Digital government maturity: the governance logic behind urban-rural differences

When digital technology enters public administration, we often assume this is merely a matter of deploying a system. But recent research from Indonesia reveals a more complex reality: within the same national framework, the digital government maturity of cities can far surpass that of semi-rural areas, and the root cause is not technology, but governance capacity.

This comparative study, published in Frontiers in Political Science, selected two local governments in South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia—the rapidly urbanizing city of Makassar and the semi-rural Sidrap Regency. Both fall under the same provincial administration and are subject to the same national digital government policies, yet their digital government maturity shows significant divergence.

Same Framework, Different Trajectories

Makassar is a benchmark for smart city development in eastern Indonesia, with integrated online services and smart city innovations. Sidrap, by contrast, is constrained by infrastructure gaps, fragmented service integration, and insufficient citizen digital literacy. This disparity is not unique to Indonesia; in South Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the urban-rural digital divide is widespread, and even as national digitalization indices improve, fault lines at the local level remain clearly visible.

The study employs a "most similar systems" logic: since the external institutional environment is identical, the differences must stem from internal governance capacity.

Governance Capacity: The Underestimated Variable

The researchers deconstructed governance capacity along three dimensions:

1. Leadership: Sustained Commitment vs. Symbolic Support

Makassar's digital transformation has received long-term political commitment at the mayoral level, which has translated into sustained resource investment and project prioritization. In contrast, Sidrap's leadership has adopted a reactive approach to digital government, responding passively only under central government pressure and lacking a coherent strategy. This difference directly affects organizational mobilization capacity.

2. Institutional Coordination: Integrated Structures vs. Fragmented Landscapes

Makassar has established cross-departmental coordination mechanisms for digital services, clarifying the responsibilities of each agency in the digital transformation and creating synergy. Sidrap, however, exhibits a fragmented governance structure, with unclear interdepartmental responsibilities and pervasive data silos, preventing service processes from being seamlessly connected online. The study shows that digital government maturity depends on the restructuring of organizational boundaries, not merely on technical integration.

3. Administrative Readiness: Human Capital and Implementation Capacity

Human resources are the invisible infrastructure of digital transformation. Makassar has more civil servants with digital skills and project management capabilities, capable of handling complex information systems. Sidrap, on the other hand, faces human resource shortages, inadequate training, and staff turnover, with frontline civil servants' digital literacy emerging as a critical weakness. Insufficient administrative readiness means that even with a unified platform in place, effective operation, maintenance, and promotion remain difficult.

From Technology Dependence to Governance-Sensitive Strategies

The core insight of this study is that digital government maturity should not be viewed as a linear process of technology adoption, but rather as the product of interactions among various elements of governance capacity. When the national level pursues standardization, the root of local differences lies precisely in the "locality" of governance.Therefore, policies to narrow the urban-rural digital divide should not be limited to laying broadband or purchasing servers, but should prioritize investment in:

• Digital governance training for local leaders to build political mobilization capacity;
• Establishment of cross-departmental coordination mechanisms to break down administrative barriers;
• Digital capacity building for grassroots civil servants to reduce the "digital illiteracy" rate.

The research also cautions that if governance capacity is ignored, digital government construction may instead reinforce existing social inequalities—cities, leveraging stronger governance efficiency, further elevate public service levels, while semi-rural areas are marginalized by the digital wave.

The Ceiling of Digital Government

The Indonesian case provides a sobering footnote for smart city strategies in developing countries worldwide: technology can be purchased, but governance capacity cannot be achieved overnight. When digital government becomes a metric for national competitiveness, the real dividing line is not whether a city possesses more advanced algorithms, but whether local governments can convert technology into sustainable public value through institutional innovation and talent investment.

In the future, assessments of digital government maturity need to incorporate the governance dimension—shifting from "how many systems are owned" to "how these systems are organized." This may be the most important issue this study brings to the urban technology field.