effectively organized thus satisfying people’s needs and creating public
value (Bracci et al., 2017). Briefly stated, performance measurement entails the periodic collection and analysis of data on
program inputs and outcomes. Performance based management (PBM) refers to the utilization of the information derived
from performance measurement systems for program learning, accountability, improvement, and program justification
(AGBOOLA, 2018). The implementation of performance measurement systems and tools in public sector is also a vital
part of the recent reforms. However, there is still a need for setting specialized performance indicators, including budgeting
and human resources, which will be interconnected with the imposition of incentives and compliance penalties at
institutional level. The interconnection of measurement with the financial performance and mainly with the financing of
public agencies and the imposition of incentives and funding penalties emerge from the international experience to address
the frequent problems of limited and false- compliance of public agencies. In addition, another part of the performance
measurement should be the measurement of employees’ performance (Smith and Bititci, 2017; Taouab and Issor, 2019). At
the same time, measurement procedures should be standardized and simplified, to avoid the creation of additional
bureaucracy in the already burdened performance of the agencies, and to evaluate different data sources, utilizing the
possibilities provided by digital governance and data science (MacLean and Titah, 2022). For instance, the majority of
public organizations have already begun their digitalization journeys, and many of them have successfully met their
problems (Cinar et al., 2019). Metrics and indicators for measuring digital progress are now at the heart of these reforms.
Existing metrics focus on numerical indicators of digital technology's presence in the public sector (output measures), but
they do not measure the quality of the digitalized public sector (outcome measures) (Febiri and Hub, 2021). Figure 3 below
refers to the overall performance score for EU Member States. The lower the score, the better a country's ability, and
performance. We can see that the Nordic countries Denmark, Finland and Sweden somewhat outperform the other EU
member states in terms of public administration performance. A second group of countries such as the Netherlands, the
United Kingdom, Estonia, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, Germany, and France follow closely behind. On the contrary, the
greatest need for administrative improvement appears in Romania, Greece, Croatia, and Bulgaria but also in Italy, Cyprus,
Hungary and Slovakia.

Fig 3. Overall assessment of public administration capacity and performance of the EU Member States

Source: EC, 2018“A comparative overview of public administration characteristics and performance in EU28”

Management by Objectives and the Common Assessment Framework

The law on performance management in the public sector, which referred to the obligation of organizations to prepare five-
year strategic plans and annual action plans, with specific objectives and measurement indicators for all the agencies of the
Greek public administration, was the first to introduce performance measurement of public services in Greece. A
legislation passed in 2004 (Law 3230/2004) that addressed Management by Objectives (MBO) and performance evaluation
called for the development of "quality and efficiency" in both central and local public administration. Based on well
recognized approaches for assessing the internal and external environments of public organizations, this model of strategic
planning and measuring (such as SWOT and PESTEL analysis). Additionally, it refers to particular activities and goals that
must be accomplished (Balanced Scorecard), as well as important indicators for determining their level of success
(Management By Objectives). Goal setting in general is a process of determining clear goals and objectives derived from
the top hierarchy, essential for the formulation and implementation of planning. The introduction of specific and
measurable objectives in the public sector is a practice which aims to increase the efficiency of public services. The model
of strategic planning also tried to solve significant problems, essentially the absence of the strategic planning and
measurement in the Greek public administration. Additionally, the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) was
implemented in the public sector in 2007 with the intention of evaluating the requirements of personnel working in public

997
4
administration. CAF also intended to measure agency services using participatory methods (Kalfa and Yetim, 2020;
Dragomir, 2019). It is worth mentioning that CAF is the only tool of self-evaluation created from the public sector for the
needs of the public sector (Erdőssy et al., 2022). The Greek National Center of Public Administration established
specialized training programs for public officials at the level of human resources. Approximately 2,500 members of the
Greek public administration received training in strategic planning and measuring throughout the course of the five-year
period from 2005 to 2022. It should be noted that the government program to reinvent the state, through the reorganization
of public administration and the adoption of a public services model less bureaucratic, decentralized, and based on strategic
planning and measurement, which would provide quality services to citizens, included the reform for the performance
management development in the Greek public administration. In order to increase accountability, the Public
Administration strengthened its policy with a further specialization under the Law 4369/2016, specifically with the Article
22, which mandates the setting of an objective, defined over time as well as with specific measurable objectives and
performance indicators identified with the staff at the level of each service.

Strategic Planning and Management

Strategic planning was first introduced in Greece in the mid-eighties mainly to the local governments, with the onslaught of
democratic planning legislation in 1986. Within this framework of democratic planning, municipalities were asked to
compile medium-term programs for the development of infrastructure projects, and to devise other ways to promote local
financial development in their regional units. Further on, as part of the 1997 “Kapodistrias” program for the reform of local
administration, these development programs were institutionalized in local public investment plans (Plimakis, 2018). Τhe
introduction of strategic planning in local government was further supported by the “Kallikratis” reform in 2010, which
established specialized units (strategic planning units) for the support and coordination of the implementation of
municipalities’ operation plans, and the promotion of administrative reforms at the municipal level (Oikonomou, 2020).
The Kallikratis reform was also invested in the institutionalization of public consultation in municipal plans, and in the
promotion and monitoring of transparency and accountability for achieving a better performance at municipal services. The
main objective was that the local government observatory would be able to rationalize budgetary practices and to
systematize the financial management carried out by municipal authorities. The observatory aimed to develop new
competencies for the auditing and evaluation of municipal service provisions by 2017. However, ten years after these first
strategic planning and evaluation strategies were introduced to Greece, there still exist significant issues, as many local
governments continually fail to comply with these plans or do so in very limited rates. Moreover, these programs were
characterized by issues such as centralization and co-competencies in the planning and implementation of strategic
planning actions (Tsekos and Hlepas, 2019). The implementation of the newest law for the promotion of strategic planning
in Greece - known as the ‘Steering state’ law - will be crucial (Ching-Chiang et al., 2022). The law is hopeful as, in directly
involving the Prime Minister and its cabinet, it hints towards a potential increase in political commitment and support for
performance monitoring and transparent evaluation within the central state. However, it is necessary to note that the
implementation of the law has already faced delays, and issues regarding the lack of data on the Ministries’ action plans,
progress, decision-making, and management. It is worth mentioning that Greece is still weak in issues related with public
sector’s transparency and accountability (Figure 4) in comparison with other members of European Union.

Fig 4. Overall assessment of transparency and accountability

Source: EC, 2018“A comparative overview of public administration characteristics and performance in EU28”

New Technologies and Digital Governance

The current pandemic of Covid-19 gave space to another reform that mainly included the use of New Technologies and the
Digital Governance of public as a response for better services to citizens. "E-Government" refer to innovative information

998
5
and communication technologies (ICTs), in particular web applications, that governments use to provide citizens and
businesses access to governmental information and services, ensuring thus a greater participation in democratic processes
and transparency (Malodia et al., 2021). Needs and priorities were dramatically changed in the context of the pandemic
crisis. The Greek Ministry of Digital Government was requested to assist in containing the coronavirus by ensuring that
individuals, particularly those from the most vulnerable categories, do not sign up for public services while they are
awaiting the documents and certifications needed for their everyday existence. Everyone had the option to do their business
with the State while remaining at home. Within this situation the digital portal called “gov.gr” was activated, enabling
citizens to perform a number of tasks from their computer or mobile device, such as the issue of responsible statements and
authorizations, without being required to visit the different counters and putting their health and others' health at risk. For
the same reason, the Citizens' Service Centre (CSC) has changed to give people the option of handling urgent requests over
the phone, while any typed documents would be sent to their home for free by postal service, protecting both personnel and
citizens. For the innovations that were implemented, such as "gov.gr," the intangible prescription, the linking of e-EFKA
with the Citizens' Register, etc., several months of planned preparation were done beforehand. The current pandemic,
however, underlined the need for faster and more narrowed timetables. For the first time in the recent reforms, individuals
were called to communicate, work and be entertained almost exclusively through technology. It becomes more obvious
than ever before that digitalization of the public administration and government is becoming even more imperative, not
only against coronavirus but also for bureaucracy. The use of information and communication technologies is the most
recent development that is used for supporting governments and their public services. According to Falco and Kleinhans
(2018) there is a lack of advanced technological solutions capable of encouraging cooperation between citizens and
governments. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development asks for transformation in public service at all levels of
government and public administration through increased creativity and innovation. Online transactions and interactions
between the government and each stakeholder form the following web of relationships: G2C, G2B, G2G and G2E. Figure
5 below presents the ranking of Greece in terms of digital transformation according to the DESI index from 2012 to 2022.
Obviously Greece has made some significant efforts but there are still many issues to be solved in order to effectively
introduce digital reform in public sector’s operations.

Fig 5. DESI score of Greece and EU (2012-2022)

Source: authors’ own work

A recent example that combines management by objectives with the entry of new technologies is implementation of “e-
stohothesia”. The Ministry of the Interior, the municipalities, the ministries, the decentralized administrations, the
independent authorities, and the health sector of the country are all invited to start the procedures for drawing up the setting
of annual objectives, in application of the "Management by Objectives" System for the year 2022. In the direction of a
holistic imprint of the "Management by Objectives" system in Public Organizations, the General Secretariat of Human
Resources of the Public Sector has developed an electronic application for the submission of annual goal-setting decisions
and the registration of the objectives of public organizations. Another typical example of the introduction of new
technologies in public sector’s operation is the use of BlockChain technology. Among several contemporary information
and knowledge management systems, blockchain has been employed as a lever to improve accountability and reaction. The
fundamental idea behind blockchain is that it encourages the use of technical platforms and tools to implement anonymous
integrity control for various sorts of information (Joseph, 2019). Most of academics and executives think that utilizing this
ground-breaking technology might have a number of advantages, the most significant of which is increased confidence and
trust in BCT applications. The BCT addresses this issue of utmost relevance due to its distinct qualities at a time when
governments are looking to increase citizens’ participation and sense of trust. As this technology continues to progress,
more and more governments are taking part in pilot projects in various areas, such as government, health, banking, and

999
6
education. (Treiblmaier and Sillaber, 2020; Datta, 2021)

Conclusions
The chronic issues of mismanagement, corruption and bureaucracy that characterized the Greek public administration for
many years were all administrative pathogens of the Hellenic Public Administration which the above-mentioned reforms
tried to solve. These reforms also aimed to connect public administration with new management practices and tools in
order to establish an administration based on proper management, more flexible, measurable and efficient. Obviously, the
political and administrative culture of public sector has not yet changed as it is still based on strict formality and focus on
the letter of the law which prevent flexibility and innovativeness and do not allow any reform to be really effective. To
modify the current mindset that some organizations may continue to operate by enriching themselves through corruption
techniques, the activity of the control bodies should be directly tied to the transparency and objectivity of the results. In
general, if Greek public administration is to effectively combat corruption, mismanagement, and maladministration, major
technological advances and radical structural reforms are required. This is because, particularly in earlier years, a lack of
readiness, inadequate prevention mechanisms, and a lack of management tools contributed to a massive, if not a
consolidation, of lawlessness. An aggressive effort is being undertaken to combat corruption and enhance public services
with the formation of the inspection and control organizations. Public administrations worldwide move from a strict and
traditional way of management to more citizen-oriented services and processes that promote quality, transparency,
effectiveness, and increased performance. These practices of the post-NPM era focus on the strategic way of thinking and
managing the organisations.

A key learning from the Greek case is that all reform initiatives require a strategic vision, the lack of such led to limited
impact of EU supported civil service reforms. The reform process may stop or go backward if it occurs under conditions of
economic strain and pressure from other players (such as the “Troika” and the Greece bailout package). This is because of
external pressures to reorganize and reduce public expenditure. While a crisis may be a powerful motivator for reforms,
stability and a sense of security are also important for reforms to succeed.

References

• Abdou, A.M. (2021) “Good governance and Covid‐19: The Digital Bureaucracy to response the pandemic
(Singapore as a model),” Journal of Public Affairs, 21(4). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2656.
• AGBOOLA, T. O. (2018). “Performance-Based Management in Nigerian Public Sector: Issues and
Challenges”, Ife Social Sciences Review, 26(1), 24-35.\
• Ammons, D. N. (2019) Productivity barriers in the public sector, In Public productivity handbook (pp. 147-173),
CRC Press.
• Balabonienė, I., and Večerskienė, G. (2015). “The aspects of performance measurement in public sector
organization”, Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 213, 314-320.
• Bauhr, M. and Carlitz, R. (2020) “When does transparency improve public services? street‐level discretion,
information, and targeting,” Public Administration, 99(3), 500–516. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12693.
• Bracci, E., Maran, L. and Inglis, R. (2017) “Examining the process of performance measurement system design
and implementation in two Italian Public Service Organizations,” Financial Accountability and Management,
33(4), 406–421. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12131.
• Bracci, E., Saliterer, I., Sicilia, M., and Steccolini, I. (2021). “Accounting for (public) Value(s): Reconsidering
publicness in Accounting Research and Practice,” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 34(7), 1513–
1526. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-06-2021-5318.
• Cestari, J. M. A. P., de Lima, E. P., Deschamps, F., Van Aken, E. M., Treinta, F., and Moura, L. F. (2018), “A
case study extension methodology for performance measurement diagnosis in nonprofit
organizations”. International Journal of Production Economics, 203, 225-238.
• Ching-Chiang, L. W. C., Fernández-Cárdenas, J. M., Lotz, N., González-Nieto, N. A., Gaved, M., Jones, D., ...
and Machado, R. (2022), “From digital divide to Digital Discovery: Re-thinking online learning and interactions
in marginalized communities,” Innovation Practices for Digital Transformation in the Global South, 34–58.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12825-7_3.
• Cinar, E., Trott, P. and Simms, C. (2018) “A systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation process,”
Public Management Review, 21(2), 264–290. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1473477.
• Datta, A. (2021) “Blockchain enabled Digital Government and Public Sector Services: A survey,” Public
Administration and Information Technology, 175–195. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55746-
1_8.
• Dragomir, C. (2019), “Quality of public services and promotion of quality management in public institutions in
EU member states”, Review of General Management, 29(2), 43-54.

1000
7
• Elkomy, S., Cookson, G., and Jones, S. (2019), “Cheap and dirty: the effect of contracting out cleaning on
efficiency and effectiveness”, Public Administration Review, 79(2), 193-202.
• Erdőssy, I., Kerekes, L. and Szőcs, I. (2022) “Strategic planning and performance management for citizens of
Harghita County with the introduction of the CAF based Quality Management Tool (CAFHR) project,” Műszaki
Tudományos Közlemények, 16(1), 15–23. Available at: https://doi.org/10.33894/mtk-2022.16.04.
• European Commision (2018), “A comparative overview of public administration characteristics and performance
in EU28”. [online], [Retrieved 25 October 2022], https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/3e89d981-48fc-11e8-be1d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
• Falco, E. and Kleinhans, R. (2018) “Beyond technology: Identifying local government challenges for using digital
platforms for citizen engagement,” International Journal of Information Management, 40, 17–20. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.01.007.
• Febiri, F. and Hub, M. (2021) “Digitalization of global economy: A qualitative study exploring key indicators use
to measure digital progress in the Public Sector,” SHS Web of Conferences, 92, 05006. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20219205006.
• He, A.J. and Ma, L. (2020) “Citizen participation, perceived public service performance, and Trust in
Government: Evidence from health policy reforms in Hong Kong,” Public Performance and Management Review,
44(3), 471–493. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1780138.
• Holzer, M. (2019) “Public productivity handbook.” Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781482277074.
• Janita, M.S. and Miranda, F.J. (2018) “Quality in e-government services: A proposal of dimensions from the
perspective of public sector employees,” Telematics and Informatics, 35(2), 457–469. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.01.004.
• Joseph, B.K. (2019) “Blockchain for open data – exploring conceptual underpinnings and Practice,” Governance
Models for Creating Public Value in Open Data Initiatives, 161–175. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-14446-3_8.
• Kalfa, M. and Yetim, A.A. (2018) “Organizational self-assessment based on common assessment framework to
improve the organizational quality in Public Administration,” Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, 31(11-12), 1307–1324. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1475223.
• Kearney, R. (2018) “Public sector performance.” Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429497964.
• Lampropoulou, M. and Oikonomou, G. (2016) “Theoretical models of public administration and patterns of state
reform in Greece,” International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(1), 101–121. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315611219.
• Lapuente, V. and Van de Walle, S. (2020) “The effects of new public management on the quality of public
services,” Governance, 33(3), pp. 461–475. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12502.
• Law 3230. 2004. Management by Objectives, Measurement of Efficiency and Other Provisions. Official Gazette
No. 44/A/11-2-2004, [Online], [Retrieved on 4 October 2022], https://www.lawspot.gr/nomikes-
plirofories/nomothesia/nomos-3230-2004.
• MacLean, D. and Titah, R. (2021) “A systematic literature review of empirical research on the impacts of e‐
government: A public value perspective,” Public Administration Review, 82(1), 23–38. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13413.
• Malodia, S. et al. (2021) “Future of e-government: An integrated conceptual framework,” Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121102. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121102.
• Mansoor, M. (2021) “Citizens' Trust in government as a function of good governance and government agency's
provision of quality information on social media during COVID-19,” Government Information Quarterly, 38(4),
101597. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101597.
• Mayne, J. and Zapico-Goñi, E. (2017) “Effective performance monitoring: A necessary condition for public sector
reform,” Monitoring Performance in the Public Sector, 3–30. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315124681-2.
• Mylona, E. and Mihail, D. (2018) “Enhancing employees’ work performance through organizational justice in the
context of financial crisis. A study of the Greek Public Sector,” International Journal of Public Administration,
42(6), 509–519. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1491592.
• Neely, A. (2005) “The evolution of Performance Measurement Research,” International Journal of Operations
andamp; Production Management, 25(12), 1264–1277. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570510633648.
• Ohemeng, F.L.K., Amoako-Asiedu, E. and Obuobisa Darko, T. (2018) “The relationship between leadership style
and employee performance,” International Journal of Public Leadership, 14(4), 274–296. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpl-06-2017-0025.
• Oikonomou, G. (2019) “Decentralizing governance within the European Union’s Framework: Evidence from
Greece,” International Journal of Public Administration, 43(7), 621–633. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1644653.
• Ongaro, E. and Kickert, W. (2019) “EU-Driven Public Sector Reforms,” Public Policy and Administration, 35(2),
117–134. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076719827624.
• Plimakis, S. (2018) “Strategic planning and service provision in Greek Local Government: A comparative

1001
8
 assessment,” Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal [Preprint]. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.56.4773.
• Sahinidis, A.G., Xanthopoulou, P., Tsaknis, P. and Vassiliou, E. (2021) “Age and Prior Working Experience
Effect on entrepreneurial intention,” Corporate and Business Strategy Review, 2(1), 18–26. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.22495/cbsrv2i1art2.
• Smith, M. and Bititci, U.S. (2017) “Interplay between performance measurement and management, employee
engagement and performance,” International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 37(9), 1207–
1228. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-06-2015-0313.
• Suzuki, K. and Demircioglu, M.A. (2020) “Is impartiality enough? government impartiality and citizens'
perceptions of public service quality,” Governance, 34(3), 727–764. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12527.
• Taouab, O. and Issor, Z. (2019) “Firm performance: Definition and measurement models,” European Scientific
Journal ESJ, 15(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2019.v15n1p93.
• Treiblmaier, H. and Sillaber, C. (2020) “A case study of blockchain-induced digital transformation in the public
sector,” Progress in IS, 227–244. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44337-5_11.
• Tsekos, T.N. and Hlepas, N.K. (2018) “Greek municipalities before and during the austerity era: Imposed
policies, local resistance and unsuccessful reforms,” Local Public Services in Times of Austerity across
Mediterranean Europe, 49–71. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76225-8_3.
• Xanthopoulou, P. (2022) “Blockchain and the digital transformation of the public sector: The Greek Experience,”
Technium Social Sciences Journal, 32, 558–570. Available at: https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v32i1.6702.
• Xanthopoulou, P., Sahinidis, A., and Bakaki, Z. (2022), “The impact of strong cultures on organisational
performance in public organisations: The case of the Greek Public Administration,” Social Sciences, 11(10), 486.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100486.

1002
9