The Influence of Transparency, Accountability, and Responsiveness on Public Trust in Padang Command Center 112 Services

Disa Amalia; Aldri Frinaldi; Hendra Naldi; Lince Magriasti

doi:10.37034/jems.v8i1.272

Authors

Disa Amalia Universitas Negeri Padang
Aldri Frinaldi Universitas Negeri Padang
Hendra Naldi Universitas Negeri Padang
Lince Magriasti Universitas Negeri Padang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37034/jems.v8i1.272

Keywords:

Transparency, Accountability, Responsiveness, Public Trust, Digital Governance

Abstract

This study examines the influence of transparency, accountability, and responsiveness on public trust in the Padang Command Center 112 (PCC 112) as a model of digital governance in local government service systems. The research aims to identify the most dominant governance dimension affecting public confidence and to evaluate the interrelationship among the three key variables within the framework of good governance. The study employed a quantitative approach using a structured survey of 166 respondents, analyzed through descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multiple linear regression. The findings reveal that all three variables have a strong and significant relationship with public trust, with transparency emerging as the most influential predictor (β = 0.530), followed by responsiveness (β = 0.251) and accountability (β = 0.107). The regression model yielded an Adjusted R² of 0.705, indicating that these governance dimensions jointly explain 70.5% of the variance in public trust. The results confirm that transparent information, timely response, and ethical responsibility are essential determinants of citizen confidence in digital public services. This study contributes to the literature on governance-based trust formation and provides strategic insights for enhancing institutional legitimacy through ethical and participatory digital governance.

References

Park, C. H., & Kim, K. (2020). E-Government as an Anti-Corruption Tool: Panel Data Analysis Across Countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(4), 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318822055

Nabatchi, T. (2012). Putting the “public” back in public values research: Designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 699–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02544.x

Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., 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

Nkwe, N., & Ngoepe, M. (2021). Assessing compliance with freedom of information legislation in South Africa. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), 101567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101567

Park, H., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2011). The roles of transparency and trust in the relationship between corruption and citizen satisfaction. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 254–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311399230

Meijer, A. J. (2013). Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12032

Porumbescu, G. A. (2015). Linking transparency to trust in government and voice. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(5), 520–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015607301

Wirtz, B. W., & Müller, W. M. (2019). An integrated artificial intelligence framework for public management. Public Management Review, 21(7), 1076–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1549268

Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2011). Trust and transformational government: A proposed framework for research. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.06.001

Alonso, J. M., Clifton, J., & Díaz-Fuentes, D. (2019). The impact of digitalization on public sector performance: A systematic review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 101389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.07.003

Cinar, E., Trott, P., & Simms, C. (2019). A systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation. Public Management Review, 21(2), 264–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1473477

Meijer, A. J., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: Connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311429533

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001

Cuillier, D., & Piotrowski, S. J. (2009). Internet information-seeking and its relation to support for access to government records. Government Information Quarterly, 26(3), 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2009.03.001

Andersen, K. V., & Medaglia, R. (2021). Digital government: Managing public sector digital transformation. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), 101598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101598

Kuziemski, M., & Misuraca, G. (2020). AI governance in the public sector: Fostering responsible and trustworthy AI. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101482

Bauhr, M., & Grimes, M. (2014). Indignation or resignation: The implications of transparency for societal accountability. Governance, 27(2), 291–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12033

Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002