Digital Governance and Administrative Corruption in the Libyan Context: A Conceptual Model of the Mediating Role of Transparency, Accountability, and Public Service Ethics
Keywords:
Accountability, Administrative Corruption, Digital Governance, Public Service Ethics, TransparencyAbstract
People no longer see digital governance in the public sector as just a tool for speeding up processes or making service delivery a bit better. Instead, it has come to be viewed as a broader reform approach that can actually help reduce administrative corruption - provided it is backed by solid institutional structures and responsible behaviour within organizations.
Based on this understanding, the study puts forward a conceptual model to explore how digital governance might help cut down corruption in Libyan public institutions. The focus is on three key mediating factors: transparency, accountability, and public service ethics.
The study follows a conceptual, analytical path, drawing on a carefully selected review of recent literature on digital governance, public administration, and anti-corruption efforts. The goal is to build an integrated framework that brings together technological, institutional, and behavioural dimensions into one model. What the analysis suggests is that digital governance doesn't have a direct or immediate effect on institutional integrity. Rather, it works indirectly—by improving access to information, strengthening accountability, and reducing opportunities for unethical behaviour inside public organizations.
This research matters especially for the Libyan context, where reform is still held back by weak institutional capacity, uneven levels of digital readiness, and the persistence of old administrative habits. The findings point to a clear conclusion: digital governance can only really help reduce corruption if it operates within a supportive regulatory environment, goes hand in hand with consistent institutional reform, and is sustained by a public sector culture that genuinely values integrity and accountability.
References
Adam, I., & Fazekas, M. (2021). Are emerging technologies helping win the fight against corruption? A review of the state of evidence. *Information Economics and Policy*, 57, 100950. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.infoecopol.2021.100950
Andersen, T. B. (2020). E-government as an anti-corruption strategy. *Information Economics and Policy*, 50, 100820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol .2019.100820
Cucciniello, M., Porumbescu, G. A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2017). 25 years of transparency research: Evidence and future directions. *Public Administration Review*, 77(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar .12685
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2020). *The new public service: Serving, not steering* (Expanded ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003001928
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Zhang, J., & Puron-Cid, G. (2022). Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative framework. *Government Information Quarterly*, 39(4), 101701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101701
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Meijer, A. (2021). Does Twitter increase perceived police legitimacy? *Public Administration Review*, 81(4), 679–690. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13233
Huberts, L. (2018). Integrity: What it is and why it is important. *Public Integrity*, 20(sup1), S18–S32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2018.1477404
Kassen, M. (2022). E-government and corruption: A longitudinal analysis. *Government Information Quarterly*, 39(2), 101689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101689
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). *The worldwide governance indicators*. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5430
Maesschalck, J., & Bertok, J. (2022). Towards a sound integrity framework. *Public Integrity*, 24(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2021.2013577
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2021). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. *Government Information Quarterly*, 38(4), 101566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101566
OECD. (2020). *Digital government index: 2019 results*. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/4de9f5bb-en
OECD. (2021). *Government at a glance 2021*. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en
Rose-Ackerman, S., & Palifka, B. J. (2016). *Corruption and government: Causes, consequences, and reform* (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139962933
Transparency International. (2023). *Corruption perceptions index 2023*. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023
United Nations. (2022). *E-government survey 2022: The future of digital government*. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/reports/un-e-government-survey-2022
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review. *Journal of Strategic Information Systems*, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
World Bank. (2021). *Worldwide governance indicators*. https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sahel Almarifah Journal for Humanities and Applied Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
