Digital administrative burden as a civic education problem: A conceptual and methodological framework for digital citizenship, social justice, and citizenship rights among vulnerable groups

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21831/jc.v23i2.98075

Keywords:

administrative burden, citizenship rights, civic education, digital citizenship, Pancasila, vulnerable groups

Abstract

As public services move onto digital platforms, civic education must prepare citizens not only to use technology responsibly but also to understand, claim, and contest the services through which their rights are realised. This article develops a conceptual and methodological framework that reframes digital administrative burden in Indonesia as a problem of citizenship formation and substantive rights. For citizens facing poverty, disability, old age, rural remoteness, or limited literacy, opaque digital procedures do more than create technical difficulty; they erode civic agency. Drawing on administrative burden theory, Marshall's citizenship rights, Sen's capability approach, and digital citizenship scholarship, the article proposes a model linking learning, compliance, and psychological costs to perceived access, service justice, and civic confidence. It situates this model within Indonesian civic education through Pancasila's principle of social justice and outlines a fieldwork protocol for future empirical testing. The article argues that digital access is never merely administrative: it is where citizens learn whether the state recognises them as equal, rights-bearing members of a democratic community.

References

Aaroe, L., Baekgaard, M., Christensen, J., & Moynihan, D. P. (2021). Personality and public administration: Policymaker tolerance of administrative burdens in welfare services. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 652–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13381

Armawi, A., & Wahidin, D. (2020). Optimalisasi peran internet dalam mewujudkan digital citizenship dan implikasinya terhadap ketahanan pribadi siswa [Optimising the role of the internet in realising digital citizenship and its implications for students' personal resilience]. Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan, 17(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.21831/jc.v17i1.30146

Badan Pusat Statistik. (2025). Statistik telekomunikasi Indonesia 2024 [Telecommunication statistics in Indonesia 2024]. https://www.bps.go.id/en/publication/2025/08/29/beaa2be400eda6ce6c636ef8/statistik-telekomunikasi-indonesia-2024.html

Badan Standar, Kurikulum, dan Asesmen Pendidikan. (2022). Dimensi, elemen, dan subelemen Profil Pelajar Pancasila pada Kurikulum Merdeka [Dimensions, elements, and sub-elements of the Pancasila Student Profile in the Emancipated Curriculum]. Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi.

Baekgaard, M., & Tankink, T. (2022). Administrative burden: Untangling a bowl of conceptual spaghetti. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 5(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvab027

Cao, J., & Ma, L. (2025). Digital transformation, administrative burden, and citizen–state interactions: A case of the Old Age Allowance Policy in China. Review of Policy Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.70063

Choi, M. (2016). A concept analysis of digital citizenship for democratic citizenship education in the internet age. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(4), 565–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2016.1210549

Christensen, J., Aaroe, L., Baekgaard, M., Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2020). Human capital and administrative burden: The role of cognitive resources in citizen–state interactions. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13134

Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Giest, S., & Samuels, A. (2023). Administrative burden in digital public service delivery: The social infrastructure of library programs for e-inclusion. Review of Policy Research, 40(5), 626–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12516

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Halling, A., & Baekgaard, M. (2024). Administrative burden in citizen–state interactions: A systematic literature review. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(2), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad023

Heggertveit, I. (2024). Navigating privacy regulations: Administrative burden of digital self-services for vulnerable citizens. In M. Rohde Johannessen, C. Csaki, L. Danneels, S. Hofmann, T. Lampoltshammer, P. Parycek, G. Schwabe, E. Tambouris, & J. Ubacht (Eds.), Electronic participation: 16th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2024 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 14891, pp. 16–30). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70804-6_2

Heggertveit, I., Lindgren, I., Madsen, C. Ø., & Hofmann, S. (2022). Administrative burden in digital self-service: An empirical study about citizens in need of financial assistance. In R. Krimmer (Ed.), Electronic participation (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 13392, pp. 173–187). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23213-8_11

Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2018). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation.

Higgins, N., Ferri, D., & Donnellan, K. (2022). Enhancing access to digital culture for vulnerable groups: The role of public authorities in breaking down barriers. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 35, 2087–2106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-022-09959-6

Hofmann, S., Sæbø, Ø., & Rydén, H. H. (2024). Implications of digitalised welfare services from a vulnerable citizens' perspective. Nordic Welfare Research, 9(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.18261/nwr.9.2.2

Höglund Rydén, H., Hofmann, S., Alonso de Andrade, L. H., & Heggertveit, I. (2024). Mitigating administrative burdens: Understanding the role of intermediaries in co-producing digital self-services. In M. Rohde Johannessen, C. Csaki, L. Danneels, S. Hofmann, T. Lampoltshammer, P. Parycek, G. Schwabe, E. Tambouris, & J. Ubacht (Eds.), Electronic participation: 16th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2024 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 14891, pp. 31–46). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70804-6_3

Indonesia. (2009). Undang-Undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2009 tentang Pelayanan Publik [Law Number 25 of 2009 on Public Services]. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/38748/uu-no-25-tahun-2009

Indonesia. (2016). Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2016 tentang Penyandang Disabilitas [Law Number 8 of 2016 on Persons with Disabilities]. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/37251/uu-no-8-tahun-2016

Indonesia. (2018). Peraturan Presiden Nomor 95 Tahun 2018 tentang Sistem Pemerintahan Berbasis Elektronik [Presidential Regulation Number 95 of 2018 on the Electronic-Based Government System]. https://peraturan.go.id/id/perpres-no-95-tahun-2018

Isin, E., & Ruppert, E. (2015). Being digital citizens. Rowman & Littlefield International.

Jilke, S., Baekgaard, M., Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2024). Short and sweet: Measuring experiences of administrative burden. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 7, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.71.340

Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi. (2024). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Nomor 12 Tahun 2024 tentang Kurikulum pada Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, Jenjang Pendidikan Dasar, dan Jenjang Pendidikan Menengah [Regulation of the Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Number 12 of 2024 on the Curriculum for Early Childhood, Primary, and Secondary Education]. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/281847/permendikbudriset-no-12-tahun-2024

Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101

Lindgren, I., Madsen, C. Ø., Rydén, H. H., Heggertveit, I., Hofmann, S., & Sæbø, Ø. (2024). What public services are suitable for digitalization? A classification of public service characteristics. In M. Janssen, J. Crompvoets, J. R. Gil-Garcia, H. Lee, I. Lindgren, A. Nikiforova, & G. Viale Pereira (Eds.), Electronic government: 23rd IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2024 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 14841, pp. 201–217). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70274-7_13

Liu, H., Zhou, Q., & Liang, S. (2025). Digital inclusion in public services for vulnerable groups: A systematic review for research themes and goal action framework from the lens of public service ecosystem theory. Government Information Quarterly, 42(1), Article 101995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025.101995

Madsen, C. Ø., Lindgren, I., & Melin, U. (2022). The accidental caseworker: How digital self-service influences citizens' administrative burden. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1), Article 101653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101653

Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge University Press.

Masood, A., & Nisar, M. A. (2021). Administrative capital and citizens' responses to administrative burden. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa031

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship: The internet, society, and participation. MIT Press.

Moynihan, D. P., Herd, P., & Harvey, H. (2015). Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen–state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu009

Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765

Ombudsman Republik Indonesia. (2024). Laporan tahunan Ombudsman Republik Indonesia 2023 [Annual report of the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia 2023]. https://ombudsman.go.id/produk/?c=19&s=SUB_LT_5a1ea951d55c4

Peeters, R. (2023). Digital administrative burdens: An agenda for analyzing the citizen experience of digital bureaucratic encounters. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 6(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac024

Pereira, G. V., Parycek, P., Falco, E., & Kleinhans, R. (2018). Smart governance in the context of smart cities: A literature review. Information Polity, 23(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170067

Pérez-Escolar, M., & Canet, F. (2023). Research on vulnerable people and digital inclusion: Toward a consolidated taxonomical framework. Universal Access in the Information Society, 22, 1059–1072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00867-x

Ramadoan, S., Firman, F., Sahrul, S., & Haeril, H. (2024). Optimizing public accessibility: A review of the urgency of e-government for Bima District. The International Journal of Politics and Sociology Research, 12(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.35335/ijopsor.v12i1.230

Ribble, M. (2015). Digital citizenship in schools: Nine elements all students should know (3rd ed.). International Society for Technology in Education.

Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G., & Jackson, K. (2019). Social equity in public administration: A call to action. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(4), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvz016

Rydén, H. H., & de Andrade, L. A. (2023). The hidden costs of digital self-service: Administrative burden, vulnerability and the role of interpersonal aid in Norwegian and Brazilian welfare services. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 473–478). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3614321.3614403

Scholta, H., & Lindgren, I. (2025). Digital government inclusion: Exploring strategies for inclusive government automation. Government Information Quarterly, 42(2), Article 102019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025.102019

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

United Nations. (2020). Roadmap for digital cooperation. https://www.un.org/en/content/digital-cooperation-roadmap/assets/pdf/Roadmap_for_Digital_Cooperation_EN.pdf

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society, 16(3), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487959

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2019). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society, 21(2), 354–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818797082

Vogel, D. (2025). Do vulnerable citizens (really) perceive higher bureaucracy costs? Testing a key claim of the administrative burden framework. Public Administration Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13932

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041002237

Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Geyer, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the public sector: Applications and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(7), 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1498103

Yusuf, N., Wibowo, A. P., & Budiono, B. (2024). Digital citizenship education: Pancasila as a source of digital ethics in Indonesia. JED (Jurnal Etika Demokrasi), 9(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.26618/jed.v9i1.11721

 

Downloads

Published

2026-10-01

How to Cite

Rifai, R., Haeril, H., & Rahmad Hidayat. (2026). Digital administrative burden as a civic education problem: A conceptual and methodological framework for digital citizenship, social justice, and citizenship rights among vulnerable groups. Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan, 23(2), 574–592. https://doi.org/10.21831/jc.v23i2.98075

Issue

Vol. 23 No. 2 (2026)

Section

Original Research Article

Citation Check

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The authors agree to transfer the transfer copyright of the article to The Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan effective if and when the paper is accepted for publication.

Authors and other parties are bound to the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License for the published articles, legal formal aspect of journal publication accessibility refers to Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA).