An application can be submitted at any time, without leaving home. The system automatically retrieves the necessary data, checks the documents and forwards the case for consideration. A response arrives quickly. The problem begins when the application is rejected and the citizen does not understand why. Who assessed the case? How were their circumstances taken into account? Who can they turn to with questions?
This hypothetical scenario illustrates a challenge facing digital government. Efficient service matters. But public administration must also uphold justice, legal security, responsibility and human dignity.
Dr. Dawid Kostecki of Kozminski University examines the values that should guide digital public administration in his article “Axiological Foundations of Public Administration in a Digital World”.
Citizens expect a service. Public authorities exercise power
Our experiences with online banking, shopping and mobile apps shape our expectations of public institutions. We want public services to be accessible, fast, straightforward and user-friendly. Ideally, the authority should retrieve the information it needs without asking us to resubmit data the state already holds.
Public officials approach the same case from a different perspective. They are responsible for ensuring that decisions comply with the law, public funds are used properly, and procedures and deadlines are observed. They operate within defined powers and a hierarchical structure.
Dr. Kostecki describes the resulting dissonance. For citizens, a procedure can be an obstacle to getting things done quickly. For officials, it safeguards the proper handling of a case. Both perspectives are legitimate, yet they lead to different assessments of what makes public administration work well.
This tension grows as digital services develop. A public authority increasingly resembles an efficient platform designed to identify a need and guide the user towards a solution. Yet an administrative decision determines citizens’ rights and obligations: it can permit or restrict an activity, or impose a specific duty. Its consequences extend far beyond the quality of customer service.
How does digitalisation change the work of public administration?
Digitalisation speeds up the flow of information, facilitates cooperation between institutions and helps them build institutional memory. Data can be stored in the cloud, consultations conducted online and some cases handled remotely. Artificial intelligence offers further possibilities: analysing large datasets, organising information about a case, drawing conclusions and generating possible decision options.
The author draws attention to an effect of this transformation that he describes as the depersonalisation of public administration. Meeting a need efficiently becomes the system’s central concern, while the personal relationship between citizen and official recedes into the background. Forms, databases and automated processes replace contact with an individual.
Technology itself does not determine the purpose of public administration. That purpose derives from the law and the values upheld by the state. Dr. Kostecki therefore argues that digitalisation should be accompanied by axiological reflection: an examination of what we consider most important and what guides our choices when values conflict.
Every decision establishes a hierarchy of values
The law often requires us to reconcile goals that cannot all be achieved in full at the same time. Dr. Kostecki draws, among other sources, on Gustav Radbruch’s conception of law as comprising three elements: expediency, justice and legal security.
Similar tensions arise in the everyday work of public administration. Additional document checks may strengthen legal security but prolong proceedings. Automation speeds up processing but can make it harder to accommodate unusual circumstances. Considering each case individually can promote justice, yet it requires time and adequate resources.
Every solution therefore reflects particular preferences. A public authority, legislator or system designer determines which values take priority and what trade-offs in pursuing other values are acceptable.
These choices should rest on a shared foundation. The common good and human dignity have particular significance within Poland’s constitutional order. They help us assess whether a digital service truly serves citizens and whether the way decisions are made remains consistent with the mission of public administration.
An algorithm implements an agreed hierarchy of values
An IT system operates according to rules embedded in law, procedures and code. Someone determines in advance which data will be used, which circumstances matter, what level of risk is acceptable and when a case should be referred to a person.
Extending Dr. Kostecki’s argument to system design suggests that automation moves some decisions to an earlier stage. A hierarchy of values is built into the process before an individual case is even submitted. Responsibilities then span legislators, institutional leaders, procedure designers, technology providers and the officials using the system.
This makes it important to be able to trace how a decision was reached. Citizens should understand which information was considered, why a particular outcome was chosen and who is responsible for it. They also need a meaningful opportunity to present their case and challenge the decision.
Giving reasons is part of good administration
Dr. Kostecki explains that an administrative decision reflects a choice between competing interests and values. How these are balanced, and how well the decision is justified, affect legal certainty and, in turn, the broader value of legal security.
A sound statement of reasons shows citizens that their case has received individual consideration and that the decision rests on identifiable grounds. It also makes scrutiny of the authority’s actions possible. This function becomes particularly important in a digital environment, where much of the decision-making process may remain invisible to the person affected.
The author also emphasises participation and dialogue. Communication with a public authority should enable citizens to explain their circumstances, provide additional information and understand the reasoning behind a decision. Technology can support this model of administration if it is designed with people in mind.
Implications for practice
Dr. Dawid Kostecki’s analysis provides a basis for the following practical recommendations for those responsible for digitalising public administration:
- Define values before implementing technology. An institution should be clear about what it means by justice, legal security, accessibility, efficiency and the common good.
- Assess the full impact of a service. Processing time is one criterion. Transparency, the impact on citizens’ rights and the intelligibility of decisions also matter.
- Keep a route to human contact open. People in unusual circumstances need an opportunity to explain additional factors and obtain an individual assessment.
- Provide clear reasons for decisions. Citizens should receive an understandable explanation of the grounds for a decision and how to challenge it.
- Assign responsibility at every stage. Define the roles of those who design procedures, supply technology, oversee the system and make final decisions.
- Involve citizens in service design. Dialogue helps identify circumstances that may be overlooked when attention is focused on procedures, data or system architecture.
Efficiency that builds trust
Digital public administration can be fast and convenient while also giving citizens confidence that their case has been considered fairly. This requires a deliberate effort to connect technology with the values that underpin the purpose of public administration.
The best digital service handles a case efficiently, delivers an understandable decision and makes it clear who is responsible for it. In this way, technology can support the right to good administration and strengthen trust in the state.
Based on: Dawid Kostecki, „Axiological Foundations of Public Administration in a Digital World”, Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, 2026, vol. 35, nr 1, s. 155–168. DOI: 10.17951/sil.2026.35.1.155-168.
