Intelligent Management of Human Capital

Intelligent Management of Human Capital

Reframing Smart Governance: The Primacy of the Smart Governor in Human–Institution–Technology Interaction

Document Type : Original Article

Author
Alireza Mirjomehri
Faculty Member of Command and Staff University of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, Tehran, Iran.
10.22034/imhr.2025.541774.1036
Abstract
Background and Objective: The digital transformation has paved the way for the emergence of the concept of smart governance, which emphasizes the use of modern technologies to enhance governmental efficiency and accountability. However, much of the existing research—particularly within the digital government literature—has been dominated by a technology-centric approach, overlooking the human factor and the qualities of governors. This has created a significant theoretical gap in governance studies. The present study aims to address this gap by highlighting the primacy of the smart governor over tools and structures in the realization of smart governance.
Methodology: The study employs a theoretical–analytical and qualitative comparative approach, drawing upon the IntelliGov conceptual model (Vigoda-Gadot, 2024), which examines three levels of intelligence: human, institutional, and artificial. Data were collected through a critical review of scholarly literature, international policy reports (OECD, UNDP, World Bank), and case studies of four selected countries—Taiwan, Estonia, Denmark, and India.
Findings: The findings indicate that in countries such as Taiwan and Denmark, the presence of smart governors has strengthened institutional capacity and promoted the ethical use of technology. In contrast, India’s experience demonstrates that the rapid expansion of technology without reinforcing human and institutional dimensions deepens the digital divide and erodes public trust.
Conclusion: This study argues that smart governance is fundamentally a human-centered phenomenon, with technology serving only as an enabling factor. Therefore, cultivating and developing smart governors must be prioritized in public policy and governance strategies.
Keywords
Smart Governance
Smart Governor
Human Intelligence (HI)
Institutional Intelligence (II)
Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Subjects

  • Chen, Y.-C., & Hsiao, C. (2022). Citizen satisfaction with digital government services in Taiwan: Examining trust and participation outcomes. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), 101715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101715
  • Christiansson, J., & Grönvall, E. (2024). Mapping user participation in the design of digital public services. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3666094.3666102
  • Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering (2nd ed.). M.E. Sharpe.
  • Efthymiou, I. P. (2025). The role of e-government and e-governance in modern societies. In I. P. Efthymiou (Ed.), Public Governance Practices in the Age of AI (pp. 16–40). IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/the-role-of-e-government-and-e-governance-in-modern-societies/372313
  • Floridi, L. (2021). The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Oxford University Press.
  • Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books.
  • Gasser, U., & Almeida, V. (2017). A layered model for AI governance. IEEE Internet Computing, 21(6), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2017.4180835
  • George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press.
  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine.
  • Goleman, D. (2006). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ (10th anniversary ed.). Bantam.
  • Goleman, D. (2006). Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships. Bantam Books.
  • Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Porumbescu, G., Hong, B., & Im, T. (2013). The effect of transparency on trust in government: A cross-national comparative experiment. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 575–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12047
  • Gurumurthy, A., & Chami, N. (2022). Reclaiming Data Commons: A Rights-Based Framework for Data Governance in India. IT for Change. https://itforchange.net/reclaiming-data-commons
  • Heclo, H. (1974). Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden. Yale University Press.
  • Henriksen, A., & Blond, L. (2023). Executive-centered AI? Designing predictive systems for the public sector. Social Studies of Science, 53(4), 452–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231163756
  • Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in “new governance arrangements”. Policy and Society, 26(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1449-4035(07)70118-2
  • Islam, M. D. M., Islam, M. R., & Badhan, I. A. (2025). The role of artificial intelligence in carbon pricing policies: Economic and environmental implications. Journal of Engineering and Computational Innovation Research. Retrieved from https://jecir.com/index.php/jecir/article/view/23
  • Misuraca, G., van Noordt, C., & Boukli, A. (2022). AI Watch: Artificial Intelligence in public services. European Commission, JRC. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC127729
  • Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2016). The Quest for Good Governance: How Societies Develop Control of Corruption. Cambridge University Press.
  • OECD. (2022). Digital Government Index 2022. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/
  • OECD. (2022). Digital Government Review of Denmark, Estonia and Korea: Towards Common Values and Guidelines for Digital Transformation. OECD Digital Government Studies. https://doi.org/10.1787/fcbf38cc-en
  • OECD. (2023). GovTech Maturity Index 2023: Powering Public Sector Transformation. https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/govtech-index-2023.pdf
  • OECD. (2023). Trust in Government 2023: Citizen Perspectives in the Digital Age. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/governance/trust/
  • Roy, D., & Dey, S. (2023). Digital exclusion in India’s welfare systems. Journal of Development Policy and Practice, 8(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/24551333231163723
  • Schmager, S., Grøder, C. H., Parmiggiani, E., Pappas, I., & Vassilakopoulou, P. (2024). Exploring citizens’ stances on AI in public services: A social contract perspective. Data & Policy, 6, e19.
  • Scupola, A., & Mergel, I. (2021). The co-creation of digital public services: A systematic literature review. Information Systems Frontiers, 23(6), 1407–1431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10002-z
  • Scupola, A., & Mergel, I. (2022). Co-production in digital transformation of public administration and public value creation: The case of Denmark. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101704
  • Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077
  • Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. Doubleday.
  • Shneiderman, B. (2022). Human-Centered AI. Oxford University Press.
  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01753.x
  • UNDP. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Public Trust. United Nations Development Programme. https://www.undp.org
  • Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2024). Can Governance be Intelligent?: An Interdisciplinary Approach and Evolutionary Modelling for Intelligent Governance in the Digital Age. Cambridge University Press.
  • Weigl, L., Roth, T., Amard, A., & Zavolokina, L. (2024). When public values and user-centricity in e-government collide – A systematic review. Government Information Quarterly, 41(1), 101850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101850
  • Zavolokina, L., Schwabe, G., & Weigl, L. (2024). Ethics by design in AI-based public services: The case of digital decision support systems. Information Polity, 29(2), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-220244