Abstract
The purpose of the article is to assess the extent to which digital transformation policies in Bulgaria are modernized and receptive to new multi-sectoral reform approaches. Criteria were developed to evaluate the alignment of government documents with one or more strategic paradigms. An analysis was conducted on eight strategic documents related to digital transformation in Bulgaria, developed after 2010. This analysis utilized the Grounded Theory Coding procedure for inductive category development and applied codes from the criteria framework. Atlas.ti software was used for textual analysis, which provided quantitative data on the frequency of codes meeting the defined criteria for each strategic paradigm. The initial document evaluation was complemented by a qualitative content analysis to clarify the criterion-based findings and further explore the influence of different paradigms. In-depth interviews with representatives from public sector organizations confirmed and enriched some of the conclusions drawn during the analysis. The study finds that (1) the traditional approach dominated the early strategic documents but was gradually displaced by New Public Management; and (2) the network approach is insufficiently represented in the vision and strategic goals of Bulgaria's digital transformation process.
1 Introduction
Modern governments face numerous dynamic economic, technological, and social changes that interact intensively, sometimes even leading to significant conflicts, including at the political level. Developing policies that comprehensively address the full range of influencing factors requires the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders (Hanbyul et al. 2023). It is essential not only to engage in multilateral dialogue with these stakeholders but also to establish networks of active participants in this process.
In theoretical terms, the network approach in public management is known as post-NPM. As the name suggests, it follows New Public Management (NPM) while also incorporating elements of Weber's traditional approach. Traditional, Weberian public administration establishes foundational principles such as hierarchy, rationality, and expertise, which have influenced the evolution of management science and practice. NPM, emerging later, introduced market-oriented reforms with a focus on efficiency. The most recent concept, post-NPM, seeks to address societal issues in new ways, emphasizing collaboration and information sharing. These three concepts mark different stages in the evolution of management science and its application in the public sector, each employing distinct tools and strategies to meet changing public needs and expectations.
Digital transformation, as one of the most complex and comprehensive changes, evolves rapidly due to the continuous advancement of technologies. Its success strongly depends on the strategic paradigm guiding transformation policies. Digital transformation necessitates network collaboration, interaction, and consensus on key reform issues. These issues include not only the construction of necessary distributed infrastructure but also the reorganization of work processes, the redesign of public services, the development of new leadership skills for enhanced digital inclusion, and the promotion of higher digital literacy. Additionally, it involves equipping both the administration and citizens with the skills to work with open data, investing in information security, and more. Each stakeholder in this process has unique interests that intersect with those of others; thus, the perspectives of all participants must be integrated and balanced in the policy development process.
The main thesis of this study is that while the importance of partnership and collaboration is well recognized by governments, these principles are not sufficiently implemented. A significant reason for this gap is the limited understanding of network cooperation in the policy-making process. Post-NPM is about more than just technology; achieving true collaboration requires a change in planning methodologies. This involves engaging stakeholders not merely as passive recipients of the government's ideas for optimal outcomes but as active contributors who foster innovation. Such an approach promotes knowledge creation through internal and external exchanges, breaking down organizational boundaries (Hanbyul et al. 2023). Digitization necessitates a comprehensive vision, built through the contributions of many stakeholders, as it encompasses nearly all aspects of society.
In Bulgaria, digital transformation has been a focus of public policy for the past two decades. Throughout this period, governments have developed several strategic documents to progressively guide their interventions. These strategies aim to leverage technology's potential to stimulate economic growth, enhance public services, and improve the overall well-being of society. However, whether these strategies genuinely encourage broad cooperation and collaboration or merely view it as a formal requirement for acceptance remains an under-researched issue.
The purpose of the article is to analyze the dominant paradigm in strategies for the digital transformation of the public sector in Bulgaria. The authors propose two main hypotheses: (1) the traditional approach predominates in the early strategic documents, gradually giving way to New Public Management (NPM); and (2) the network approach is insufficiently represented in the vision and strategic goals of Bulgaria's digital transformation process.
The debate over the dominant paradigm is not merely theoretical; it has practical implications. The choice of approach influences how digital transformation strategies are operationalized, determining the specific steps to be taken and by whom, while clearly delineating the roles of the participants. These participants can either be collaborative partners or co-subordinates within a hierarchical structure, with these paradigms often overlapping.
2 Research methodology
Given the challenges in quantifying the assessment of strategic paradigms, the study employed a mixed-methods approach. The research process involved the following stages:
Criteria were developed to assess the documents according to one or more strategic paradigms. This criteria framework is based on previous research (Hammerschmid et al. 2023), but it has been adapted and expanded with additional criteria. Specific codes were defined for each criterion to facilitate textual analysis in subsequent stages.
A comprehensive review was conducted of strategic documents related to digital transformation in Bulgaria, developed after 2010. From these, eight documents were selected that contain well-justified strategic guidelines for the digitization of public sector organizations.
A text analysis was conducted using the Grounded Theory Coding procedure (Strauss – Corbin 2008) for inductive category development (Mayring 2010), applying the codes from the established criteria framework. The textual analysis of the selected documents was performed using the Atlas.ti software. This process allowed for the extraction of quantitative data based on the frequency of codes corresponding to the defined criteria and respective strategic paradigms. As a result, a preliminary assessment was made regarding the alignment of the ideas and proposals in these documents with specific strategic paradigms.
The initial evaluation of the documents was supplemented by a second review, conducted in light of the findings from stage 3. This follow-up qualitative content analysis aimed to interpret the conclusions of the textual analysis and either confirm or challenge these conclusions, seeking to understand the dominant paradigms shaping the strategic alternatives for the digitalization of public sector in Bulgaria.
To further validate the results and provide a basis for discussion, in-depth interviews were conducted between April and June 2024 with 16 representatives from 5 municipal administrations, 2 national agencies, 1 regional administration, and 1 ministry in Bulgaria. These interviews aimed to confirm or refute the conclusions drawn by the research team during the analysis process.
A graphical representation of the research methodology is presented in Fig. 1.
A graphical representation of the research methodology
Source: authors.
Citation: Society and Economy 2025; 10.1556/204.2024.00020
A study by Hammerschmid et al., along with related research, was used as a reference for previous findings. Hammerschmid et al. challenge the assertion that network governance is becoming the dominant paradigm in public sector digitization. They provide systematic evidence on the prevailing paradigms in digitalization reforms across Europe by comparing the doctrines employed in both initial and recent digitization strategies in eight European countries. Their study also argues that the role of ICT can be dual-faceted: while technology can facilitate network collaboration, it can also lead to a return to centralization and elements of hierarchical subordination (Hammerschmid et al. 2023).
3 Literature review
3.1 Concepts in public management
Historically, the three paradigms in public management are relatively well-defined, namely Weber's traditional public management, NPM, and the latest trend known as network management (Pollitt – Bouckaert 2011) or also as Post-New Public Management (Chica-Vélez et al. 2021). Each has its own principles, characteristics, and implications for how governments and public organizations should function.
Weber's traditional public administration is characterized by a hierarchical structure with a clear chain of command in government organizations (Alford 2008). It operates within a framework of strict rules and procedures, with clearly defined employee roles. Therefore, employees need to be well-trained for the specialized roles they perform. Decisions are centralized and made based on a rational approach. The primary guiding principle is effectiveness, meaning achieving goals is prioritized, while the cost of doing so is a secondary consideration. Ongoing monitoring is conducted, which is also carried out in a bureaucratic manner by officials appointed for this purpose. Formal and systematic approaches are predominant, while process integration is not strongly emphasized.
Traditional public management emerged in the early decades of the 20th century, at a time when society had greater trust in and respect for the 'Administrative Man' (Denhardt – Denhardt 2000). For several decades, this was the dominant concept, meeting public expectations by providing high predictability in policies and the tools to achieve them through clearly defined hierarchy, stability in organizational structure, established rules, and clarity regarding the necessary qualities of experts. However, the gradual changes in the environment have placed new demands on public management. Its excessive bureaucratic rigidity (Wilson 1989), the increasing administrative burden due to new and ever-changing rules and procedures (Alford 2008), barriers to innovation, resistance to change (Bryson et al. 2014), and inefficiencies in public expenditure (Hood 1995) have progressively highlighted the need for a new approach. Thus, by the end of the 20th century, the ideas of NPM emerged as a response to the growing inefficiencies of traditional public administration.
NPM is strongly oriented towards market principles in the management of the public sector. NPM emphasizes competition, with a focus on the customer and efficiency (Denhardt – Denhardt 2000). Decentralization of decision-making authority allows administrations or individual agencies greater autonomy. NPM introduces management and measurement based on performance, focusing on achieving measurable results (Bryson et al. 2014). Processes are prioritized over functions, with flexibility partially integrated into the operations carried out. NPM aims to address the major shortcomings of traditional management by introducing greater flexibility, similar to practices in the business sector. The primary goal of NPM is the 'commodification of services under the banner of “value for money”' (Diefenbach 2009). For instance, a common practice is contracting with private vendors (Lee 2021), which is expected to introduce an entrepreneurial approach, enhance cost efficiency, and provide civil servants with new experiences. This approach also aims to build a new organizational culture that contributes to reducing bureaucracy (Moynihan – Pandey 2007).
NPM views governance as an intersectoral regulatory process in which multiple agents, using distributed resources, strive to achieve common goals. The process should be transparent. The distribution of resources is also associated with the distribution of risks (Chica-Vélez et al. 2021). In this way, the goal is to achieve formal rationality, and hence greater satisfaction with public services.
However, some studies show a negative effect of the introduction of NPM in the public sector. Diefenbach (2009) provides evidence that organizational culture gradually deteriorates, workload and stress increase, and also employee motivation when they are not ready to change their bureaucratic work style. NPM is also criticized for focusing too much on business tools that are not always relevant to achieving the desired ‘Public Value’. In addition, a number of issues remain unresolved. For example, considering citizens primarily as customers begins to compromise the quality of public services, which have not only an economic but also a social component. Emphasis on efficiency can deprive marginalized groups of some social services that are expensive and intended for a limited range of users (Diefenbach 2009). Empowering managers at decentralized levels sometimes leads to a shift towards short-term decisions and a loss of strategic value to the administration as long-term policy issues are overlooked.
The apparent failure of NPM to address the most significant challenges led to the emergence of the latest concept: post-NPM. This new approach seeks to tackle the growing complexity of societal problems by involving civil society and aims to overcome the shortcomings of previous doctrines (Soininen 2013). Post NPM is characterized by (Anttiroiko – Valkama 2016) collaboration between various stakeholders, including government agencies, non-profit organizations, businesses and citizens. Decision-making authority is decentralized, to better respond to specific problems or challenges. Sharing information and resources through interconnected networks to develop joint solutions and address societal problems involves applying a bottom-up approach and utilizing both traditional and digital tools.
Network management does not completely negate the previous concepts. For example, networks may retain some elements of hierarchy and bureaucracy. Post-NPM to some extent retains the vertical mechanisms, but they are combined with horizontal (multi-stakeholder) coordination mechanisms (Chica-Vélez et al. 2021). The core principle of NPM (decentralization) is retained, but a greater focus is placed on the flexibility, partnership and information sharing needed to tackle complex, interrelated problems. The principle of efficiency is also preserved, but efficiency mechanisms are achieved with the help of information and communication technologies (ICT), open access to databases, etc., through which the burden is shared between the public and private sectors and fair conditions for partnership between them (Laffin 2019), based primarily on values of trust (Kinder 2012).
Network governance is closely related to the ideas of democracy and broad participation. The role of citizens in the policy-making process (OECD 2001) is becoming an increasingly important topic, especially when decisions are being made on difficult issues with a wide range of impacts, requiring the participation of many stakeholders.
3.2 Paradigms of digital reform
Relationships between different actors in public administration are important in any policy, but when we talk about digital reform, interactivity in digitalization policies and strategies becomes even more important. Digitization requires a complex combination of efforts in several directions: e-government (Ljungholm 2015), open government, digital inclusion, user-centric approach for public service design, agile and lean approach in the public sector (Awamleh et al. 2022). At the same time, a number of aspects of the security of critical infrastructure, management and data systems, the application of artificial intelligence, etc. should be resolved (Huang et al. 2021). This extensive list necessitates the application of a modern management approach that facilitates the co-production of digital transformation and the reorganization of relationships, interactions, and cooperation among various actors (Emerson – Nabatch 2015; Gawlowski 2018; Mergel et al. 2019). Coordination among actors must occur not only at the level of service provision and organization but also in terms of national policy and strategy (Cordella – Iannacci 2010; Lember et al. 2019; Osborne 2020).
The issue of digital reform paradigms is not only theoretical. This is not about a dispute between science and practice, but about their joint application in the evaluation of digital transformation policies and tools. While science accepts that networks are a more legitimate solution option in the information age, does practice provide such legitimacy? At the same time, there are opinions that the nature of the digital transformation is related to a certain desire for centralization and restoration of some elements of traditional management (Cordella – Tempini 2015), since ‘bureaucracy is adding value to public sector service delivery and therefore should be preserved and enhanced when e-government policies are concerned’ (Cordella – Tempini 2015).
The study of the content side of strategies related to digital transformation can show us to what extent these documents reflect the dominance of one or another paradigm and to what extent managements vision of digital transformation is adequate to the requirements for structural (Christensen – Lægreid 2007) and cultural reintegration, in which there is a rearrangement of institutions and their functions, but also to the attitudes of society for a new way of working and living.
4 Empirical analysis
4.1 Criteria for evaluating strategies
As stated in the methodology, the criteria used in the work of Hammerschmid et al. (2023) were chosen as the basis for this study. The authors of the current article enhanced these criteria to operationalize the research, deriving categories relevant to each of the three paradigms of public administration. This enhancement and interpretation were necessary to clarify the terms in Bulgarian as they are understood and used in Bulgarian scientific literature and practice. The criteria are presented in Table 1.
Criteria for evaluating strategies
| Reform paradigm | |||
| Dimensions | Traditional public administration | New public management | Networked governance |
| Key concept | Public goods | Public choice | Public value |
| Role of government | Protector and regulator Rule of law Compliance Sanctions | Service provider One stop shop Electronic administrative service | Network partner Extensive cooperation Partnership Reconciliation Involvement of the administration |
| Goal of government | Maintaining stable, reliable and trustworthy governance Consensus Sustainability Financial provision of activities and functions | Transformation to more efficient and ‘customer responsive’ management by introducing business methods Efficiency Effectiveness Standards of good service Target budgeting For the benefit of citizens | Transformation towards more responsive and legitimate governance based on a wider range of stakeholders in policy making and implementation Program budgeting Participation, civic participation Turn on Delegation of rights |
| Strategy style | Planning and design style, compliance with control rules and procedures Development of control systems Planning systems Instructions Procedures Rules | Power style, gaining competitive advantage Development of innovations Investments Infrastructure Projects Capacity | Learning style, coping with unpredictability Learning organizations Knowledge Management Human Resources Development Change Management Flexibility |
| Role of leadership | Regulation/orders and control Guidance Conservative Regulatory Normative Preventive Judicial Liability | Delegation and empowerment of senior managers Delegation Sharing Medium levels Powers Leadership Accountability | Training and empowering junior staff Personnel development Delegation of Authority High degree of expertise Investment in training Horizontal management |
| Steering mode | Centralized Conservative financial management Centralized management of the public policy formulation process Centralized budget type | Mixed – a combination of centralized and decentralized Entrepreneurial financial management Top-down and bottom-up approaches to public policy formulation Generating revenue from local sources and from the central budget of the budget | Decentralized Program budgeting and management Formulation of policies through the Community-led local development approach The revenue part of the budget – mainly from local sources, grant funding and to a lesser extent from a centralized source |
| Main coordination mechanisms | Power exercised through a disciplined hierarchy of impartial officials Compliance with rules, instructions, regulations Routine Traditional Functional management | Market-type mechanisms such as performance indicators and competitive contracts Entrepreneurship Initiative Engagement Development | Stakeholder networks and partnerships Collaboration Integration Cooperation Partnership Construction |
| Type of collaboration | Mainly internal collaboration (vertical) | Internal and external collaboration (vertical) | External and internal cooperation (horizontal) |
| Management decision-making approach | Based on the normatively defined powers along a hierarchical line Accountability Reporting levels Assignment Control by indicators | Based on statutory powers and cooperation Delegation Sustainability Control by results Anti-corruption | Based on integrity Competence Openness Participation Ethics Values Transparency Long term Monitoring for achieving social impact |
Source: authors, adapted from Hammerschmid et al. (2023).
4.2 Description of strategies
Eight strategic documents at the national level, which aim at digital transformation in the public sector, were studied. Conditionally, they are divided into two groups – before and after 2019, as a starting point is the conditional timeline between two program periods in the context of the European practice of public policy planning.
The eight documents analyzed are as follows. The old (pre-2019) include the Strategy for development of E-Gov in the Republic of Bulgaria (2012); the National Reform Program (2013); NP Digital Bulgaria (2015); and NP for Development: Bulgaria 2020 (2012). The new ones (post-2019) are the Strategy for the development of E-Gov 2019–2025; the Architecture of the E-Gov in the Republic of Bulgaria (2019); NP Digital Bulgaria (2025) and the Policy for Information Resources (2021).
Due to the volume of this publication, these documents will not be examined in detail. In the first group, the elements of traditional public management dominate, although some aspects that border on the concept of NPM are still observed.
In the context of the researched paradigms, the presented documents from the second group can also hardly be categorically attributed entirely to only one of them. A smooth transition to NPM is felt, which is expressed in the stronger emphasis on the search for results, including a change in the role of the government and other actors in the process, and in general – a more modern understanding of the transformation process. There are also fleeting attempts to transition to a post-NPM, for example in greater openness of policies and broad participation.
4.3 Results of the textual analysis
The coding process was organized by the researchers based on the methods of Saldaña (2015) and Strauss and Corbin (2008), applying successively open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, which shed light and give direction regarding which strategic paradigm the government's chosen goals and measures for digital transformation are from. After clarifying the concepts in the Bulgarian language in the criteria framework, the developed categories were refined in view of their exact meaning in the Bulgaria. The full analysis covers 65 categories and 468 codes in the form of quotations that are relevant to a given category.
The team used identical definitions of the individual categories to ensure uniformity of interpretation. The content analysis of the documents was done using ATLAS.ti, a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software that facilitates the analysis of qualitative data for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods (ATLAS.ti 2023). In the software, the codes were associated with textual quotations in each document; then, combinations were made through subgroups. Coding results were reviewed again and suggested modifications were made (Caballero-Rico et al. 2022). The total number of quotations distributed between the three paradigms and between the two types of documents is presented in Table 2.
Number of phrases (absolute frequency) by groups of documents (old and new) and management concepts/paradigms
| New (256 quotes, 4 documents) | Old (212 quotes, 4 documents) | Totals | |
| Post-NPM (182 quotes, 26 codes) | 116 | 66 | 182 |
| NPM (234 quotes, 21 codes) | 120 | 114 | 234 |
| Traditional model (187 quotes, 16 codes) | 96 | 91 | 187 |
| Totals | 332 | 271 | 603 |
Source: authors.
Since the number of quotes containing the corresponding code varies across individual documents, these have been recalculated as relative shares. Figures 2 and 3 present the relative shares of quotes related to the three concepts.
Distribution of quotes associated with individual paradigms in new and old documents
Source: authors.
Citation: Society and Economy 2025; 10.1556/204.2024.00020
Distribution of quotes associated with the three concepts
Source: authors.
Note: the four ‘old’ documents are in the upper half of the figure.
Citation: Society and Economy 2025; 10.1556/204.2024.00020
As an additional illustration, the distribution of the most frequently used codes in the new and old documents can be seen in Table 3.
Absolute frequency of the most frequent codes by groups of documents
| efficiency | innovation | control | benefits for citizens | transformation | learning organization | functional | horizontal management | centralized | human resources | broad participation | |
| New documents | 13 | 22 | 17 | 19 | 11 | 9 | 12 | 21 | 25 | 14 | 16 |
| Old documents | 36 | 6 | 11 | 15 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 34 | 2 | 3 |
| Total | 49 | 28 | 28 | 34 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 24 | 59 | 16 | 19 |
Source: authors.
As can be seen, 'efficiency' is the most frequently mentioned term and dominates the older documents. However, in the newer strategies, 'innovation' becomes dominant, along with horizontal management, human resources, and broad participation. This, albeit partial, view of the adopted discourse provides insight into the directions of digital transformation strategies and their evolution over time, specifically highlighting the introduction of new ideas—some from the realm of NPM and others from post-NPM—that are gradually beginning to replace the traditional Weberian approach.
Figures 3 and 4 show the ratio of codes for the Strategy for the Development of Electronic Government (both old and new) and the National Program for Digital Bulgaria (both old and new), respectively. These documents are the most important for digitalization policy as they practically illustrate the evolution of views over time, the extent to which a new vision is being shaped, and whether new mechanisms are being planned to achieve strategic goals. They clearly demonstrate the development of planning practices and the gradual reduction of the traditional approach in favor of expanding the network paradigm.
Comparison of the strategy for development of electronic government: previous (2012) and current (updated in 2021)
Source: authors.
Citation: Society and Economy 2025; 10.1556/204.2024.00020
A thorough review of the two strategies in the context of the obtained results indeed reveals a shift in the focus of discourse. For example, in the updated (new) Strategy, its framework nature is clearly defined, providing a basis for creating policies in specific areas, thereby establishing a vision for the involvement of other institutions at the central and territorial levels (vertical differentiation). The strategy also emphasizes enhancing the internal efficiency of the public sector (which aligns with NPM) and fostering greater engagement among all members of society (which connects to the network paradigm).
At the same time, the repeated in-depth content analysis of the documents (stage 4 of the research methodology) reveals that civic participation, which is defined as a principle, is not substantiated with adequate measures. Instead, it is limited to 'informational campaigns and training for the realization of specific goals, engaging all stakeholders, and collaborating with civil society and business' (Council of Ministers 2021). Therefore, the quantitative results from the textual analysis should be interpreted with great caution, and thus they are complemented here by the repeated content analysis.
The findings are similar in the analysis of two other foundational documents—NP Digital Bulgaria (2015) and NP Digital Bulgaria (2025) (Fig. 5). Despite the greater number of references in the text of the new document suggesting a stronger emphasis on the post-NPM paradigm, the initiatives in both strategies are identical. In other words, the prospects for better partnership, empowerment of decentralized participants, and horizontal collaboration remain poorly operationalized, with no indicators to ensure their achievement.
Comparison of NP Digital Bulgaria (2015) and NP Digital Bulgaria (2025)
Source: authors.
Citation: Society and Economy 2025; 10.1556/204.2024.00020
The repeated content analysis of the selected documents confirms (1) the authors' view on the emerging trends of diminishing emphasis on the traditional approach in digital transformation policies and the gradual shift towards NPM; and (2) with some reservations, the slow adoption of post-NPM. The strategic paradigm for digitalization cannot stand aside from the traditional approach, primarily due to the necessity of centralizing infrastructure, which inherently requires a centralization of relationships within the administration. However, it is important to note that this type of centralization is a foundational condition for further decentralization, as digital reform is the backbone of new means for empowering participants. It takes time to realize these intentions and for the potential of digitalization to be fully recognized in modernizing the organizational mechanisms within the administration.
5 Role and objectives of the government in the digitalization process – discussion
The results of the studies conducted on the strategic paradigm of digital transformation in Bulgaria were discussed during in-depth interviews conducted between April and June of 2024 with 16 representatives of five municipal administrations, two national agencies, one regional administration and one ministry in the Republic of Bulgaria. The respondents were selected to represent two groups of administrations (central and local), achieving a relative proportionality between the two groups. In order to gather objective opinions during the interviews, the anonymity of the respondents and the administrations is ensured. The authors also made observations on portals for electronic administrative services, where professionals comment on aspects of strategic plans at different levels.
The conducted interviews were in a semi-structured format, following some of the main dimensions of the digital reform paradigms (listed in Table 1). However, the interviewees were free to express their opinions on the given topic according to the scope of their own expertise and accumulated experience. A primary question posed to the interviewees concerned how changes related to digitalization are managed within their administrations and to what extent the desired efficiency of public services is being achieved. Almost everyone emphasized the lengthy process of transformation, which has yet to deliver the necessary efficiency and effectiveness in public services, as well as greater autonomy and decentralization.
Representatives of agencies where control and regulations are central to their activities, face challenges with data management—specifically, access, storage, and utilization. In one agency, it was noted that their digital component is well-executed, allowing users to submit the required service application within minutes. However, the agency's employees encounter difficulties accessing comparable information, which delays service delivery.
Regional administrations pointed out that the digitalization of work processes is still not at the required level, resulting in increased workloads and limited time for providing quality service to users.
All interviewees highlighted the need for a large number of documents and approval procedures, which are still conducted in analog form, complicating and delaying work processes.
Representatives of municipal administrations, being the institutions closest to the public, identified the primary challenge as the need to improve digital competence within the administrations themselves, as well as the insufficient digital literacy of citizens, which limits their access to e-administrative services. The respondents emphasized the importance of practical civic education aimed at fostering future public competence for greater engagement.
In response to the question of how digital competencies within the administration are being improved, the interviewees shared that they use various sources, including self-training. However, given that there is only one official provider of training for the administration, the validation of their competencies is delayed over time.
Regarding the greater decentralization of public services, nearly all interviewees from municipalities confirmed that efforts are being made to delegate authority and achieve greater autonomy in the implementation of public policies at various hierarchical levels. However, at this stage, the transfer of authority to middle and lower levels remains limited. Representatives from the ministry noted that strategic documents are still in the process of being integrated with regulatory frameworks, which in many cases causes delays in the digital transformation of the public sector. They also expressed concerns that the public is not sufficiently informed about the planned reforms and raised issues related to ensuring digital security in administrative processes.
The challenges surrounding the digital security of public administrations were also discussed. This is a particularly sensitive topic, especially after the massive data leak from the Revenue Agency and several other smaller breaches in recent years. According to representatives from one of the agencies, it is necessary to establish a data security policy that is both vertical and horizontal in scope, with commitment at all levels of the system, as current solutions are fragmented and piecemeal.
During the interviews, respondents were asked how they understood the concept of co-production in the context of digital transformation. The opinions on this matter were somewhat divergent. On one hand, respondents highlighted investment activities, primarily through projects, aimed at introducing innovations, transferring knowledge, and building administrative infrastructure and capacity, including the development of digital skills in collaboration with various partners. On the other hand, the strategic planning process for public policies related to digitization and e-government remains highly centralized, particularly with regard to financing. However, in certain sectoral policies, local authorities have the ability to set their own priorities and fund them using resources from state or local budgets, or other public and private sources.
Program-based budgeting is not yet the dominant model of planning and budgeting in the country. Both internal and external collaboration are encouraged, as is seeking public support through formal attempts to involve citizens in the formulation and evaluation of public policies.
The approach to making management decisions, including those related to public policies for e-governance and digital transformation, is based on normatively defined powers along a hierarchical line, while external cooperation remains a limited and underdeveloped practice.
The Law on Administration, the Law on e-Government, the Law on Electronic Identification, and the Law on Electronic Communications form the core legal framework at the national level that defines e-government and digital reform. However, these laws are primarily reactive, responding to directives at the European level, and are less proactive in nature. In practice, strategic documents often reflect visions that have not yet been fully integrated into the regulatory framework. This has significantly slowed down several processes related to the transition from traditional bureaucratic management to NPM at the operational level.
The summarized results indicate that as of 2024, public authorities in Bulgaria still primarily act as a protector and regulator, trying to implement reforms aimed at improving the administrative services provided to citizens and businesses. At the same time, the goals outlined in strategic documents, which focus on transforming towards more efficient and 'customer-responsive' governance through the adoption of business methods, define a role that the authorities are expected to fulfill in the near future, namely as a service provider. While the public policies define efforts for broad participation that pave the way for network collaboration, the public authorities are still far from this stage.
The analysis of in-depth interviews confirms that traditional management continues to have a strong presence in the public sector in Bulgaria. The attempts to transition to NPM are not primarily part of the governing philosophy. Meanwhile, the post-NPM paradigm, which is a modern management approach being developed in EU countries and emphasizes the wide participation of stakeholders in public policies, is not a conscious or widespread goal of the Bulgarian administration.
Reforms aimed at increasing citizen participation in Bulgaria are outlined in the Fourth National Action Plan as part of the “Partnership for Open Government” initiative. This plan includes changes to the Law on Direct Citizen Participation in State Power and Local Self-Government, specifically aimed at reducing the administrative burden associated with holding referendums, collecting citizen signatures, and initiating citizen-led initiatives. The expectation is that these reforms will make local and national authorities more open to citizens' proposals on issues that are important to society, while also increasing public awareness of the opportunities for direct citizen participation in the development of management decisions. Additionally, the drafting of the Law on Volunteering is a significant step in the process of activating civil society and enhancing public sensitivity to issues of public interest.
Based on the content analysis of the above-mentioned strategic documents, including the “Digital Transformation of Bulgaria 2020–2030”, it can be stated that there is a national commitment to achieving intelligent and digital growth. This requires focused and systematic efforts at all hierarchical levels to ensure progress. European policies and regulations set the direction for administrative reform, but it has been progressing at a slow pace in Bulgaria. The reasons are complex, involving both objective economic and social factors, as well as the deepening political crisis at the national level since 2022, which significantly hinders the implementation of strategic policies and the initiation of measures related to innovation, reengineering, and transformation in the administrative work processes.
The strategic documents at the national level clearly outline the commitment to the digital transformation of the administration, emphasizing the principles of equal access to public services and ethical, socially responsible data access, use, sharing, and management. They recognize the importance of technology as a key factor and highlight collaboration as essential for the success of this process. Digitization is viewed as a strategic opportunity for the development of all socio-economic and public spheres.
In this context, commitments have been made to deploy a secure digital infrastructure with substantial capacity, ensure access to knowledge and technology, develop digital skills, support science and research, promote digitization in support of sustainable development, and enhance administrative capacity. All these efforts require targeted and systematic actions to ensure a smooth yet rapid transition from a traditional to a digital society, alongside a set of strategic initiatives to promote active participation of stakeholders in public policy formulation processes. This, in turn, will help increase public trust in digital transformation.
However, at this stage, practice – particularly in administration – significantly lags behind the development of information and communication technologies and the latest trends in the field.
6 Conclusion
The aim of the article was to assess the extent to which digital transformation policies in Bulgaria are being modernized and open to new, proven approaches for multi-sectoral reform. This analysis is challenging, which is why a mixed-methods approach was employed. A criteria framework was developed for evaluating selected documents, and a qualitative analysis was conducted based on Grounded Theory (Strauss – Corbin 2008). The findings were further examined through content analysis of the dominant paradigm in Bulgaria's digital transformation strategies. Additionally, in-depth interviews were conducted to discuss the views of representatives from public organizations at various levels on the strategic role of the government in digital transformation.
The results clearly indicate that the modernization of digital transformation policies is a slow and challenging process. Although the importance of broad network participation of stakeholders is recognized for achieving integration, collaboration, and co-creation and implementation of digitalization and digital transformation policies, these stakeholders remain excluded from the process.
The attitude of administrations at various hierarchical levels towards digital transformation is more of a wait-and-see approach, in order to navigate control and regulatory requirements, adherence to instructions and procedures, while there is limited understanding of the role of stakeholders in this process. Bulgaria's attempt to include civil society is more than modest and rather formal. This is primarily due to insufficient recognition of the capacity of NGOs to add value and their inclusion as real participants in policy development.
Certainly, there are strong arguments in favor of modernizing policies, mainly towards applying the principles of NPM, such as planned investments, primarily through projects, innovation, knowledge transfer, infrastructure development, and administrative capacity building, including the development of digital skills. However, the dominant understanding remains centered around a centralized approach, which is reinforced by the need to concentrate the architecture of e-government in one place to ensure functional, systemic, and technological consistency, thus facilitating the transition from conventional to electronic administration. As a result, vertical mechanisms are largely preserved, but they require effective integration with horizontal coordination mechanisms involving multiple stakeholders.
Our study confirms the following assertions: (1) The traditional approach was dominant in the early strategic documents, gradually being displaced by NPM; (2) The network approach is insufficiently represented in the vision and strategic goals of the digital transformation process in Bulgaria. To some extent, this conclusion aligns with Hammerschmid et al.'s thesis that network governance is not the dominant paradigm in the context of public sector digitalization. We can summarize that there is a blending of tools from different paradigms in management, reflecting the public authorities' attempt to respond to new challenges. Therefore, the analysis of management approaches should be conducted with great care, as no single paradigm can be observed in its pure form. Rather, strategic and operational documents reflect the mainstream attitudes in policies at a given moment. They represent the governing vision on how and with which tools they believe it is necessary to apply in order to achieve policy objectives.
Acknowledgement
The paper is part of activities under project № КП-06-Н65/10 “Formal and In-formal Innovation Networks”, funded by the Research Fund of the Ministry of Education and Science in Bulgaria.
References
Alford, J. (2008): The Limits to Traditional Public Administration, or Rescuing Public Value from Misrepresentation. Australian Journal of Public Administration 67: 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00593.x.
Anttiroiko, A. -V. – Valkama, P. (2016): Post-NPM-style Service Integration: Partnership-Based Brokerage in Elderly Care. International Journal of Public Sector Management 29(7): 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-12-2015-0220.
ATLAS.ti. (2023): ATLAS.ti Mac (Version 23.2.1) Qualitative Data Analysis Software. Scientific Software Development GmbH. https://atlasti.com.
Awamleh, R. – Stephens, M. – Salem, F. (2022): Agile Government — Emerging Perspectives in Public Management. In Awamleh, R. M. – Stephens, M. (eds): Agile Government — Emerging Perspectives in Public Management, pp. 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811239700_0001.
Bryson, J. M. – Crosby, B. C. – Bloomberg, L. (2014): Public Value Governance: Moving beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management. Public Administration Review 74(4): 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12238.
Caballero-Rico, F. C. (2022): Challenges for the Integrated Management of Priority Areas for Conservation in Tamaulipas, México. Sustainability 14: 494. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010494.
Chica-Vélez, S. A. – Salazar-Ortiz, C. A. (2021): Posnueva gestión pública, gobernanza e innovación. Tres conceptos en torno a una forma de organización y gestión de lo público. Opera 28: 17–51. https://doi.org/10.18601/16578651.n28.02.
Christensen, T. – Lægreid, P. (2007): The Whole-Of-Government Approach to Public Sector Reform. Public Administration Review 67: 1059–1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00797.x.
Cordella, A. – Iannacci, F. (2010): Information Systems in the Public Sector: The E-Government Enactment Framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 19(1): 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2010.01.001.
Cordella, A. – 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005.
Denhardt, J. V. – Denhardt, R. B. (2000): The New Public Service: Serving rather Than Steering. Public Administration Review 60: 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00117.
Diefenbach, T. (2009): New Public Management in Public Sector Organizations: the Dark Sides of Managerialistic ‘enlightenment’. Public Administration 87: 892–909. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01766.x.
Emerson, K. – Nabatchi, T. (2015): Collaborative Governance Regimes .Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Gawlowski, R. (2018): Co-production of Public Services in Terms of the Polish Experience. Polish Political Science Yearbook 47: 110–120. https://doi.org/10.15804/ppsy2018108.
Hammerschmid, G. – Palaric, E. – Rackwitz, M. – Wegrich, K. (2023): A Shift in Paradigm? Collaborative Public Administration in the Context of National Digitalization Strategies. Governance, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12778.
Hanbyul, C. – Chung C. – Cho, Y. (2023): Changes in Planning Approach: a Comparative Study of Digital Government Policies in South Korea and Denmark. European Planning Studies 31(5): 905–924. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2132787.
Hood, C. (1995): The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20(2–3): 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0001-W.
Huang, K. – Madnick, S. – Choucri, N. – Zhang, F. (2021): A Systematic Framework to Understand Transnational Governance for Cybersecurity Risks from Digital Trade. Global Policy 12: 625–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13014.
Kinder, T. (2012): Learning, Innovating and Performance in Post-new Public Management of Locally Delivered Public Services. Public Management Review 14(3): 403–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.637408.
Laffin, M. (2019): Explaining Reforms: Post-new Public Management Myths or Political Realities? Social Housing Delivery in England and France. International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(1): 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852317746223.
Lee, G. R. (2021): Do NPM Strategies Lead to Negative Organizational Behavior? Lessons from the Differential Effects of Contracting Out on Voluntary Turnover. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs 7(3): 369–389. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.7.3.369–38.
Lember, V. – Brandsen, T. – Tõnurist, P. (2019): The Potential Impacts of Digital Technologies on Co-production and Co-creation. Public Management Review 21(11): 1665–1686. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619807.
Mayring, P. (2010): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken .Basel: Beltz.
Mergel, I. – Edelmann, N. – Haug, N. (2019). Defining Digital Transformation: Results from Expert Interviews. Government Information Quarterly 36(4): 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002.
Moynihan, D. P. – Pandey, S. K. (2007): Finding Workable Levers over Work Motivation: Comparing Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and Organizational Commitment. Administration & Society 39(7): 803–832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707305546.
OECD (2001): Citizens as Partners. Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making .https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/citizens-as-partners_9789264195561-en, accessed 22/22/2024.
Osborne, S. (2020): Public Service Logic: Creating Value for Public Service Users, Citizens, and Society through Public Service Delivery. New York: Routledge.
Pollitt, C. – Bouckaert, G. (2011): Public Management Reform : A Comparative Analysis – New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Popescu Ljungholm, D. (2015). E-governance and Public Sector Reform. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 7(2): 7–12.
Saldaña, J. (2015): The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Soininen, T. (2013): Mechanisms of Change in Public Management Projects. SAGE OPEN 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013486490.
Strauss, A. – Corbin, J. (2008): Basics of Quantitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory .Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wilson, J. Q. (1989): Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It .Basic Books.
