SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sayıştay Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 37 Sayı: 140

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY AND ACCOUNTABILITY: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS ON G20 COUNTRIES

DİJİTAL TEKNOLOJİ VE HESAP VEREBİLİRLİK İLİŞKİSİ: G20 ÜLKELERİ ÜZERİNE AMPİRİK BİR İNCELEME

Mahmut Ünsal Şaşmaz(Uşak Üniversitesi)0000-0001-9485-3933
Ahmet Özen(DOKUZ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9635-5134
Pages
35–63
Publication Date
2026-04-11
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that internet use has a positive and statistically significant long-run effect on accountability, while the shortand long-run effects of mobile subscriptions differ.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Although the diffusion of digital technologies is widely regarded as an important policy instrument for strengthening transparency and accountability in public administration, the extent of this relationship is increasingly debated due to differences in countries’ institutional structures.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Digital transformation, which has accelerated with the expansion of internet use and entered a new phase with artificial intelligence–supported applications, has also reshaped accountability mechanisms and governance practices in the public sector.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that internet use has a positive and statistically significant long-run effect on accountability, while the shortand long-run effects of mobile subscriptions differ.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:2002–2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Dijitalleşme · Hesap Verebilirlik · G20 Ülkeleri

Abstract

Although the diffusion of digital technologies is widely regarded as an important policy instrument for strengthening transparency and accountability in public administration, the extent of this relationship is increasingly debated due to differences in countries’ institutional structures. Digital transformation, which has accelerated with the expansion of internet use and entered a new phase with artificial intelligence–supported applications, has also reshaped accountability mechanisms and governance practices in the public sector. This study analyzes the relationship between digitalization and accountability in G20 countries over the period 2002–2021 by employing the Pooled Mean Group (ARDL) estimator and the Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) panel causality test. The findings indicate that internet use has a positive and statistically significant long-run effect on accountability, while the shortand long-run effects of mobile subscriptions differ. Moreover, a unidirectional causal relationship from digitalization indicators to accountability is identified. Overall, the results suggest that the impact of digitalization on accountability varies depending on institutional structures and digital governance capacity, and that digitalization does not automatically lead to stronger accountability outcomes.

Özet

Dijital teknolojilerin yaygınlaşması, kamu yönetiminde şeffaflık ve hesap verebilirliği güçlendiren önemli bir politika aracı olarak görülmekle birlikte, bu ilişkinin ülkelerin kurumsal yapısına bağlı olarak farklılaştığı giderek daha fazla tartışılmaktadır. İnternet kullanımının artışıyla hız kazanan ve yapay zekâ destekli uygulamalarla yeni bir boyuta taşınan dijital dönüşüm, kamu kurumlarının hesap verme sorumluluklarını ve yönetişim süreçlerini de dönüştürmektedir. Bu çalışmada, 2002–2021 döneminde G20 ülkelerinde dijitalleşme ile hesap verebilirlik arasındaki ilişki, PMG (ARDL) katsayı tahmin yöntemi ve Dumitrescu ve Hurlin (2012) panel nedensellik testi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. İnternet kullanımının uzun dönemde hesap verebilirliği pozitif ve anlamlı biçimde artırdığı, mobil aboneliklerin ise kısa ve uzun dönem etkilerinin farklılaştığı bulgulanmıştır. Ayrıca dijitalleşme göstergelerinden hesap verebilirliğe doğru tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, dijitalleşmenin etkisinin ülkelerin kurumsal yapıları ve dijital yönetişim kapasitelerine bağlı olarak değiştiğini ve dijitalleşmenin hesap verebilirliği otomatik olarak artıran bir süreç olmadığını göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şaşmaz, M. Ü., Özen, A. (2026). DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY AND ACCOUNTABILITY: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS ON G20 COUNTRIES. Sayıştay Dergisi, Cilt: 37 Sayı: 140, 35–63. https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1796007

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (79)

  1. Acemoglu, D. ve Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Currency.
  2. Aghion, P., Akcigit, U. ve Howitt, P. (2015). The Schumpeterian growth paradigm. Annual Review of Economics, 7, 557–575.
  3. Agostino, D., Bracci, E. ve Steccolini, I. (2022). Accounting and accountability for the digital transformation of public services. Financial Accountability & Management, 38(2), 145-151.
  4. Andersen, K. V. ve Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 236-248.
  5. Ateş, H. (2025). Algorithmic Systems and Democratic Oversight in Public Auditing. TCA Journal/Sayıştay Dergisi, 36(139), 681-709. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52836/ sayistay.1731625
  6. Bannister, F. ve Connolly, R. (2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002
  7. Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Brookings Institution Press,Paperback ISBN: 9780815708612, Hardcover ISBN: 9780815708629, eBook ISBN: 9780815798101
  8. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T. ve Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271.
  9. Besley, T. (2006). Principled agents?: The political economy of good government. Oxford University Press.
  10. Bovens, M. (2007). Analyzing and assessing public accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0386.2007.00378.x.
  11. Boyd, D. ve Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878.
  12. Bozdoğanoğlu, B. (2025). Kamu Yönetiminde Dijitalleşme Sürecinin Bireylerin İyi Yönetim Hakkına Etkisi: Akıllı Yönetimlerde Yapay Zeka Teknolojisi Kullanımının Değerlendirilmesi. Sayıştay Dergisi, 36(139), 743-770. https://doi.org/10.52836/ sayistay.1771754
  13. Bozdoğanoğlu, B. (2023). Blokzincir Teknolojisinin Kamu İdarelerinde Kullanılabilirliği: Ülke Örnekleri ve Türkiye Değerlendirmesi. Sayıştay Dergisi, 34(130), 355-385. https:// doi.org/10.52836/ sayistay.1316034
  14. Castells, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. John Wiley & Sons.
  15. Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet politics: States, citizens, and new communication technologies. Oxford University, Press, http://www.internet-politics.andrewchadwick.com
  16. Coleman, S. ve Blumler, J. G. (2009). The Internet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice and policy. Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818271.
  17. Cordella, A. ve 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.
  18. Curtin, D. ve Meijer, A. (2006). Does transparency strengthen legitimacy? Information Polity, 11(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-2006-009.
  19. Dahlberg, L. (2011). Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four ‘positions’. New Media & Society, 13(6), 855–872. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810389569.
  20. Damar M. ve Özen A. (2024). Kurumsal ve Akıllı Kurumsal Kaynak Planlama Süreçleri ve Kamu Denetim Süreçleri Açısından Değerlendirilmesi, Journal of Information Systems and Management Research, 6(2), 1-11.
  21. Damar, M., Köse, H. Ö., Cagle, M. N. and Özen, A. (2024a). Mapping the Digital Frontier: Bibliometric and Machine Learning Insights into Public Administration Transformation. TCA Journal/ Sayıştay Dergisi, 35(132), 9-41. https://doi. org/10.52836/sayistay.1455036.
  22. Damar, M., Aydın, Ö., Cagle, M. N., Özoğuz, E., Köse, H. Ö. ve Özen, A. (2024b). Navigating the digital frontier: transformative Technologies reshaping public administration. EDPACS, 69(9), 41-69.
  23. Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 56-62.
  24. Dumitrescu, E. I. ve Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing For Granger Non-Causality İn Heterogeneous Panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
  25. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S. ve Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. Oxford University Press.
  26. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2020). Inclusive internet index 2020. The Economist Group. https://theinclusiveinternet.eiu.com/
  27. Erasmus, L. J. ve Kahyaoğlu, S. B. (2024a). An assessment of the prospects of digital transformation in public sector internal auditing: How far will artificial intelligence go?. In Continuous auditing with AI in the public sector (pp. 1-12). CRC Press.
  28. Erasmus, L. J. ve Kahyaoğlu, S. B. (Eds.). (2024b). Continuous auditing with AI in the public sector. CRC Press.
  29. Eroğlu, A. (2023). Yüksek Denetim Sürecinin Güçlendirilmesi: Katılımcılık Esaslı Denetim. Sayıştay Dergisi, 34 (128), 9-42. https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1225010
  30. Fox, J. A. (2015). Social accountability: What does the evidence really say?. World Development, 72, 346-361.
  31. Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E. ve Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31(6), 899–933, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048- 7333(01)00152-4.
  32. Guriev, S., Melnikov, N. ve Zhuravskaya, E. (2019). 3G Internet and confidence in government. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(4), 124–160.
  33. Heeks, R. (2006). Implementing and managing eGovernment: An international text. SAGE Publications.
  34. Hintz, A., Dencik, L. ve Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2018). Digital citizenship in a datafied society. Polity Press, ISBN: 978-1-509-52715-1.
  35. Howard, P. N. ve Hussain, M. M. (2013). Democracy’s fourth wave? Digital media and the Arab Spring. Oxford University Press.
  36. İzmirli Ata, F. (2024). Dijital Dönüşümün Türkiye’deki Üniversitelerin Lisansüstü Eğitim Programlarında Yer Alan Denetim Derslerine Etkisi. Sayıştay Dergisi, 35(134), 425- 457. https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1507708
  37. Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y. ve Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740.
  38. Judijanto, L. ve Oktari, Y. (2025). Digital transformation in corporate governance: Implications for accounting transparency and managerial accountability. International Journal of Economic Literature, 3(2), 253-271.
  39. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. ve Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430.
  40. Köse, H. Ö. ve Polat, N. (2021). Dijital Dönüşüm ve Denetimin Geleceğine Etkisi. Sayıştay Dergisi, 32(123): 9-41 https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1068328
  41. Layne, K. ve Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122-136.
  42. Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination. Routledge, ISBN 9780415278737.
  43. Lührmann, A., Marquardt, K. L., ve Mechkova, V. (2020). Constraining governments: New indices of vertical, horizontal, and diagonal accountability. University of Gothenburg, Working Paper Series:2017:46
  44. Margetts, H. (2009). The internet and public policy. Policy & Internet, 1(1), 1–21. https://doi. org/10.2202/1944-2866.1023
  45. Meijer, A. J. (2015). Government transparency in historical perspective: From the ancient regime to open data in the Netherlands. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(3), 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.934837.
  46. Meijer, A., Curtin, D., ve Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: Connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10–29, https://doi. org/10.1177/0020852311429533.
  47. Morozov, E. (2011). The dark side of Internet Freedom. The net delusion. New York: Public Affairs, 245-275.
  48. Neugebauer, R. (Ed.). (2019). Digital transformation (pp. 1-7). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. OECD (2025). OECD and G20, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/oecd-and-g20.html
  49. OECD (2021). Digital government index: 2021 results. OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 10, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/4b2fd8b8-en.
  50. OECD (2019). OECD digital government index: 2019 results. OECD Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1787/4f3c3d2c-en
  51. OECD (2018). The path to becoming a data-driven public sector. OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/ publications /reports/2019/11/the-path-to-becoming-a-data-driven-publicsector_9ed7e867/059814a7-en.pdf.
  52. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Scientific American, 315(2), 74-74.
  53. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization science, 3(3), 398-427.
  54. Özdemir, H. ve Yelboğa, A. (2025). Yapay Zekâ Destekli Denetimin Kamu Harcamalarındaki Rolü: Sayıştay Örneği. Sayıştay Dergisi, 36(139), 771-802. DOI: https://doi. org/10.52836/sayistay.1793520
  55. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. CESifo Working Paper Series, 1229.
  56. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross-Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
  57. Pesaran, M. H., A. Ullah ve T. Yamagata (2008). A Bias Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross Section İndependence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
  58. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. and Smith, R. P. (1997). Estimating long-run relationships in dynamic heterogeneous panels, Dae Working Papers Amalgamated Series 9721.
  59. Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y. and Smith, R. P. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamics heterogeneous panels, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94,621- 634.
  60. Polat, M. (2024). Yapay Zekanın Denetimde Kullanılması ve Etik Sorunlar. Sayıştay Dergisi, 35(134), 395-423. https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1554497
  61. Shim, D. C., ve Eom, T. H. (2009). Anticorruption effects of information communication and technology (ICT) and social capital. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852308099508
  62. Solove, D. J. (2008). Understanding privacy. Harvard University Press, GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 420, GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 420, 24 Pages.
  63. Tamer, O.Ü., McDonald, B.D., Hemici, F. and Kontogeorga, G. (2025). Utilizing Artificial Intelligence as a Strategic Risk Management Tool for Public Sector Operations and Auditing Processes. TCA Journal/Sayıştay Dergisi, 36(139), 659-680. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1819606
  64. Tapscott, D., ve Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain revolution: How the technology behind bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world. Penguin, New York, USA.
  65. Treem, J. W., ve Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 143-189.
  66. T. S. Breusch, A. R. Pagan, The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics, The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 47, Issue 1, 1980, Pages 239–253, https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
  67. Tufekci, Z. (2015). Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Colorado Technology Law Journal, 13(1), 203–218, https:// ctlj.colorado.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Tufekci-final.pdf.
  68. Özen, A. ve Damar, M. (2023). Sayıştay Denetiminde Akıllı Raporlama: Büyük Veri ve İş Zekası Teknolojisi. Ed. Önder, M. ve Köse, H.Ö., Kamu Yönetiminde Denetim: Temel Paradigmalar, Değişim ve Yeni Yönelişler, ss. 247-270. Sayıştay Başkanlığı, Ankara.
  69. United Nations. (2020). E-Government survey 2020: Digital government in the decade of action for sustainable development. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3884686?v=pdf.
  70. Van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK: Polity, ISBN 9781509534456.
  71. Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press, https://www.steyaert.org/jan/publicaties/2003SteyaertreviewsWa rschauer.pdf.
  72. WorldBank (2025a). Individuals using the Internet (% of population), https://data.worldbank. org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.ZS, Erişim Tarihi:03.07.2025.
  73. WorldBank (2025b). Mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people), https://data.worldbank. org/indicator/IT.CEL.SETS.P2, Erişim Tarihi:03.07.2025.
  74. WorldBank (2025c). Patent applications, residents, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ IP.PAT. RESD, Erişim Tarihi:03.07.2025.
  75. WorldBank (2025d). Voice and Accountability: Estimate, https://data.worldbank.org/ indicator/VA.EST, Erişim Tarihi:03.07.2025.
  76. Yavuz, E. (2025). Digitalization in the Fight Against Corruption: Feasibility of a BlockchainBased System in Türkiye. TCA Journal/Sayıştay Dergisi, 36 (137), 255-287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1675048.
  77. Yener, M., Charoenpol, M., Suntharanurak, S. and Köse, H.Ö. (2025). Strategic Cooperation of Supreme Audit Institutions of Thailand and Türkiye for Digital Transformation and Innovation in Public Sector Auditing. TCA Journal/Sayıştay Dergisi, 36 (136), 9-34.
  78. Yeşilçelebi, G. (2022). Denetimde Dijital Dönüşüm: Bilimetrik Bir İnceleme. Sayıştay Dergisi, 33(126), 381-408 https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1143867
  79. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs, https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.a spx?num=56791.