Res publica digitalis
The uneven digital transformation of the European public sector and the impact of policy disparities on governance, service efficiency, and socioeconomic inclusion
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19484266 |
|---|---|
| Authors | K Valaskova (0000-0003-4223-7519, University of Žilina), Marek Nagy (0000-0003-0740-6268, University of Žilina), Marcel Figura (0009-0004-9685-084X, University of Žilina), Pavel Rousek (0000-0002-2566-0203, Institute of Technology and Business) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 16 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 1177-1260 |
| Publication date | 2025-09-30 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Oeconomia Copernicana (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2083-1277 • E-ISSN: 2353-1827 |
| Publisher | Instytut Badan Gospodarczych / Institute of Economic Research (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.24136/oc.3866 |
| OpenAlex | W4415545132 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
Research background: Digital transformation has become a central pillar of public sector modernisation in the European Union (EU), with initiatives focusing on digital infrastructure, e-government services, human capital development, and research and innovation. The EU’s long-term strategy for digital advancement is aimed at narrowing performance gaps and fostering inclusive progress among member states. However, regional disparities, stagnation in certain countries, and inconsistent investments in research and public services reveal the complex nature of digital convergence. The COVID-19 crisis further exposed structural weaknesses while simultaneously accelerating digital transitions across the EU. Purpose of the article: This article aims to assess the development and inequality of public sector digitalisation across EU–27 countries. It focuses on identifying trends, regional shifts, and performance dynamics based on multidimensional evaluation. The study seeks to determine whether digital convergence is taking place, which countries are leading or lagging, and what policy implications emerge from the observed trajectories. Methods: The research employs a multi-method approach combining the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and the Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) method, Lorenz curve, Gini coefficient analysis, k-means clustering with PCA transformation, sensitivity analysis, and scenario modelling. A total of 24 criteria reflecting the digital maturity of the public sector, such as broadband access, digital skills, e-government services, and research and development (R&D) activity, were used. This comprehensive framework enables robust comparisons of performance levels, structural inequalities, and resilience to weight variations in composite indicators. Findings & value added: The analysis reveals a measurable decline in digital inequality within the EU, as shown by a steady reduction in the Gini coefficient over time. Countries like Austria, Cyprus, and Croatia demonstrated significant upward mobility, driven by strategic investment and consistent policy support. Conversely, countries such as Romania and Belgium experienced relative decline due to stagnation in innovation and public service quality. Sensitivity testing confirmed the robustness of the applied model, while scenario analysis highlighted the transformative potential of targeted interventions. The value added of this research lies in its integrated analytical framework, which not only maps digital progress but also identifies structural challenges and policy leverage points essential for achieving a more cohesive digital Europe
Digital divide · Digital transformation · European union · Modernization theory · Private sector · Public sector · Economic Issues in Ukraine · Local Government Finance and Decentralization · Regional Development and Policy
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 3 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |