Digital Services of General Interest and Well-Being
Hauptsächlicher Artikelinhalt
Abstract
This article makes an interdisciplinary contribution by conceptually linking the notion of digital services of general interest (DSGI) with the psychological concept of well-being. DSGI, like any form of digitalization, have an impact. Particularly in the case of essential services that influence personal development and self-realization, the individual effects must be taken into account. The concept of well-being has become established at the intersection of psychology and technology. The article examines relevant aspects for the design of DSGI in order to promote individual well-being and personal fulfillment. Existing studies and concepts for impact research in the areas of digital government and smart city offer few details on effects on the individual level, especially in relation to well-being. Addressing this gap, the article identifies criteria that capture different dimensions of well-being (hedonic, eudaimonic, social, virtues and other needs). Ethical considerations such as dignity, self-determination and values are also included. Example scenarios are used to show how these aspects can be practically addressed. On this basis, a research agenda is developed that identifies open questions on DSGI and well-being. This opens up the opportunity to design digital services of general interest in a way that not only meets functional needs but also actively contributes to individual well-being.
Keywords: Digital Services of General Interest, Well-Being, Digital Government, Smart City, Research Agenda
Bibliography: Heine, Moreen, König, Florian & Wessel, Daniel (2025). Digital Services of General Interest and Well-Being. dms – der moderne staat – Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 18(2-2025), 320-335.
Artikel-Details
Literatur
Alfaro-Navarro, J.-L., López-Ruiz, V.-R., Huete-Alcocer, N. & Nevado-Peña, D. (2024). Quality of life in the urban context, within the paradigm of digital human capital. Cities, 153, Article 105284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105284
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (Tech. Rep.).
Botella, C., Banos, R. M. & Guillen, V. (2017). Positive technologies for improving health and wellbeing. In C. Proctor (Ed.), Positive psychology interventions in practice (pp. 219–234). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51787-2_13
Botella, C., Riva, G., Gaggioli, A., Wiederhold, B. K., Alcañiz, M. & Baños, R. M. (2012). The present and future of positive technologies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0140
Bundesamt für Justiz. (2022). Basic law for the federal republic of germany. Retrieved 2023–03–31, from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html
Calvo, R. A. & Peters, D. (2014). Positive computing. Technology for wellbeing and human potential. The MIT Press.
Chen, C.-W. (2023). Can smart cities bring happiness to promote sustainable development? Contexts and clues of subjective well-being and urban livability. Developments in the Built Environment, 13, Article 100108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2022.100108
Clifton, J., Comín, F. & Díaz Fuentes, D. (2005). ‘Empowering Europe’s citizens’? Towards a charter for services of general interest. Public Management Review, 7(3), 417–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030500181052
Codagnone, C., Liva, G., Bacevičius, E., Misuraca, G., Klimavičiųte, L., Benedetti, M., Vanini, I., Vecchi, G., Gloinson, E. R., Stewart, K., Hoorens, S & Gunashekar, S. (2020). Assessing the impacts of digital government transformation in the EU. Publications Office of the European Union.
Correa da Silva, Flavio S. (2021). Towards positive artificial intelligence. In Matteo Baldoni & Stefania Bandini (Eds.), AIxIA 2020 – Advances in artificial intelligence (pp. 359–371). Springer International Publishing.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Desmet, M. (2022). The psychology of totalitarianism (Els Vanbrabant, Trans.). Chelsea Green Publishing.
Desmet, P. & Fokkinga, S. (2020). Beyond maslow’s pyramid: Introducing a typology of thirteen fundamental needs for human-centered design. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/mti4030038
Desmet, P. M. A. & Pohlmeyer, A. E. (2013). Positive design: An introduction to design for subjective well-being. International Journal of Design, 7(3), 5–19.
Deutscher Bundestag Wissenschaftlicher Dienst. (2024). Daseinsvorsorge. Begriff und Rechtsgrundlagen. Retrieved 2025–01–13, from https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/1013810/b600c65d9eff3e5f3eef1214a957ed04/WD-3-059-24-pdf.pdf
Dimmock, M. & Fisher, A. (2017). Ethics for A-level. OpenBook Publishers.
Donaldson, S. I., van Zyl, L. E. & Donaldson, S. I. (2022). Perma+4: A framework for work-related wellbeing, performance and positive organizational psychology 2.0. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.817244
European Commission. (2011). A quality framework for services of general interest in Europe. Retrieved 2025–01–13, from https://commission.europa.eu/topics/single-market/ services-general-interest_en
Fischer, C., Heuberger, M. & Heine, M. (2021). The impact of digitalization in the public sector: A systematic literature review. dms – der moderne staat – Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 14(1), 3–4. https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v14i1.13
Fortuna, P. (2023, February). Positive cyberpsychology as a field of study of the well-being of People interacting with and via technology. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1053482
Frenz, W. (2016). Services of general interest and special rights. Handbook of EU Competition Law, 1383–1459.
Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Borning, A. & Huldtgren, A. (2013). Value sensitive design and Information systems. InN. Doorn, D. Schuurbiers, I. van de Poel & M.E. Gorman (Eds.), Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory (pp. 55–95). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4
Gesellschaft für Informatik. (2018). Ethical Guidelines – Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. Retrieved 2025–01–13, from https://gi.de/ethicalguidelines.
Grant, P. & McGhee, P. (2021). Hedonic versus (true) eudaimonic wellbeing in organizations. In S. K. Dhiman (Ed.), The palgrave handbook of workplace well-being (pp. 925–943). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30025-8_37
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind. Penguin Books.
Hansen, P. G. & Jespersen, A. (2013, December). Nudge and the manipulation of choice. A Framework for the responsible use of nudge approach to behaviour change in public policy (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 2555337). Social Science Research Network.
Haug, N., Dan, S. & Mergel, I. (2024). Digitally-induced change in the public sector: a systematic review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 26(7), 1963–1987. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2234917
Jørgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707300703
Khan, A. (2024). E-government and well-being: A cross-country study. In S. K. Sharma, Y. K. Dwivedi, B. Metri, B. Lal & A. Elbanna (Eds.), Transfer, diffusion and adoption of next-generation digital technologies (pp. 321–329). Springer Nature Switzerland.
Kitson, A., Prpa, M. & Riecke, B. E. (2018). Immersive interactive technologies for positive change: A scoping review and design considerations. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1354. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01354
Kristjánsdóttir, M. V. (2021). Services of general interest (EU) as indicators of public functions in the sense of public administrative law. Review of European Administrative Law, 14(4), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.7590/187479821X16364535488028
Lin, C., Zhao, G., Yu, C. & Wu, Y. Jim (2019). Smart city development and residents’ well-being. Sustainability, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030676
Luna-Reyes, L. F., Gil-Garcia, J. R. & Romero, G. (2012). Towards a multidimensional model for evaluating electronic government: Proposing a more comprehensive and integrative perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.001
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N. & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), Article 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
OECD. (2015). How’s life? Measuring well-being (Tech. Rep.). Paris: OECD Publishing.
Papenfuß, U., Polzer, T. & Roos, Z. (2022). Digitale Daseinsvorsorge und nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung: Empirische Befunde zu Stadtwerken als Digitalisierungspartner und Gestaltungsperspektiven (DiDa-Stadt). https://doi.org/10.57938/O.2022.001
Peters, D. (2023). Wellbeing supportive design – research-based guidelines for supporting psychological wellbeing in user experience. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(14), 2965–2977. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2089812
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly. The surrender of culture to technology. Vintage Books.
Pousttchi, K., Gleiss, A., Buzzi, B. & Kohlhagen, M. (2019). Technology impact types for digital transformation. In 2019 IEEE 21st conference on business informatics (CBI), Vol. 1 (pp. 487–494). IEEE.
Seligman, M.E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. Free Press.
Seligman, M.E. P. (2011). Flourish. Free Press.
Seligman, M.E. P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
Twizeyimana, J. D. & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of egovernment – a literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001
Van de Walle, S. (2006). The impact of public service values on services of general interest Reform debates. Public Management Review, 8(2), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600587422
Van de Walle, S. (2008). What services are public? what aspects of performance are to be ranked? the case of “services of General interest”. International Public Management Journal, 11(3), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490802301260
Van Twist, A., Ruijer, E. & Meijer, A. (2023). Smart cities & citizen discontent: A systematic review of the literature. Government Information Quarterly, 40(2), Article 101799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101799
Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Mizrahi, S. (2024). The digital governance puzzle: Towards integrative theory of humans, machines, and organizations in public management. Technology in Society, 77, Article 102530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102530
Welby, B. (2019). The impact of digital government on citizen wellbeing. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance No. 32. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/24bac82f-en
Wessel, D. (2024). Positive e-government – theories and approaches to support citizens’ well-being. In S. Chun, G. Karuri-Sebina, E. Przeybilovicz, F. Barbosa, & C. Braga (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance (ICEGOV 2024) (pp. 9–13). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3680127.3680226
Weziak-Bialowolska, D., Bialowolski, P., Lee, M. T., Chen, Yi., van der Weele, T. J. & McNeely, E. (2021). Psychometric properties of flourishing scales from a comprehensive well-being assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.652209
Wong, P. T. P. (2010). What is existential positive psychology? International Journal of Existential Psychology & Psychotherapy, 3(1), 1–10.
Yang, C., Gu, M. & Albitar, K. (2024). Government in the digital age: Exploring the impact of digital transformation on governmental efficiency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 208, Article 123722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123722
Yu, C., Ye, B., Lin, C. & Wu, Y. Jim (2020). Can smart city development promote residents’ emotional well-being? Evidence from china. IEEE access: practical innovations, open solutions, 8, 116024–116040. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3004367