skip to main content
10.1145/3535511.3535549acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbsiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How Could Information Systems Support Transparency to Face Corruption? Systematic Mapping of the Literature

Authors Info & Claims
Published:30 June 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Context: Corruption is a problem that follows the evolution of humanity, taking root in human society and causing global problems in the form of social inequality, the precariousness of public services, and the exhaustion of democracy. In this scenario, transparency is a necessary action against corruption by providing more precise and complete information so that society can understand and supervise government actions. Public access to those information places Information Systems (ISs) at the center of transparency proposals as tools that can help fight against corruption. Problem: Nevertheless, understanding, designing, and deploying ISs with such a purpose is a challenge because they need distinct features. Solution: Therefore, in this paper, we explored research that helps to understand how ISs could help to face corruption considering transparency aspects, such as features, technologies, and application contexts. Method: We described and used a systematic mapping of the literature (SML) for that. Summary Results: In the search step, we found 124 primary studies but, after evaluation criteria, we accepted only 14 of them as relevant to the research. The results point to potential technologies and features that can make up these ISs, such as data openness and privacy, information traceability, data availability, real-time data, and accountability. Contributions to IS: Thus, this study brings contributions to the SI area by identifying aspects to the project of ISs focused on fighting against corruption by supporting information transparency. In addition, beyond the social relevance of this theme, the research is aligned to the GranDSI-BR 2016-2026.

References

  1. Vinicius Santos Abreu and Tadeu Moreira Classe. 2021. Análise dos Principais Crimes de Corrupção no Brasil: Uma Busca Sistemática pelo Google Trends. RelaTe-DIA 14, 1 (nov. 2021), 1–17. http://www.seer.unirio.br/monografiasppgi/article/view/11481Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Temofe Isaac Akaba, Alex Norta, Chibuzor Udokwu, and Dirk Draheim. 2020. A Framework for the Adoption of Blockchain-Based e-Procurement Systems in the Public Sector: A Case Study of Nigeria. Responsible Design, Implementation and Use of Information and Communication Technology 12066(2020), 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. O Alshamsi, A Ameen, O Isaac, GSA Khalifa, and A Bhumic. 2019. Examining the impact of Dubai smart government characteristics on user satisfaction. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng 8, 2S10 (2019), 319–327.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ali Bdulbaqi Ameen and Kamsuriah Ahmad. 2013. A Conceptual Framework of Financial Information Systems to Reduce Corruption.Journal of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology 54, 1(2013), 59–72.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Siti Aminah, Yuanisa Ditari, Larastri Kumaralalita, Achmad Nizar Hidayanto, Kongkiti Phusavat, and Pornthep Anussornnitisarn. 2018. E-procurement system success factors and their impact on transparency perceptions: perspectives from the supplier side. Electronic Government, an International Journal 14, 2 (2018), 177–199.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. RM Araujo and Yehia Taher. 2014. Refining IT requirements for government-citizen co-participation support in public service design and delivery. In Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, Vol. 1. DonauUniversität Krems, Krems, 61–72.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Renata Araujo, Yehia Taher, Willem-Jan van den Heuvel, and Claudia Cappelli. 2013. Evolving government-citizen ties in public service design and delivery. In Electronic Government and Electronic Participation-Joint Proceedings of Ongoing Research of IFIP EGOV and IFIP ePart 2013. Gesellschaft für Informatik eV, Bonn, 19–26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Victor R Basili. 1992. Software modeling and measurement: the Goal/Question/Metric paradigm. Technical Report CS-TR-2956, UMIACS-TR-92-9. University of Maryland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. John C Bertot, Paul T Jaeger, and Justin M Grimes. 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 (2010), 264–271.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Rita Cássia Biason and Roberto Livianu. 2019. A corrupção na História do Brasil. Mackenzie, São Paulo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Craig T Borowiak. 2011. Accountability and democracy: The pitfalls and promise of popular control. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. C. Boscarioli, R. M. Araujo, and R. S. P. Maciel. 2017. I GranDSI-BR – Grand Research Challenges in Information Systems in Brazil 2016-2026. Brazilian Computer Society (SBC), Rio Grande do Sul.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Zani Andrade Brei. 1996. A corrupção: causas, conseqüências e soluções para o problema. Brazilian Journal of Public Administration 30, 3 (1996), 103–a.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Isabel Brusca, Francesca Manes Rossi, and Natalia Aversano. 2018. Accountability and transparency to fight against corruption: an international comparative analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 20, 5(2018), 486–504.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Jana Chvalkovská, Katarína Marková, and Jiří Skuhrovec. 2010. The e-Government Tools as Democracy Watchdogs: Public e-Procurement in the Czech Republic. In ICEG2006-Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on e-Government: ICEG2006. Academic Conferences Limited, Cape Town, 193.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Laurence Cockcroft. 2012. Global corruption: Money, power and ethics in the modern world. Bloomsbury Publishing, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Márcio Camargo Cunha Filho. 2004. O que sabemos sobre transparência pública? Uma revisão bibliográfica das abordagens normativas, conceitualistas e empírica. Revista da CGU 10, 16 (2004), 20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. M Dachyar and Frisly Karenina. 2020. E-procurement process reengineering for prohibiting the corruption initiatives by proposing a real-time and integrated bidding solution. In 2nd African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, IEOM 2020. IEOM Society, Harare, 829–840.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Irina A Damm, Nikolai V Shchedrin, Olga V Ronzhina, Evgenii A Akunchenko, and Andrei V Korkhov. 2019. Anti-Corruption Potential of Openness and Accessibility of Municipal Legal Acts. Journal of the Siberian Federal University. Humanitarian sciences 12, 3(2019), 378–391.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Putri Mirah Delima and M Dachyar. 2020. Advancing the E-Tendering Information System to Counter Corruption by Proposing Anti-Corruption SMART Tools. In 2020 3rd International Conference on Applied Engineering (ICAE). IEEE, Batam, 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Ricardo Dias, Hugo Cardoso, Estrela F Cruz, and AM Rosado da Cruz. 2021. A Blockchain-based platform for reliably tracing political contacts. In 2021 16th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI). IEEE, Chaves, 1–6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Fernando Filgueiras. 2009. A tolerância à corrupção no Brasil: uma antinomia entre normas morais e prática social. Opinião Pública 15 (2009), 386–421.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Joseph L Fleiss, Bruce Levin, and Myunghee Cho Paik. 2013. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. john wiley & sons, New Jersey.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilson Gomes, Paula Karini Dias Ferreira Amorim, and Maria Paula Almada. 2018. Novos desafios para a ideia de transparência pública. E-Compós 21, 2 (2018), 1–21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Aristomenis Gritzalis, Aggeliki Tsohou, and Costas Lambrinoudakis. 2019. Transparency-enabling information systems: trust relations and privacy concerns in open governance. International Journal of Electronic Governance 11, 3-4(2019), 310–332.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Robin Hodess. 2004. Introduction to political corruption. Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Al Imtiaz and Md Sazzadur Rahman. 2014. Integrated land information system: To ensure the transparency and availability of information, in context of Bangladesh. In 2014 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information & Communication Technology. IEEE, Dhaka, 1–5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Aditya Johri and Sumitra Nair. 2011. The role of design values in information system development for human benefit. Information Technology & People 24, 3 (2011), 281–302.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Valdimer O Key. 1935. The techniques of political graft in the United States. The University of Chicago, Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Barbara Kitchenham and Stuart Charters. 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical Report Tech. Rep. EBSE-2007-01. Keele University, Keele.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics 33, 1 (1977), 159–174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Jamshed J Mistry. 2012. The Role of eGovernance in mitigating corruption. Accounting and the Public Interest 12, 1 (2012), 137–159.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Stephen Mutula and Justus M Wamukoya. 2009. Public sector information management in east and southern Africa: Implications for FOI, democracy and integrity in government. International journal of information management 29, 5(2009), 333–341.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Otávio Moreira de Castro Neves. 2013. Evolução das políticas de Governo aberto no Brasil.. In VI Congresso CONSAD de Gestão Pública. CONSAD, Brasília, 1–21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Vanessa Nunes, Claudia Cappelli, and Célia G Ralha. 2017. Transparency in Information Systems. Brazilian Computer Society(SBC), Rio Grande do Sul, 73–89.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Joseph S Nye. 1967. Corruption and political development: A cost-benefit analysis. American political science review 61, 2 (1967), 417–427.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Cristina Mamédio da Costa Santos, Cibele Andrucioli de Mattos Pimenta, and Moacyr Roberto Cuce Nobre. 2007. A estratégia PICO para a construção da pergunta de pesquisa e busca de evidências. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem 15 (2007), 508–511.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Bruno Marangoni Santos Leite, Marislei Nishijima, Flavia Mori Sarti, and Marcos Lordello Chaim. 2021. An analysis of the SICLOM information system employing Misuse Case Diagrams. Health Policy and Technology 10, 4 (2021), 100576.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Álisson Vilaça Silva, Paulo Henrique Lima Oliveira, Heitor Heitor Augustus Xavier Costa, and Paulo Afonso Parreira Júnior. 2019. Convênios e Contratos de Repasse do Governo Federal: Uma Análise Comparativa das Aplicações FiscalizaBR e SISCONV. iSys-Brazilian Journal of Information Systems 12, 2 (2019), 60–88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Goran Sladić, Branko Milosavljević, Siniša Nikolić, Dubravka Sladić, and Aleksandra Radulović. 2021. A Blockchain Solution for Securing Real Property Transactions: A Case Study for Serbia. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 10, 1(2021), 35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. TI. 2020. Índice de Percepção da Corrupção 2020. Transparência Internacional. Disponível em: < https://comunidade.transparenciainternacional.org.br/ipc-indice-de-percepcao-da-corrupcao-2020 >, Acessado em 06/10/2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Fathul Wahid and Maung K Sein. 2014. Steering institutionalization through institutional work: The case of an eProcurement system in indonesian local government. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, Hawaii, 4264–4274.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Eugenio Raul Zaffaroni. 1990. La corrupción; su perspectiva lationoamericana. Criminologia crítica. Belém, Edições Cejup 1, 1(1990), 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Jian Zhang and Zengtian Zhang. 2009. Applying e-government information system for anti-corruption strategy. In 2009 International Conference on Management of e-Commerce and e-Government. IEEE, Nanchang, 112–115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. How Could Information Systems Support Transparency to Face Corruption? Systematic Mapping of the Literature
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Other conferences
            SBSI '22: Proceedings of the XVIII Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems
            May 2022
            394 pages

            Copyright © 2022 ACM

            © 2022 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 30 June 2022

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate181of557submissions,32%
          • Article Metrics

            • Downloads (Last 12 months)18
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

            Other Metrics

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format