Structural Equation Model for Creating Institutionalization Through the Implementation of the Department of Highways’ Digital Government Policy
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aims to study the causal relationship path of variables that influence the creation of institutional solidarity in the implementation of digital government policy of the Department of Highways. Additionally, it intends to confirm the elements of building institutional solidarity through mobilization factors and deliverer implementation through studying the implementation of digital government policy by the Department of Highways. This research used the structural equation technique to analyze data collected from 465 civil servants who were regular employees and government employees under central agencies.
The results of the study using the structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis tool with the AMOS program found that the overall model is consistent with the empirical data when /df = 4.995, CFI = 0.966, TLI = 0.952, RMSEA = 0.093, RMR = 0.015. The factor with the most effect on the creation of institutional solidarity in adopting implemented digital government policies of the Department of Highways is the mobilization variable (Mobi) (TE = 0.956) which was statistically significant at the 0.001 level, while the practice variable (Demp) was found to have a minor influence (TE = 0.266). For the variance of each outcome variable, namely, the practice variable (Demp) and the institutional solidarity variable of policy implementation (Inst), it was found that the former was predicted as 84.7 percent of the variance from the mobilization variable (Mobi) (R2 = 0.847), and the latter was found to be predicted together with 92.4 percent of the shared variance from the mobilization variable (Mobi) and the practice variable (Demp) (R2 = 0.924). The results indicated that all three latent variables were suitable, and the measurement model was consistent with empirical data. In addition, as civil servants from the Department of Highways under central agencies are aware of mobilization, and perception of practice, this will directly affect the creation of institutional solidarity in implementing digital government policies.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All published articles are evaluated by three qualified peer reviewers from various institutions through a double-blind process, where reviewers do not know the authors’ identities and authors do not know the reviewers’ identities. The content and articles in the Hatyai Academic Journal reflect the authors’ views only and are neither the opinions of the editorial board nor the responsibility of Hatyai University. The Editorial Board of the Hatyai Academic Journal allows articles to be reproduced for academic purposes, on the condition that the original source is clearly cited.
References
Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Berman, P. (1978). The study of macro and micro-implementation. Public Policy, 26(2), 157-184.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chantarasorn, W. (2011). Theory of public policy implementation (5th ed.). Bangkok: Phrikwarn Graphic. [in Thai]
Digital Government Development Agency (Public Organization). (2017). Thailand digital government 2021 (DG2021). Retrieved from https://www.dga.or.th/document-sharing/dg2021/ [in Thai]
Dunn, W. N. (2018). Public policy analysis: An introduction (6th ed.). England: Routledge.
Elmore, R. F. (1979). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601-616.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Kenaphum, S. (2019). Conceptual framework for studying the process of putting public policy into practice. Saeng-Isan Academic Journal, 16(1), 247-265. [in Thai]
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Laowichian, U. (2001). Public administration: Subject characteristics and various dimensions (7th ed.). Bangkok: Sematham. [in Thai]
Lipsky, M. W. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Manoi, S. (2021). Digital transformation. Retrieved from https://online.fliphtml5.com/pyepm/gagw/ [in Thai]
Ministry of Digital Economy and Society. (2019). Five-year action plan B.E. 2563-2567 (2020-2024). Bangkok: Ministry of Digital Economy and Society. [in Thai]
Nakamura, R. T., & Smallwood, F. (1980). The politics of policy implementation. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Noijada, T. (2023). Theory model of public policy implementation. Journal of Digital Business and Social Sciences, 9(1), Article JDB005. [in Thai]
OECD. (2020). OECD digital government policy framework: Six dimensions of a digital government. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/digital-government-policy-framework.html
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. San Francisco, CA: University of California Press.
Royal Gazette. (2019). Act on administration and provision of government services through digital systems, B.E. 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.dga.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/5.pdf [in Thai]
Sabatier, P. A., & Mazmanian, D. A. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8(4), 538-560.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sricharumedhiyan, C., & Sricharumedhiyan, C. (2020). Policy implementation. Journal of Dhammasuksa Research, 3(1), 19-26. [in Thai]
Thamhiweth, N. (2006). An analysis of factors affecting the implementation of educational quality assurance policies in educational institutions under the Ministry of Public Health (Doctoral dissertation). Burapha University, Chonburi. [in Thai]
Tongkow, K. (1991). The analysis of factors affecting the success of public policy implementation: A case study of national literacy campaign (Doctoral dissertation). National Institute of Development Administration, Bangkok. [in Thai]
Tongkow, K. (2005). Implementation of educational policies and plans: Concepts, theories, and operational guidelines. Nonthaburi: Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University. [in Thai]
United Nations. (2022). E-Government survey 2022: The future of digital government. Retrieved from https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2022
Van Meter, D. S., & Van Horn, C. E. (1975). The policy implementation process: A conceptual framework. Administration and Society, 6(4), 445-488.
Yavaprapas, S. (2002). Public policy. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Publishing House. [in Thai]
