Sistemas administrativos digitales y capacidad operativa de comités distritales peruanos de seguridad ciudadana
Digital Administrative Systems and Operational Capacity of Peruvian District Citizen Security CommitteesBarra lateral del artículo
Contenido principal del artículo
Introducción: La transformación digital en gobiernos locales favorece la coordinación, aunque los sistemas administrativos no garantizan mayor capacidad operativa. Objetivo: Estimar la asociación entre los sistemas administrativos digitales declarados por municipalidades distritales y la capacidad operativa reportada por sus comités de seguridad ciudadana en el Perú. Método: Se desarrolló un estudio cuantitativo, observacional y transversal con datos del Registro Nacional de Municipalidades 2023. El análisis abarcó 1,311 municipalidades distritales con comité conformado. Resultados: El estudio construyó un índice digital de 0 a 6 puntos y midió la capacidad operativa mediante ocho actividades reportadas en 2022. El análisis aplicó correlación de Spearman y regresión lineal con errores robustos HC3. Los hallazgos muestran el índice digital promedió de 3.29 puntos y la capacidad de 4.75 actividades. La asociación ajustada resultó pequeña y no significativa (β = 0.036; p = 0.344; IC 95% [−0.039, 0.111]). Conclusión: La disponibilidad de sistemas digitales no equivale a mayor capacidad operativa. Los hallazgos señalan la necesidad de desarrollar capacidades humanas e interinstitucionales.
Introduction: Digital transformation in local governments promotes coordination; however, administrative systems do not necessarily ensure greater operational capacity. Objective: To estimate the association between digital administrative systems reported by district municipalities and the operational capacity reported by their citizen security committees in Peru. Method: A quantitative, observational, cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the 2023 National Registry of Municipalities. The analysis included 1,311 district municipalities with established committees. Results: The study constructed a digital index ranging from 0 to 6 points and measured operational capacity based on eight activities reported in 2022. The analysis used Spearman's correlation and linear regression with HC3 robust standard errors. The findings showed a mean digital index of 3.29 points and an average operational capacity of 4.75 activities. The adjusted association was small and non-significant (β = 0.036; p = 0.344; 95% CI [−0.039, 0.111]). Conclusion: The availability of digital systems does not necessarily translate into greater operational capacity. The findings highlight the need to develop human and interinstitutional capacities.
Descargas
Detalles del artículo
Alehegn, D., Karunakaran, R., & Engida, B. (2025). The role of community policing structures in enhancing safety, security, and local crime prevention in Addis Ababa City Administration. SN Social Sciences, 5, Article 168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-025-01195-6
Almulhim, A. I., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2025). Understanding smart governance of sustainable cities: A review and multidimensional framework. Smart Cities, 8(4), 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities8040113
Battisti, D. (2020). The digital transformation of Italy’s public sector: Government cannot be left behind! JeDEM – eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 12(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v12i1.591
Branderhorst, E. M., & Ruijer, E. (2025). Digital leadership in local government: An empirical study of Dutch city managers. Local Government Studies, 51(3), 576–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2024.2363368
Choi, I. (2016). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-Government. International Review of Public Administration, 21(4), 359–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2016.1257549
Dawes, S. S., Gregg, V., & Agouris, P. (2004). Digital government research: Investigations at the crossroads of social and information science. Social Science Computer Review, 22(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439303259863
de Azevedo, D. A., & Lessa Meireles, B. (2021). Territorial and electorate size influence: Participation/competitiveness in Costa Rica’s 2016 local scale elections. Cuadernos de Geografía: Revista Colombiana de Geografía, 30(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.15446/rcdg.v30n1.79637
Espinoza-Angulo, L. (2023). Análisis de factores que influyen en la ejecución presupuestal de las municipalidades en Perú para el año 2022: Un estudio multidimensional. Gestionar: Revista de Empresa y Gobierno, 3(4), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.35622/j.rg.2023.04.001
Gonzalez, A., August, T., Bailey, S., Bobiwash, K., Boersch-Supan, P. H., Burgess, N. D., Daru, B. H., Elphick, C. S., Freckleton, R. P., Frick, W. F., Hughes, A. C., Isaac, N. J. B., Jones, J. P. G., Lambertini, M., Mac Aodha, O., Madhavapeddy, A., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Purvis, A., Salafsky, N., Sutherland, W. J., Tanshi, I., Vijay, V., Woodard, S. H., & Williams, D. R. (2026). From data to decisions: Toward a biodiversity monitoring standards framework. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 123(10), e2519347123. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2519347123
Haustein, E., & Lorson, P. C. (2023). Co-creation and co-production in municipal risk governance: A case study of citizen participation in a German city. Public Management Review, 25(2), 376–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1972704
Johansson, J., Thomsen, M., & Åkesson, M. (2023). Public value creation and robotic process automation: Normative, descriptive and prescriptive issues in municipal administration. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 17(2), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-11-2021-0193
Kaiser, Z. R. M. A. (2024). Smart governance for smart cities and nations. Journal of Economy and Technology, 2, 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ject.2024.07.003
Kouba, K., & Dosek, T. (2022). Municipal size and local democracy: Understanding the trade-off between participation and contestation in Latin America. Local Government Studies, 48(5), 951–972. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2021.2013208
Leon-Moreta, A., & Totaro, V. R. (2021). Workforce capacity in municipal government. Public Administration Review, 81(2), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13155
Martitah, M., Arifin, S., Sumarto, S., & Widiyanto, W. (2021). Confronting e-government adoption in Indonesian local government. Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies, 6(2), 279–306. https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v6i2.47795
Matlala, L. S. (2025). E-governance in South Africa: Barriers and enablers of virtual evaluation in the public sector. Insights into Regional Development, 7(2), 84–108. https://doi.org/10.70132/d9854558432
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
Meschini, S., Pattini, G., Andreis, E., Scomparin, L., & Di Giuda, G. M. (2024). Identification of indicators and digital tools to enhance civic monitoring in public procurement. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 16(1), 05023008. https://doi.org/10.1061/JLADAH.LADR-923
Mudunuri, P. R. (2023). Governance-aware infrastructure-as-code for regulated research environments. International Journal of Research Publications in Engineering, Technology and Management, 6(4), 9017–9027. https://doi.org/10.15662/IJRPETM.2023.0604007
Munir, S., & Hamid, M. (2026). E-government & the concept of evidence-based monitoring for effective governance: A case of Punjab, Pakistan. Public Organization Review, 26(1), 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-026-00984-8
Neshkova, M. I., & Kalesnikaite, V. (2019). Corruption and citizen participation in local government: Evidence from Latin America. Governance, 32(4), 677–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12401
Seigler, D. J. (2017). Social media responsiveness in the public sector: A study of social media adoption in three functional areas of local government. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 20(1), 72-99. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-20-01-2017-B003
Taylor, L. (2021). Public actors without public values: Legitimacy, domination and the regulation of the technology sector. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 897–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00441-4
Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of e-government: A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001
Vestad, A., & Yang, B. (2025). From security frameworks to sustainable municipal cybersecurity capabilities. Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy, 5(2), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcp5020019
Walsh, G. S., Ojo, A., Ahmadi Zeleti, F., & Mulligan, E. (2021). Generating SDG-related public value: A systematic review on the use of emerging digital technologies in public administration. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3927083
Webster, C. W. R., & Leleux, C. (2018). Smart governance: Opportunities for technologically-mediated citizen co-production. Information Polity, 23(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170065