Evaluation of Local Government Digital Governance Ability and Sustainable Development: A Case Study of Hunan Province

Abstract

Strengthening the governance capacity of local governments in the digital domain is crucial to the modernization of the national governance system and the process of sustainable development. This paper integrates the concept of sustainable development drawing upon the principles of systems theory and adopts the logical analytical framework of “resource input–process transformation–result output” to construct a digital governance capacity indicator system for local governments. The focus is on three dimensions: basic resource input, network public opinion management, and digital service effectiveness. Using statistical data from the digital governance capacity indicators of 14 cities and prefectures in Hunan Province from 2018 to 2022 as a case study, we base our analysis on the index system constructed herein. Employing the entropy-weighted TOPSIS method and the obstacle degree model, we evaluate and analyze the digital governance capacity of the government in Hunan Province. Our findings indicate that the government’s digital governance capacity in Hunan Province has been on a rising trend overall. However, there are noticeable regional disparities in the strength of digital governance capacity across western, northern, central, and southern Hunan, particularly in terms of digital service effectiveness, which presents the most significant barriers to improvement. These results suggest that local governments should tailor their efforts to enhance digital governance capacity around resource allocation based on regional differences, the establishment of an online public opinion monitoring system, the optimization of government information disclosure mechanisms, the performance of government service platforms, and the strengthening of a two-way communication mechanism between the government and the public.

1. Introduction

As a provider of social services and a significant participant in social governance, the government faces twin challenges: escalating demands for diverse and high-quality services as well as the need to evolve its service delivery methods, governance philosophy, and collaborative strategies [1]. The Party Central Committee and the State Council have released multiple policy documents, including the Overall Layout Plan for the Construction of Digital China, the State Council’s Guiding Opinions on Strengthening the Construction of Digital Government, and the Outline of the Fourteenth Five-Year Plan for the National Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China, along with the Visionary Targets for 2035. These documents emphasize the need to fortify the construction of a robust network country and to advance the high-quality development of digital government, thereby guiding the way forward for local governments in digital governance.

At this critical juncture of the Chinese nation’s great rejuvenation, the innovative application of digital technology has paved new avenues for government reform. The construction of a digital government has emerged as an indispensable pathway toward the modernization of governance systems and capacities, and a crucial component in achieving the goal of sustainable development. Bolstering the digital governance capacity of local governments revolves around deepening their digital transformation, with the construction of digital government as the starting point. This initiative is aimed at promoting balanced economic, social, and environmental development by streamlining governance processes, enhancing service delivery efficiency, and boosting social management effectiveness, all while aligning with sustainable development goals.

According to the 2020 Digital Government Development Index Report published by Tsinghua University’s Data Governance Research Center, Hunan Province ranks 18th out of 31 provinces in comprehensive digital government development, placing it within the fourth tier, termed “developmental”. Its governance capability score stands at 17th, denoting an intermediate level. Consequently, Hunan Province’s experiences, whether challenges or successes, in digital governance provide valuable insights and inspiration for other provinces seeking to modernize their digital governance and achieve sustainable development objectives.

In this paper, we systematically review pertinent theoretical research outcomes on government digital governance capacity and develop a comprehensive set of indicators suitable for assessing local government digital governance capabilities. Grounded in the system theory’s analytical framework of “resource input–process transformation–result output”, our study constructs a tailored government digital governance capacity evaluation index system for local governments. We utilize data pertaining to the digital governance of 14 cities and prefectures in Hunan Province spanning from 2018 to 2022 as our research samples. By employing the entropy-weighted TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) method and the obstacle degree model, we conduct a quantitative assessment and in-depth analysis of Hunan Province’s government digital governance capacity. The evaluation system established in this paper can also be extended to analyze the state of local government digital governance in other Chinese provinces, offering theoretical underpinning for the development and refinement of local digital governance initiatives.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Concepts of Digital Governance and Government Digital Governance

Regarding the concept of “digital governance”, perspectives vary across different academic disciplines. Public administration and political science primarily focus on digital government and e-government, highlighting the use of digital technologies to streamline administrative procedures, enhance the transparency of government services, reinforce market supervision, and innovate urban management practices. This facilitates information flow and integration, as well as public participation [2]. The notion of “digital government” can be traced back to the concept of “digital earth”, introduced by former U.S. President Al Gore in a 1998 speech at the California Science Center. Since then, the term “digital government” has emerged within the context of collaboration between Western governments and Information Technology (IT) companies [3]. In his work “Governance in the Digital Age”, Dunleavy provides a systematic overview of the concept of “Digital Era Governance” (DEG), focusing on electronic and transparent management [4]. Milakovich further proposes that digital governance refers to the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to deliver mobile services, network infrastructure, and multi-channel IT approaches, enabling two-way transactions [5]. Zamora et al. characterize “digital governance” as the extensive adoption of ICT by governments to enhance public services, increase transparency and accountability, and improve the quality of public administration [6]. In China, research in this field can be attributed to early studies conducted by Xu Xiaolin and others. They distinguish between a broader interpretation of digital governance, referring to IT-enabled integrated resource management, and a narrower definition concerning the use of democratic tools to streamline government functions and processes [7]. Xu Feng’s perspective complements this discourse, suggesting that digital governance should incorporate organizational logic, technology adoption, and various multidimensional factors, underscoring the significance of digital thinking, network awareness, and intelligent action [8].

Digital governance within government entities differs slightly from the general concept of digital governance, as it places greater emphasis on the leadership and central role of the government body in the process. It highlights the unique position of the government in leveraging digital technologies to enhance governance capabilities [9]. Specifically, digital governance in government refers to the utilization of digital technologies by government agencies to improve the efficiency, transparency, and engagement of public services [10]. Government digital governance encompasses two primary meanings: the first involves the management of digital information and digital resources, where digital becomes the subject of governance; the second pertains to governance based on digital technology, where data serve as the foundation for the modernization of national governance capacity and level [11]. It spans a broad spectrum of areas, including the digitization of internal government processes, provision of online citizen services, data-driven decision-making, and cross-departmental information sharing [12]. The overarching goal of digital governance in government is to establish a smarter, more responsive, and citizen-centric government service delivery system.

2.2. The Present Condition and Prospective Challenges of Digital Governance within Chinese Governmental Context

The Chinese government has exhibited a swift advancement in digital governance, with technological innovations fostering information exchange and public engagement, signaling the dawn of a novel paradigm. However, this development remains in its infancy, encountering constraints due to inadequate technological transformation and a performance-driven management approach [13]. He Zhe underscored that the digital governance framework should encompass the management, data, and activity layers, advocating for the creation of a cohesive and harmonized data governance system to underpin these efforts [14]. Gao Wanglai recommended bolstering information infrastructure, engaging in international data standardization, propelling the digital economy, and instituting smart technology risk management measures [15]. Zhao Yulin and colleagues highlighted a prevailing issue of “formalism” in implementation, wherein local governments prioritize superficial digitalization over tangible outcomes [16]. To summarize, the Chinese government’s future trajectory in digital governance necessitates a balance between technological innovation and governance efficacy. Establishing a robust governance mechanism, steering clear of formalistic tendencies, and reinforcing international collaboration and rule formulation are pivotal steps towards achieving the overarching goal of governance modernization.

2.3. Evaluation System for China’s Government Digital Governance Capabilities

The evaluation system for the Chinese government’s digital governance capacity has yet to establish a uniform standard. Crafting a detailed and comprehensive evaluation framework for digital governance is essential to address and respond to the intricate challenges encountered in digital governance practices. Li Wenbin and colleagues devised an assessment framework for the governance capacity of a modernized government, encompassing six pivotal dimensions: strategic orientation, IT integration, diversity management, multi-center synergy, contingency mechanism establishment, and a solid foundation of the rule of law. This framework offers a practical guideline for a holistic evaluation of the government’s governance effectiveness [17]. Yu Junbo and Dai Pengfei, through a comparative analysis of digital governance implementation in two regional administrations, identified that the choice of governance mechanism, the role of the lead department, and the expert participation model are critical determinants in enhancing local governments’ digital governance capability [13]. From an “input–process–output” perspective, Feng Zhaorui and Zhao Qianying categorized the government’s digital governance capacity into five domains: digital infrastructure construction, digital resource provision, government data management, online public opinion handling, and digital governance performance [9]. Yuesheng Zhang, Wenjun Jin, and Yuxuan Tan presented an integrative analytical framework for understanding government digital governance capabilities based on an adapted and expanded Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) framework [18].

Current research indicates that the evaluation system for governance modernization in the Chinese government lacks quantitative assessment of digital governance capacity. Given its pivotal role in national governance modernization, a systematic evaluation has become a pressing necessity. Not only does it serve as a benchmark for gauging modernization effectiveness, but it also provides a starting point for digital transformation. A granular measurement of local governments’ digital governance capacity not only elucidates the evolution pattern and offers comprehensive guidance, but also assists governments in pinpointing areas for improvement, accelerating the modernization of the national governance system.

2.4. The Nexus between Government Digital Governance and Achieving Sustainable Development

The global pledge to attain the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 embodies a collective dedication to addressing the world’s most pressing issues, encompassing poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, prosperity, and challenges associated with peace and justice. The concept of “sustainable development”, introduced by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, encapsulates the principle of meeting contemporary needs without jeopardizing the potential of future generations to fulfill theirs.

Government digital governance and sustainable development are intricately connected and mutually reinforcing. In the digital age, digital governance enhances service efficiency and promotes multidimensional sustainability [19]. The specific linkages are delineated as follows: Firstly, increased transparency and public engagement facilitated by e-government platforms align with the principles of an inclusive society, fostering equitable decision-making and social stability [20]. This is pivotal for the realization of SDG 16, which focuses on peace, justice, and strong institutions. Secondly, enhanced resource utilization efficiency through data analytics optimizes allocation, aiding environmental protection and energy conservation. Applications like energy consumption management and digital climate governance [21] positively impact SDGs 7 and 13 related to environmental sustainability. Thirdly, the acceleration of economic structural transformation, driven by digital technologies, catalyzes new sectors such as e-commerce and smart cities [22], stimulating economic growth and job creation, in accordance with the economic sustainability goals embodied in SDGs 8 and 9. Fourthly, the promotion of service equity, bridging the digital divide, and improving access to public services like education and healthcare, particularly in remote regions and marginalized communities [23], is essential for achieving the education-focused SDG 4. Fifthly, enhanced emergency response capabilities enabled by digital governance facilitate prompt mobilization and effective management of natural disasters and public health crises, safeguarding public safety and bolstering societal resilience [24] and contributing to the realization of SDG 11, which aims to build safe and resilient communities.

In summary, augmenting local governments’ digital governance capacity is a critical catalyst for sustainable development. Promoting information transparency, efficient resource use, economic transformation and upgrading, service equity, and social resilience provides substantial support for long-term balanced economic, social, and environmental development.

3. Measuring the Digital Governance Capacity of Local Governments

3.1. Study Area and Data Sources

3.1.1. Study Area

Hunan Province is geographically positioned between longitudes 108°47′ and 114°15′ E and latitudes 24°38′ and 30°08′ N. It spans a maximum width of 667 km from east to west and a maximum length of 774 km from north to south. The province covers a total area of 211,800 square kilometers, representing 2.2% of China’s national territory. Among all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities in the country, Hunan ranks 10th in size and is the largest in Central China. As of 31 December 2022, the province administrates 13 prefecture-level cities and 1 autonomous prefecture, totaling 14 prefecture-level administrative divisions. These are distributed as follows: in the northern region: Changde City, Yiyang City, and Yueyang City; in the central region: Changsha City, Xiangtan City, Zhuzhou City, Loudi City, and Shaoyang City; in the southern region: Yongzhou City, Hengyang City, and Chenzhou City; in the western region: Huaihua City, Zhangjiajie City, and Xiangxi Autonomous Prefecture. This geographical layout is depicted in Figure 1.

3.1.2. Data Sources

In this paper, we utilize the entropy weight TOPSIS method alongside the barrier degree model to evaluate the digital governance capabilities of local governments within Hunan Province. Specifically, our analysis covers 14 cities and prefectures across the province, utilizing data spanning the years 2018 to 2022. All data and information are sourced from official channels, primarily derived from the Hunan Provincial Statistical Yearbook, Annual Reports on Government Information Disclosure, National Economic and Social Development Statistical Bulletins, and the Annual Work Statements of Government Portal Websites for the respective years.

Drawing on previous scholarly research [9,25], we place Hunan’s performance in the realm of government digital governance within a broader national comparative analysis. This reveals that while Hunan lags behind economically advanced coastal provinces, particularly in digital infrastructure, digital resource provision, and governance outcomes, it holds certain advantages over central and western provinces when it comes to digital governance promotion and policy innovation. To elevate its standing, Hunan should concentrate on enhancing digital infrastructure, refining resource distribution, bolstering governmental data management, learning from the successes of eastern provinces, and improving online public opinion handling and governance performance, tailored to its unique characteristics. By doing so, Hunan can raise its national digital governance profile and close the gap with leading provinces.

Our study establishes a solid foundation for an in-depth analysis and quantification of local governments’ digital governance capacities. We ensure data reliability and applicability while acknowledging and addressing potential limitations. The official origins of the data guarantee authenticity and objectivity, minimizing subjective bias. A five-year data series supports trend analysis and cross-year comparisons, enriching the analysis. Public accessibility allows for third-party scrutiny, enhancing transparency and validation opportunities. The selected data align closely with local government digital governance performance assessment needs, perfectly matching the entropy weight TOPSIS method and the barrier degree model parameters, ensuring accurate and valid assessments. Moreover, the temporal and granular nature of the data satisfies current governance effectiveness evaluation requirements and offers insights into regional governance disparities and developmental trajectories.

3.2. Research Methods

3.2.1. Entropy Weight TOPSIS Method

The entropy weight TOPSIS method adeptly consolidates indicator information and evaluates the comparative strengths of alternatives by computing the distances to positive and negative ideal solutions [26]. This method is particularly suited for intricate evaluation tasks such as gauging digital governance capacity, which involves multiple indicators and hierarchical structures. It not only objectively determines the significance of each indicator but also clearly delineates the rank order of the evaluated entities based on their merits and demerits. Despite offering an objective and systematic approach to assess government digital governance capability, the entropy weight TOPSIS method encounters several critical limitations. Firstly, it is the subjectivity of indicator selection. The selection of indicators may be swayed by researcher bias, potentially resulting in skewed evaluations. Secondly, it is the limitation of ideal program setting. Simplified configurations might overlook the nuanced interrelationships among indicators, undermining the accuracy of the outcomes. Thirdly, it is data quality impact. Given its reliance on high-quality data, inaccuracies directly compromise the reliability of the assessment results. Fourthly, it is multi-criteria decision-making complexity. Managing multiple indicators introduces complexities due to inherent conflicts and trade-offs, escalating the challenge of decision-making. Fifthly, it is potential bias and robustness issues. The underlying assumptions might not hold true in real-world scenarios and necessitate supplementation with additional analytical tools to bolster the robustness of the findings. Nonetheless, the entropy weight TOPSIS method stands as a scientifically rigorous and impartial instrument for evaluating the digital governance capability of governments. Its application should be guided by a thorough understanding of its limitations and potential biases to ensure the robustness and practical relevance of the analysis outcomes.

Calculation steps of the entropy weight TOPSIS method:

When evaluating the government’s digital governance capacity across m samples using n quality indicators, the evaluation matrix K can be constructed.

$$K={\left\{X_{ij}\right\}}_{m\times n}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}{x}_{11}& \begin{array}{ccc}{x}_{12}& \dots & x_{1n}\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}{x}_{21}\\ \ddots \\ x_{m1}\end{array}& \begin{array}{ccc}\begin{array}{c}{x}_{22}\\ \ddots \\ x_{m2}\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}\dots \\ \ddots \\ \dots \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}{x}_{2n}\\ \ddots \\ x_{mn}\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}\right]$$

Data Normalization and Coordinate Adjustment. Data underwent dimensionless processing, whereby positive indicators were adjusted so that higher values were advantageous, whereas negative indicators were scaled such that lower values were preferable. To address potential zero-value issues, the processed data were uniformly shifted by 0.0001 units. Here, i represents each individual sample and j denotes each specific indicator. Variable $x{\prime }_{ij}$ signifies the value post-standardization.

$$X_{ij}=\frac{x_{ij}-x_{min}}{x_{max}-x_{min}}$$

(1)

$$X_{ij}=\frac{x_{max}-x_{ij}}{x_{max}-x_{min}}$$

(2)

$${x^{\prime }}_{ij}=x_{ij}+{10}^{-3}$$

(3)

The dimensionless processed matrix is obtained.

$$S=\left[\begin{array}{cc}{v}_{11}& \begin{array}{ccc}{v}_{12}& \dots & v_{1n}\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}{v}_{21}\\ \ddots \\ v_{m1}\end{array}& \begin{array}{ccc}\begin{array}{c}{v}_{22}\\ \ddots \\ v_{m2}\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}\dots \\ \ddots \\ \dots \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}{v}_{2n}\\ \ddots \\ v_{mn}\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}\right]$$

Weight Calculation. To determine the weight of each indicator, we consider m representing the total number of samples and t signifying the total number of indicators. Here, i indexes the samples from 1 to m, and j indexes the indicators from 1 to t.

$$Y_{ij}=\frac{{x^{\prime }}_{ij}}{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1}^m{x^{\prime }}_{ij}}$$

(4)

We calculate information entropy. This is determined based on the computation of each indicator’s total contribution, specifically yielding the entropy value.

$$e_{ij}=-\frac{1}{\ln \left(m\right)}{\displaystyle \sum }_{i=1}^m{Y}_{ij}\ln \left(Y_{ij}\right)$$

(5)

We calculate indicator weights and coefficients of variation.

$$d_i=1-e_j$$

(6)

$$w_j=\frac{d_i}{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1}^t{d}_i}$$

(7)

We construct the weighting matrix by multiplying the dimensionless indicator assessment matrix, denoted as $S$, with the weight vector w, which is calculated using the entropy weighting method. Specifically, we compute the product $a_{ij}=w_{ij}\times x{\prime }_{ij}$ for each element, resulting in the weighted indicator assessment matrix A.

$$A=\left[\begin{array}{cc}{a}_{11}& \begin{array}{ccc}{a}_{12}& \dots & a_{1n}\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}{a}_{21}\\ \ddots \\ a_{m1}\end{array}& \begin{array}{ccc}\begin{array}{c}{a}_{22}\\ \ddots \\ a_{m2}\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}\dots \\ \ddots \\ \dots \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}{a}_{2n}\\ \ddots \\ a_{mn}\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}\right]$$

We determine the positive and negative ideal solutions.

$$y_j^{+}=\max \left(a_{ij}\right)$$

(8)

$$y_j^{-}=\min \left(a_{ij}\right)$$

(9)

We calculate the Euclidean distance for the normalized vector of metric assessments weighted by the multi-sample multi-assessment metrics to the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution.

$$D_j^{+}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^m{\left({x^{\prime }}_{ij}-y_j^{+}\right)}^2}$$

(10)

$$D_j^{-}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^m{\left({x^{\prime }}_{ij}-y_j^{-}\right)}^2}$$

(11)

The calculation of relative closeness is used to compare the relative distance between the evaluation object and the optimal and worst solutions.

$$C_j=\frac{D_j^{-}}{D_j^{-}+D_j^{+}},$$

(12)

where the relative posting schedule $C_j$∈ [0, 1] and the larger value of $C_j$ indicate the stronger government’s digital governance capability; otherwise, the weaker government’s digital governance capability.

3.2.2. The Barrier Degree Model

The Barrier Degree Model serves as a system analysis tool rooted in a multi-indicator evaluation framework. It utilizes the entropy weighting method to ascertain the weightage of each indicator. Subsequently, the model calculates the disparity between the actual performance of every indicator and its ideal state, known as indicator deviation. This deviation is then used to assess the contribution of each factor to the aggregate degree of obstacles, culminating in the synthesis of an overall obstacle degree. This holistic measure identifies the primary hindrances impeding a system or a project from attaining its optimal condition [27]. The outcomes of the Barrier Degree Model’s systematic analysis offer an objective and scientific lens to scrutinize the issues present in the Hunan provincial government’s digital governance capacity at each criterion level. Moreover, they furnish empirical evidence and theoretical foundations for devising targeted improvement strategies and future strategic planning. However, when employing the Barrier Degree Model, several caveats merit consideration. Firstly, it is excessive subjectivity. Indicator selection and weighting may be influenced by researcher bias, weakening the comprehensiveness of the assessment. Secondly, it is the ideal reality gap. The discrepancy between the ideal state assumed by the model and the complex reality may limit the accurate identification of barriers. Thirdly, it is data processing simplification. Standardized processing may mask complex relationships among indicators, affecting assessment accuracy. Fourthly, it is the risk of error accumulation. Accumulated errors in multi-step processing may reduce the reliability of the final assessment results.

The Barrier Degree Model comprises three core components: Indicator Deviation, Factor Contribution, and Obstacle Degree. By ranking these according to the magnitude of the obstacle degree, one can pinpoint the predominant factors impeding the government’s digital governance capabilities. The sequential steps for its computation are outlined as follows:

We determine factor contribution $F_i$, indicator deviation $I_i$.

$$F_i=W_i\times w_{ij}$$

(13)

$$I_i=1-{x^{\prime }}_{ij}$$

(14)

The degree to which the I indicator is an obstacle to the government’s ability to govern digitally is $H_i$.

$$H_i=\frac{F_i\times I_i}{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1}^m{w}_j{X^{\prime }}_{ij}}\times 100\%$$

(15)

We calculate the degree of obstacles at the guideline level to the government’s ability to govern digitally $U_i$.

$$U_i=\sum P_{ij},$$

(16)

where $x{\prime }_{ij}$ is the normalized value of the indicator, $I_i$ is its corresponding indicator deviation, $F_i$ is the factor contribution, $H_{ij}$ is the indicator handicap, $U_i$ is the criterion layer handicap, and $w_{ij}$ is the weight of the indicator layer.

3.3. Theoretical Framework for Measuring the Digital Governance Capacity of Local Governments

The digital governance model, merging the essence of digital technology with governance principles, embodies an innovative framework for governmental administration, with its heart centered on enhancing public engagement and interactivity [28]. As per Milakovic’s insights, digital governance acts as a roadmap for a people-centric approach, designed to permeate all echelons of government. Its strategy is centered on economic rejuvenation and addressing the multifaceted demands and aspirations of the populace through efficient enhancements, guiding the evolution of governmental services and oversight in the digital age [5]. Systems theory perceives organizations as dynamic, interconnected wholes, encompassing inputs, processes, outputs, and their interlinkages. David Easton’s political systems theory amalgamates systems theory and political science, distilling complex dynamics into a simplified “Input–Transformation–Output” analytical framework [29]. In practical terms, digital governance by the government transcends mere established protocols or actions; it is a fluid, ongoing process. When dissected, this process can be categorized into inputs (allocation of governmental resources), process (management of digital information), and outputs (impact of digital governance), encapsulating the entire trajectory of digital governance development. From this perspective, the government’s digital governance capacity can be comprehensively gauged throughout the digital governance continuum.

Drawing upon a meticulous examination of China’s government’s real-world applications of digital governance, this paper endeavors to construct a more nuanced framework for evaluating governmental digital governance capabilities. This framework centers around three pivotal dimensions: first is the allocation and input of foundational resources (basic resource input); second is the efficacy of monitoring and managing online public discourse (online public opinion management); and third is the tangible outcomes and influence of digital services (digital service effectiveness). Resource input encompasses the proficiency of local governments in mobilizing and leveraging external resources to foster the enhancement and modernization of public administrative services. To augment local governments’ capacity to attract and allocate resources, they must proficiently amalgamate regional assets, including financial resources and IT expertise, to underpin the seamless delivery of digital administrative services. Additionally, they must prioritize technological innovation and platform advancement to ensure that digital governance remains at the forefront of progress and effectiveness [30]. Process transformation refers to the sequence of administrative actions taken by local governments to react to external pressures and formulate corresponding management and response strategies post reception of external support and demands. During this phase, government entities must possess robust execution skills to guarantee the successful deployment of the overarching digital government blueprint and associated digital governance policies [31]. Concurrently, amidst the vast information landscape, governments must bolster online public opinion management, steer public discourse, and ensure prompt detection of issues and receipt of feedback during the digital governance journey. While “government data sharing level” and “data security” are critical components of digital governance, our focus in the “process transformation stage” is on “online public opinion management”, primarily due to its relevance to the immediacy of governmental decision-making feedback mechanisms, risk mitigation, policy refinement, public opinion steering, and governance capacity modernization. This focus is crucial for the government to uphold high levels of efficiency, transparency, and accountability in the intricate and ever-evolving online milieu, exerting a profound and direct impact. Outputs represent the culmination of environmental inputs and process transformations, chiefly encompassing government information disclosure, provision of services, and citizen–government interaction [32]. The quality and efficiency of these outputs serve as a direct manifestation of the government’s digital governance prowess and outcomes, constituting a vital metric for gauging the success of digital government construction.

Our manuscript elucidates the dynamic sequence of “external resource acquisition, stimulus incorporation, government digital governance actions, outcome generation, and feedback assimilation in the context of local government digital governance, utilizing the theoretical framework of “resource input–process transformation–result output.” This study unfolds the dynamic interplay between external resource input, government digital governance behavior, outcome crystallization, and feedback integration within local governments’ digital governance landscape, thereby offering a dynamic analytical lens through which to evaluate local governments’ digital governance capabilities. The particular analytical framework is illustrated in Figure 2.

3.4. Indicator System for Measuring Digital Governance Capacity of Local Governments

The indicator foundation for this study primarily synthesizes pertinent metrics from the Implementation Blueprint of the 14th Five-Year Plan for Digital Government Construction in Hunan Province, the Assessment and Analysis Report on the Integration of Government Services by Provincial Governments and Key Municipalities, the Digital Government Development Report, the Data-Empowered Government Governance Evaluation Index Report, and the Digital Government Development Index Report. Additionally, it integrates valuable insights from existing research on the construction of governance-level indicators. Simultaneously, aligning with the aforementioned theoretical framework for evaluating local government digital governance capacity, the established indicator system adopts a tri-level design. It comprises a total of three primary indicators, eight secondary indicators, and eleven tertiary indicators, as delineated in

Table 1. Evaluation index system for digital governance capability of local governments.

Primary Index	Secondary Index	Instructions	Index Type	Indicator Source
Basic resource input (A)	Digital infrastructure penetration (A1)	The number of fixed internet broadband access (a1)	+	Statistical Yearbook of the Cities and Prefectures of Hunan Province, Statistical Bulletin of National Economic and Social Development (2018–2022)
	Digital R&D investment (A2)	R&D investment intensity (a2)	+
	Digital talent reserve (A3)	The employee headcount in the information transmission, software, and information technology service industry (a3)	+
Network public opinion management (B)	Digital media operation (B4)	The quantity of official government WeChat and Weibo information releases (b4)	+	Annual work report of Hunan provincial municipal and state government portals (2018–2022)
	Network policy interpretation (B5)	The count of government information disclosures (b5)	+
Digital service effectiveness (C)	Government Transparency (C6)	The number of disclosure applications (c6)	+	Annual Report on Government Information Disclosure in Cities and Prefectures of Hunan Province (2018–2022)
		The government accepts the quantity of disclosure upon application (c7)	+
	Government services (C7)	Online availability rate of governmental service matters (c8)	+	Annual work report of Hunan provincial municipal and state government portals (2018–2022)
	Government-Citizen Interaction (C8)	The number of responses to public concern hotspots or significant public opinions (c9)	+
		The completion rate of government message processing (c10)	+
		The average processing time of government messages (c11)	+

. Each indicator’s definition is provided for clarity.

3.4.1. Basic Resource Input

The effective manifestation of digital governance hinges on the provision of accessible and efficient digital public services by the government, directly tied to the input of fundamental resources for digital platforms [13]. The Fourteenth Five-Year Plan for the Construction of New Digital Infrastructure in Hunan Province underscores that government investment in digital governance encompasses not just expenditures on hardware, such as infrastructure, but also provisions for resources like talent and capital, essential prerequisites for governance innovation. Accordingly, drawing from the Digital Government Development Report, the secondary indicators are delineated as the penetration of digital facilities, investment in digital research and development, and the digital talent pool.

Regarding the penetration of digital facilities, the profound integration and application of cutting-edge digital technologies including big data centers and artificial intelligence in innovative practices hinge critically on the backing of communication technologies and other digital infrastructures [33]. Broadband access stands as the cornerstone of the contemporary digital society, encompassing various high-speed internet access methods beyond fiber optics, such as ADSL, LAN, and others. It vividly portrays the reach and utilization of digital infrastructure, reflecting not only the velocity and quality of internet connectivity but also indirectly the level of regional or national informatization and the extent of public demand for internet services [34]. Hence, the number of fixed internet broadband access subscribers is selected herein to gauge the diffusion of digital facilities.

Concerning digital R&D investment, substantial funding acts as a cardinal support for the introduction and integration of nascent digital technologies into practical applications. Given the specialized nature of digital technologies, their evolution and deployment cannot advance without the underpinning of extensive R&D experimental activities and foundational scientific research [35]. R&D investment intensity denotes the quantum of funds allocated to R&D activities per unit of GDP, not merely reflecting the absolute magnitude of R&D investment but also revealing the relative correlation between R&D investment and economic output [36]. Greater investment of economic resources in research and development activities plays a pivotal role in propelling advancements in digital technologies and expediting the conversion of scientific and technological achievements into productive capabilities [37]. Consequently, R&D funding intensity is chosen in this paper to quantify digital R&D investment (R&D investment intensity = government R&D expenditure (in billion yuan)/gross regional product).

With respect to the digital talent reserve, as China’s digital industry scales new heights and the pace of industrial digital transformation accelerates, the structure of digital talent supply mirrors the uneven progression of industrial digitalization [38]. Generally, the digital industry outpaces developments, leading to a scarcity of digital talent, necessitating the establishment of a talent reservoir to secure the growth of information technology and the edification of a digital government [39]. When evaluating the digital talent pool, the workforce count in the information transmission, software, and information technology service sector emerges as a critical metric, illustrating the supply–demand dynamics in the digital industry labor market. This holds significant relevance for formulating talent cultivation strategies and optimizing the talent architecture to augment digital governance capabilities [40]. Thus, the employee headcount in the information transmission, software, and information technology service industry is selected herein to measure the digital talent pool.

3.4.2. Network Public Opinion Management

Network public opinion management entails a strategic set of actions employed by governments, enterprises, and other organizations to monitor, analyze, guide, and respond to online public opinions, emotional trends, and public sentiment dynamics utilizing modern information technology. This is necessary to maintain social stability, safeguard public interests, and uphold reputations [41]. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: “Without cybersecurity, there is no national security; without informatization, there is no modernization”. He advocated for “strengthening the construction of a full-media communication system to forge a new pattern of mainstream public opinion, improving the comprehensive network governance system, and fostering a healthy online ecosystem”. A crucial instrument in managing online public opinion is government new media [42]. In the 2018 State Council’s Opinions on Promoting the Healthy and Orderly Development of New Government Affairs Media, it was explicitly stated that by 2022, a matrix system of new government affairs media would be established, led by the new government affairs media on the Chinese government website, with overall coordination and swift responsiveness. The goal was to significantly enhance the communicative power, influence, guiding capacity, and credibility of new government affairs media. In the era of smart media, enhancing the effectiveness of government tools and improving governance efficiency has become a focal point for scholars. Drawing from the “Data Empowerment Governance Evaluation Index Report” and the “Digital Government Development Index Report”, the secondary indicators are delineated as digital media operation and online policy interpretation.

Regarding digital media operation, new political media is characterized by its credibility and authority, serving as both a platform for the Party and government to communicate in the new era and a bridge for dialogue between the government and the public [43]. The official government WeChat and Weibo platforms dominate China’s new government media landscape [9]. Government entities disseminate various types of information, including articles, notices, and news, via their official WeChat and Weibo accounts. These communications encompass a broad spectrum, addressing emergencies and responses to societal issues, with the aim of promptly and accurately conveying the government’s stance while fulfilling the public’s informational needs. Monitoring and analyzing the volume of these information releases enables researchers and policymakers to evaluate the operational efficacy of government new media, pinpoint existing challenges, and refine strategies to optimize communication outcomes and service delivery [44]. Thus, the quantity of official government WeChat and Weibo information releases is selected herein to reflect the operational status of digital media.

Concerning online policy interpretation, online policy interpretation involves elucidating the specific content and spirit of newly enacted policies through digital platforms. It seeks to align key policy disclosures and planning activities with public concerns, thereby enhancing the positive orientation of governmental public opinion and facilitating the implementation of policy measures devised by various departments [9]. Analyzing the frequency of policy interpretation information releases allows for gauging the government’s activity and reach in policy interpretation on online platforms. This, in turn, helps assess the extent and depth of policy dissemination, as well as the government’s effectiveness in increasing policy transparency and public engagement [42]. Therefore, the number of published policy interpretation information pieces is chosen to measure online policy interpretation.

3.4.3. Digital Service Effectiveness

Digital service effectiveness encompasses the tangible outcomes and impacts of services delivered through digital technology. It aims to fulfill user needs, enhance service quality and efficiency, and stimulate social and economic growth [45]. The State Council’s Guidelines on Enhancing Digital Government Construction advocate for vigorous promotion of digital reforms in government operations and service delivery. This includes innovating management and service methodologies, advancing the smart and integrated development of open platforms, and elevating the openness of government services. In line with the progression towards digitization and drawing insights from reports such as the Provincial Governments and Key Cities’ Integrated Government Services Capability Survey and Assessment Report (2021) (https://zjjcmspublic.oss-cn-hangzhou-zwynet-d01-a.internet.cloud.zj.gov.cn/jcms_files/jcms1/web3494/site/attach/0/b85c42ac27f740369bdb7bd0d6c74f4d.pdf, accessed on 28 November 2023), the importance of government websites as a critical reflection of openness and transparency becomes evident. Consequently, the openness and quality of government services and the interactions between government and citizens are designated as secondary indicators to gauge the effectiveness of digital services.

Government transparency: Open government significantly influences public trust levels, directly representing government credibility and reflecting the transparency and standardization of public decision-making and administrative management services [46]. The volume of government information disclosures signifies the total quantity of information voluntarily disclosed by the government, encompassing policies, regulations, and administrative permits. The frequency of disclosures in response to requests indicates the number of times the government responds to specific public inquiries regarding information, including document queries and details about decision-making processes. The number of government information disclosures serves as a foundational metric for assessing the scope and depth of government transparency, whereas the frequency of disclosures in response to requests is a pivotal indicator of the government’s proactivity and responsiveness [47]. Two indicators have been established to reflect the level of government disclosure: the count of government information disclosures and the number of disclosure applications.

Government services: “Internet + government services” represents a pivotal national strategy for transforming government service delivery. It enables the provision of more efficient, high-quality public services, characterized by convenience and digitalization [48]. Monitoring the online accessibility of government services assists authorities in evaluating digital service standards, pinpointing areas for improvement, and enhancing efficiency and user experience [49]. The online availability rate of government service matters is selected as a metric to quantify government services (online availability rate of governmental service matters = number of governmental service matters fully processable online/total number of governmental service matters).

Government–citizen interaction: This reflects the current state of communication between the government and citizens, centered on public needs. It allows for the government to promptly identify and rectify issues and deficiencies in its operations [50]. The number of responses to public concern hotspots or significant public opinions denotes the frequency of official government responses to widely discussed public issues or major public sentiments, indicating the government’s proficiency in guiding public discourse and managing crises [51]. The completion rate of government messages is defined as the ratio of successfully processed and responded-to government messages against the total messages received within a specified period, measuring the government’s efficiency in handling matters [52]. The average processing time of government messages represents the mean duration from receiving a government message to completing its processing and response, assessing the responsiveness of government services [53]. Three indicators have been chosen to represent government–citizen interaction: the number of responses to public concern hotspots or significant public opinions, the completion rate of government message processing, and the average processing time of government messages (completion rate of governmental message processing = number of completed messages/number of received messages).

4. Measurement Results and Analysis

4.1. Comprehensive Evaluation of Government Digital Governance Ability in Hunan Province

4.1.1. Analysis of Evaluation Results Based on City Perspective

As can be observed from

Table 2. Scores and rankings of digital governance competence for the governments of 14 prefectures and cities in Hunan Province.

District	Score (Ranking)					5-Year Rank Change Attitude
	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Changsha	0.2526 (3)	0.3926 (1)	0.6626 (1)	0.5061 (1)	0.5408 (1)	+2
Zhuzhou	0.0938 (10)	0.1750 (5)	0.2101 (3)	0.2091 (4)	0.1635 (7)	+3
Xiangtan	0.0918 (11)	0.0771 (11)	0.0920 (10)	0.1493 (6)	0.1588 (9)	+2
Hengyang	0.4550 (1)	0.3787 (2)	0.3261 (2)	0.2976 (2)	0.2577 (2)	−1
Shaoyang	0.1079 (7)	0.1022 (9)	0.0743 (14)	0.1055 (10)	0.2068 (5)	+2
Yueyang	0.1142 (6)	0.1145 (8)	0.1054 (8)	0.1299 (8)	0.1707 (6)	0
Changde	0.1068 (8)	0.1743 (6)	0.1172 (7)	0.1906 (5)	0.1601 (8)	0
Zhangjiajie	0.0914 (12)	0.0374 (14)	0.1557 (4)	0.1053 (11)	0.1071 (13)	−1
Yiyang	0.0669 (14)	0.1357 (7)	0.1374 (5)	0.2350 (3)	0.2357 (3)	+11
Chenzhou	0.1189 (5)	0.0908 (10)	0.0902 (11)	0.1092 (9)	0.1272 (12)	−7
Yongzhou	0.2997 (2)	0.2602 (3)	0.0989 (9)	0.1399 (7)	0.2191 (4)	−2
Huaihua	0.1193 (4)	0.0674 (13)	0.0838 (13)	0.0800 (14)	0.1507 (10)	−6
Loudi	0.0765 (13)	0.0727 (12)	0.0844 (12)	0.0947 (13)	0.1333 (11)	+2
Xiangxi	0.1015 (9)	0.1978 (4)	0.1201 (6)	0.1051 (12)	0.1045 (14)	−5

, the digital governance capacity of fourteen cities and state governments in Hunan Province has exhibited fluctuations from a holistic perspective over the 2018–2022 timeframe. By the conclusion of 2022, Yueyang City and Changde City retained their original positions in the provincial rankings, with their scores generally falling within the mid-to-lower range, indicating a degree of stability. However, this also suggests that their potential in the wave of digital transformation remains largely untapped, necessitating additional resource investments to bolster the application of digital technology in public management and services. Conversely, six cities—Changsha, Zhuzhou, Xiangtan, Shaoyang, Yiyang, and Loudi—have witnessed an ascension in the government’s digital governance capacity rankings, reflecting their proactive efforts and serving as exemplars in digital governance. Simultaneously, six other cities—Hengyang, Zhangjiajie, Chenzhou, Yongzhou, Huaihua, and Xiangxi—have encountered a downward trajectory in the rankings, highlighting challenges in executing pertinent governance strategies and measures amidst the swiftly evolving landscape of digital technology and increasingly intricate social governance demands.

From a five-year ranking movement perspective, Changsha, Zhuzhou, and Xiangtan, as the pivotal development zones within the ChangZhuTan city cluster’s regional integration, have undergone significant upward adjustments in their rankings. The Five-Year Action Plan for ChangZhuTan Integration and Development (2021–2025), promulgated by the General Offices of the Provincial Party Committee and Provincial Government in 2021, alongside the ChangZhuTan Metropolitan Circle Development Plan unveiled in March 2022, leverage the core engine and radiative roles of ChangZhuTan in executing the “Three Highs and Four New” strategy and constructing a modernized Hunan Province. These plans encompass the establishment of the ChangZhuTan Wisdom City Big Data Center and the acceleration of urban governance’s visualization and refinement. Consequently, the digital governance capabilities of these three cities rank prominently among Hunan Province’s top tier. Moreover, the subsequent “melting city” effect is anticipated to catalyze high-quality development across Hunan. For the six cities experiencing a decline in rankings, the planning for western cities should be prioritized in the formulation of digital governance capacity policies, with enhanced support for remote western areas. Notably, Yiyang exhibited exceptional performance concerning digital governance capability, surging eleven spots from the bottom of the list in 2018 to secure the third position in 2022. Yiyang City has dedicated efforts to fostering the construction of pivotal application projects in sectors like smart agriculture, smart transportation, and smart civil affairs, and has zealously implemented policy documents associated with digital government construction. This resulted in an effective adjustment and optimization of its digital governance structure within a brief span, providing valuable insights at both theoretical and practical levels for other lower-ranking regions. This underscores the significance of targeted strategic deployment and institutional innovation to rapidly elevate local governments’ digital governance capacity.

4.1.2. Analysis of Evaluation Results Based on Regional Perspective

Calculations were conducted to ascertain the scores for the indicators pertaining to the dimensions of basic resource input, online public opinion management, and digital service effectiveness in relation to the digital governance capacity of the governments across 14 cities and states in Hunan Province from 2018 to 2022. The average scores of preceding years were then categorized based on the regions of Southern Hunan, Northern Hunan, Central Hunan, and Western Hunan, thereby illustrating the dynamic alterations in the digital governance capacity of each respective region.

As depicted in Figure 3, the basic resource input scores for these four regions exhibit a gradual decline, indicating the pressures on fundamental resource inputs that Hunan Province confronts in enhancing its digital governance capacity. From 2020 to 2022, the score curve plateaus, suggesting that the dynamics of basic resource input have entered a relatively stable phase. This stability is influenced by factors such as the economic cycle, policy adjustments, and other determinants, leading to the stabilization of resource allocation and utilization efficiency. Central Hunan boasts the highest score for basic resource input among the four regions, declining from 0.3927 in 2018 to 0.2819 in 2022. Conversely, Western Hunan registers the lowest score, falling from 0.2095 in 2018 to 0.0358 in 2022.

Significant variations in basic resource inputs are observed across different regions within Hunan Province, with more pronounced disparities noted in the central and western parts of the province. The socio-economic factors contributing to Central Hunan’s elevated scores underscore its traditional strengths in resource investment. These strengths include its advantageous geographic position as the nucleus of the Chang Zhu Tan metropolitan area, which facilitates easy investment attraction, coupled with mature infrastructure support and a favorable policy environment. Pivotal policies such as the “Implementation Plan to Support Changsha Municipality in Deepening the Reform of ‘Release of Administrative Services’ and Digital Transformation” and Xiangtan’s “14th Five-Year Plan for Digital Government Construction” have continuously refined the region’s digital government construction strategy. Additionally, an optimized industrial structure has attracted talent and technological capital, enhancing resource attractiveness and allocation efficiency. Despite its leadership in basic resource investment, Central Hunan’s score has shown a downward trend from 2018 to 2022, even though it remains high, signaling the ongoing need for sustained focus and increased investment to maintain and improve the level of government digital governance.

Although Southern and Northern Hunan exhibit closely matched scores, they still reflect their distinct socio-economic contexts (for instance, Changde City stands as a pivotal node city of the Yangtze River Economic Belt and a significant component of the Dongting Lake Ecological and Economic Zone) and policy orientations (such as Yiyang City’s “Three-Year Action Plan for Upgrading the Capacity of Information and Communication Infrastructure (2019–2021)” and Changde City’s “New Smart City Three-Year Action Plan for Construction (2021–2023)”). The subtle differences among these regions arise from the development status of local specialty industries, the fiscal strength of local governments, and the intensity of external cooperation and exchange, collectively shaping their performance in digital governance resource input.

Conversely, Western Hunan grapples with low basic resource input scores, which have plummeted notably, spotlighting the severe challenges the region faces in securing and effectively utilizing digital governance resources. Weak economic foundations, exemplified by Xiangxi Autonomous Prefecture and Zhangjiajie’s persistent ranking at the bottom of the 14 cities and states in terms of annual GDP, deplete the funds available to local governments, impacting the construction and upkeep of digital infrastructures. Poor infrastructure, in turn, hampers economic development, engendering a vicious cycle. Furthermore, policy-level disadvantages, such as the absence of targeted supportive policies and incentives, impede the introduction of social capital and technological innovation, aggravating the uneven distribution of resources. For these regions, it is particularly crucial to reinforce policy preferences, attract social capital, and refine resource allocation mechanisms.

As illustrated by the online opinion management score in Figure 4, the Northern Hunan region’s score in online public opinion management has shown a steady rise from 0.2088 in 2018 to 0.4750 in 2022, reflecting a development trajectory characterized by a gradual ascent with minor fluctuations. Notably, between 2019 and 2022, the increase reached a remarkable 261%, signifying that the Northern Hunan region has implemented effective measures to enhance network monitoring, information dissemination efficiency, and public engagement. This achievement is partly attributable to the region’s robust economic might, which furnishes a solid material foundation for the deployment of digital technology and the construction of network facilities. Complementing this, local governments have proactively aligned with the national strategy of cyber power, instituting a series of policies to boost information dissemination and regulatory governance efficacy (such as Changde City’s Implementing Rules on Accelerating the Establishment of a Comprehensive Cyber Governance System and Changde City’s Implementing Opinions on Strengthening Source Governance of Public Opinion Emergency Response), thereby substantially augmenting the effectiveness of online opinion management.

In the Southern Hunan region, the score for the capability to manage online opinion escalated from 0.2281 in 2018 to 0.5123 in 2022, displaying an overall upward trend marked by fluctuations, which attests to its innovative dynamism and adaptable strategies in online governance. The region’s triumph can be ascribed to its comparatively open political climate, which fosters technological innovation and social participation, in conjunction with its more comprehensive Information and Communication Technology (ICT) infrastructure. This infrastructure facilitates prompt responses to shifts in online public sentiment and enhances public interaction. Despite periodic dips, the Southern Hunan region has maintained its upward trajectory, exemplifying its proactive exploration of information dissemination mechanisms and public relations management (for example, Chenzhou City collaborates with city and county public security departments to legally rectify issues like personal information leaks, self-media disorder, online rumor-mongering, and other legal violations, persistently advancing the “Clear” remediation campaign).

The level of online public opinion management in the Central Hunan region progressed from 0.2609 in 2018 to 0.4180 in 2022, and its consistent enhancement mirrors the region’s unceasing refinement of online public opinion management systems. The advancement in Central Hunan is owed to a more balanced economic and social development level and a relatively sophisticated talent cultivation framework, circumstances that facilitate a more efficient information dissemination mechanism and the deployment of public opinion monitoring technology. This also reflects the local government’s judicious adjustment and optimization in public relations management (such as the introduction of the “Implementing Opinions on Accelerating the Establishment of a Comprehensive Cyber Governance System”, which explores innovative methodologies and working pathways).

The Western Hunan region’s online public opinion management score has been maintained at a relatively low level over these four years, marginally declining from 0.0752 in 2018 to 0.0580 in 2022, with the overall developmental trend exhibiting no significant alterations. This highlights substantial deficiencies in online public opinion management, which is linked to factors including outdated technical infrastructure, inadequate human resources, and insufficient emphasis on online public opinion management. To bridge the gap with other regions, there is a pressing requirement for the Western Hunan region to escalate investment, upgrade technical and human resource support, and concurrently intensify online communication with the public to enhance the effectiveness of online public opinion management.

As illustrated by the digital service effectiveness score in Figure 5, the Northern Hunan region exhibits an overall fluctuating upward trend, progressing from 0.1856 in 2018 to 0.3736 in 2022. It hits its lowest point of 0.1656 in 2020, after which its score gently ascends in 2021–2022, achieving the highest score level in both years. This pattern indicates that the region has executed effective strategic adjustments to enhance the quality and efficiency of digital services post initial hurdles. This success is attributed to the region’s relatively robust economic foundation, enabling sustained investment in technological innovation and service model refinement. Effective collaboration between the government and enterprises (for instance, promoting more services on “Xiangyi Office”, facilitating the city’s self-built featured applications to connect with the Changde flagship store and centrally publish them on “Xiangyi Office”, and conducting the operation of the “Changde Zone” to guide businesses and the public to download and utilize it), along with a focus on user feedback, leading to prompt strategy adjustments (such as the “Three-year Action Plan for the Construction of a New-type Intelligent City in Changde City (2021–2023)”), has consequently improved service quality and efficiency.

Central Hunan region’s score advanced from 0.1763 in 2018 to 0.2944 in 2022, showcasing an overall upward trend. Despite a somewhat lower starting point, the continuous upward trajectory reflects the region’s ongoing enhancement and investment in digital services (for example, the unveiling of the “Zhuzhou Municipal Implementation Plan for Accelerating the Work of ‘Internet+ Government Services’”, with the development of “Wisdom Zhuzhou” as the cornerstone, aligning with the “Provincial One Network, One Line, One Service”, etc.). Even if the growth rate might not match that of other regions, the steady increase signifies continuous efforts in service system construction and service quality enhancement. This consistent growth can be attributed to local governments’ persistent investment strategy, which, despite limited resources, has effectively improved service quality through meticulous management and gradual accumulation.

The development trajectory of the Southern Hunan region, transitioning from 0.4721 in 2018 to 0.3056 in 2022, conforms to a decline followed by a gradual rise, with a 46% drop from 2018 to 2020 and a deceleration in 2021. This is due to an initial rapid expansion followed by an execution bottleneck or strategic misstep. The subsequent recovery implies that the region has rediscovered the appropriate path to fortify its digital services following a strategic recalibration, initiating a gradual resurgence and uncovering new growth opportunities. Adjustments during this phase entailed reconsolidating existing resources and reexploring emerging technologies and service paradigms (for example, the “My Yongzhou” smart government cooperation was formally inaugurated only in 2022, marking a late start).

The Western Hunan region boasts the lowest digital service effectiveness among the four regions, spanning from 0.2504 in 2018 to 0.1233 in 2022, with a fluctuating downward trend throughout the study period, exposing the region’s obstacles in advancing digital services. This is tied to factors such as deficient infrastructure, a scarcity of talent, inadequate financial investment, or subpar strategy execution. Facing the deepening of digital governance, the Western Hunan region requires immediate and targeted interventions to counteract the low effectiveness of digital services.

In summation, the fluctuations in the scores of Hunan Province’s regions across the three pivotal domains of government digital governance, namely basic resource investment, online public opinion management, and digital service efficacy, are profoundly shaped by the interplay of various elements, including economic strength, policy direction, technological penetration, social governance innovation, and civic engagement. To minimize developmental disparities between regions, future strategies should concentrate on balancing resource allocation, deepening policy assistance, reinforcing digital infrastructure, augmenting digital literacy among citizens, and streamlining government governance structures to foster comprehensive, harmonious, and sustainable advancement of digital governance within the province.

4.2. Barrier Degree Analysis of Digital Governance Capability Indicators for the Government of Hunan Province

4.2.1. Criterion-Level Barrier Degree Analysis

The line graph delineates the developmental trends of the barrier degree for each criterion level of the government’s digital governance capacity in Hunan Province across the three dimensions of basic resource input, online public opinion management, and digital service efficacy from 2018 to 2022, as depicted in Figure 6.

As evidenced by Figure 6, digital service efficacy has emerged as the most influential factor hindering the enhancement of government digital governance levels in Hunan Province. During 2019–2020, the barrier degree across all three criterion layers exhibited more pronounced fluctuations. Notably, the barrier degree of basic resource input experienced a considerable reduction of 0.0451, indicative of the government’s substantial investment in financial resources, technical infrastructure, and talent development to bolster digital governance capabilities during this timeframe. However, the barrier degrees of digital service efficacy and online public opinion management underwent upward adjustments to 0.0208 and 0.0243, respectively. The former could be attributed to escalating user expectations for digital services, juxtaposed against the static service quality and technical support, leading to a widening disparity between service effectiveness and user anticipations. The latter’s increase might be linked to the intricacies of the online landscape and the burgeoning volume of public opinion incidents. In the digital age, the volatility and unpredictability of online public opinion have imposed greater demands on governmental digital governance endeavors. Authorities must therefore diligently monitor and swiftly address online public opinion to preserve societal equilibrium and public confidence.

4.2.2. Index Layer Barrier Degree Analysis

As can be observed from

Table 3. Ranking of barriers to government digital governance ability in Hunan Province.

Year	Item	Index Ranking
		1	2	3	4	5
2018	Barrier factor	a3	c9	c7	c8	b5
	Barrier degree	0.2636	0.2292	0.1190	0.1029	0.0930
2019	Barrier factor	a3	c9	c7	b5	c8
	Barrier degree	0.2721	0.2524	0.1106	0.0940	0.0901
2020	Barrier factor	c9	a3	c7	b5	c6
	Barrier degree	0.2356	0.2317	0.1225	0.1119	0.0899
2021	Barrier factor	c9	a3	c7	b5	c6
	Barrier degree	0.2676	0.2354	0.1242	0.1039	0.0872
2022	Barrier factor	c9	a3	c7	b5	c6
	Barrier degree	0.2794	0.2393	0.1213	0.1024	0.0919

, the primary barrier factor in 2018–2019 was the number of employees in the information transmission, computer services, and software industry (a3). However, from 2020 to 2022, the focus shifted to the number of responses to hotspots of public concern or major public opinions (c9), indicating several critical trends and transitions. (1) Accelerating digital transformation. In the period of 2018–2019, the workforce size in the information transmission, computer services, and software sectors emerged as the chief barrier factor. This underscores that the dearth of qualified personnel was a significant impediment to digital governance and the evolution of the digital economy during this phase. (2) Growing Demand for Public Participation and Communication. The shift in the barrier factor from 2020 to 2022 reflects a notable escalation in public anticipation for the government’s responsiveness to hot-button issues or major public sentiments. This could be associated with the accelerated pace of information dissemination in the digital era and the heightened public awareness and involvement. (3) Increased complexity of social governance. As public expectations of the government soar, the demand for information diversifies and becomes increasingly immediate. Consequently, the government must uphold social stability and public trust via efficacious communication and response frameworks. This also results in a marked amplification of the intricacy of social governance challenges confronted by the administration. To summarize, this transformation in barrier factors mirrors both the hurdles posed by societal progression and technological advancements and the necessity for the government to continuously recalibrate and refine its governance strategies. By doing so, it can adeptly adapt to these shifts and fortify its capacity to react to societal requisites and manage public opinion effectively.

The prominence of the number of governments accepting applications for disclosure (c7) and the quantity of policy interpretation information releases (b5) as barrier factors signifies that, alongside the mounting democratic consciousness in society and the augmented expectations catalyzed by technological progress, the public’s desire for the right to be informed and participate in policy-making is burgeoning. They aspire to access policy interpretations expeditiously, gain insights into the policy formulation process, and secure the requisite information for personal or professional requirements via statutory avenues.

Moreover, the number of government information disclosures (c6) and the accessibility of online government services (c8) also stand out as significant impediments. In recent times, the Chinese government has proactively propelled “Internet+ Government Services”, endeavoring to revolutionize conventional government operations and enhance the efficacy of public services through digitalization. Nonetheless, there remains potential for refining the ratio of fully online service processing and the user-friendliness of these services. Therefore, while digitalization has bestowed facilitation upon management and services, addressing the public’s amplified demand for information transparency and service clarity as well as leveraging technology to elevate service quality and efficiency remain pertinent concerns for local administrations to acknowledge and tackle.

5. Discussion

5.1. Implications for Digital Governance in Government

The indicator framework established herein is grounded in system theory, conceptualizing local government digital governance as a dynamic, cyclical process encompassing resource input, process transformation, and outcome output. It spans the entirety of digital governance, reflecting unity and continuity. The three core dimensions of basic resource input, online public opinion management, and digital service effectiveness are meticulously constructed, encompassing not only the material and technological underpinnings of digital governance but also the government’s capacity to steer and react to societal public opinion, culminating in the efficacy of the delivered public services. This framework is distinguished by its comprehensiveness and representativeness.

The case study of Hunan Province not only illuminates the immense potential of digitization in enhancing administrative efficiency and service quality, but also unveils the challenges that local governments might confront in propelling the digitization journey. Through data analysis and comparative scrutiny, universal principles and strategies can be distilled from Hunan Province’s experiences, furnishing concrete recommendations for local governments nationwide to fortify their digital governance competencies. This will aid regions in achieving synergistic development and holistic advancement in the digitization process.

Across Hunan Province, governments have manifested divergent trajectories in the cultivation of digital governance capabilities, exposing three pivotal issues demanding resolution in local government digital governance endeavors: first is the elevation of the caliber of digital services to accommodate the populace’s escalating demand for superior-quality public services; second is the optimization of the allocation and utilization of foundational resources encompassing human capital and information technology infrastructure to surmount the challenges of digital governance; third is the masterful response to and management of the progressively intricate online public opinion milieu, ensuring the promptness and accuracy of information dissemination, and preserving social stability and harmony.

In practical implementation, local governments should concentrate on the following focal points. Firstly, there should be focus on deepening digital technology innovation. Irrespective of governance tier, there is a necessity to perpetually broaden and intensify the application of digital technology across public service and social governance spectrums [54]. Progressing from infrastructure enhancement to data integration, intelligent decision-making, and service facilitation, a three-dimensional digital governance framework should be forged. Secondly, emulation of exemplary practices should be present: drawing inspiration from successful cities, tailoring strategies to local traits and requisites, opportunistically localizing and adapting, and augmenting digital governance proficiency. Thirdly, harmonization of regional development should be considered: acknowledging regional disparities, augmenting policy backing, bridging the digital governance divide, and assuring equitable progress [55]. Fourthly, strategic planning and breakthroughs should be implemented: local authorities should pinpoint local requirements and pivotal sectors, expedite the enhancement of digital governance capability, and strategize around distinctive circumstances and population needs [56].

Henceforth, to catalyze the overarching enhancement of local government digital governance capacity, a top-down design is indispensable. This entails considering regional distinctions and synergies, judiciously allocating resources, bolstering infrastructure and talent cultivation, boosting investment in technological R&D, and securing balanced development and collective advancement via differentiated policy steering across the nation.

5.2. Implications for Sustainable Development

Exploring the construction and enhancement of local governments’ digital governance capacity within the framework of sustainable development not only innovates the traditional governance model but also anticipates future society. Sustainable development aims to meet present needs without compromising the prospects of future generations, aligning with the objectives of digital governance—promoting comprehensive socio-economic development through efficient, transparent, and inclusive digital services, and ensuring the effective use of resources and environmental sustainability [57].

Firstly, digital governance contributes directly to the establishment of an environmentally friendly society by minimizing physical interactions and optimizing resource allocation, closely related to the environmental protection aspect of sustainable development [21]. E-government services reduce paper consumption and carbon emissions, reflecting a commitment to environmental sustainability [58]. Secondly, digital governance fosters social equity, primarily through online public opinion management and precise service delivery, ensuring marginalized groups access public services, promoting social harmony, and realizing the social dimension of sustainable development. Additionally, digital governance spurs economic innovation, aiding local economic transformation and upgrade, and fostering a green, low-carbon, and energy-efficient economic system, embodying the economic dimension of sustainable development. Digital transformation optimizes industrial structures, boosts the growth of emerging industries, and paves the way for sustainable economic growth [59]. From the practical case in Hunan Province, local governments’ exploration of digital governance has enhanced governance effectiveness and provided insights for the sustainable development of the region and the nation. To achieve social, economic, and environmental harmony in the digital era, it is imperative to regard digital governance as a vital instrument for promoting sustainable development. Focus should be placed on the equitable and inclusive use of digital technologies to ensure benefits for all segments of society. Simultaneously, establishing a robust data security and privacy protection mechanism is essential to safeguard the health of the digital space and uphold the humanistic foundation for sustainable development [60].

In conclusion, positioning local government digital governance within the context of sustainable development underscores its value in terms of economic efficiency, social justice, and environmental friendliness, offering fresh perspectives for global sustainable development goals. Moving forward, local governments should delve into ways to leverage digital governance tools more effectively to foster comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable socio-economic development for a brighter future.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1. Conclusions

Utilizing the entropy weight TOPSIS methodology, we conducted a comprehensive assessment of the government digital governance capacity of 14 cities and prefectures in Hunan Province over the 2018–2022 period, based on the established evaluation framework for local government digital governance capacity. Subsequently, employing the barrier degree model, we identified the critical barrier factors constraining the government’s digital governance capacity at both macro and micro levels. Grounded in the outcomes of our empirical analysis, we derived strategic guidelines to enhance the efficacy of digital governance in Hunan Province. The principal findings of this study are as follows:

(1)

The digital governance capacity of the Hunan provincial government has demonstrated a steady upward trajectory, albeit with initial fluctuations, indicating the province’s persistent efforts in refining governance mechanisms, particularly in “digital service effectiveness”, which has emerged as a pivotal driver in augmenting the government’s digital governance capacity during this timeframe.

(2)

Significant geographical disparities exist, with Changsha and Hengyang at the forefront of digital governance capabilities, whereas Zhangjiajie and Loudi lag behind. Yiyang and Zhuzhou have exhibited substantial progress, in contrast to the challenges encountered by Huaihua and Xiangxi Autonomous Prefecture. These observations suggest variations in regional adaptability in the transition towards digital governance.

(3)

The performance of the four major regions in Hunan Province across the dimensions of government digital governance is uneven. Central Hunan leads in resource investment, while Western Hunan ranks lowest, displaying an overall declining trend. Northern Hunan excels, whereas Western Hunan lags behind in terms of digital service effectiveness, revealing the reality of regional development imbalance.

(4)

The barrier degree model was utilized to ascertain the factors that significantly impact the government’s digital governance capacity. Our analysis indicates that digital service effectiveness wields the most substantial influence on the government’s digital governance capacity in Hunan Province. The order of barrier degree magnitude in 2022 is delineated as digital service effectiveness > basic resource input > network public opinion management. The primary barrier factors currently impeding the government’s digital governance capacity in Hunan Province include the employee headcount in the information transmission software and information technology service industry; the count of government information disclosures; the number of disclosure applications; the government accepts the quantity of disclosure upon application; online availability rate of governmental service matters; the number of responses to public concern hotspots or significant public opinions.

6.2. Recommendations

The assessment of digital governance capacity among city and prefecture governments in Hunan Province during 2018–2022 underscores regional disparities and underscores the imperative of holistically enhancing digital governance effectiveness in alignment with local characteristics. Amidst the governance modernization transformation, the amalgamation of digital technology with conventional tools emerges as the cornerstone for enhancing effectiveness. Smart analytics, automated services, and new media significantly boost service efficiency and public engagement [61]. However, technological advancements must be harmonized with prevailing governance frameworks and human resource capabilities to construct a governance system that embodies a fusion of “digital + traditional” rather than a simplistic substitution [62]. In the implementation phase, emphasis should be placed on the following priorities: firstly, refining the traditional service model, with particular attention to regions impacted by the digital divide, ensuring the accessibility of technology; secondly, prioritizing human resources as the nucleus, enhancing civil servants’ digital competencies, reinforcing their abilities in complex governance and interpersonal communication, and nurturing composite talents endowed with technological literacy and governance acumen; thirdly, integrating digital big data with traditional research insights to broaden policy perspectives, ensuring that digital tools facilitate public participation, uphold the representation of all demographics, and circumvent technological barriers to engagement. In summation, to construct an efficient and inclusive governance system, it is crucial to strike a balance between digital innovation and traditional governance wisdom, realizing the comprehensive enhancement of governance capacity through strategic integration. Based on the aforementioned analysis, the following five recommendations are proposed.

6.2.1. Establishing a Diverse Talent Ecosystem to Mitigate Regional Resource Disparities

Technological innovation hinges on human resources, with specialized talents serving as the driving force. Constructing a diversified talent system necessitates dual emphasis on external recruitment and internal development. The external recruitment strategy should be accurately targeted, with resources allocated judiciously, focusing on attracting expertise in fields such as computer science and cybersecurity. Specific strategies encompass revolutionizing university education, deepening industry–academia collaboration, optimizing immigration policies, and cultivating an open ecosystem. Internal training should concentrate on five key areas: enhancing digital literacy, implementing accountability systems, tailoring training content, facilitating study tours, and ensuring training effectiveness.

The challenges confronting talent system construction strategy are manifold: firstly, changing mindsets proves arduous, necessitating high-level leadership and policy endorsement; secondly, departmental silos obstruct collaboration, requiring cross-sectoral mechanisms to dismantle information barriers; thirdly, the financial demands are substantial, with uncertain short-term returns, necessitating long-term planning and diversified funding sources; and fourthly, budget constraints are stringent, necessitating prioritization of core initiatives, meticulous management, introduction of competitive frameworks, and leveraging online education to minimize costs. In essence, overcoming political resistance and budgetary limitations hinges on securing high-level support, fostering cross-sectoral cooperation, maintaining realistic budgets, and embracing innovative financing models. By leveraging these strategies, the effective advancement of the talent system can be facilitated, solidifying the human resource foundation of digital governance.

6.2.2. Developing a Web Sentiment Monitoring System to Enhance Response Management Capabilities

In the intricate and volatile landscape of online public opinion, local governments are under intense pressure to incorporate advanced information technology in developing a comprehensive and standardized online public opinion monitoring system. This system would enable continuous surveillance of socially sensitive topics and online controversies, facilitating efficient management. New government media, as a potent instrument for information dissemination, should reinforce the public opinion early warning and response mechanism to ensure swift detection and proper handling of public opinion incidents, thus stabilizing societal sentiments. Upon the eruption of public opinion crises, official statements should promptly be disseminated via new media platforms to elucidate the stance and soothe public anxieties. Post crisis, lessons should be drawn, contingency plans formulated, and response capabilities fortified.

The development of new media for government affairs necessitates balancing the authority and velocity of information updates while embodying regional characteristics and enforcing rigorous content scrutiny to project an image of authority, impartiality, and transparency. Local governments confront challenges including inadequate political coordination, budgetary constraints, rapid technological evolution, and talent shortages. Addressing these issues requires bolstering cross-departmental collaboration, optimizing resource distribution, and perpetually updating technological and talent cultivation efforts to secure content innovation and information integrity. The strategy emphasizes reinforcing top-tier planning, pioneering funding mechanisms, and talent cultivation, targeting the surmounting of political and fiscal barriers, adapting to technological transformations, maintaining informational purity, executing policies efficiently, enhancing public opinion administration, and fortifying social stability and governmental credibility.

6.2.3. Optimizing the Government Information Disclosure System to Enhance Decision Transparency

Open government stands as a cornerstone in deepening the reform of the modern administrative system and advancing the rule of law. Local governments can effectively foster open governance through the following strategic avenues. Firstly, this can be achieved by enhancing mechanism innovation and policy support, enriching democratic participation in decision-making processes, refining responses to public opinion, and strengthening policy interpretation alongside social oversight. It is incumbent upon local administrations to spearhead the establishment of a comprehensive communication framework, ensuring the effective execution and oversight of policies. Secondly, rigorous maintenance of standardization across the board from planning through to monitoring and feedback is an important strategy. Adherence to higher-level regulations will forge a unified standard, necessitating timely adjustments to disclosure rules, thereby securing the consistency and coherence of information dissemination. Thirdly, proactive expansion of the breadth of public information and deepening of its content is imperative. In line with the “Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Disclosure of Government Information”, voluntary disclosure of information pertinent to the public would enhance accessibility and public satisfaction.

To propel open government initiatives, local governments must navigate a delicate balance: firstly, mechanism innovation often encounters vested interests, requiring judicious equilibrium to ensure that funds are judiciously allocated to core constructions; secondly, the substantial initial investment required for standardization mandates budget optimization, enhanced interdepartmental collaboration, and safeguarding of procedural integrity and supervision frameworks; thirdly, expanding the scope of openness can escalate workload, necessitating budgetary prudence, leveraging technology, and investing in personnel training to boost operational efficiency; fourthly, proactive disclosure necessitates consideration of legislative frameworks to clarify guidelines, thereby enhancing efficiency and mitigating potential risks. By harnessing technology to streamline operations, legislating clear standards, and preempting risks, local governments are well-positioned to strategize solutions to political hurdles, garner widespread support, creatively integrate social resources, and promote the efficient and high-quality advancement of open government within constrained budgets, ultimately bolstering public trust and participation.

6.2.4. Upgrading the Functionality of Government Service Platforms to Enhance Service Delivery Efficiency

The government service platform serves not merely as a pivotal instrument for transforming the landscape of public services but also as a formidable lever for modernizing the government’s governance apparatus and capability. To rectify deficiencies in online government services and elevate the functionalities of government service platforms, local governments ought to tackle two principal endeavors. First is the standardization of service platforms and the enhancement of service efficacy. This involves refining the regulatory framework governing the service platform, diversifying government service offerings, streamlining online service procedures, instituting real-time monitoring to forestall retroactive modifications, and consolidating the unified management of government portals to ensure prompt responses to public inquiries, grievances, and feedback. Second is the fortification of digital technological underpinning and bolstering cybersecurity safeguards. Considering the cybersecurity challenges precipitated by the amalgamation of business systems and the aggregation of sensitive data in the digital government framework, local governments are advised to stay abreast of cutting-edge technologies, innovate platform functionalities, intensify the identification and remediation of security vulnerabilities, ensure the timely updating of platform iterations, and safeguard user personal information and data privacy. Enhancing the security governance regime is essential to avert internal information leaks and uphold the integrity and security of government service platforms.

A plethora of challenges besets the optimization and augmentation of government service platforms. Firstly, the intricacies involved in aligning departmental interests vis-à-vis standardization and efficiency enhancement necessitate judicious budgetary planning to safeguard that core upgrades remain insulated from financial constraints. Secondly, the considerable expenditure associated with digital technology upgrades and cybersecurity enhancements calls for innovative funding strategies, judicious investments in cost-effective solutions, and reinforced internal controls to avert information breaches, although these measures may be curtailed by budgetary limitations. In response, local governments should adopt strategic approaches to counteract political resistance, strengthen interdepartmental collaboration, diversify funding sources, and streamline expenditures to ensure technological progress and security fortification, thereby augmenting service delivery efficacy and public contentment.

6.2.5. Improving the Bidirectional Communication Mechanism between Government and Citizens to Enhance the Effectiveness of Online Engagement

Within the framework of the digital age, local governments play a pivotal role in constructing a novel communication conduit between the state and its populace, with government–citizen interaction serving as an indispensable bidirectional communication mechanism. This interaction is primarily manifested through the utilization of digital platforms by both parties to engage in efficacious dialogues. The critical steps to reinforce the two-way communication mechanism between the government and citizens encompass the following dimensions. Firstly, there is a necessity to bolster the notion of government–citizen interaction within local governments. This entails conducting periodic training sessions for government personnel to stay abreast of policy developments, deepen the service ethos of “people centricity”, and enhance their service disposition and online communication proficiencies to cater to the multifaceted demands of the public. This will contribute to optimizing the quality and efficiency of local governments’ responses to information. Secondly, the quality and efficiency of local government responses to information require enhancement. This includes fortifying the professionalism and credibility of information dissemination, promptly debunking misinformation, and countering false narratives. Ensuring that statements and replies are congruent with reality, and delivering precise, detailed, and timely responses to public concerns is instrumental in bolstering trust and satisfaction.

The deepening of government–citizen interaction necessitates surmounting multidimensional impediments. Firstly, endogenous resistance and budgetary limitations constrain the scope and depth of conceptual transformation and skill enhancement, necessitating high-level guidance and innovative financial tactics. Secondly, optimizing the quality and efficiency of information faces the challenge of the high cost associated with rapid knowledge updates and technology evolution, coupled with the need to strike a balance between information scrutiny and swift dissemination. This necessitates a collaborative approach involving finance, human resources, and information technology sectors. Thirdly, the intricacy of the online milieu, such as information saturation and the volatility of public sentiment, places demands on the government’s capability to steer and engage in dialogue with public opinion. Response strategies should prioritize high-level initiatives and internal coordination to mitigate reform barriers, diversified financing and resource allocation to ensure educational and technological advancement, and the establishment of a nimble response system to enhance the team’s adaptability to the fluidity of the internet, ensuring the authority of information and the velocity of response.