Comparative E-Government (Integrated Series in Information Systems 25)

Integrated Series in Information Systems Volume 25 Series Editors Ramesh Sharda Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,...

Author: Christopher G. Reddick

173 downloads 1956 Views 5MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Integrated Series in Information Systems Volume 25

Series Editors Ramesh Sharda Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA Stefan Voß University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/6157

Christopher G. Reddick Editor

Comparative E-Government

123

Editor Christopher G. Reddick Department of Public Administration University of Texas San Antonio, TX 78207, USA [email protected]

ISSN 1571-0270 ISBN 978-1-4419-6535-6 e-ISBN 978-1-4419-6536-3 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-6536-3 Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London Library of Congress Control Number: 2010930823 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010 All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

This book is dedicated to my father George William Reddick.

Preface

Electronic government or e-government has impacted all countries of the world. E-government is not just a movement that has transpired in one particular country, it is truly a global phenomenon, impacting both developed and developing nations. Essentially, e-government has influenced nations on all corners of the earth to different degrees. The discussion of e-government does not necessarily imply that Web sites are the only mechanism for its expression; many new and emerging technologies have appeared recently and are part of the e-government movement, such as wireless and new social media technologies. This book is one of the first of its kind to examine e-government across different nations. The research on e-government took off with the commercialization and rise of the Internet in the mid-1990s. The Internet became a viable tool for businesses to reach more customers and essentially made it more accessible to a broader array of individuals. Emerging in a new millennium many scholars touted some of the promises of e-government to be revolutionary having the ability to change both the nature of government operations and the way the citizens interact with their government. We now know that e-government as envisioned during this period has not lived up to expectations, but it still resonates given the broad and continued discussion on the topic and its continued application throughout the world. E-government has multiple meanings and has been defined numerous times by both scholars and practitioners. As mentioned, government Web sites were what e-government was originally envisioned upon, but as we know new technologies have emerged and are also part of e-government. One common thread, through most definitions of e-government, indicates its ability to transform government and make it more responsive and accountable to citizens. The chapters in the book address the transformational impact of e-government in many nations of the world. The book Comparative E-Government examines the impact of information and communication technology (ICT) on the governments throughout the world. The focus of this book is to examine the adoption of e-government in countries both by comparing different countries, and by focusing on individual countries and the success and challenges that they have faced. This book has 32 chapters from leading e-government scholars and practitioners from around the world. There is representation of developing and developed countries in this book and their different stages of e-government adoption. There vii

viii

Preface

are three parts in this book. Part I compares the adoption of e-government in two or more countries. The purpose of these chapters is to discern the development of e-government by comparing different countries and their individual experiences. As the reader will see from Part I e-government, although a global phenomena, has more of an impact on some countries than others. Its impact is global, but the degree of adoption varies with the nature of the country, its social and demographic characteristics, and degree of economic development. Part I in its analysis of e-government across different countries had some interesting common findings. The chapters in this part demonstrate that many developing countries are struggling with providing the most basic infrastructure for ICT, which limits citizens’ use of e-government. However, mobile technologies make Internet connectivity more promising for developing countries. E-government development across both developing and developed countries seems to be more at the publishing and two-way interaction stages of development. There is not a lot of wholesale transformation as a result of e-government. Some factors that are associated with more successful e-government adoption are leadership, collaboration, and civic engagement. In order for governments to effectively implement more advanced e-government systems, they need to listen to their stakeholders. One way for more successful e-government adoption is a bottom up approach where adoption is driven by stakeholders and their opinions and uses of systems. The digital divide is one of the most pressing issues that all countries face in the adoption of e-government, an issue that is not likely to go away in the near future. Part II of this book provides more in-depth focus of case studies on the adoption of e-government in select countries. Similarly to part one, the Part II shows that development is global, and varies in the context of the country. The lessons learned here is that e-government cannot just be applied from one country to the next, the context of the country must be taken into account. Essentially, there is no one-sizefits-all approach to e-government that will be successful, therefore, more research should be conducted on providing individual country case studies. For instance, some of the chapters discuss that implementation of e-governance in many developing countries is weakened due to challenges such as the lack of transparency and broadband infrastructure. Another issue addressed in the second part is that many countries are approaching e-government as service delivery rather than enhancing democracy and participation. The cultural and legal aspect of the country has a tremendous impact on e-government adoption. Many chapters discuss the state of the art in e-government development, examining political, infrastructure, and funding issues. Part III, the last part of the book, examines emerging innovations and technologies in the adoption of e-government in different countries. Some of the emerging technologies are the new social media movement, the development of e-participation, interoperability, and geographic information systems (GIS). The purpose of Part III is to leave the reader with some of the new issues that have emerged and will become part of e-government in the future. Some of the issues discussed in Part III are e-government adoption and participation through GIS systems. Usability of e-government and the digital divide in

Preface

ix

general are issues that still need to be addressed. Access to information laws will enhance transparency and accountability of governments and some nations are more developed in this than others. New social media technologies such as Web 2.0 can influence citizen participation in government. Other issues such as performance measurement, accountability, and budget transparency are addressed as important issues for the future of e-government. This book would not be possible without the tireless work of the authors. This book was peer reviewed, with each chapter reviewed by at least three reviewers. Without the helpful comments of these reviewers this book would not be possible. I believe that both scholars and practitioners will find this book useful, having both theoretical and best practices in e-government. In addition, the global coverage of Comparative E-Government provides insights into the development of e-government in both developed and developing countries throughout the world, which is unmatched in existing books. San Antonio, Texas

Christopher G. Reddick

Contents

Part I

Comparing Countries and Regions

1 E-government Maturity over 10 Years: A Comparative Analysis of E-government Maturity in Select Countries Around the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. Naveed Baqir and Lakshmi Iyer 2 Framework of E-governance at the Local Government Level . . . . Hakikur Rahman

3 23

3 A Comparative Study of Contents of E-government Service Websites of Middle East and North African (MENA) Countries . . Abebe Rorissa, Devendra Potnis, and Dawit Demissie

49

4 Towards E-participation in the Middle East and Northern Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Girish J. “Jeff ” Gulati, David J. Yates, and Anas Tawileh

71

5 Evaluation of the Impact and Adoption of E-government Services in the Balkans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ourania I. Markaki, Dimitris E. Charilas, and Dimitrios Askounis

91

6 A Challenging E-journey Along the Silk Road: Lessons Learned from E-governments in China and India . . . . . . . . . . Alankar Bandyopadhyay and Sahar D. Sattarzadeh

115

7 Digital Government in North America: A Comparative Analysis of Policy and Program Priorities in Canada, Mexico, and the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Luis F. Luna-Reyes, Theresa A. Pardo, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, Celene Navarrete, Jing Zhang, and Sehl Mellouli

139

8 Adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and US Governments . . . . . . F. Dianne Lux Wigand

161

xi

xii

Contents

9 E-government and Federalism in Italy and Canada—A Comparative Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barbara -Chiara Ubaldi and Jeffrey Roy 10

11

Adoption of E-government by Disadvantaged Groups in the United States and the United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . Doria Pilling

201

Implementing E-Government Locally—An Empirical Survey from the European Metropolitan Area Rhine-Neckar . . . Sebastian Olbrich

221

Part II 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

183

Country Case Studies

E-government Adoption Landscape Zambia: Context, Issues, and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bwalya Kelvin Joseph

241

Challenges of Effective E-governance: Problems of Transparency, Infrastructure, and Connectivity in Kenya . . . . . David Wachira and Sudha Arlikatti

259

The Politics of E-government in Spain: Between Recent Innovations and Old Inertias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. Ignacio Criado

275

Technological Adoption of a Privatised E-government: Implications for Democracy and Socially Marginalised Communities in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . José Rodrigues Filho

299

The Challenges of E-governance in a Small, Developing Society: The Case of Trinidad and Tobago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ann Marie Bissessar

313

Towards E-government Transformation in Turkey: Policy and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hatice Özkan Sancak and Sevcan Güleç

331

Measuring E-government Adoption by Governments: The Greek Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leonidas G. Anthopoulos, Vassilis C. Gerogiannis, and Panos Fitsilis Critical Factors for Adoption of E-government: Validity of Adoption Model in Indian Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mahmud A. Shareef, Norm Archer, Vedmani Sharan, and Vinod Kumar

353

371

Contents

xiii

20

Conceptualizing and Implementation of E-government in India . . Subhajyoti Ray

391

21

E-government in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus . . . . Mustafa Sa˘gsan and Mete Yıldız

409

22

SCRAN’s Development of a Trans-national Comparator for the Standardisation of E-government Services . . . . . . . . . . Mark Deakin

425

Part III Innovations and Emerging Technologies 23

Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sukumar Ganapati

24

Learning with GIS-Based Monitors in the Netherlands . . . . . . . Dennis de Kool

25

Bridging the Other Divide: An Assessment of the Usability of Trinidad and Tobago Government Ministry Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charlene M.L. Roach and N. Joseph Cayer

26

27

28

29

30

E-government in New Zealand: Local Governments, Digital Divides and the National Digital Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kay Fielden and Pam Malcolm A Study of E-government and Political Indicators in Developing Nations with and Without Access-toInformation Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeannine E. Relly

449 467

483

505

525

Socializing E-governance: A Parallel Study of Participatory E-governance and Emerging Social Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eleni -Revekka Staiou and Dimitris Gouscos

543

E-government, Accountability, and Performance: Best-in-Class Governments in European Union Countries . . . . . Rebecca L. Orelli, Emanuele Padovani, and Eric Scorsone

561

The OECD Budgetary Transparency: An Examination of Online Budgetary Information Across European Union Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carmen Caba Pérez, Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar, and Antonio Manuel López Hernández

587

xiv

31

32

Contents

Does Size or Geography Matter? Empirical Analysis of Finnish Local Government Services on the Internet . . . . . . . Tommi A. Inkinen E-government Interoperability Framework: A Case Study in a Developing Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pavel Shvaiko, Adolfo Villafiorita, Alessandro Zorer, Lourino Chemane, and Teotonio Fumo

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

615

639

663

Contributors

Leonidas G. Anthopoulos Project Management Department, TEI of Larissa, Larissa, Thessaly 41110, Greece, [email protected] Norm Archer McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L8, [email protected] Sudha Arlikatti University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203-0617, USA, [email protected] Dimitrios Askounis National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, 15780 Athens, Greece, [email protected] Alankar Bandyopadhyay University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA, [email protected] M. Naveed Baqir University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA, [email protected] Ann Marie Bissessar The University of the West Indies, St Augustine, Trinidad, West Indies, [email protected] Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar University of Granada, Granada 18071, Spain, [email protected] N. Joseph Cayer Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA, [email protected] Dimitris E. Charilas National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, 15780 Athens, Greece, [email protected] Lourino Chemane UTICT – ICT Policy Implementation Technical Unit, Maputo, Mozambique, [email protected] J. Ignacio Criado Department of Political Science and International Relations, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, [email protected] Mark Deakin Centre for Learning Communities, Academic Development, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK, [email protected]

xv

xvi

Contributors

Dennis de Kool Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands, [email protected] Dawit Demissie University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY 12222, USA, [email protected] Kay Fielden Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, [email protected] José Rodrigues Filho Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa, Brazil, [email protected] Panos Fitsilis Project Management Department, TEI of Larissa, Larissa, Thessaly 41110, Greece, [email protected] Teotonio Fumo UTICT — ICT Policy Implementation Technical Unit, Maputo, Mozambique, [email protected] Sukumar Ganapati Public Administration Department, PCA 363B School of International and Public Affairs, College of Arts and Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA, [email protected] Vassilis C. Gerogiannis Project Management Department, TEI of Larissa, Larissa, Thessaly 41110, Greece, [email protected] J. Ramon Gil-Garcia Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas, Mexico, DF 01210, Mexico, [email protected] Dimitris Gouscos University of Athens, Athens 105 62, Greece, [email protected] Girish J. “Jeff” Gulati Bentley University, Waltham, MA 02452, USA, [email protected] Sevcan Güleç Gazi University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Be¸sevler, Ankara, Turkey, [email protected] Antonio Manuel López Hernández University of Granada, Granada 18071, Spain, [email protected] Tommi A. Inkinen University of Helsinki, Department of Geosciences and Geography, Helsinki 00014, Finland, [email protected] Lakshmi Iyer University of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC 27412, USA, [email protected] Bwalya Kelvin Joseph University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana, [email protected] Vinod Kumar Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1C 5X7, [email protected]

Contributors

xvii

Luis F. Luna-Reyes Universidad de las Americas Puebla, Cholula, Puebla 72820, Mexico, [email protected] Pam Malcolm Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, [email protected] Ourania I. Markaki National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, 15780 Athens, Greece, [email protected] Sehl Mellouli Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada G1V 0A6, [email protected] Celene Navarrete California State University, Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA 90747, USA, [email protected] Sebastian Olbrich University of Duisburg-Essen (Campus Duisburg), Mercator School of Management, Lotharstraße, 65 47057 Duisburg, Germany, [email protected] Rebecca L. Orelli University of Bologna, Bologna 47126, Italy, [email protected] Emanuele Padovani University of Bologna, Bologna 47126, Italy, [email protected] Theresa A. Pardo Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY 12205, USA, [email protected] Carmen Caba Pérez University of Almería, Almería 04120, Spain, [email protected] Doria Pilling School of Community and Health Sciences, City University London, London EC1A 7QN, UK, [email protected] Devendra Potnis University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA, [email protected] Hakikur Rahman Institute of Computer Management & Science, Mirpur, Dhaka 1216, Bangladesh, [email protected] Subhajyoti Ray Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar, Orissa 751013, India, [email protected] Jeannine E. Relly University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, [email protected] Charlene M.L. Roach The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus, Trinidad & Tobago, West Indies, [email protected] Abebe Rorissa University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY 12222, USA, [email protected] Jeffrey Roy Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 3J5, [email protected]

xviii

Contributors

Mustafa Sa˘gsan Ba¸skent University, Ankara, Turkey, [email protected] Hatice Özkan Sancak Gazi University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Be¸sevler, Ankara, Turkey, [email protected] Sahar D. Sattarzadeh University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA, [email protected] Eric Scorsone Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA, [email protected] Vedmani Sharan Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1C 5X7, [email protected] Mahmud A. Shareef McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L8, [email protected] Pavel Shvaiko TasLab, Informatica Trentina S.p.A., Trento, Italy, [email protected] Eleni-Revekka Staiou University of Athens, Athens 105 62, Greece, [email protected] Anas Tawileh Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales CF24 3AA, UK, [email protected] Barbara-Chiara Ubaldi OECD, 2, rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France, [email protected] Adolfo Villafiorita Fondazione Bruno Kessler IRST, Trento, Italy, [email protected] David Wachira University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203-0617, USA, [email protected] F. Dianne Lux Wigand Institute of Government, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR 72204, USA, [email protected] David J. Yates Bentley University, Waltham, MA 02452, USA, [email protected] Mete Yıldız Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey, [email protected] Jing Zhang Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610, USA, [email protected] Alessandro Zorer CREATE-NET, Trento, Italy, [email protected]

Part I

Comparing Countries and Regions

Chapter 1

E-government Maturity over 10 Years: A Comparative Analysis of E-government Maturity in Select Countries Around the World M. Naveed Baqir and Lakshmi Iyer

Over the past decade, we have seen a revolution in the provision of e-government services to citizens. While information communication technologies (ICT) make it possible to develop and deploy e-government services, there are remarkable differences in the reasons behind varying levels of e-government use in different countries. While developed countries, e.g., United States and many European countries, have advanced ICT infrastructures, e-government services usage by citizens is still limited. Developing countries are still struggling to develop and deploy basic infrastructure for ICT, which limits people’s ability to use e-government services that have already been developed. This contrast presents a unique set of issues, which poses challenges to citizens to efficiently and effectively use e-government services. This study examines several developed and developing countries from six continents around the globe on the basis of their past and current e-government initiatives, discuss goals, and objectives as well as benefits and challenges of e-government. The countries we examine include: United States and Canada (North America); United Kingdom and Germany (Europe); India, and Pakistan (Asia); Australia and New Zealand (Australia); Kenya and Nigeria (Africa); Argentina and Brazil (South America). We use published, archival, and current reports to examine the e-government maturity in each of the countries. Understanding the trends and challenges in e-government will help policy makers, developers, and service providers design and deliver better e-government services.

M.N. Baqir (B) University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA e-mail: [email protected] L. Iyer University of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC 27412, USA e-mail: [email protected]

C.G. Reddick (ed.), Comparative E-Government, Integrated Series in Information Systems 25, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-6536-3_1, C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

3

4

M.N. Baqir and L. Iyer

1 Introduction Recognizing the benefits of improved efficiency in delivering government services through electronic medium, e-government initiatives have increased rapidly in the last decade (Weerakkody, Choudrie, & Currie, 2004). Examples of such public sector services include (but not limited to) tax filing, identity management (including issuance and renewal of identity cards, driving licenses, and passports), online application for government jobs, determination of eligibility for government benefits, obtaining of birth certificates/marriage licenses, renewal of driver licenses, application for high school grants, registering to vote, and in some cases casting of votes. The nature of government service delivery has been facing rapid transformation in the recent years (Heeks & Bailura, 2007; Mosse & Whitley, 2009). New service industries; better delivery of services; and faster, cheaper communication are some of the by-products of this technological revolution (Devadoss, Pan, & Huang, 2002). While the idea of using computers and networks for government service delivery is not new, the challenges in the development, deployment, and use of e-government continues to plague policy makers, developers, and service providers. Due to political, organizational, and technical challenges, many of the e-government initiatives are lagging behind user expectations (United Nations Report, 2008). While similar challenges exist in private sectors, businesses have implemented Business Process Management (BPM) practices to increase agility, productivity, and operational effectiveness and now there is growing pressure from citizens and businesses for public sectors to do the same since e-government builds on e-business principles (Weerakkody et al., 2004). To leverage the effect of modern technologies, it is important that organizational processes are documented, understood, and properly coordinated with its information technology (IT) strategy. The implementation of e-government implies different objectives and levels of transformation. For instance, in the United States, the main objective is to automate and integrate different islands of information to simplify and maximize the benefits of technology (Iyer, Baqir, & Vollmer, 2006; Navarra & Cornford, 2003), whereas in Europe the emphasis is to modernize public services and offer better services to citizens (Cuddy, 2003). However, whatever may be the primary goal, the effective delivery of e-services requires process and information systems (IS) integration and coordination of processes between disparate organizations and stakeholders. Historically, bureaucracies associated within government organizations prevent them from being effective (Wilson, 1989). Even after the emergence of e-government, most of those bureaucratic processes still involve manual work and have abundant (and redundant) checkpoints. When the stakeholders in a process work as separate entities, each managing or dealing with disconnected silos of knowledge and information, it is very hard to deliver a service efficiently. Hence, the first step toward efficient delivery of services is to facilitate a transparent

1

E-government Maturity over 10 Years

5

networked environment where governments can truly partner with other governments, businesses, citizens, and additional stakeholders (GAO, 2003). Because governments are increasingly looking toward a digital future, e-government yields an interesting area of research. The chapter gives an overview of the major e-government measurement methods that lay the foundation for the e-government maturity model. The chapter also reviews e-government initiatives during the last 10 years in several developed and developing countries from four continents (i.e., North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia) and identifies major issues between the e-government services usage. It also looks at the results of the comparative analysis between these countries and maps them on an e-government maturity model. A discussion of the difficulties and future challenges that citizens face when using e-government services will benefit policy makers, service developers, and service providers in designing and delivering better e-government services. The chapter concludes by highlighting future trends and challenges for e-government.

2 Background E-government definitions have evolved over the last 10 years and efforts to comprehensively describe it in a single statement seem impossible. However, a common understanding is that e-government refers to the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), particularly Web-based applications, to provide faster, cheaper, easier, and more efficient access to and delivery of information/services to the public, businesses, other agencies (non-profit), and governmental entities (Biancucci et al., 2001; Dearstyne, 2001; Palvia & Sharma, 2007). This in turn, enhances relationships, enlarges the overall customer base, and improves core business operations through re-examination of internal processes. During the last 10 years several ideas of providing modern administration and democracy in public service delivery have emerged with a major component of bringing transparency to public dealing. E-government is considered as a “guiding vision toward modern administration and democracy” (Wimmer & Traunmuller, 2000). E-government has been reportedly instrumental in bringing transparency to public dealing (Cho & Byung-Dae, 2004). The focus of e-government has also shifted toward constituencies and stakeholders at all levels including government at the city, county, state, national, or even international levels (Palvia & Sharma, 2007). Essentially, it is with the transformation that governments and public administration have to undergo in the future. Hence, e-government is not an option but a must for governments to realize the benefits of ICTs to not fall behind. E-government is also seen as “transferring power to people, by operating in a one-stop, non-stop way, and doing more for less” (Lawson, 1998). Research on technology emphasizes that “technology is only one of the structural materials” (Nadler & Tushman, 1997),

6


indicating that e-government goes beyond the mere use of IT. The challenge is to effectively redesign the interaction between governments, citizens, and businesses which automatically implies the reorganization of internal processes.

2.1 Stages of E-government In order to evaluate e-government maturity in selected countries around the world, we present the theoretical foundations in this section. Several researchers have developed e-government framework and its evaluation plans (Grant & Derek, 2005). A widely used model which recognizes four stages of e-government development: (1) cataloguing, (2) transaction, (3) vertical integration, and (4) horizontal integration (Layne & Lee, 2001). Within the first stage, governments set up their initial online presence. This includes, and is very often limited, to the online presentation of information. Governments, citizens, and businesses are not able to conduct any transactions. Instead, efforts focus on the internal collection of information, their (re)organization, and final presentation on the Web. However, forms might be downloaded, printed, and then sent back via the normal postal system. The second stage, transaction, includes an increase in services and access to online forms. Citizens and businesses are now able to engage in electronic transactions with governments. Examples include the use of interactive forms and digital signatures for tasks such as registering a business, applying for a building permit, or filing for unemployment benefits. In addition, governments will increase their efforts in linking their internal procedures to the online world. While cataloguing is characterized by sparse integration as well as simple technological and organizational complexity, horizontal integration is characterized by integration within each level. Integration along different levels, local, state, and federal characterizes vertical integration. Figure 1.1 shows the visual representation of this model.

Fig. 1.1 Vertical and horizontal integration (Layne & Lee, 2001)

1


7

Fig. 1.2 Phases of Web measure index (United Nations Report, 2008)

A recent model (see Fig. 1.2) developed by the 2008 United Nations study on e-government, identifies five stages for Web measure index. These stages include: (1) emerging, (2) enhanced, (3) interactive, (4) transaction, and (5) connected. Accordingly to this model, countries face different thresholds in terms of infrastructure development, content delivery, business re-engineering, data management, security, and customer management. In the first stage, government Web sites might make basic information about government department available. In the second stage they might have more public policy governance-related information. In third stage, the governments may provide downloadable forms. In the fourth stage, governments might actually be involved in public–government transactions. In the last stage, different level and departments of governments may transform themselves in the form of an integrated back office infrastructure. It is clear from the descriptions of these two models that during the last decade, while new ideas might have evolved, the basic understanding of the stages remains somewhat same. Therefore, the next section on country comparison provides more insights into how to classify different countries within the described framework. For citizens, businesses, and governments, aggressive moves toward an increased integration are desirable since they offer better access to a broader number of governmental services and reduce functional barriers within governments themselves. During the past 10 years, several authors have reported on the advantages of e-government with concrete examples of actual e-government systems that resulted in real cost savings. At the same time, there have been several publications that report on the challenges e-governments face. Table 1.1 lists a summary these advantages and limitations presented in literature on e-government (Accenture, 2004, 2009; Dhillon, 2001; Dillon, Deakins, & Chen, 2006; Iyer et al., 2006; Seifert & Petersen, 2002; Symonds, 2000; Tillman, 2003). While advantages and challenges as addressed in the literature are given in a single table, their location in the table

8

M.N. Baqir and L. Iyer Table 1.1 Summary of advantages and challenges related to e-government initiatives

Advantages

Challenges

Increases efficiency and effectiveness Increases communication Eliminates redundancies and inconsistencies Enhances transparency Yields opportunities to partner with private sector Can have repercussions on entire economy Spurs adoption of internet Reduces costs (communication, information, labor, and material) Improves speed and service delivery, broadens reach, eliminates distance problems Increases convenience Empowers citizens

Privacy/security/confidentiality concerns Information overload How to value information

Attracts investments, businesses and skilled people Increases amount of available information Improves utilization of resources

Web sites do not work/are outdated Benefits often linked only to high stages of development Internal resistance/lack of leadership Lack of resources/capabilities/infrastructure High investments necessary Eliminates personal interaction/contact/possibility to ask questions Threatens jobs Advertising opportunities limited and hence less awareness Vast size and bureaucratic nature of governments reduces flexibility Enhance citizen trust in e-government

does not necessarily indicate rank ordering or imply direct relationship with other advantages and challenges.

3 Country Comparison The core ideas and techniques associated with putting governments online first emerged in the most developed western countries in the mid-1990s. Then, throughout the past years other countries have also established their own e-government Web sites. For developed countries, however, the issue is no longer whether government is or should be online, but in what form and with what consequences. These countries have expanded participatory services online through the use of e-participation portals and online consultation mechanisms encouraging citizen feedback on important economic and social policy issues (United Nations Report, 2008). An Accenture study revealed that in 2004 (Accenture, 2004), 173 of the United Nations’ 191 members operated Web sites and 18 countries, predominantly in Africa, remain completely offline. However, there are only three nations for which governments do not yet have an online presence by 2008, i.e., Central African Republic, Somalia, and Zambia. In 2009, Central African Republic and Somalia are the only two countries that still do not have official government Web sites. Even though most countries have developed some level of online presence, use of

1


9

e-government services is still very limited (United Nations Report, 2008). The reasoning is that very often the public sectors’ offerings differ from what users really want. Also, despite all the improvements that have been made so far only 15 governments in the world accept the publics’ comments on policy issues and only 32 allow online transactions. In developing countries about 60% of all e-government projects fail and about half waste tax payer money (United Nations Report, 2008). Based on the theoretical foundation developed in the previous section, e-government maturity index is developed and shown in Fig. 1.3. This figure displays the relative positioning of selected countries on the “e-government maturity index” that was developed on the basis of Layne and Lee’s (2001) four stage.

Fig. 1.3 2001 E-government maturity model (Layne & Lee, 2001)

Since the UN 2008 study provides more granularity in e-government development stages, the new model we develop a newer model based upon those five stages, as shown in Fig. 1.4. These two models (Figs. 1.3 and 1.4) signify the differences in the comparison between different countries on e-government maturity index and how these countries have further developed or dropped in their e-government maturity. Canada and Singapore, which took the top maturity spots in 2006 have switched places with Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. This switch is consistent with the surveys done by UN in 2005 and 2008. For example, UK dropped in e-participation

10


Norway, Sweden, Denmark, United States United Kingdom, Singapore, Australia, Japan, France, Canada, New Zealand, Germany

Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, United Arab Emirates

Pakistan, India, China, Jordan, Kenya, Nigeria

Fig. 1.4 An update on e-government maturity

index ranking from 1st position in 2005 to 24th in 2008 (United Nations Report, 2008). The drop in ranking signifies the fact that several countries give up on keeping up with e-government services innovation while others continuously improve (United Nations Report, 2008). These rankings are based upon quantitative data from 2004 Accenture study, UN 2005 study, UN 2008 study, and qualitative evaluation of several countries on the basis of the established e-government services, improvement since 2006 and new e-government initiatives as discussed in the following sections. E-government strategies in countries from six continents, i.e., Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South American are presented in more detail below.

3.1 Africa African continent is home to a very diverse population. Diversity in languages, cultures, histories, religions, resources, and economies are visible in the diversity of government infrastructures across the continent. From stable democracies to monarchies, and from military dictators to warlords waging massacres, the concept of e-government is considered foreign which is built upon imported e-government designs. Africa is the only continent where some countries (Central African Republic and Somalia) do not even have a basic government Web site.

1


11

In some cases individuals or groups have developed Web sites that claim it to be an “official government Website” (e.g., somaligovernment.org) to fill the gap of a properly maintained government Web site. In some parts of Africa extensive e-government infrastructure development efforts started as early as the late 1980s and early 1990s. From using Information and Decision Support Systems (IDSS) to facilitate intra-government communication in Egypt (Kamel, 1998) to the use of geographic information system to register electorates and support elections process in South Africa (Microsoft, 2000) shows that the potential of e-government has increased in Africa over time. While there are still several challenges with regards to technical, legal, institutional, human, and leadership issues, one can expect countries in Africa to leap ahead of others by learning from e-government success and failure stories of other countries.

3.1.1 Kenya E-government in Kenya has grown during the last 10 years. However, most of the growth benefits citizens in the larger urban centers such as Nairobi, Mombasa, Nakuru, and Kisumu. The establishment of e-government directorate has lead to development on several fronts. This directorate has been instrumental in providing computers, software, infrastructure, and training in different government bodies. Presently, e-government directorate offers connectivity to public service jobs search and application; status tracking of identity card; and passport, filing of taxes, and customs. Kenya’s e-government strategy revolves around providing government messaging and collaboration system (EMACS), developing data centers, enhancements of ministerial Web portals, implementation of e-applications, and development of information communication infrastructure (E-government Directorate in Kenya, 2009, www.e-government.go.ke). Kenya has to further develop its ICT infrastructure to expand its services to citizens in remote areas. After a careful review and comparison of government maturity with other countries, we have placed it at “Enhanced” level in Fig. 1.4.

3.1.2 Nigeria E-government in Nigeria has been progressing steadily over the last several years. The e-government implementation framework has rolled-out several “citizen-centric projects” (Agunloye, 2007). While the range of e-government services is limited, the ones that are available are very well-developed. From online registration and record management of citizens and businesses to online passport applications are providing government services to citizens at their door steps. However, the ICT infrastructure is not available to most of the population outside the few large urban areas. After a careful review of e-government maturity in Nigeria, we have placed it in the “Enhanced” category in Fig. 1.4.

12


3.2 Asia Asian countries present interesting contrast in the level of penetration and use of e-government services. On one side, there are countries such as Singapore, South Korea, and Japan that have high degree of Internet infrastructure penetration and are attempting to be 100% paperless. On the other side, there are countries such as India and Pakistan where a number of impressive e-government services implementation become spectacular failures because ordinary citizens cannot use them due to the lack of access to ICT infrastructure. We take a look at the e-government maturity in India and Pakistan in detail below. 3.2.1 India According to the Ministry of IT in India (Ministry of IT, 2005), mostly southern states in India have implemented several e-government projects after establishing considerably good IT infrastructure. Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Chandigarh are ranked leaders in e-readiness index for e-government delivery. Even though India was using computerized databases for its military, elections, economic planning, national census, and tax collection, it was not until 1990s that citizens could directly interface with e-government projects. Projects such as Bhoomi (land administration for Karnataka), CARD (land administration for Andhra Pradesh), Gyandoot (computing services for villagers), e-seva (utility bill payments in Andhra Pradesh), Akshaya (computer training for villagers in Kerala), Lokvani (various government services), and SARI (wireless internet link for villagers) are both aspiring and indicative of public–private interest in creating an environment to develop and use e-government services even though teledensity stands at 12.74% (India Core, 2006), telecom growth in certain states is phenomenonal. With approximately 541 Gbps international bandwidth link, all what’s left is to create and establish in-house infrastructure for the people living in far off places in India. We have places in India at the “Enhanced” level in Fig. 1.4. 3.2.2 Pakistan Information technology infrastructure is one of the fundamental requirements for the establishment of e-government deployment and use. The turn of the millennium proved to be a tipping point for Pakistan’s information technology infrastructure. Teledensity in Pakistan has grown from 2.80% in 2000 to 64% in 2009 (Pakistan Telecommunication Authority [PTA], 2009). Internet users grew from 10,000 users in 10 major cities in 1999 to over 5 million (internet service providers’ association claims this number to be 10 million) in over 400 cities in 2009 (PTA, 2009). Increasing deployment of high-speed Internet (mostly DSL/ADSL), is creating an opportunity for the development of e-government environment. Even with expanding use of high-speed Internet, number of companies offering online products/services are negligibly small (less than 1% of the population). With an enormous growth in infrastructure during the past few years, Government of

1


13

Pakistan took multiple initiatives including the establishment of ministry of IT and telecom, national database and registration authority (NADRA—citizens’ database and identity management), national IT policy, electronic government directorate, computerized electoral rolls, and computerization of land ownership records and electronic filing of taxes (Baqir & Parvez, 2000; Election Commission of Pakistan [ECP], 2009; Electronic Government Directorate [EGD], 2009; Mujahid, 2002). These initiatives are in addition to steps in the 5-year plan for e-government implementation strategy plan given in. Even though Pakistani Government’s plans are exciting and aspiring, e-business is almost nonexistent in the country. This leads to a strange situation where government is offering multiple avenues to its citizens to utilize e-government services but citizens are not familiar with what can be done online. Lack of local language content is a major inhibitor in citizens’ ability to use e-government services effectively. There is also a lack of statistical evidence to investigate the extent to which these e-government initiates are actually being used by the citizens. In addition to trust issues on the e-government, access control and security mechanisms prohibit wide spread use of online services. Keeping in view these developments in e-government maturity in Pakistan, we have placed it in “Enhanced” category in Fig. 1.4.

3.3 Australia Australia and New Zealand, in the Australian continent provide their citizens several e-government services. These two countries placed with countries with transactional e-government services. Literature on e-government projects, initiates, and evaluations in Australia and New Zealand is extensive and focuses on the transactional and connectedness issues (Gauld, Graya, & McComba, 2009). 3.3.1 Australia Even though Australian government started providing e-government services for about a decade now, strategy toward e-governance launched in 2006 has led to wide variety of e-government-related research issues. A major challenge faced in Australia is to protect citizens’ data secure, and create a seamless operation between agencies that may currently be working on a number of different software systems or technologies. The focus on the development of integrated and customer-oriented online services to respond faster while reducing costs puts them in “transactional” e-government maturity level in our model. However, the challenge to deal with more sophisticated and complicated integration of government services still remains a challenge and a major hindrance. 3.3.2 New Zealand The e-government services and challenges are not new in New Zealand. Implementation of e-government is an interesting case in New Zealand. It only has

14


two levels of government and therefore traditional concepts of local, state, and federal government do not apply. From e-government at local level to the federal level, shifting policy maker’s views are changing the nature of government in this country. New Zealand recognizes the needs or potential needs of information gathering and sharing among its citizens and the global community. Their awareness is evident in the various initiatives they have spearheaded in the country. The projects as such as setting up an infrastructure that provides faster, cheaper broadband to encourage innovation and add value, using familiar social technologies including social networking Web sites and tools like blogs, wikis, and folksonomies—and the full range of digital channels—mobile phones, instant messaging, podcasts, and digital TV, as well as Internet pathways are delivering value. A single library management system provides access to Auckland city, Manukau, North Shore, Rodney, and Waitakere Libraries by using RFID technology to manage their book collections. The challenges however are numerous. The biggest one is the problem of collaboration between agencies; tools have been developed to promote collaboration online but there is a lot of room for improvement in actual use-related statistics. They fall under the “Transactional” category in the e-government maturity level as shown in Fig. 1.4.

3.4 Europe Europe represents a wide level of diversity as far as e-government maturity is concerned. Several countries, particularly in Scandinavia, e-government maturity is very high. Data from UN 2008 survey also suggest that Norway, Sweden, and Denmark now lead United States if citizen participation in e-government is concerned. There are several countries especially in eastern Europe that are still at either emerging or enhanced phase of Web maturity index. In 2000, the European Summits at Lisbon and Feira redefined the continent’s e-government ambitions by setting four guidelines. The new agenda include the continuous development of Internet-based services to improve access to information and services, the improvement of transparency of public administration, the full exploitation of information technology, and the establishment of e-procurement. These objectives show a high similarity to the United States’ objectives. However, as often, these challenging targets could not yet be implemented to their full extend. Overall, Europe’s public sector faces challenging economic and social conditions, institutional change, and of course the impact of information technology. In order to boost growth, efficiency, and productivity, quality of governmental services still need to be improved. Today, about 67% of public services are accessible online. Since such numbers always depend on the underlying assumptions for their calculation they have to be used with caution. Whereas, the percentage is higher by looking at public services merely from a perspective of online availability, the percentage is lower if focus is on public services that are already truly transactional. Among the public service categories, income-generating services (tax and social contributions) are the most developed,

1


15

followed by registration services (car and new company registration) and returns, such as social security. Services related to documents and permits (driver’s license, passports) are the least developed on the Web. Services for businesses reach 79% of online sophistication, whereas the services for citizens reached a level of 58%. In summary, on the one hand, Europe makes progress in e-government. On the other hand, taking the measure of fully transactional services and highly advances stages of e-government development the result seems to be more pessimistic. 3.4.1 United Kingdom Although the United Kingdom (UK) is among those European countries that have higher maturity levels, its e-government growth seemed to have slowed in the last couple of years. The UK government’s initial objective (in 2000) was to make all public services available electronically by the end of 2005. However, the project was delayed several times. Since 2005, over a billion pounds have been invested to boost UK’s central government’s online offerings. However, despite high Internet penetration (70.9% of the population has internet access); the use of e-government services remains low. Several challenges, issues, and complexities in realizing “transformation” stage in e-government are identified (Weerakkody et al., 2004). So far about 70% of government services can be accessed via the Internet. That figure was expected to reach 80% by the end of 2005, the date by which everything was supposed to have been “e-enabled.” However, these projects were not actually completed for inherent inefficiencies in communication modules among various organizations (Mosse & Whitley, 2009). What is more worrying is that where such services have already been put online, hardly anyone seems to be using them. Since the British are, similar to the Americans, rather an Internet savvy society e-government usage patterns are disappointing. The vast amount of different Web sites, the required coordination between several organizations, as well as the necessity to visit multiple sites before finding valuable information, again appear to be the main problems why e-government is not really taking off in UK. In addition, some government’s sites are out of date or do not work properly. Finally, the British have traditionally been skeptical about their governments’ initiatives, given the examples of failures in the past. That is why take-up of e-government services in Britain continuous to be an issue. For the future, the UK government still plans to increase spending on e-government by several billion in the next few years. We have placed it in the “Transactional” category in Fig. 1.4. 3.4.2 Germany Germany is within the cluster of low to medium growth stage countries on the life cycle. Emphasis is still on providing information on the Web and a really noticeable push toward the transaction level is not yet evident. In addition, e-government is not considered as a crucial aspect in the political debate. The transfer of BundOnline 2005 out of the Ministry of Inner Affairs to the Federal Office for Administration supports this view. Fewer than half of the country’s regular Internet users have ever

16


used any e-government service at all. One of the problems e-government faces in Germany is that the majority of initiatives have so far been targeted at the federal level. Although the number of government portals and sites is immense, the most significant services for citizens and businesses are provided primarily by municipal governments, however. Also, Germany is a highly unionized country and the extensive amounts of employment laws make a hire-and-fire strategy (like in the United States) impossible. The fear of trading a large number of municipal governmental jobs for advances in e-government thus already restricts some activities in their initial phase. Finally, Germany is often dominated by the call for security, legal certainty, and data privacy, which is in part attributable to the country’s culture and working habits. Nevertheless, some plans such as the introduction of a digital passport in 2008 have already starting giving good results. Thoughts about this type of passport, that requires a digital signature, first emerged after the terrorist attacks in the United States in 2001. Its successful implementation, along with other planned activities, is bringing Germany back into a more desirable position of e-government maturity. The country’s technological infrastructure and capabilities definitely favor a position more toward innovative practices and higher maturity levels and do not resemble the low-maturity status the country currently has. In the recent 2008 UN survey, Germany received very low ranking as far as citizen participation e-government-based democratic interaction with the government is concerned. We have placed it in the “Transactional” category in Fig. 1.4.

3.5 North America The United States (US) and Canada in the North American continent have been leading in e-government infrastructure development for several years. Recently, other countries specially the ones in Scandinavia have left both the US and Canada a little behind in the recent UN e-government survey rankings. However, both countries have developed and enhanced e-government infrastructure significantly during the last years. 3.5.1 United States The United States currently is among the top four countries with regard to e-government maturity. It still leads the field in readiness of the amount of information available, services and products offered, as well as the underlying infrastructure such as telephones, computers, and Internet connections (United Nations Report, 2008). About 73% of the population has access to Internet and e-government use is considerably high (United Nations Report, 2008). Also, the country’s population is Internet savvy and supports the ideas of increased convenience and time and cost savings. Finally, legislation is more in favor of moving e-government strategies forward than putting up restricting barriers. It was the United States together with Great Britain, Canada, and Australia that led the way in one 2006 ranking (Iyer et al., 2006), in establishing a basic information form of Web presence in

1


17

the mid-1990s and in developing what became known as e-government in the late 1990s. In 2001, the country published its first e-government vision statement, which adhered to three principles: being citizen-centered, results-oriented, and marketbased. However, Scandinavian countries, i.e., Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are now leading e-government use and now among the top four countries in providing their citizens the highest level of connected services. In United States, however, the challenge in making e-government a success is only possible if services are citizen-centered (not agency-centered as is the case in most of US e-government infrastructure), enabled through the changing of processes, and effectively marketed to the customer.

3.5.2 Canada Canada’s “Government On-Line (GOL)” initiative started in 1999 became known around the world as the “government most connected to its citizens.” A comprehensive list of 130 different online services ranges from information provision to real-time, secure interaction. Some of the more prominent e-government services include online forms, “my government account,” online tools and calculators, public participation, and Canadian health portal. Canadian approach toward e-government infrastructure development is based upon their strategic design principles of being “client-centered.” Attempts have been made grouped e-government services logically and give the impression of seamless integration among divisions of government. For example, “e-pass authentication” process provides a single sign-on for multiple areas of government. While Canada has been successful in developing a very reasonable e-government infrastructure, the vastness of the land demands continuous expansion of ICT infrastructure to rural areas to counter the effects of digital divide. We have placed Canada under “Transactional” category in Fig. 1.4.

3.6 South America E-government maturity in South America varies greatly. On one end, there are countries that are among the few in the world to have developed completely computerized voting systems and, on the other end, some only have “emerging” level of e-government maturity. Technological advancements among different regions within a single country may differ significantly, which affects citizen’s ability to access and use these services in any meaningful manner. Evaluating the literature on e-government growth in South America reveals that e-government maturity is increasing significantly despite the challenges. We have selected Argentina and Brazil for a closer look at their e-government maturity in the last 10 years.

18


3.6.1 Argentina The e-government infrastructure development started with bringing transparency to government services and freedom of information. The national plan for modernization of the state (2006) adopted in 2006 calls for development of ICT and e-government infrastructure to lead the country to modernization. The implementation of digital signatures for inter- and intra-governmental communication and data transfer provide the foundation for further enhancement and development of e-government infrastructure. The central e-government Web site provides interactive links to several government services at the federal and state level. Future plans for e-government enhancement call for more integrated services and applications. While, Argentina needs to enhance its basic ICT infrastructure, due to the recent development of e-government services for citizens we have placed it in the “Interactive” category in Fig. 1.4.

3.6.2 Brazil Brazil’s road to e-governance adoption has been influenced by a number of factors, including its governmental structure, geography, and the education of its people. These have impacted the rate of diffusion of technologies essential to the growth of an e-government infrastructure. Despite technological limitations, the country has undertaken significant implementations. Brazil started experimenting with electronic voting in 1996. It currently holds completely electronic elections. More recent developments include the Web portals. Some of the government portals are interconnected. The main Web portal of the government http://www.e.gov.br provides contact information and support for over 800 different governmental services. While, Brazil has made significant progress in e-government maturity in the last 10 years and e-government interfaces are interactive and in some cases transactional, we have placed Brazil in an over “Interactive” category in Fig. 1.4.

4 Emerging Trends in E-government The e-government life cycle showed the relative positions of countries with regard to their maturity levels. One of the trends emerging in e-government is that larger differences in maturity slowly disappear (Accenture, 2004, 2009). Countries that were once lacking behind have managed to catch up with former industry leaders. This is especially true for some countries in the medium maturity range. Here, countries are very close together, making an appropriate differentiation hardly possible and differences in rankings are often due to differing underlying assumptions. It shall also not be surprising that especially countries in the low- or mid-maturity phases have better chances to make more significant advances. The reason is that it simply becomes harder for countries that are already highly mature to significantly differentiate themselves.

1


19

Second, when governments initiated their first online programs, cost savings have been soaked up by large investments into the e-government structure. While some governments still need to heavily invest, industry leaders now start realizing tangible cost savings. Third, the biggest factors for driving citizens to greater e-government usage are time and cost savings. As already mentioned, a lot of services are hardly known off, however. Therefore, governments are increasing their promotion efforts. Some countries have already reported concentrated marketing efforts that lead to satisfying results. The tools used in such marketing campaigns include television and radio, advertisements magazines, newspapers, and other media. Fourth, moving from the transaction stage to stages of vertical and horizontal integration is for many countries still the major hurdle. However, since these stages characterize the provision of a truly seamless approach to e-government, countries are also increasing their efforts to reach them. For already highly advanced countries the next “battleground” could be integration at the international level (Jaeger & Thompson, 2003). Especially with regard to the current developments within the European Union, international integration will be an interesting field for further future research. Finally, e-government services are starting to get customized (Accenture, 2009). This means that governments are not only trying to serve the overall public in the best way possible, but also try to tailor their services to specific needs and interests. While users benefit from more accurate, appropriate information, and time savings, agencies increase their customer satisfaction ratings and strengthen the user participation layer. In addition, user data becomes more reliable, enabling the better targeting of future services. Segmentation becomes possible through enhanced market understanding.

5 Future Challenges for E-government The idea of a fully integrated e-government assumes perfect coordination, communication, and collaboration among different levels and functions of government and is therefore still a theoretical concept than reality. Future challenges mean different things to different countries. As identified earlier, for developing nations it is important to develop basic telecommunication infrastructure to a level where citizens have access to e-government services. For developed countries where basic connectivity to internet and online services are not a major consideration, the major challenge is the integrated service delivery where citizens’ data is secure and interoperable to allow for the completion of complicated and sophisticated e-government services. As with other sectors, the public sector faces power conflicts, differing goals, functional boundaries, self-centered thinking, etc. The future will show which countries will most likely be able to improve coordination, communication, and collaboration among agencies in order to move ahead. It will require significant resources first to provide valuable information and services that are continuously updated and expanded in order to meet customer needs and second to keep customers informed through marketing initiatives. Another challenge will be

20


to overcome issues and concerns of privacy and confidentiality. As with onlineshopping citizens still feel uncomfortable with providing personal data on the Web and are concerned about its usage and storage. Therefore, clear guidelines have to be in place on how to address such concerns internally as well as communicate solutions externally. Technical improvements such as the implementation of security controls, safe document management systems, as well as increased transparency of procedures or allowing independent auditing could solve some of the problems. Internally, it will be crucial to sustain committed leadership and to develop performance evaluation measures. While e-government frees a lot of resources it cannot become a way for employees to avoid taking responsibility or their duties since they are not physically seeing or speaking to the citizen anymore or to blame technology as an excuse for all problems. Among or even within countries variations in both the availability of technology as well as the ability to use them exist. Simply put, not everyone can have access from everywhere in the world. It would be wrong to invest into e-government strategies in those countries that require other services more desperately (Haldenwang, 2004). In addition, a person that simply lacks education or has limited abilities cannot be denied access to governmental services, and in nations in which more than one language is being spoken, ways need to be considered to not exclude a certain part of the population. Finally, different challenges can be linked to the different stages on the life cycle. Countries with low maturity have to initiate activities that can guarantee the foundation for service transformation and provide long-term plans. Focus should be on services with high demand, businesses, and collaborations. Countries with medium maturity will have to target both citizens as well as businesses and ensure that services can be delivered accordingly. Functional barriers need to be removed in order to allow integration. High-maturity countries will have to think of innovative ways in order to not lose their position and second further set themselves apart. New cost-effective strategies need to be sought that replace outdated ones and create a win-win situation. The goal is to achieve strategies that can achieve full integration.

6 Concluding Remarks The chapter explored several aspects of e-government maturity in selected countries in six continents over the last 10 years. Despite many challenges, governments are expanding in both the size and scope of their e-government strategies to not fall behind and grasp some of the advantages. Determinants of how and how well e-government initiatives are realized and utilized include the political ideology, resource availability, the technological infrastructure, and economic/social systems. Further investigation of e-government implementations is needed to explore what works and what does not. The examination of e-government initiatives from different parts of the world offers a method to share knowledge about various e-government strategies. The majority of the current literature takes a rather theoretical than practical approach to e-government. However, it will be interesting to

1


21

see how future research on different countries progresses and how the outcomes change the relative positioning of countries on the e-government life cycle.

References Accenture. (2004). E-government leadership: High performance, maximum value. Annual report, 2009. Accenture. (2009). Transforming government service. Online Government Service Delivery. Retrieved March 26, 2009, from http://www.accenture.com/Global/Services/By_Industry/ Government_and_Public_Service/DelawareDelivery.htm Agunloye, O. (2007). An overview of the implementation of e-government program in Nigeria. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance; Macao, China. Baqir, M. N., & Parvez, S. (2000). IT policy of Pakistan. Computer News, 10, 15–31. Biancucci, R. J., Goode, L. J., Hunter, P. A., Owings, K., Tucker, A., & Willett, R. B. (2001). CFO survey – A preview: Electronic government. Journal of Government Financial Management, 2, 36–39. Cho, Y. H., & Byung-Dae, C. (2004). E-government to combat corruption: The case of Seoul Metropolitan Government. International Journal of Public Administration, 10, 719–735. Cuddy, I. (2003). New moves for European e-government. Retrieved January, 2008, from http://www.egovmonitor.com/newsletter/yzdqasd86/talrln02.html Dearstyne, B. (2001). E-business, e-government information proficiency. The Information Management Journal, 4, 17–22. Devadoss, P., Pan, S., & Huang, J. (2002). Structurational analysis of e-government initiatives: A case study of SCO. Decision Support Systems, 34, 253–269. Dhillon, G. (2001). Challenges in managing information security in the new millennium. In G. Dhillon (Ed.), Information security management: Global challenges in the new millennium (pp. 1–9). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Dillon, S., Deakins, E., & Chen, W. C. (2006). E-local government in New Zealand: The shifting policymaker view. The Electronic Journal of E-Government, 1, 9–8. Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). (2009). Reports retrieved March 29, 2009, from www.ecp.gov.pk. Electronic Government Directorate (EGD) Pakistan. (2009). Briefing for focal persons about e-government strategy and 5-year plan. Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://www.egovernment.gov.pk GAO. (2003). Electronic government-potential exists for enhancing collaboration on four initiatives. Report to Congressional Committees by the USA General Accounting Office. Gauld, R., Graya, A., & McComba, S. (2009). How responsive is e-government? Evidence from Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly, 1, 69–74. Grant, G., & Derek, C. (2005). Developing a generic framework for e-government. Journal of Global Information Management, 13, 1–30. Haldenwang, C. V. (2004). Electronic government (E-Government) and development. The European Journal of Development Research, 16(2), 417–432. Heeks, R., & Bailura, S. (2007). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 2, 243–265. India Core. (2006). Growth in telecom sector. Retrived March 28, 2009, from http://www.indiacore.com/telecom.html Irani, Z., Love, P., Elliman, T., Jones, S., & Themistocleous, M. (2005). Evaluating e-government: Learning from the experiences of two UK local authorities. Information Systems Journal, 1, 61–82.

22


Irani, Z., Love, P., & Montazemi, A. (2007). E-government: Past, present and future. European Journal of Information Systems, 2, 1003–1105. Iyer, L. S., Baqir, N., & Vollmer, T. (2006). A comparative analysis of e-government strategies. In R. K. Mitra (Ed.), eGovernment macro issues. New Delhi, India: Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management Publishing. Jaeger, P. T., & Thompson, K. M. (2003). E-government around the world: Lessons, challenges, and new directions. Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 389–394. Kamel, S. (1998). Decision Support Systems and Strategic Public Sector Decision Making in Egypt, iGovernment paper no.3, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester. Lawson, G. (1998). NetState. London: Demos. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 122–136. Microsoft. (2000). IEC of South Africa wins Computerworld Smithsonian award, Government News, 28 June, Microsoft Europe, Reading. Ministry of IT (MIT) – India. (2005). E-readiness index of the states in India 2004. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://www.mit.gov.in/ereadiness Mosse, B., & Whitley, E. A. (2009). Critically classifying: UK e-government Website benchmarking and the recasting of the citizen as customer. Information Systems Journal, 2, 149–173. Mujahid, Y. H. (2002). Digital opportunity for Pakistan. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 8(6), 1–14. Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1997). Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture. New York: Oxford University Press. Navarra, D., & Cornford, T. (2003). A policy making view of e-government innovations in public governance. Proceedings of the 2003 Americas Conference on Information Systems. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA). (2009). Telecom indicators, Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://www.pta.gov.pk Palvia, S. C., & Sharma, S. (2007). E-Government and E-Governance: Definitions/Domain Framework and Status around the World (Foundations of E-government, A. Agarwal & V. V. Ramana). Hyderabad, India: IECG. Seifert, J., & Petersen, E. (2002). The promise of all things E? Expectations and challenges of emergent electronic government. Perspectives on Global Development and Practice, 2, 193–213. Symonds, M. (2000). Government and the internet: Handle with care. The Economist, 355, 33. Tillman, B. (2003). More information could mean less privacy. The Information Management Journal, Retrieved November 9, 2006, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3937/is_200303/ai_n9185074 United Nations Report. (2005). UN Global E-Government Readiness Report, United Nations. Available at http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021888.pdf United Nations Report. (2008). Global e-government readiness report, United Nations. Available at http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028607.pdf Weerakkody, V., Choudrie, J., & Currie, W. (2004). Realising e-government in the UK: Local and national challenges. Proceedings of the 2004 Americas Conference on Information Systems. New York, NY. Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books Publishers. Wimmer, M, & Traunmuller, R. (2000). Trends in electronic government: Managing distributed knowledge. New York: Springer.

Chapter 2

Framework of E-governance at the Local Government Level Hakikur Rahman

E-government theories are prevailing in various formats and concepts around the globe, nations, and institutions, but not many examples to emulate in terms of developing a comprehensive framework of e-governance system at the outer periphery of the government tiers. This research would like to carry out a comprehensive analysis on various theories built around the e-governance concept, but the prime focus will be devoted to penetration of e-government system at the grass roots. To narrow down further, the study will conduct analytical observations in a few developed, developing, and transitional economies. Furthermore, to be more concise, the research will specifically focus on e-government implementations at the grass roots that penetrated the lowest tier of the governance system for community empowerment and knowledge enhancement. Before conclusion, it will try to put forward prospective research agenda, including framework of a future e-government system at the local government level.

1 Introduction Despite the popularity, potency, and precision of electronic form of government (e-government), it is yet somehow remained in uncharted territory for many countries in terms of implementing e-governance at the lowest tier of the governance system. In theory it is known as the local government in almost all countries, and in practice the lowest tier of any governance system always lack of proper incentives, adequate resources, satisfactory management, and mainly any standardized framework (Das & Chandrashekhar, 2006; Gessi, Ramnarine, & Wilkins, 2007; Malhotra, Chariar, Das, & Ilavarasan, 2007; Zwahr & Finger, 2004). Governments throughout the world are in quest of finding novel ways to deliver public services more efficiently and effectively to reach the people at large.

H. Rahman (B) Institute of Computer Management & Science, Mirpur, Dhaka, 1216, Bangladesh e-mail: [email protected]


23

24

H. Rahman

Incorporation of electronic form of governance (e-governance) in the local governments tier is an option widely discussed, although the expectations often vary. They vary in nature, culture, practice, habits, and habitations among communities, regions, states, and nations. For example, some foresee service-delivery costs to be reduced, many expect for equitable stipulation of public services, and others anticipate better planning across a geographical boundary. Various social motivations and political commitments motivations may also be reasons for the change as well (Bovaird, 2003; Das & Chandrashekhar, 2006; Rahman, 2009). Moreover, due to non-availability of any accepted e-governance framework (this may raise another elaborated dimension of research), some countries and agencies of implementation are yet at the stage of simulation or at stages of experimentation, or at state of confusion, even after years of successful operation of e-government system in many countries. Countries in the developing and transitional economies are major victims of this situation, as most of the time they just try to replicate an established system in a country or try to simply manipulate on their own without enough researches in this aspect or try to popularize a vision without looking into the intricacy within it. The consequences are that, not only governments, but also development actors are revisiting the concept of e-government system as many projects on e-governance have failed throughout the globe. Some of the international agencies have even shifted their focus area of funding. Perhaps, these could be due to factors related to design, perception, culture, economics, transparency, or simple failure due to lack of proper attention (Malhotra et al., 2007; Rahman, 2007). This chapter is intended to look into various aspects of e-government concepts and their frameworks in a few countries, try to analyze them linking better strategy of acceptance, study their parameters for promotion of e-governance at the local government level to yield positive economic benefits. After providing an insight into the e-government meanings, definitions, and clarifications, the chapter intends to focus on e-governance strategies of a few countries. Later on the research goes on making observations related to several e-government parameters, including their e-government frameworks and proposes a five-tier local government structure. The chapter proposes a future e-governance framework with recommendations. Before conclusion, it shades some lights on various challenges on implementing local level e-government.

2 Background Local government can be defined as a city, county, parish, township, municipality, borough, ward, board, district, sub-district, or other general purpose political subdivision of a state or a country.1 In other words, it is a county, municipality, city, town, township, local public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments, regional or interstate government entity, or agency 1 Google

definition.

2

Framework of E-governance at the Local Government Level

25

or instrumentality of a local government; a tribe or authorized tribal organization, native village or organization; and a rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity, for which an application for assistance is made by a state or political subdivision of a state.2 It is the lowest level of formal state institutions, such as district-level officials or local, publicly accountable decision-making and service-delivery organizations constituted in accordance with national laws (such as in local elections). Local government structures take different forms in different countries and vary in their levels of accountability to local people or to immediate upper-tier of governments.3 In administrative sense, four major themes may act as key to run a local government authority; such as leadership, communication and coordination, immediate risk management, and trust, confidence, and transparency (Anttiroiko, 2004; Calista & Melitski, 2007; Chutimaskul & Chongsuphajaisiddhi, 2004; CTG, 2003). While applying thought of ICTs, one can think of the local e-government system be comprised of an online resource designed to assist electronic access to government delivery intermediaries; provide homogeneous linkage to technology, policy, and organizational management; promote inter-organizational integration at the local level to information system development, management, and institutional partnership; accommodate subsidies, grants, and other facilities to empower local communities with greater autonomies; deliver efficient, citizen-centric, and cost-effective contents to accelerate participation and partnership-based e-services; integrate communities, societies, and localities to local, national, regional, and global e-government initiatives; produce strategic plan to support efficient delivery of government services; identify level of organizational readiness at the local context to prepare for the effectiveness and efficient service delivery; and lead toward the ultimate goal of transformation to offer better citizen services at the grass roots (Austin City Council, 2008; CTG, 2002, 2003; Hoogwout, 2003; Kolsaker, 2005; Perotti & von Thadden, 2006; Rahman, 2008). Countries often consider merging of local governments as a means to lower service-delivery costs, improve service quality, increase accountability, improve equity, or enhance participation in government system (Fox & Gurley, 2006). But, concept of e-government is to make them more independent, provide more autonomy, offer them more power to act within, and formalize their institutional framework by upholding all the benefits of local government through elected representatives (Government of Pakistan, 2005; Kim, 2002; Rainford, 2006). However, this study feels that to framework an appropriate e-governance system, these could be supplementary issues that need to clearly justified, attended, and solved by proper authorization, experimentation, and validation. Scope of this chapter will restrain inclusion of similar disputed issues and their justifications. These will demand further extended research on these issues and other concerns that may rise during

2 http://www.fema.gov/oer/reference/glossary.shtm 3 http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-105151-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

26

H. Rahman

the investigation. The study would emphasize on conducting a synthesis of core e-government concepts that seem viable and sustainable in countries, and furthermore, it also synthesizes various e-governance frameworks in a few countries focusing consistent e-government strategies.

3 Main Thrust While electronic service delivery remains the main thrust of e-government policies at all levels, greater community contact is usually seen as more practical and desirable at the local level. In recent times, greater focus has been given to local e-government where a significant amount of “citizen to government” or vice versa interaction takes place. Therefore, most of the local governments today are under influence to provide efficient and effective e-government information and services as a result of increased accountability and performance management (Shackleton, Fisher, & Dawson, 2004). The aim is to intensify consumer’s demand and choice, increase local competition, reduce the cost of service delivery at the local level, and better functioning of the government system. Moreover, at the local level, authority, activity, and functioning of the local government are imperative. A comparative study of e-government strategies of six countries is given in Table 2.1. From Table 2.1, one can speculate the emergence of e-governance in those countries. Countries were chosen randomly among Asian countries, which became sustainable in terms of digital readiness and/or framing e-government in their governance system or trying to compete in the global arena. However, for sake of reference, their preference criteria have been described next. Bangladesh, one of the most populous country in the world, has currently taken the initiative of “Digital Bangladesh”4 in 2009, despite fragile information infrastructure and naïve e-government expertise; India – where the government has initiated its Electronic Governance Strategic Plan which provides the roadmap for Electronic Governance during 2003–2007,5 while South Korea (a developed country in Asia) – places several strategic and structured visions in their strategies at appropriate time and effort (see Fig. 2.1 that shows the strategy of closed cycle business process reengineering, an essential catalyst for self-development); Singapore – a leader in e-government implementations and consecutively improving e-governance platform in recent years; Pakistan has incorporated basic strategic steps in their e-government framework, as the starter sequences in 2005, though ICTrelated activities have been initiated there long ago; and Sri Lanka – a forerunner from many years in Asia – has included a few pragmatic endeavors (see also Fig. 2.2 that provide a comprehensive e-government strategy focusing peace, equity, human interaction, and development) are countries of interest in this research (Chauhan,

4 http://www.bcc.net.bd/html/vision.htm 5 http://india.gov.in/govt/national_egov_plan.php

India – 1971 (2006)

South Korea – 1987 (2002)

Strategy: Basic infrastructure development Set up Cyber Kiosks in all Create a modern and Initiation: Post offices, Union efficient Provision of limited complex and Upzila telecommunications information complex to ensure public infrastructure access to information Strategy: Capacity development Take up programs to Provide access to Development: develop quality ICT information to Periodic update of professionals and skilled empower citizens, information personnel enable their participation in government Strategy: Promotion of application and service delivery Develop and encourage Transform citizen Interoperation: E-mails, local software, hardware, services, and provide E-forms and service industries greater attention to improve service-delivery mechanism Strategy: Promotion of electronic transactions Encourage the growth of Use ICT for delivering E-commerce: Internet, ICT industries, government services, Online processing of e-commerce, and exchange of civil service, e-government information and E-payment of taxes communication and fees transactions

Bangladesh – 1990 (2002)

Singapore – 1980 (2000)

Build the ICT infrastructure and an enabling environment

Sri Lanka – 1983 (2002)

Standards: Electronic Aims to grow new Government economic activities Directorate (EGD) to and create jobs be developed

Adopt agency-specific Promoting the Build the national applications and development of useful implementation e-services for citizens applications for work, capacity play, lifestyle, and learning

Common Applications: Encouraging usage of Develop ICT-based A portfolio of applications and human resources applications that are services; and common to many or promoting Infocomm all divisions have literacy been identified

Deploy the basic development of an infrastructure to all Infocomm government agencies infrastructure for pervasive and secure access

Pakistan – 1996 (2005)

Table 2.1 E-government strategies of selected countries of study

2 Framework of E-governance at the Local Government Level 27

India – 1971 (2006)

South Korea – 1987 (2002) Pakistan – 1996 (2005)

Singapore – 1980 (2000)

Sri Lanka – 1983 (2002)

Note: Years in the heading indicate various years of those countries’ initiations for informatization. Years within the parentheses are years of entering into the e-government era and digitization. These years have been recorded as per available literature review. They may vary depending on the ground facts and exact dates. Source: Government of Bangladesh (2002), Government of India (2000, 2006), Government of Pakistan (2000, 2005), Rainford (2006), Kim (2002), and Lallana (2004).

a http://www.ida.gov.sg/News%20and%20Events/20050718123446.aspx?getPagetype=21

Strategy: Adoption within the government (cost, efficiency, and transparency) All Government ministries, Make all government Integrated Enabling Environment: Government plays the Reengineering of divisions, departments, services accessible to administration: Federal Government, role of master planner government and autonomous bodies and the common people Interdepartmental and Agency, EGD for the strategies and delivery of citizen all District headquarters, ensuring efficiency, cross-agency online acts as a catalyzing services Upzilla headquarters, and transparency and service, converged agent and facilitator Union Parishad offices be reliability public/civil service for the initiatives networked Strategy: ICTs for social and economic development Leverage ICT for Nation-wide ICT systems Enable access to Promotion of Make participation by E-government Action economic and social be implemented for rural economic and social informatization in all rural and poor Plan to transform development development and opportunities aspects of society for segments of society in public service and livelihood activities increased IT education a become more socio-economic strategic priority for effective in meeting activities, higher both social and the needs of both national performance, economic citizens and and higher quality of development businesses in life contributing to socio-economic developmenta

Bangladesh – 1990 (2002)

Table 2.1 (continued)

28 H. Rahman

2

Framework of E-governance at the Local Government Level Process Analysis

Process Reengineering

Remove Overlapping

Process Simplification

29

Informatization

Fig. 2.1 Closed cycle process renovation of South Korean e-government strategy (adopted from Yoon, 2007) Fig. 2.2 E-government strategy of Sri Lanka (adopted from Rainford, 2006)

2009; Government of Bangladesh, 2002; Government of India, 2000; Government of Pakistan, 2005; Kim, 2002; Lallana, 2004, 2005; Rainford, 2006). Nevertheless, the hypothesis is that successful e-government concepts should rely on rigid institutionalization, liberal laws and regulations, adoptive technologies, and promotion of business values, often terms as the four pillars of e-government. Conclusions will try to validate them with some other findings. These e-government concepts and strategies (as depicted in Table 2.1, Figs 2.1 and 2.2) lead to develop a concrete e-governance framework in a country incorporating; development of institutional infrastructure, establishment of adequate information infrastructure, formation of liberal legal and regulatory infrastructure, and creation of business value out of these services. However, this study as stated earlier is focusing e-governance framework at the local government level and, thereby, would like to draw a synthesis of pattern learning from local government infrastructure in a few countries. There could be critics of this particular research of including developed and developing countries into a single dimension. This is to compare the concepts, strategies, and frameworks of those countries, so that readers and other researchers could have a glimpse of the comparison, and at the same time could foresee the intricacies among these patterns. The countries of study are

30

H. Rahman

being highlighted here focusing their government structure and their strategies taken toward promoting e-governance. Bangladesh: The rural/regional local government, as proposed by the latest commission on local government in 1997 has four tiers: Gram (Village) Parishads (being reconstituted in 2003 as Sarkers, and later on changed again) (40,392); Union Parishads (4451); Thana/Upazila Parishads (469); and Zila (District) Parishads (64). Urban areas have a separate set of local governments. The Bangladesh Census Commission recognized 522 urban areas in 1991 (with a minimum population of about 5,000 or more), but only about 269 of the larger urban areas among these have urban local governments. The six largest cities have a City Corporation status, while the rest are known as Pourashavas or Municipalities, which again are classified according to financial strength.6 Note: There are four tiers of government structure existed in the country. Bangladesh Computer Council (BCC), established by Act No IX of 1990 as an autonomous body to encourage and provide support for ICT-related activities in Bangladesh.7 In Bangladesh, the focus of capacity-building through ICT is on socio-economic development. Provision of nationwide infrastructure under a national ICT policy, spearheaded by a National ICT taskforce chaired by the Prime Minister, is designed to facilitate good governance, e-commerce, and e-learning. The human resource development focus of the national ICT policy is to develop ICT professionals and engineers to meet the demand for skilled ICT workers that is growing worldwide, especially for the global software and ICT-enabled services market (Sayo, Chacko, & Pradhan, 2004). The National ICT Policy was adopted in October 2002 (a proposed National ICT Policy has been sent to the government in September 2008). The Policy aims at building an ICT-driven knowledge-based society by the year 2010 (initial target was year 2006). Among 15 priority areas:8 agriculture and poverty alleviation, health care, e-government/e-governance, e-commerce, ICT infrastructure, training and human resources development, environment, social welfare, and regional cooperation are found to encourage local government initiatives to be flourished. Furthermore, ICT Act 2006 has been enacted on 8 October 2006; and formulation of rules and regulations are still going on. Very recently, the government has taken an initiative to formulate the national ICT Roadmap for Bangladesh under the Economic Management and Technical Assistance Program (EMTAP), managed by Bangladesh Computer Council with assistance from the World Bank. Moreover, the newest approach toward e-governance could be adoption of Digital Bangladesh concept by the current government in 2009.

6 http://www.unescap.org/huset/lgstudy/new-countrypaper/Bangladesh/Bangladesh.pdf 7 http://www.bcc.net.bd/ 8 http://www.sdnbd.org/sdi/issues/IT-computer/itpolicy-bd-2002.htm

2


31

Note: Patronization from the highest tier of the government is essential for improved e-governance in a country. India: There are 28 states and 7 Union territories in the country.9 The Union Territories are administered by the President through an Administrator. Each state is broken up into several administrative districts. The bureaucratic head of a district is called the District Collector, while the political head is the President of the Zilla Parishad (or District Council), which is a body of elected representatives, including the local MLA. A new post created is that of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Zilla Parishad (ZP), filled by a career bureaucrat. A District is divided into several Community Development Blocks, each of which is headed by a Block Development Officer (BDO). Each Block, in turn, is usually divided into several Tehsils, headed by a Tehsildar. It is probably apparent that the political and administrative setups are closely interlinked at the district and sub-district levels. For example, the CEO of the Zilla Parishad is a bureaucrat, although the Zilla Parishad itself is made up of elected representatives, including representatives from the Mandal (Praja) Parishads from the different mandals within the district. The Mandal Parishad or Council comprises the heads of the Panchayat Samitis, and some co-opted resource persons. Each Panchayat Samiti, in turn, has representatives from various Gram Panchayats (Village Councils), which is the basic tier of local government10 (James, 2004). Note: There are five tiers in the government system; however, there are different administrative channels. In India, the Department of Electronics (DoE) was established in 1971 for recommending and implementing policies for the country’s IT sector. The National Taskforce on Information Technology and Software Development was established by the Prime Minister of India on 28 May 1998 to formulate a long-term National IT Policy for the country and to remove impediments to the growth of the IT industry. The main objective was to assist India emerge as an IT software superpower. In 1999 National Telecoms Policy of India was enacted to provide affordable and effective communication systems for citizens; achieve a balance between the provision of universal service to all uncovered areas and of high-level services capable of meeting the needs of the country’s economy; and create a modern and efficient telecommunications infrastructure taking into account the convergence of IT, media, telecom, and consumer electronics and, thereby, propel India into becoming an IT superpower. Later on the IT Act 2000 was adopted focusing the legal recognition

9 http://www.india.gov.in/knowindia/state_uts.php 10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_India;

http://www.oifc.in/ViewFolder.aspx?FolderName=Understanding_the_States&FolderID=65

32

H. Rahman

of electronic contracts and digital signatures; created controller for certifying authorities and cyber appellate tribunal (Pertrazzini & Harindranath, 1997; Lallana, 2004). Note: To roll out grass roots e-governance, a comprehensive and long-term vision with requisite action plans are essential.

Republic of Korea: The local government in Korea consists of 248 separate units. The local political system of Korea is broadly distributed into two categories: the general and the special. In Article 117 Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, it is stipulated that the types of local governments in Korea ought to be decided by the law. Based on this provision, the Local Autonomy Act acknowledges the general local governments to comprise of two tiers: the upper-level local governments (i.e., metropolitan cities and provinces) and lower-level local governments (i.e., cities, countries, and districts). There are two levels of local government, Upper-level (provincial) local governments and Lower-level (municipal) local governments.11 Note: There are three tiers in the government system.

Korea’s first national computerization project was initiated in 1987. The South Korean government adopted the first Master Plan for Informatization Promotion in June 1996, following the enactment of the Framework Act on Informatization Promotion in August 1995. To advance the goals of the first informatization plan, the government also established a national organization for planning and implementation. Later on, in March 1999, the government formulated the second informatization master plan called “Cyber Korea 21,” and in order to overcome the Asian economic crisis and transform the Korean economy into a knowledge-based one Cyber Korea 21 provides a blueprint for the new information society of the twenty-first century. Korea’s third informatization master plan, “e-Korea Vision 2006,” embodies the belief that the promotion of informatization in all aspects of the society will lead to an increased effectiveness of all socio-economic activities, higher national performance, and elevated quality of life.12 Prime objectives of e-Korea Vision 2006 were: to maximize the ability of citizens to actively participate in the information society by utilizing ICT; to strengthen global competitiveness of the economy by promoting informatization in all industries; to realize a smart government structure with high transparency and productivity through informatization efforts; to facilitate continued economic

11 http://www.unescap.org/huset/lgstudy/new-countrypaper/RoK/RoK.pdf 12 http://www.mic.go.kr/index.jsp

2


33

growth by promoting the IT industry and advancing the information infrastructure; and to become a leader in the global information society by playing a major role in international cooperation (Lallana, 2004). Note: Informatization, smart government structure, increased transparency, partnership promotion, and information infrastructure development are ingredients of strengthened local e-governance.

Pakistan: Local governments in Pakistan exist under the supervision of the various provincial governments, where provincial governments have simply delegated some of their functions and responsibilities to local governments by the promulgation of ordinances. It was a new model of local government pioneered to ensure direct participation of the people in managing their own affairs through representative’s bodies set up down to the village level. There were two separate laws for rural (i.e., Basic Democracy Ordinance 1959) and Urban Councils (i.e., Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960). It established a four-tier hierarchical system of local council throughout the country, namely, the Union Councils (for rural areas), Town Committees (for urban areas), Tehsil Councils, and/or District Councils and Divisional Councils. The Tehsil Council was the second tier above the Union Council. It was mainly concerned with the development activities in the proclaimed areas.13 Pakistan Telecommunications (Re-organization) Act was enacted in 1996, and Pakistan IT Commission was established in 2000. Eleven working groups were created under auspices of IT Policy 2000 with emphasis on e-government (Government of Pakistan, 2000).14 The E-government Program was launched in 2001 with threefold objectives: to encourage ICTs for enabling information and services delivery to the citizens in a cost-effective manner; to initiate measures for reengineering of work flow in government departments enabling electronic services delivery to citizens for bringing efficiency in operation; and to bring transparency in government functions and access to information.15 Promulgation of Electronic Transactions Ordinance in 2002 was another milestone for promoting economic activities at the grass roots strengthening the local government. Furthermore, Telecom Deregulation Policy was approved in 2003. Note: Inclusion of economic activities is an essential component of electronic government.

13 http://www.unescap.org/huset/lgstudy/new-countrypaper/Pakistan/Pakistan.pdf 14 http://www.apdip.net/projects/dig-rev/info/pk 15 http://www.apdip.net/projects/dig-rev/info/pk

34

H. Rahman

Singapore: Singapore was founded as a British trading colony in 1819. It joined the Malaysian Federation in 1963 but separated 2 years later and became independent.16 Singapore is a city-state with a governing structure following the British system of parliamentary government. In 1989 legislative power was vested in a unicameral Parliament with 81 members who were elected for 5-year terms. The country has only one level of government—national government and local government are one and the same. Below the national level, the only recognized territorial divisions are the 55 parliamentary constituencies. Members of Parliament thus performed some of the same functions as municipal aldermen in foreign cities and often won political support by helping to find jobs for constituents or doing other favors requiring intercession with the powerful civil bureaucracy. The single-member constituencies varied in population from 11,000 electors to as many as 55,000; some of the variability reflected population movement away from the old urban core and out to new housing developments17 (Government of Singapore, 1989). Note: A small area, modest population, consecutive IT plans and foremost combining government rules with industry self-regulations are main catalysts of e-governance advancement in Singapore, despite having a single tier of government structure. In the 1980s, Singapore’s National Computer Board (NCB) was the main body to promote computerization and IT industry development in the island state. Singapore’s first IT master plan was the National Computerization Plan, which was implemented between 1980 and 1985. This plan envisioned the computerization of the public service. It was followed by the National IT Plan (NITP), which was implemented between 1986 and 1991. The NITP was aimed at extending government systems (such as TradeNet and LawNet) to the private sector. The NITP was succeeded by the third IT Master Plan, IT2000 (1992–1999), which envisioned Singapore to be “among the first countries in the world with an advanced nationwide information infrastructure.” This advanced national information infrastructure would be used as the foundation for five strategic thrusts. Singapore is unique in combining government rules with industry self-regulation in managing content. Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) (enacted in 1998), Connected Singapore, Infocomm (a new ICT master plan unveiled in 2000) are among them.18 Furthermore, launching of the Civil Service Computerization Programme (1980–1999), the E-government Action Plan (2000–2003), and the E-government Action Plan II (2003–2006) was to roll out many public services to the citizens. Building on the achievements of the earlier e-government plans, iGov2010, a new 5-year Master plan (2006–2010) was launched in May 2006, aiming to

16 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sn.html 17 http://www.mongabay.com/reference/country_studies/singapore/GOVERNMENT.html 18 http://www.ida.gov.sg

2


35

make Singapore Government to be an Integrated Government (Beardsley, von Morgenstern, Enriquez, & Verbeke, 2004; Tan, 2006; Wong, 1996).

Sri Lanka: The organizational structure of local governance consists of three legal instruments: the Municipal Council Ordinance, the Urban Council Ordinance, and the Pradeshiya Sabhas Act. At present there are 18 Municipal Councils, 37 Urban Councils, and 256 Pradeshiya Sabhas. Local governments used to be divided into wards. Wards have been discontinued under the new proportional system. The composition of a local council is based on the total population of a local authority area and not on a ward basis.19 Note: Population is the indicator of local authority area, not geographic boundary.

The Government of Sri Lanka first recognized the need for the development of ICT through the National Computer Policy of 1983 (COMPOL), and this was the first attempt from the government that was taken by the Natural Resources, Energy and Science Authority of Sri Lanka (NARESA) on the instructions of the then President. A committee appointed by NARESA produced the National Computer Policy Report. The acceptance of the COMPOL report by the Government gave rise to the establishment of CINTEC by Act No. 10 of 1984 as the “Computer and Information Technology Council of Sri Lanka” to function directly under the then President. Later on, the Science and Technology Development Act No. 11 of 1994 changed the name to “Council for Information Technology” but retained the acronym CINTEC. The “e-Sri Lanka” project launched in November 2002 was tasked to develop an ICT Roadmap for Sri Lanka. The e-Sri Lanka roadmap resulted in the implementation of the ICT Act No. 27 of 2003, which resulted in the establishment of the Information and Communication Technology Agency of Sri Lanka (ICTA), repealing the relevant section of the Science and Technology Act which established CINTEC. The ICTA has been operational since 1 July 2003. The mandate of the e-Sri Lanka policy is to build a national information infrastructure, create a framework for the promotion of software and ICT-enabled industries, reengineer the Government, and develop ICT-based human resources.20 Note: Information infrastructure development, reengineering of the government, and human resource development are basic ingredients of local e-government development.

19 http://www.unescap.org/huset/lgstudy/new-countrypaper/SriLanka/SriLanka.pdf 20 http://www.ifip.or.at/minutes/GA2005/Rep-SriLanka1.pdf

36

H. Rahman

In order to draw a line of conclusion or provide a set of recommendations, this study would like to proceed with relevant observations as pertinent to develop the e-governance framework. However, the main focus is to promote grass root governance (e-governance at the local government level).

3.1 Observations 3.1.1 Observations Related to Physical Infrastructure In order to achieve maximum capabilities of ICT tools in e-government practice, it is necessary to adjust their organizational structure and usage leading to: actual legal and socio-economic context in which strategic development planning process is to be performed; pragmatic demands that managing of local development has to be fulfilled; include all participants in local management process; and strengthen institutional capacities and procedures (Lalovic, Djukanovic, & Zivkovic, 2004). However, it has been observed that only small percentage of the local governments could meet the criteria for effective e-government management including: leadership, strategic planning, performance measurement, and market promotion. In order to be successful, local e-government objectives require strong leadership that champions e-government and works to increase acceptance among stakeholders. In addition to having a local strategy, individual organizations should also include local e-government approach in their strategic plans to ensure each employee is continuously looking for ways to improve processes and service delivery. Regular performance measures are also essential for evaluating whether the particular egovernment system (segment of the system) is cost-efficient, properly serving customers, and being used effectively (Austin City Council, 2008). Aiming at a fully functioning information system, the following basic technical preconditions should also be met: establishment of a local network connecting all the computers in the local administration, or at least one computer in each organization or office should be in the network; configuring a central server to host the content, information, and supporting software locally; and affordable Internet connection according to the needs of the local government network and its financial capacity. Large municipalities might use a dedicated line (broadband, fiber, ISDN, or other available high speed connectivity), providing 24-h connection with the Internet. Smaller local governments may afford to a more limited connection at an affordable price. Central government may subsidize the entire operation for a while till the local e-government system becomes self-sustainable. If the system is built around the core aspects of the livelihood system, incorporating the people at large has every possibility of sustenance in the long run. However, to implement a pragmatic information system at the local government level, the following information infrastructure could be thought as a prerequisite: at least one computer in each department or office (simple PIII or PIV or even clones); one high-end computer (may be a Pentium V) functioning as server; personnel with minimum working knowledge on computer basics and Internet; a user-friendly

2


37

operating system (perhaps, open source), and a basic operational manual; at least a team of experts (preferably local, if not periodical visits from central) to conduct the basic systemic analysis, install the model, and train the officials (train the trainers, instead of training the entire community). (With over 10 years of experience with SDNP Bangladesh, SDNF Bangladesh, and later SchoolNet Foundation Bangladesh, the last two paragraphs are author’s own recommendations). Furthermore, depending on the governance structure, it has been observed that tiers of the government system may range from three tiers to four tiers. For sake of better governance, a five-tier system may be sought of, as depicted in Fig. 2.3. To reach out to the grass roots, national→ regional/state/division→district/city corporation→sub-district/municipality→village/community would be a thorough, effective, and dynamic route. Along this path to reach the grass roots, the tiers though may not be autonomous in nature, but can form a chain of command or retrospectively path of information flow at the national, regional, and local level. This support system may follow either the top–bottom or bottom–top approach, but e-government researchers indicate that the bottom–top approaches act better in terms of grass-roots governance. Usually, a bottom-up governance system has the chance of growing on its own organically along its lifespan. Figure 2.3 shows the nature of support in each level with an additional vertical communication path.

TIERS

1: Planning, Policies, Legislations, Acts, Management, Monitoring, Controls

2: Policies, Monitoring, Controls, Management, Implementations

LEVELS OF INTERVENTION

National Level

State Level/Division Level

3: Partnerships, Management, Controls, Implementations

District Level/Corporation Level

4: Partnerships, Management, Controls, Implementations, Awareness

Sub-district/Municipality Level

5: Awareness, Promotion, Partnerships, Implementations

Village/Community Level

Fig. 2.3 A five-tier local e-government organizational structure (Source: Author)

38

H. Rahman

3.1.2 Observations Related to E-Government Frameworks South Korea has been successful in keeping their e-government readiness ranking at the top 5 during last consecutive years. They have adopted four dimensional framework focusing demand and supply-driven strategy. Within the system, depending on the supply and demand, requisite infrastructures have developed and change management have been conducted (Fig. 2.4). India, a country in South Asia, is consecutively promoting e-government for many years, and has succeeded in accelerating the pace of development through utilizing ICTs following an established e-government framework (Fig. 2.5). The country has developed a three-tier e-government framework comprising back-ends (databases of different government agencies, service providers, state governments, etc.), middleware (information infrastructure, citizen portal, gateways, integrated services, etc.) and front-end delivery channels (home PCs, mobile phones, kiosks, integrated citizen service centers, etc.) for citizens and entrepreneurs (Das & Chandrashekhar, 2006). Singapore ranked as 23rd among 192 countries under the study of UN E–Government Readiness Index in 2008 and ranked first among 34 surveyed countries under the 2009 Waseda University International E-government Ranking (UN,

Demand-Driven (In consultation with citizens and entrepreneurs)

Supply-Driven (Requisite Government services made online)

Change Management Process (Commitment and drivers of changes)

Front-Office Adequate Infrastructure (Enabling publicly available infrastructure) Back-Office

Fig. 2.4 E-government framework of South Korea (Adopted from Kim, 2002)

Fig. 2.5 E-government framework of India (adopted from Das & Chandrashekhar, 2006)

2


39

2008; Waseda, 2009). Singapore’s success as a leading disseminator of effective egovernment is not only just enabling government services with technology, but also involves a enormous effort to reform the public service, which envisages significant structural and operational changes. Over the last 20 years, the government’s progressive and thoroughly designed national ICT programs have established a strong foundation to transform the public service. However, a holistic e-government framework should not only addresses the technology, but also management, process, governance, social and cultural issues to deliver accessible, integrated, and value added e-services to its stakeholders (James, 2004; Sin, 2007). This study here infers that incorporating appropriate policies, promoting enabled ICT environment, and adopting empowered governance structures at the grass roots e-government can be promulgated broadly, and ultimately a balanced local e-government system will encourage increased e-services leading to e-democracy of a nation (with perfection in logical, physical, and financial accomplishments), as shown in Fig. 2.6. Balanced and value-driven e - government Combination of electronic and participatory service delivery E-Administration E - Democracy Transaction of user-oriented and valueDigitally conveyed information driven services offered by local (transparent) and the political influence government that is based on ICTs (participatory) exerted by citizens and business on the opinion-forming processes of public-state and non-state institutions

Fig. 2.6 Concept of local e-government (Adopted from Open Society Institute, 2007)

4 Future E-governance Framework and Recommendations A three-pronged approach may simplify delegation of local e-government at the grass roots, such as a merit is made between access policies (aimed at improving access to ICTs for all citizens), content policies (directed to improve the use of ICTs in the city administration and semi-public domains), and infrastructure policies (to improve the provision of broadband infrastructure) (Berg, Meer, Winden, & Woets, 2006). In this respect, incorporation of parties actively involved at the grass roots governance processes should be involved. Furthermore, to strengthen local e-government management at the grass roots, three-dimensional approach, as suggested by Austin City Council (2008), may adopt a four-dimensional approach as shown in Fig. 2.7. It has been observed that non-government institutions or civil societies are one of the important drivers of policy engagement to the community people in many countries. Better implementation of local e-government or local e-governance means utilizing the power of ICT to assist in transforming the accessibility, quality, and cost-effectiveness of public service and to help revitalize the relationship among

40

H. Rahman Government

Non-govt.

Local Government System

Academic

Entrepreneurs

Fig. 2.7 Increased partnership at the local level incorporating all stakeholders (Adopted from CTG, 2002; Author)

customers and citizens and the public bodies who work for their benefits. Planned e-governance and appropriate use of ICT at the local level can enhance and support economic and social development, particularly in empowering officials and municipal representatives by ensuring linkages and networking through timely, efficient, transparent, responsive, and accountable services. According to European researches (Open Society Institute, 2007), local governments in developed countries are offering up to 77% of public e-services. Often local government portal is the first step to reach even the central government services. Implementation of e-services and broadband strategy is another possibility to overcome problems of different social groups and remote areas. However, welldeveloped ICT infrastructure with intensive offering of e-services by the local government will remain as challenge for engaging large groups of active citizens into the decision-making processes and supporting development and implementation of proper e-democracy in the locality (Turner, 2004). Moreover, information society development at the grass roots is in large extent remains as an internal issue of local governments in comparison to the central government as local governments are more close to the citizens. Also, after decentralization of local government structures, municipalities will be able to offer new, wider variety of services for their citizens. But, it may become a great challenge as a newcomer to offer those services through progressive information and communication technologies, rather than the age-old traditional way. These issues will need further attention and research in terms of developing new hardware platform, new software platform, and new legislation. In an underdeveloped country scenario, health and education make up about 75% of all services provided by local governments. Other areas include fiscal decentralization, financial management and accountability, good governance and civic education, infrastructure development, communication and information system, capacity-building of local governments, partnership-building, institutional strengthening, coordination, and integration (Chadwick, 2003; Fukao, 1995; Wasukira & Naigambi, 2002).

2


41

To meet the new requirements, an electronic platform needs to be developed, to: allow collection of personal information from the possession of national agencies to be available; allow different degrees of technological maturity among the various services; guarantee high levels of security; deliver high levels of availability; and publish open standards in terms of data format, information exchange, and levels of security. To address these challenges, designs have to be developed by incorporating technological, financial, organizational, and institutional surroundings for implementing an integrated electronic services platform. Furthermore, to complement development of the integrated platform, procedures need to be redesigned, standardized, and digitized for a legally compliant process model with a highly calibrated defined structure (Inter-American Development Bank, 2006; Misra, 2008). Instead of local governments developing e-government applications in a potentially duplicative and isolated manner, central government should assist in promulgating standards and guidelines that encourage local government to collaborate on developing e-services and sharing databases and services across the network (OECD, 2007a, 2007b). Future issues should also incorporate strategies to develop a robust broadband infrastructure with access to all, from all businesses (especially SMEs) to everyone in the community; ensure that the education and the skill base is there to develop and sustain the future workforce; tackle the “digital divide” and ensure that the information society is open to all; create a business-friendly environment for e-commerce and e-business to develop and reach the critical mass, especially in terms of the digital content (Berg, Meer, Winden, & Woets, 2006). In the future local e-government system, local autonomy should persist through participatory budgeting with enhanced participation from women and youth, NGO, and civil society.

4.1 Proposed Framework A future e-government framework could be a four-pronged approach in four dimensions, including access, availability, equity, and democracy (see Fig. 2.8) Furthermore, the future e-government framework may take a four-layer operational strategies, incorporating development, deployment, delegation, and dissemination (see Table 2.2). The future e-government framework could focus on a paradigm shift from the current context to a future scenario, as depicted in the Table 2.3.

5 Conclusion Governance at the local level matters, and e-governance is a better way of providing government services to the common citizens. However, the method by which governments govern their communities, nationally, regionally, and locally, forms an essential element in determining the outcomes which contribute to the quality of life of those communities. In this aspect, good governance, which is governance

42

H. Rahman

Fig. 2.8 A four-dimensional e-government framework (adopted from Nour, AbdelRahman, & Fadlalla, 2008)

Democracy:

Equity:

Promoting– Integrity, Accountability, and Transparency

Enhancing– Responsiveness, Accountability, Transparency, Effectiveness, and Quality of life Availability:

Access: Providing– Information pertaining to the governance system

Increasing– Efficiency, Effectiveness, Quality of system, and Understandability among participants

Table 2.2 Four-layer e-government operational strategies Operational strategy

Actions

Development

Network layer: Information infrastructure, servers, LANs, WANs, intranet, Internet Integration layer: Database development, e-mail, e-forms, e-portals, network-enabled system, legal boundaries, policy issues Management layer: skill development, business process reengineering, demand–supply management User application layer: G2G, G2C, C2G, G2B, B2G, G2NG, NG2G, G2O, O2Ga

Deployment

Delegation Dissemination a This

study would like to incorporate NG (non-government entities), and O (any other parties involved in the governance system of country, including civil societies, and marginalized communities). Source: Sharma & Gupta (2003; Author).

that allows the collective aspirations of people at large to be fulfilled effectively and efficiently, depends on the way in which public institutions are designed and operate. This includes institutions which balance the ability for citizens to exercise influence with the capacity to allow elected representatives to exercise leadership. The approach in which local government institutions develop and deliver services and the structure of the local government sector are matters of concern to all who take an interest in how public sector organizations can achieve effective community outcomes (MDL, 2006; McNabb, 2006). This validates rigid institutionalization for promotion of e-governance at the grass roots. The e-government system at the central should have a clear vision and priorities for local e-government; prepared for the emerging technologies; contain enough political will to lead the e-government endeavors; prioritize selection of

2


43

Table 2.3 Paradigm shift of the current e-government system to a future e-government system Current

Future

Fragmented services: Agent centric, semi-automated

Uninterrupted shared services: Citizen centric, participative, synchronized, integrated, automated

Traditional form of service: Ubiquitous service: Mostly single channel, Multiple channels, pull service (demand-driven), personalized push service service, knowledge-driven (supply-driven), mass service (not personalized) Functionality of service: Mainly focused on demand–supply chain, pushed by the government hierarchy, mostly controlled by the central government

Socially integrated form of service: Focus on value addition to the user and people at large, decentralized, interlinked with the local government autonomy

Source: Government of S. Korea (2006, Author).

e-government projects during implementation stage; competent in planning and managing them; able to overcome resistance from within the government; introduce appropriate monitoring, measurement, feedback, and communication paths to follow up the progress of implementation; promote institutional relationship among all implementing partners, especially the private sector implementers; develop adequate human skills to manage the entire operational chain; and able to improve citizen participation in public affairs (Pacific Council, 2002) thus validating importance of central government’s role in grass roots e-governance. Apart from proper designing, structuring, and launching of an online resource, local e-government initiatives involve much more than just a Website. A June 2006 report, prepared for the Congressional Research Service by a research team from the University of Texas at Austin’s LBJ School of Public Affairs, identified a number of commonly used factors that contribute to the functioning of state e-government initiatives. They were: appropriate strategies, adequate funding, authentic leadership, adoptive technology, and ample performance measurement (Austin City Council, 2008). Each stage of local e-government development should be built upon the previous one, until government reaches a new consensus for providing further improved e-services to citizens and businesses. Thus, technologies need to be adopted as per the requirement of the end-users. However, it has been observed that, at the national level and in the advantaged localities (central cities, capital cities, and urban areas) ICTs are extensively used to address only the key business processes. The national e-government policy does not always apply in devotion to the local government level. Even they are being applied; the policy cannot avoid duplication of efforts, problems of interoperability,

44

H. Rahman

and inability to leverage economies of scale and security. The key components that drive the local governance and ICTs remain access, content, citizen service, and economic and social development, and for proper implementation of the ICT strategies, the need for these initiatives targeting marginalized areas has also remained not properly identified. Furthermore, in spite of the local governments differ considerably in terms of capacity, content, service delivery, and effectiveness; they have to be dynamic and developmental due to their involvement in local economic development. Local governments need to take the role of the key player in developing integrated rural-based, citizen-centric, information-driven, user-friendly, easily accessible, and dynamic e-governance system (CPSI, 2005; Samarajiva & Zainudeen, 2008). Foremost, e-governance at the grass roots needs to accommodate value-driven services. In this aspect the study concludes, there are no straightforward way of improving the e-government system at the local government level, rather many factors control the system, including the structure of the government (tiers of the government system), local demographics (population, size, density), set of responsibilities authorized to local governments (government rule of orders) and the homogeneity of preferences within the area (policies and governance issues) (Commonwealth, 2004; Fox & Gurley, 2006).

References Anttiroiko, A. (2004). Towards citizen-centered local e-government: The case of the city of Tampere. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Annals of cases on information technology (Vol. 6, pp. 371–388). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing Austin City Council (2008). Audit report 2008: City of Austin’s e-government initiative. Office of the City Auditor, Austin, Texas. Beardsley, S., von Morgenstern, I. B., Enriquez, L., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Towards a new regulatory compact. The global information technology report 2003–2004: Towards an equitable information society. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 71–86. Berg, L. van den, Meer, A. van der, Winden, W. van & Woets, P. (2006). E-governance in European and South African cities: The cases of Barcelona, Cape Town, Eindhoven, Johannesburg, Manchester, Tampere, The Hague, and Venice, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2006 Bovaird, T. (2003). e-Government and e-Governance: Organisational Implications, Options and Dilemmas. Public Policy and Administration, 18(2), 37–56. Calista, D. J., & Melitski, J. (2007). e-Government and e-Governance: converging constructs of public sector information and communications technologies. Public Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 87–120. Chadwick, A. (2003). Bringing E-democracy back. In: Why it matters for future research on e-governance. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 443–455. Chauhan, R. (2009). National E-Governance Plan in India, UNU-IIST. Chutimaskul, W., & Chongsuphajaisiddhi, V. (2004). A framework for developing local e-government. In M. A. Wimmer (Ed.), Proceedings of Knowledge Management in Electronic Government: 5th IFIP International Working Conference, KMGov 2004, Krems, Austria, May 17–19, pp. 319–324. Commonwealth (2004). Commonwealth local government handbook: Modernisation, Council Structures, Finance, E-Government, Local Democracy, Partnerships, Representation, Commonwealth Local Government Forum, Commonwealth Secretariat, 2004.

2


45

CPSI (2005). Local Governance and ICTs Research Network for Africa, LOG-IN Africa, COUNTRY REPORT – SOUTH AFRICA, Produced for the LOG-IN Africa Project Planning, Compiled by: Centre for Public Service Innovation (CPSI) and the LINK Centre, University of the Witwatersrand, Nairobi, Kenya. CTG (2002). New foundations: Annual Report 2002, Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, State University of New York. CTG (2003). Annual Report 2003, Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, State University of New York. Das, S. R., & Chandrashekhar, R. (2006). List of Asia Pacific e-government case studies, UNDPAPDIP. Fox, W. F., & Gurley, T. (2006). Will Consolidation Improve Sub-National Governments? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper WPS3913, May 2006, World Bank, Washington DC. Fukao, M. (1995). Financial integration, corporate governance, and the performance of multinational companies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Gessi, T., Ramnarine, D., & Wilkins, J. (2007). Introducing a new e-governance framework in the commonwealth: from theory to practice, Hong Kong journals online. The Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 29(2), 1–21. Government of Bangladesh (2002). National Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Policy (October: 2002), Ministry of Science and Information & Communication Technology, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Government of India (2000). The Information Technology Act, 2000 (No. 21 OF 2000). Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (Legislative Department), New Delhi, India. Government of Pakistan (2000). IT Policy and Action Plan, IT & Telecommunications Division, Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Government of Pakistan (2005). E-Government Strategy and 5-Year Plan for the Federal Government, Electronic Government Directorate, Ministry of IT, Pakistan. Government of Singapore (1989). Based on information from Singapore, Ministry of Communications and Information, Information Division, Singapore, 1989, 53–63. Government of S. Korea (2006). E-Government for participation and inclusion in Korea, E-government headquarters, MOGHA, Republic of Korea. Hoogwout, M. (2003). Super pilots, subsidizing or self-organization: stimulating e-government initiatives in Dutch local governments. In R. Traunmüller (Ed.), Proceedings of Electronic Government: Second International Conference, EGOV 2003, Prague, Czech Republic, September 1–5, 2003, Springer: pp. 85–90. Inter-American Development Bank (2006). Multiphase Program for the Strengthening of Chile’s Digital Strategy, Report # CH-L1001, Document of the Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC. James, A. J. (2004) “India’s Sector Reform Projects and Swajaldhara Programme,” case study prepared for the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft, the Netherlands, available at http://www.irc.nl/page/23597 Kim, H. -K. (2002). e-Government in Korea, a presentation from the National Computerization Agency, Korea Kolsaker, A. (2005). Third way e-government: The case for local devolution. In M. H. Böhlen, J. Gamper, W. Polasek, & M. A. Wimmer (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Government: Towards Electronic Democracy : International Conference, TCGOV 2005 Bolzano, Italy, March 2–4, 2005, Springer: pp. 70–80. Labelle, R. (2005). ICT Policy Formulation and e-Strategy Development: A Comprehensive Guidebook. United Nations Development Programme-Asia Pacific Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP) – 2005, Reed Elsevier India Private Limited. Lallana, E. C. (2004). An Overview of ICT Policies and e-Strategies of Select Asian Economies. United Nations Development Programme-Asia Pacific Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP) – 2004, Reed Elsevier India Private Limited.

46

H. Rahman

Lalovic, K., Djukanovic, Z., & Zivkovic, J. (2004). Building the ICT fundament for local E-government in Serbia- Municipality of Loznica example, In M. Schrenk (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Planning and IT, Vienna, Austria. Malhotra, C., Chariar, V. M., Das, L. K., & Ilavarasan, P. V. (2007). An evaluatory framework for ICT interventions in the rural areas: Review of literature on e-governance for rural development in the Indian context. In G. P. Sahu (Ed.), Adopting e-Governance (pp. 216–226). New Delhi: GIFT Publishing. McNabb, D. E. (2006). Knowledge management in the public sector: A blueprint for innovation in government. M. E. Sharpe, 2006. MDL (2006). Local Government structure and efficiency, a report prepared for local government new Zealand. McKinlay Douglas Limited, New Zealand. Misra, D. C. (2008). Emerging e-government challenges: Past imperfect, present tense but future promising. A presentation at the 4th International Conference on E-government, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. Nour, M. A., AbdelRahman, A., & Fadlalla, A. (2008). A context-based integrative framework for e-government initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 448–461. OECD (2007a). Turkey: OECD E-government Studies, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2007 OECD (2007b). Hungary: OECD E-government Studies, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2007 Open Society Institute (2007). ICT for Local Government Handbook, Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative. Open Society Institute, Budapest. Pacific Council (2002). Roadmap for E-government in the Developing World: 10 Questions Egovernment leaders Should Ask Themselves, The Working Group report on E-government in the Developing World, Pacific Council on International Policy, CA. Perotti, E. C. & von Thadden, E. -L. (2006, March). Corporate governance and the distribution of wealth: A political-economy perspective. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 162(1), 204–217(14), Mohr Siebeck. Pertrazzini, B. A., & Harindranath, G. (1997). Information infrastructure initiative in emerging economies: The case of India. In B. Kahin & E. J. Wilson III (Eds.), National Information Infrastructure Initiatives (p. 220). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rahman, H. (2007). Role of ICTs in socioeconomic development and poverty reduction. In H. Rahman (Ed.), Information and communication technologies for economic and regional developments (pp. 180–219). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc. Rahman, H. (Ed.). (2008). An overview on strategic ICT implementations toward developing knowledge societies. In Developing Successful ICT Strategies: Competitive Advantages in a Global Knowledge-Driven Society (pp. 1–39). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Rahman, H. (Ed.). (2009). Local e-government management: A wider window of e-governance. In Handbook of research on e-government readiness for information and service exchange: Utilizing progressive information communication technologies (pp. 295–323). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Rainford, S. (2006). e-Sri Lanka: An integrated approach to e-government case study, a report of the ICT Agency of Sri Lanka. Samarajiva, R., & Zainudeen, A. (Eds.). (2008). ICT Infrastructure in Emerging Asia: Policy and Regulatory Roadblocks. London: SAGE Publications & IDRC. Sayo, P., Chacko, J. G., & Pradhan, G. (Eds.). (2004). ICT Policies and e-Strategies in the AsiaPacific: A critical assessment of the way forward, United Nations Development ProgrammeAsia Pacific Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP) – 2004, Reed Elsevier India Private Limited. Shackleton, P., Fisher, J., & Dawson, L. (2004). E-Government services: One local government’s approach. In H. Linger et al. (Eds.), Constructing the infrastructure for the knowledge economy: Methods and tools, theory and practice. New York: Springer.

2


47

Sharma, S. K., & Gupta, J. N. D. (2003, October–December). Building blocks of an e-government – a framework. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 1(4), 1–15. Sin, C. Y. (2007). Foundation of effective e-government: The Singapore experience, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (BCSIA), John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Tan, P. (2006). ICA Country Report: Singapore e-Government, iGov2010: From integrating services to integrating government, Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore. Turner, T. J. (2004). Local government e-disclosure & comparisons: Equipping deliberative democracy for the 21st century, University Press of America, 2004 UN (2008). United Nations e-Government Survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance, United Nations, NY. Wasukira, E., & Naigambi, W. (2002). Report on the Usage of ICT in Local Governments in Uganda, IICD, Canada. Waseda (2009). 2009 WASEDA University e-Government Ranking, Waseda University Institute of e-Government, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan. Wong, P. -K. (1996), Implementing the NII vision: Singapore’s experience and future challenges. In B. Kahin & E. Wilson (Eds.), National information infrastructure initiatives: Vision and policy design (pp. 24–60). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Yoon, J. (2007). Korea’s e-Government Strategy, a presentation from the National Information Society Agency, Korea. Zwahr, T., & Finger, M. (2004, June). Critical steps towards e-Governance: a case study analysis, A Proceeding of the 4th European Conference on E-Government 2004. Dublin, Ireland.

Chapter 3

A Comparative Study of Contents of E-government Service Websites of Middle East and North African (MENA) Countries Abebe Rorissa, Devendra Potnis, and Dawit Demissie

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have historical ties and MENA countries share similarities with respect to socio-cultural characteristics, national economics (mainly based on natural resources such as oil), religious beliefs (predominantly Muslim), national languages (mainly Arabic), form of governance, and affiliation to regional organizations such as the Arab League. Few comparative e-government researchers have addressed e-government services and contents of e-government Websites within the context of MENA countries. This chapter fills in this gap by presenting e-governance as a desired outcome of diffusion of the Internet among MENA countries. It presents comparisons with respect to types of Websites and services, service-oriented features, online executable services, stages of development of e-government service, and e-government rankings of Websites hosted by MENA governments. Results of our analyses suggest that the similarities in e-governance among MENA countries span a number of variables including the stages of development of e-government services provided through Websites. Our recommendations, grounded in careful examination of 230 Websites of 18 MENA nations, could assist them in the provision of better e-government services to their citizens.

A. Rorissa (B) University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY 12222, USA e-mail: [email protected] D. Potnis University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA e-mail: [email protected] D. Demissie University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY 12222, USA e-mail: [email protected]


49

50

A. Rorissa et al.

1 Introduction The contemporary comparative e-government research mainly consists of the comparison of different models and frameworks proposed with similar objectives in assessing e-government initiatives. For instance, in the West, models proposed for Public Financial Management Systems are compared widely in regard to their context, content, and supporting analytical disciplines (Bovaird & Loffler, 2009). Digital government researchers have also compared appraisal frameworks for e-governance (Hu, Xiao, Pang, & Xie, 2005). Comparing toolkits that guide practitioners for crafting and executing various strategies in e-governance is another dimension of comparative research in e-governance, which essentially aims to bridge the gap between practice and theory (Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2005). The degree to which citizens’ and bureaucrats’ perspectives regarding e-government converge or diverge is often compared and contrasted in terms of their knowledge of e-governance, attitudes toward e-governance, concerns about e-governance, and thoughts about the pace of e-governance implementation (Moon & Welch, 2005). However, amid various modes of comparison, it is important to note that existing literature on comparative e-government research mainly focuses on countries or regions with distinct backgrounds. In contrast, our research compares MENA countries with similar contextual features in terms of cultures, languages, capital-driven economies, geography, structures of governance, and overall social structures. Countries in the Middle East (excluding Israel) and in North Africa (MENA) have both historical ties and similar socio-cultural characteristics, economics (mainly based on natural resources such as oil), religion (predominantly Muslim), language (mainly Arabic speaking), and forms of government. Most of the MENA countries also belong to the same regional bodies (e.g., The Arab League). A fair share of the world’s oil and natural gas supply comes from MENA countries. As a result, MENA countries’ economies rely on the export of these natural resources. However, some of the nations like the UAE seem to have diversified their capitalbased economies to skill-based and knowledge-based economies. Irrespective of their types of economies, however, the scarcity of drinking water and arable land pose great challenges to the MENA countries. In addition, many MENA nations are not fully fledged democracies. In fact, MENA countries host a number of theocracies or monarchies while there remains little or no representation for certain parts of society (Robins, 2009). It is evident that despite relatively low political participation, lack of pluralism, and civil liberties, some of the MENA countries have made significant progress in adopting and implementing information and communication technologies (ICTs) (see Table 3.1). Also, their consistently improving e-government rankings attest to their innovative ways of practicing governance using ICTs (West, 2007a). It is important to note that although MENA countries lag behind the world in some key areas of governance (Internet World Stats, 2009; Slate Group, 2008; United Nations, 2009), they are competent enough to provide access to the Internet and deliver government services to their citizens.

3

Comparative Study of Contents of E-government Service Websites

51

Table 3.1 An ICT profile of the MENA countries

Population Land area

Internet users (as of 30 June 2009) Internet penetration (% of population) Internet user growth (2000–2008) (%) e-Readiness index Web measures index Human capital index Infrastructure index E-participation index Telecom infrastructure index Per capita income Democracy index

Africa

North Africaa Asia

975,330,899 11.7 million sq mi (20.41%) 65,903,900

200,489,280 3.19 million sq mi

Middle Eastb World 6,710,029,070 57.31 million sq mi

33,260,200

3,780,819,792 189,253,348 17.2 million 2.77 million sq mi Sq mi (30%) 704,213,930 47,964,146

6.7

14.21

18.5

23.7

23.8

1,359.9

5410.4

516.1

1,360.2

342.2

0.2740

0.340266667 0.4467

0.597942857 0.4514

0.1875

0.218516667 0.3725

0.542657143 0.3540

0.5909

0.690466667 0.7916

0.906000

0.0529

0.115583333 0.1670

0.446871429 0.2104

0.0952

0.1174

0.2084

0.330514286 0.1909

0.03211

0.18893

0.179332

0.468819

0.570928

$3,433

$5,598(2007) $14,665

$8,200(2007)

3.93

3.143333333 4.01

$22,873 (2008) 3.01100

1,668,870,408

0.7825

5.547664671

a Includes

Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, and Tunisia. Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi-Arabia, Syria, the UAE, and Yemen. Sources: Internet World Stats (2009), Slate Group (2008), and United Nations (2009). b Includes

Existing literature on comparative e-government research mainly focuses on countries with disparate characteristics. In contrast, our research compares MENA countries with similar contextual features in terms of cultures, languages, capitaldriven economies, geography, structures of governance, and overall social structures. Our goal is to bridge the gap in the literature by comparing the contents of e-government service Websites of MENA countries. The types of Websites, types of services and features, online executable services, stages of development of e-government service, and e-government rankings form the unit of comparison. This chapter is organized as follows: The second section provides an evolving background on ICT adoption by MENA countries, with e-governance and digital

52

A. Rorissa et al.

divide as desired and undesired outcomes of the adoption. It also presents challenges to e-government implementations for MENA countries and public private partnership (PPP) as a catalyst for e-governance. The third section details the design of our research. The fourth section presents the results of our statistical analysis followed by relevant discussions. The last section concludes with the significance of such comparative e-government research studies and offers context-specific recommendations for effective e-government adoption by MENA countries.

2 Background Although service costs and financial affordability to access ICTs have always been major obstacles to the information revolution in MENA countries (Heeks, 2002), the adoption of ICTs in the MENA region by public and private sectors offers a unique opportunity to its citizens. Access to ICTs is typically expected to generate socio-economic opportunities for citizens. However, low literacy levels, lack of training, and low technical skills act as major barriers to applying ICTs toward generating and taking advantage of its socio-economic opportunities. The following section offers an overview of the current status of ICTs in the MENA countries, desired and undesired outcomes of deployment of ICTs in the region, challenges faced by MENA countries for execution of ICTs for effective governance, PPPs as a solution to enhance government efforts for ICTs adoption by MENA countries, and finally, the role of comparative research on e-government adoption by MENA governments.

2.1 ICT in MENA Nations The ICT revolution in MENA countries is lending old technologies new relevance (De Alcántara, 2002). At the beginning of this millennium, email was proliferating, but Telex remained an important means of communication (Burkhart & Older, 2003). While the proliferation of ICTs was initially spurred by the need to disseminate news and information (mostly one-way communication), interactive technologies made their way into areas such as government. A technology plays a more crucial role when it is widely available and used. In this regard, it bodes well for MENA countries because the number of Internet users in MENA nations grew from 16.0 million in 2003 to over 70 million in 2009 (EuroMonitor, 2009). Their share of the world’s total Internet users rose from 2.0 to 4.1% over the same period (see Table 3.1). Some of the authoritarian governments from MENA nations are also expected to crack down on the use of the Internet as a political tool. We believe that while the proportion of users to the total population is still low and some governments continue the crackdown on usage, the impact due to the Internet is, for the most part, positive. An example is the Twitter and Facebook revolution after the controversial Iranian elections in 2009. The Kingdom of Bahrain is also one of the first MENA nations to go online and launch the first Arab E-government Facebook group on the Internet. In fact, social networking services such as Facebook are used

3


53

by MENA governments to introduce and implement emerging web technologies to open more channels of interaction, enabling stakeholder participation (especially citizens), and for opinion sharing purposes (Facebook, 2009). Computers and communication, physical infrastructure, and content are the three main pillars of the information revolution in MENA nations (Burkhart & Older, 2003). At the dawn of the information revolution in MENA countries, they were grouped into three categories: fearful (e.g., Algeria, Iraq, Libya, and Syria), desiring the “best of both worlds,” (e.g., Iran, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and the UAE), or driven (e.g., Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar) (Burkhart & Older, 2003). Fearful countries were the ones with limited Internet connectivity or that prohibited it altogether. The countries labeled as wanting the best of both the worlds attempted to develop a tightly controlled domestic Internet network that enabled them to reap benefits in commerce, academia, and government, while maintaining strict limits on the scope of the Internet. Driven countries wanted an information revolution so badly that they were risk-prone in terms of making investments in ICTs. In general, while applying ICTs for better governance is a desired outcome of the ICT revolution in MENA countries, digital divide has been an undesired outcome of the same phenomenon.

2.2 Digital Divide: An Undesired Outcome of Widespread ICTs in MENA Nations One of the major challenges faced by MENA nations is a growing level of digital divide in media, information, and communication technologies. In the early days of e-government adoption by MENA nations, half of the Arab world’s population was deprived and disadvantaged (UNDP, 2002). It was observed from that point on that having limited local content and languages created obstacles in the widespread use of ICTs (Resnick, 2002). Less than 30% of MENA nations’ population had a telephone line (Burkhart & Older, 2003). It was also predicted that “. . . the region as a whole will deploy telephone service for at least half of the population by 2012, but there will be wide variations between the richest and most liberal countries on the one hand and the poorest and most repressive on the other hand” (Burkhart & Older, 2003). In light of these facts, bridging the digital divide in MENA countries was expected to be a gradual process. It should also be noted that without consistent commitment and fierce support by governments, donors, and the private sector, it may be impossible to overcome the digital divide in MENA countries (LaMotte, 2002). The lack of realization among MENA nations for developing skilled human capital to sustain ICT adoption also contributed to the digital divide.

2.3 E-government for Better Governance in MENA Nations E-government—as a major instrument for achieving “good governance”— accompanied by important investments in media and ICTs could have been an important source of productivity growth and economic growth along with economic

54

A. Rorissa et al.

development and democracy in MENA countries (World Bank, 2003). Most Arab countries in the MENA region strive for an efficient, effective, and results-driven public administration (OECD, 2007). ICTs and e-government play a strong role in achieving this goal (OECD, 2006). To their credit, strong high-level leadership was evident during the last decade in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and the UAE for the deployment of e-government initiatives (Saidi & Yared, 2002). On the other hand, until 2002, Yemen, Iran, Oman, and Qatar had more than just web-presence on the Internet. These nations had started publishing electronic content whereas Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia had mere online presence through basic Websites (Saidi & Yared, 2002). The current state of affairs with respect to e-government adoption is encouraging. As part of a high-level capacity-building initiative between the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and MENA governments, they recently identified lack of information and data, digital divide, and lack of measurement and evaluation techniques for e-government initiatives as some of the key obstacles to administrative simplification (OECD, 2008b). Specific desirable targets are now emerging for MENA countries, such as applying ICTs for the digitization of entire administrations, and providing better access to services, information and procedures. Solutions such as enhancing communication practices using ICTs, developing standardized data collection policies and procedures, bringing uniformity in e-government practices for international collaboration, better regulatory frameworks, benchmarking government performances, and creating incentives for governments by monitoring their e-government initiatives at various levels are some of the proposed solutions for efficiently deploying ICTs in MENA countries (OECD, 2007). In 2007, after participating in stocktaking activities conducted by OECD, MENA governments identified high priority areas for offering e-governance. These are “(1) institutional arrangements for e-government; (2) e-services, sectoral initiatives, shared applications; (3) e-government strategy formulation and implementation; (4) technical infrastructure for e-government; (5) e-government and administrative simplification; (6) e-government training and capacity building; (7) legislative infrastructure for e-government; and (8) measurement and evaluation of e-government” (OECD, 2008a). This list of prioritized objectives underlines the reliance on widespread applications of ICTs for governance. Since the early stages of e-government adoption, social scientists advised that ICTs need to be tailored according to local socio-economic needs and the political progress of each individual MENA nation (De Alcántara, 2002). In addition, waxing levels of content in Arabic is also expected to increase civic participation in e-government.

2.4 E-government Challenges Faced by MENA Nations The level of economic development and the nature of government and its role in ICT development are the two critical success factors for the adoption of e-governance in MENA nations (Burkhart & Older, 2003). Pricing, affordability, and reliability of

3


55

ICT infrastructure access (Saidi & Yared, 2002) have also been challenges faced by MENA governments while executing IT projects in the public sector. In the 1990s, MENA nations’ overall indicators for access and connectivity were below the world average, keeping them away from the mainstream networked global information society (Foulger, 2001). Domestic and regional broadband networks could be established to foster the growth of trade among MENA countries using ICTs. Business through the Internet or electronic commerce (e-commerce) is an application of ICTs as well as a promoter of widespread usage of ICTs. Most e-government service implementations are based on the e-commerce model whereby both horizontal (across departments or nations) and vertical (across levels of government) integration improve efficiency, cooperation, and convenience. However, existing legal frameworks that act as barriers to regional cooperation among MENA countries need to be addressed as they discourage regional socio-economic collaboration using ICTs. The challenges are not just limited to technologies but also the political, socio-economic, and cultural aspirations of citizens. ICTs’ potential to serve as a medium for realizing the freedom of expression and liberty of MENA citizens could act as one of the major obstacles in widespread usage of ICTs, especially if the authorities consider it a threat to their control of power.

2.5 Public Private Partnerships (PPP) in MENA Nations for E-government Governments from MENA nations perceive PPP as a solution to offer effective e-governance to citizens. To a certain extent, PPP also bolstered governments’ efforts in overcoming digital divide. From the early stages of e-government adoption Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, and Jordan have significantly benefited from PPPs which led to prolific ICT investments, when compared to others MENA nations (Saidi & Yared, 2002). Government authorities, senior IT officials, and executives from MENA countries have also explored commercial opportunities to weave IT partnerships with western expertise, harnessing e-government adoption, and building back-office information systems. Priorities of such collaborations lay in rural integration and designing security-based integration technologies. Creating systems that run via dial-up and cell-phones, measuring user demand for new and improved e-government systems, linking national and local levels of e-government operations, introducing public information and education programs that mobilize popular support for e-government systems, and considering government options for privatizing operations of selected e-government systems were also among the priorities (USTDA, 2007). The MENA governments, internet societies, the Union of Arab ICT Associations (a union of 13 Arab nations from the region), regional internet service providers, business organizations, and private sector industries often look forward to collaborating on various e-government initiatives through events like

56

A. Rorissa et al.

the Information and Communication Technology Conference for the Middle East and North Africa (ICT-MENA). Such group meetings often serve as platforms to weave strategic partnerships that benefit and take advantage of the technological momentum gained in MENA countries (E-government Authority, 2009).

2.6 The Role of Comparative Research in MENA Countries’ E-government Adoption In general, due to socio-economic, political, cultural, demographic, and infrastructural differences among various nations, it becomes difficult to compare e-government progress made by governments all over the world. There is extraordinary variation in the degree to which governments across the world have embraced e-government as an innovative mode of running governments (Franda, 2002). Comparative research in the area of e-government usually aims to identify existing problems in terms of contextual differences and their implications for implementation of e-government initiatives. Comparative research studies could further contribute to existing bodies of literature by proposing solutions in different forms, after scrutinizing features of e-government initiatives and revealing the overall picture of a particular context through data gathered in search of answers to a specific problem. Comparative studies typically develop different scales for quantifying intangible features related to e-governance, and statistically analyze the quantified features. Based on their analyses, comparative research studies could also advocate a particular set of solutions to e-government practitioners and bridge gaps in existing body of literature. So far, comparative research studies in the area of e-government have identified and categorized changes brought by e-government initiatives into various modes such as incremental, secular, and transformational (OECD, 2003). E-government comparative studies can introduce a minimum degree of generalizability lacking in many studies for implementing e-government initiatives from different parts of the world (West, 2007b). This helps practitioners to learn from others’ mistakes and experiences while planning, designing, developing, and executing a variety of e-government projects. Some of the conclusions applicable to MENA countries’ e-government adoption efforts are: • E-government progress is directly proportional to the capital flow in any nation (LaPorte, Demchak, & Friis, 2001). • Wealth and political developments matter to the incorporation of technology into political activities (West, 2007b). • Economic wealth measured in terms of Gross Domestic Product, telecommunication policy, and political maturity are the best predictors for Internet penetration and hence for e-governance in any country (Hargittai, 1999).

3


57

• Countries that lack wealth have a difficult time justifying investments in new technologies and infrastructure required for e-governance (Katchanovski & LaPorte, 2005). • Nations where citizens, organizations, and politicians do not realize the potential of technologies often face hurdles implementing e-governance (West, 2007b). • Neither education nor the level of democratization is significantly related to citizens’ participation in e-governance (West, 2007b). • There exists a weak link between democratization and e-governance performance (Hargittai, 1999). Using comparative research and comparative practices, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) champions the development of common standards for evaluating e-government progress made across MENA countries. It also encourages building a common consensus among MENA nations for applying e-government for better governance. According to the OECD (2007), “a range of evaluation methods and tools for e-government are available to Arab countries; however, most countries have not developed significant strategies to use these methods especially more sophisticated user-engaging tools.” In 2007, at the OECD high-level conference, Arab nations decided to focus on collecting comparable measures of e-government arrangements, such as policy, legislative, regulatory, and institutional frameworks, in order to establish a common unit of analysis for e-governance and increasing benchmark learning among Arab countries (OECD, 2007). When it comes to e-government data collection and availability in the Arab region, the results are mixed. Most Arab nations have difficulty forming organizational units supporting e-government practices (OECD, 2007).

3 Methods 3.1 Sample of E-government Websites Data for this study was collected as a part of a comprehensive research on comparative e-government in Africa and Asia. We gathered data from the contents of 582 African and 939 Asian e-government service Websites which were identified by searching Web information-seeking tools such as search engines and web directories. Using the guidelines of Anzinger (2003), we carried out our search for e-government Websites until we reached saturation. A total of 127 and 103 e-government Websites which were either sponsored or hosted by 12 Middle Eastern countries and six North African nations, respectively, constitute the sample. It should be noted that compiling a comprehensive list of e-government Websites is a very resource-intensive activity. Despite our seamless efforts, we cannot claim to have incorporated every possible relevant Website. Our team conducted the search, review, and coding of the contents of e-government Websites over a period of 6 months—December 2008 to May 2009.

58

A. Rorissa et al.

3.2 Data Analysis We relied on native speakers to translate contents of Websites that were published in Arabic. The Google translation facility (http://translate. google.com/translate_t?hl=en) was helpful in translating e-government Websites in French. Coding the contents of the Websites and analyses of data was conducted during the months of February through May 2009. In order to ensure consistency and reliability of our coding, the authors and two graduate students used the same procedures and coding dictionaries for the content analyses of the e-government Websites. Categories were developed for: types of Website, bodies or institutions responsible for its contents and services, types of services, features, number of executable services available on Websites, and the stage of development of e-government services. We assessed coding reliability between the authors and the two graduate students using percent agreement and Cohen’s (1960) Kappa, two of the most widely used measures for inter-coder agreement. All the computed values for inter-coder reliability were above frequently recommended cut-off of 0.70 (Neuendorf, 2002).

4 Results and Discussion Our data analysis was informed by one of the most comprehensive and longitudinal research studies on comparative e-government where 1,687 e-government Websites from 198 countries were analyzed for their usability in terms of online services and features available to citizens (West, 2007a). In accordance with this global egovernment study, we selected types of Websites, types of services and features, online executable services, stages of development of e-government service, and e-government rankings as variables for analyzing the adoption of e-government by MENA nations. T-tests were conducted to compare the two sub-regions of the MENA nations (Middle East and North Africa) in terms of these variables. The following subsections reveal the dynamic interplay among MENA countries for these variables.

4.1 Types of E-government Websites We believe that institutions responsible for creating and maintaining e-government Websites influence the contents and types of the Websites. Hence, we compared MENA nations based on types of e-government Websites. We categorized all Websites into six categories namely, Federal/National government, Local government, Departmental Websites at Federal/National government level, Departmental Websites at local government level, Embassy, and Others. Websites clustered under “Others” category included the ones owned by political parties, television, radio, and print media.

3


59

Federal or national governments from both the North African (57.28%) and Middle Eastern (77.17%) countries control and maintain their e-government Websites, in contrast with local governments or local government departments from North Africa (0.00%) and Middle East (6.30%). These numbers confirm the top-down approach to e-governance observed in MENA countries, where priority for offering e-government services wanes from top to bottom. This analysis also portrays variations in services (see Fig. 3.1) offered through e-government Websites (Rorissa, Gharawi, & Demissie, 2010).

Fig. 3.1 Distribution of e-government Websites by body/institution responsible for their contents

We conducted t-tests (independent samples, unequal variance) on types of egovernment Websites and the results showed that the two regions do not differ significantly with respect to the mean number of Websites by federal/national governments (t(16) = 0.623, p = 0.542), federal/national government departments (t(16) = 0.376, p = 0.712), and local governments (t(16) = 0.986, p = 0.339). However, they do differ with respect to the mean number of Websites by local government departments (t(16) = 2.159, p = 0.046). Compared with respective continents, North Africa did not differ significantly with Africa except for the number of e-government Websites offered by local governments (t(57) = 2.203, p = 0.032). Administrative bodies from the Middle Eastern nations have comparable percentages of e-government Websites which were controlled and maintained by their counterparts in North Africa. The above mentioned categorization of e-government Websites by body or authority has internal and external impacts on any MENA nation. For example, Websites at federal or national, state, and local levels are designed to offer better governance to citizens living in respective countries. On the other hand, Websites for embassies mainly serve the purpose of offering government services to citizens living in foreign nations, and immigration and travel information to potential tourists. Government Websites serving internal stakeholders often act as another mode of executing power, clarifying roles and positions of governments on various

60

A. Rorissa et al.

issues, and delivering information and government services to its citizens. Our analysis shows that MENA government authorities have not only realized the value of the Internet as a powerful communication medium, but also consistently invested resources into this new model of communication with its citizens. Authoritarian structures of governance that exist in most of the MENA nations lead to the centralization of power. This may explain the high density of federal or national level e-government Websites compared to local level Websites in MENA countries. Typically, government IT investments have six different types of impacts of varying degrees on their stakeholders. They are categorized as: financial, political, social, strategic, ideological, and stewardship (Cresswell, Pardo, Burke, & Dadayan, 2007). Types of services offered by MENA governments on their Websites and their features clearly indicate governments’ interests in disseminating information to the public (see Fig. 3.2). Revenue-related features offered on e-government Websites of MENA countries could contribute current and future levels of national income and overall national asset values. A high concentration of investments on national and federal level Websites could also be interpreted as a desire of authoritarian governments to exercise their control over the entire nation, which they may not be able to do through local level Websites. Federal or national level Websites also have economic and political advantages and opportunities. For example, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan’s National Resource Authority Website demonstrates government’s technologically progressive approach in managing the natural resources of the country as well as the government’s understanding and commitment to development. Websites at national level could impact stakeholders’ beliefs, their moral and ethical commitments, and the overall social outcomes of government policies (Cresswell et al., 2007). For example, lack of “.gov” domains for launching e-government service Websites and offering these services through “.com” domains, which are often used by commercial sites, may indicate lack of commitment by some governments. With this background of a lack of decentralized power in MENA countries, citizens could potentially enjoy the unique advantage of a high percentage of

Fig. 3.2 Features available on e-government Websites of MENA countries

3


61

national or federal level e-government Websites. They could have direct access to national or federal level government officials with the power to make important decisions. This could also further supplant the process of building informed citizenry in MENA countries. However, this advantage also depends upon the quality of services offered, commitment of government officials, and the political will of the authorities to perceive Websites as means for innovative two-way communications with citizens. National or federal level Websites could also inculcate the spirit of nationalism, especially in nations with populations representing diverse linguistic, cultural, and regional values. Some national- and federal-level Websites from MENA countries (e.g., Ministry of Justice, Kuwait) seek public opinion and feedback on various national issues including the state of justice in MENA countries. Such activities help government officials to project themselves as stewards or guardians of the value of governments.

4.2 Types of Services With the advent of e-government, governments at all levels dispense their public duties and responsibilities with the ultimate goal of providing automated, effective, and efficient services. Another common goal is to achieve balance between number, variety, and quality of services that are made available to targeted groups of citizens. E-government Websites need to accommodate users with varying degrees of skills and needs ranging from searching information on services to filing taxes online. We identified 14 e-government services potentially available online and according to the latest available classification, we clustered those services into three broad categories, namely: • Information: consists of services that are publicly accessible to all citizens on the Internet and meant for information dissemination purposes. • General services: consists of services that go beyond the mere delivery of publicly available information but still available to all citizens. No identification and authentication is required to access these services. • Customer-specific services: these are services that require identification and authentication and are available to authorized users only (Isselhorst, 2002). Data suggest that the Middle East is slightly ahead than North Africa in terms of types of services they offer through their e-government Websites. Approximately, 54% of e-government Websites from North Africa are at the primitive stage of just disseminating information to its citizens, whereas 50% of Websites from the Middle East offer customer-specific functionalities and services—the most advanced set of services that can be offered through Websites. A comparable number of Websites from North Africa (35.06%) and the Middle East (50.0%) provide 10 out of 14 “customer-specific services” (namely, tax filing, voter registration, and applications

62

A. Rorissa et al.

for passports, visas, driver’s licenses, business licenses, grants, benefits, trademarks, and webmail). Three services grouped under “general services” (complaint submission, ordering reports and other documents, and job listing and/or application) are provided by 10.34 and 18.6% of the North African and Middle Eastern e-government Websites, respectively. This is one of the reasons for MENA countries being ranked among the lowest in terms of e-government services, when the contents of e-government Websites are taken into account for benchmarking. Statistical analysis confirms that e-government services provided by Middle Eastern and North African nations have no significant difference, when compared at the primitive stage of information services. However, as the level of e-government services advances, Middle Eastern nations assume a superior position over North African nations.

4.3 Features Available on E-government Websites The level of e-government progress attained by nations is also reflected through a number of online executable services available and a number of features present on Websites. In addition, an e-government Website with a greater number of features is likely to have a higher level of e-government services (West, 2007a). West (2007a, 2007b) compiled 18 different features that are available on a typical e-government Website and grouped them into six broad categories: 1. Online information (publications, databases, audio clips, video clips). 2. Privacy and security (having privacy policies, security policies, allowing digital signatures on transactions). 3. Disability access. 4. Foreign language access. 5. No ads, user fees, and premium fees (not having ads, premium and user fees, and an option to pay via credit cards). 6. Public outreach (email contact information, areas to post comments, option for email updates, option for Website personalization, PDA accessibility). Both North African and Middle Eastern countries have more e-government Websites with no premium fees, no user fees, and no ads (Fig. 3.2). These features account for 47.72% and 53.29% of the total number of features available on North African and Middle Eastern e-government Websites, respectively, followed by public outreach (North Africa: 21.01% and Middle East: 16.22%), and online information (North Africa: 17.1% and Middle East: 18.04%) features. The least available features were privacy and security (North Africa: 0.33% and Middle East: 1.82%), and disability access (North Africa: 0.00% and Middle East: 0.28%). With the growing number of tele-center initiatives stimulated by private-sector investments in MENA countries, nations from the region could take advantage of multimedia technologies for involving illiterate, low-skilled citizens in e-governance. Independent

3


63

t-tests revealed that the average numbers of features of North African and Middle Eastern e-government Websites did not differ significantly. This echoes our results for types of Websites and types of services.

4.4 Online Executable Services An e-government service Website with a higher number of features and dynamic features such as online executable services is likely to be at a higher level of e-government service development than a Website with only static information (Affisco & Soliman, 2006; Al-adawi, Yousafzai, & Pallister, 2005). Citizens enjoying advanced e-government service Websites with more online executable services might take fewer, if any, trips to government offices. Moreover, such advanced Websites save time and resources for service providers (e.g., governments at all levels) as well as end-users (e.g., citizens). All MENA nations offer online executable services on their e-government Websites (North Africa: 16.83% and Middle East: 19.58%). It is evident that not much difference exists in the average number of online executable services on e-government Websites from MENA countries, which is also confirmed by t-test results (t(16) = 0.284, p = 0.78).

4.5 Stages of Development of E-government Services Generally, there are four levels or stages of development of e-government services: (1) publishing (web-presence), (2) interacting, (3) transacting, and (4) transforming (integration) (Affisco & Soliman, 2006; Al-adawi et al., 2005). Commonly, a Website at the publishing level presents static information about the government agency; one at the interacting level allows the downloading of forms and provides search functions; a Website at the transacting level allows the completion of an entire task online; and one at the transforming level is often a single-point portal and integrates all e-government services by a number of branches of government at all levels. Financial resources, political leadership, and organizational capacity are some of the factors that significantly shape ICT adoption by nations. More specifically, countries with more financial resources could justify investments in new technologies; hence the larger number of Middle Eastern e-government Websites at higher levels of development (West, 2007b). Interactive e-government Websites in the Middle East are almost 60% more than that of North Africa. This could be due to the disparity in the level of economic development of individual MENA countries. For nations from the Middle East and North Africa, almost 90% of e-government Websites were either at the first stage (e.g., publishing or web-presence) or at the second stage (e.g., interacting) of e-government development (Fig. 3.3). Approximately, two thirds of e-government Websites from North Africa represent the first stage of e-government progress, whereas for the same stage of development there were only half of the Middle Eastern e-government Websites.

64

A. Rorissa et al.

Fig. 3.3 Percentage of e-government Websites categorized into the four levels of e-government development

MENA countries did not significantly differ in terms of the average number of e-government Websites at the four levels of e-government development (1. Publishing: t(16) = 1.754, p = 0.099; 2. Interacting: t(16) = 0.103, p = 0.919; 3. Transacting: t(16) = 1.658, p = 0.117; 4. Transforming/Integrating: t(16) = 0.000, p = 1.000). The results suggest an equal emphasis on both basic government services and advanced types of e-government Websites by MENA countries. The correlation between socio-economic status and the type of e-government Websites as well as their level of development of e-government services remains topics for future research.

4.6 E-government Indices for MENA Nations In order to compare the two regions with respect to their e-government rankings, we computed e-government indices using a framework proposed by West (2007a). This objective framework is entirely derived from the contents of Websites; it is also one of the most widely applied frameworks in e-government research. We first computed an e-government index for each Website and then averaged them across all Websites to compute a single index for each country whose value is a number between 0 and 100. For all 18 features, a Website is assigned four points, for a maximum of 72 (4×18), and this total is then added to the total number of online executable services, producing an index for the Website. To compute an e-government index for the country, we averaged all indices for all of its Websites. We then averaged indices for all MENA countries, calculating a single index for all countries (see Table 3.2). T-test results revealed that the two regions did not differ significantly with respect to their average e-government indices (t (16) = 0.752, p = 0.463). This can be construed as the equal pace acquired by MENA countries in adopting ICTs for governance.

3


65

Table 3.2 E-government index values for MENA countries Sub-continents

Min.

Max.

M

SD

North Africa Middle East

18.80 18.61

29.00 34.73

25.78 24.33

3.61 4.25

5 Conclusions and Recommendations Unlike e-government comparative research in the past, our study compares countries with similar contextual features—culture, religion, government structure, and language—in MENA. There has been a fair amount of comparative research done on Websites as a medium for comparing various aspects and features of e-governance, such as transparency brought by e-governance, openness in governments due to ICTs, degree of accountability created in governments due to e-governance, and governments’ abilities to interact with citizens using e-governance (Wong & Welch, 2009). However, our research relies on contents of e-government Websites, where some Websites represent an excellent blend of contextual features (such as social and religious) with modern ways of offering governance using ICTs. For instance, Website of Ministry of Pilgrimage hosted by Saudi Arabia, Website for the Ministry of Islamic Awqaf Trust Affairs by Jordan, Website for the Ministry of Habousm, Ministy of Diwan of Royal Court by Oman, and Islamic Affairs by Morocco, provide services unparalleled to that offered by government in the West. The following subsections comprise of our reflections on the overall significance of comparative e-government research, recommendations for Website design efforts under e-government initiatives, and brief concluding remarks.

5.1 Recommendations and Concluding Remarks Our context-specific recommendations for design, development, and execution of e-government projects in MENA countries are grounded in our data and statistical analyses. Our recommendations focus on the design, quality, and development issues related to offering e-government services via Websites. Some of the key takehome messages discussed in this subsection can be clustered under the following themes:

1. Recommendations on the design, development, and implementation of Websites for offering government services to citizens. 2. Public–private partnership: A catalyst for ICT adoption in MENA countries. 3. Incorporation of mobile technologies for the comprehensive analysis of e-governance initiatives.

66

A. Rorissa et al.

Our findings show that almost no attention was paid to offering government services to people with disabilities in MENA countries. This could reinforce the digital divide in the region. The quality of content presented on Websites is crucial in building users’ confidence. Spelling mistakes and other grammatical errors on the Websites could hinder the process of citizen participation. Misspelled English words is a pervasive phenomenon observed on MENA nations’ official Websites. This could raise doubts among English-speaking citizens as well as Englishspeaking tourists about the government’s commitment to offering e-government services. Unless privacy and security aspects of Websites are taken seriously, out of fear of breach of confidentiality, citizens may not be willing and comfortable in sharing their private information over Websites. For example, less than 1% of features on e-government Websites in MENA countries address security and privacy issues. To guarantee the use of customer-specific services by citizens, facets of Websites such as data-sharing, data security, authentication, and citizen privacy need to be addressed with great care. On public outreach Websites with contact emails, there needs to be officials accountable for responding to citizens’ questions and/or requests. If citizens do not get responses to their queries directed to email addresses published on Websites, citizens may not build trust in this communication channel with government officials. Some e-government Websites have either large-sized digital images or long-running slide shows, or animated welcome messages on their landing pages. Citizens accessing e-government Websites using their limited bandwidth or slow Internet connections could end up having unpleasant experiences with such unaccommodating government Websites. Uniform templates for all departments’ Websites could also ease users’ navigation experience. For example, none of Algeria’s egovernment Websites have a uniform template. Government Websites offering information content such as forms, reports, etc., in different formats (e.g., Word, PDF, Excel) need to make sure that citizens can also download appropriate software to view those files. It is also important to have dedicated resources for maintaining government Websites. Government Websites that are not seamless (in terms of their availability) may not convince citizens to rely on governments’ efforts to offer e-governance. Finally, well-organized information content with a minimum number of clicks often facilitates users’ surfing experience. For example, the Egyptian government’s sales tax department Website creates a good initial impression on users. The presentation of information content with minimal spelling mistakes makes it easy for citizens to pay taxes. Our literature review suggests that public–private partnerships between IT partners from western countries and the MENA nations are on the rise. This could have the potential danger of MENA countries adopting e-government without the proper assessment of local contexts and conditions. Public–private partnerships should be aware of the inherent differences in public and private sectors. A system that works in the private sector might not work in the public sector (Heeks, 2002). One of the limitations of our study is that it is a snapshot of contents of Websites during a 6-month period and not a longitudinal research study. In order to

3


67

have a complete picture of e-government service development in MENA countries, a longitudinal study is recommended. Another limitation of our comparative study which is mainly based on contents of e-government Websites is that Websites are not the only technologies to deliver e-governance. Citizens from many developing nations around the world enjoy a wider access to mobile technology which is leapfrogging other ICTs as a means of communication. For example, people now can explore socio-economic opportunities with the help of mobile technologies. Furthermore, mobile technologies are inexpensive compared to computers and are easily available and ubiquitous. This makes them even more appropriate for delivering e-government services. We are fully aware that in many nations around the world, mobile technologies (and other nomadic devices such as PDAs) facilitate access to e-government services for majority of citizens who have low literacy levels. For a comprehensive comparison of e-government initiatives, future research on comparative e-government needs to consider alternative means of implementing e-governance. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Mohammed Gharawi, Tarkey Alhozaimy, and three anonymous reviewers for their help and invaluable comments.

References Affisco, J., & Soliman, K. (2006). E-government: A strategic operations management framework for service delivery. Business Process Management Journal, 12, 13–21. Al-adawi, Z., Yousafzai, S., & Pallister, J. (2005). Conceptual model of citizen adoption of e-government. The Second International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology. Retrieved August 23, 2008, from http://www.itinnovations.ae/iit005/proceedings/articles/G_6_IIT05-Al-Adawi.pdf Anzinger, G. (2003). African governments on the www. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/africa.html Bovaird, T., & Loffler, E. (2009). Public management and governance (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor and Francis. Burkhart, G., & Older, S. (2003). The information revolution in Middle East and North Africa. Prepared for National Intelligence Council by RAND’s National Defense Research Institute. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1653/MR1653.pdf Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46. Cresswell, A. M., Pardo, T., Burke, G. B., & Dadayan, L. (2007). Advancing return on investment analysis for government information technology. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Bridging Disciplines & Domains; Philadelphia, PA, May 20–23, 2007. dg.o, vol. 228. Digital Government Society of North America, 244–245. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from http://www.dgsociety.org/documents/p244Cresswell_000.pdf De Alcántara, C. H. (2002). The development divides in a digital age. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/Website/document.nsf/%28httpPublications%29/19B0B342A4F 1CF5B80256B5E0036D99F?OpenDocument E-Government Authority. (2009). e-Government Authority signs strategic partnership agreement for MENA ICT 2009 Conference, Kingdom of Bahrain. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from http://www.ega.gov.bh/downloads/news/170809E.pdf

68

A. Rorissa et al.

EuroMonitor. (2009). Regional focus: Growing internet usage in the Middle East and North Africa. Retrieved September 29, 2009, from http://www.euromonitor. com/Regional_Focus_Growing_Internet_usage_in_the_Middle_East_and_North_Africa Facebook. (2009). e-Government – Kingdom of Bahrain. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11662676851 Foulger, D. (2001). The cliff and the continuum: Defining the digital divide. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from http://pages.prodigy.net/davis_foulger/articles/cliffAndContinuum.htm Franda, M. (2002). Launching into cyberspace: Internet development and politics in five world regions. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Gil-Garcia, R., & Pardo, T. (2005). e-Government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 187–216. Hargittai, E. (1999). Weaving the Western Web: Explaining differences in internet connectivity among OECD countries. Telecommunications Policy, 23(10/11), 701–718. Heeks, R. (2002). E-government in Africa: Promise and practice. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 7(2/3), 97–114. Hu, Y., Xiao, J., Pang, J., & Xie, K. (2005). A research on the appraisal framework of e-government project success. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Electronic Commerce (Xi’an, China, August 15–17, 2005). ICEC 05, vol. 113. ACM, New York, NY, 532–538. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1089551.1089647 Internet World Stats. (2009). Internet usage in the Middle East. Retrieved September 16, 2009, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats5.htm Isselhorst, H. (2002). E-government manual: Classification scheme for e-government procedures. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from https://www.bsi.bund.de/cae/servlet/ contentblob/487830/publicationFile/29241/2_Klass_en_pdf.pdf Katchanovski, I., & LaPorte, T. (2005). Cyberdemocracy or Potemkin e-villages? Electronic governments in OECD and post-communist countries. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(7–8), 665–682. LaMotte, G. (2002). Digital divide in Arab world “staggering”. VOA News (Cairo), 27 June. LaPorte, T. M., Demchak, C. C., & Friis, C. (2001). Webbing governance: Global trends across national-level public agencies. Communications of the ACM, 44(1), 63–67. Moon, M., & Welch, E. (2005). Same bed, different dreams? A comparative analysis of citizens and bureaucrats e-government perspectives. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(3), 243–264. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. OECD. (2003). OECD e-government studies: The e-government imperative. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. OECD. (2007). Good governance for development (GfD) in Arab countries initiative: Third steering group meeting at ministerial level. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.arabgov-initiative.org/publications/GfDII/corruption/Cairo/report-en.pdf OECD. (2008a). Fourth regional meeting of the good governance for development (GfD) working group on e-Government and administrative simplification. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.oecd.org/document/20/0,3343,en_34645207_34645466_41073876_1_1_1_1,00. html OECD. (2008b). High level capacity building seminar on “Administrative Simplification: Overcoming Barriers to Implementation”. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www. oecd.org/document/8/0,3343,en_34645207_34744758_41122120_1_1_1_1,00.html Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking learning in the digital age. In G. Kirkman (Ed.), The global information technology report: Readiness for the networked world (pp. 32–37). New York: Oxford University Press. Robins, P. (2009). The Middle East: A beginner s guide. New York: One world Publications. Rorissa, A., Gharawi, M., & Demissie, D. (2010). A tale of two continents: Contents of African and Asian e-government Websites. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2010), January 5–8, 2010, Koloa, Kauai, Hawaii.

3


69

Saidi, N., & Yared, H. (2002). e-Government: Technology for good governance, development and democracy in the MENA countries. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.erf.org.eg/cms.php?id=publication_details&publication_id=322 Slate Group. (2008). The failed states index 2008. Retrieved September 16, 2009, from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4350 UNDP. (2002). Arab human development report 2002: Creating opportunities for future generations. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.nakbaonline. org/download/UNDP/EnglishVersion/Ar-Human-Dev-2002.pdf United Nations. (2008). United Nations e-Government survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance. Retrieved September 18, 2009, from http://unpan1. un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028607.pdf United Nations. (2009). United Nations e-Government readiness knowledge base. Retrieved September 16, 2009, from http://www2.unpan.org/egovkb USTDA (2007). Opportunities for US companies in the e-Government (IT) sector in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Morocco. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.uschamber.com/NR/rdonlyres/e7mhbolv3uyozpcjanxbiv6ll4z656cou3tm77jnylg6 w2opweslvweoxpmm6di4srrko36p5j3vffb35weiobpc4qg/20071029USTDAEventFlyer.pdf West, D. M. (2007a). Global e-Government. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt07int.pdf West, D. M. (2007b). Digital government: Technology and public sector performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wong, W., & Welch, E. (2009). Does e-Government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of Website openness and government accountability. Governance, 17(2), 275–297. World Bank. (2003). e-Government: Technology for good governance, development, and democracy in the MENA Countries: Management tool kit by World Bank. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from http://whitepapers.zdnet.co.uk/0,1000000651,260116005p,00.htm

Chapter 4

Towards E-participation in the Middle East and Northern Europe Girish J. “Jeff” Gulati, David J. Yates, and Anas Tawileh

E-governance is important for enabling governments to communicate with and serve their citizens. In this chapter, we determine critical success factors for and obstacles to effective e-governance in two very different regions of the world, namely, the Middle East and Northern Europe. Specifically, we explore eparticipation in Bahrain, Egypt, Estonia, and Finland. These four countries are interesting cases because they have quite different types of government, yet, according to recent United Nations data, each has succeeded in their development of e-government capabilities. However, the degree to which this development has translated into effective e-participation varies significantly between these countries. We propose a framework for assessing the strategy, policies, and context within which e-governance is being developed and apply this framework to examine e-participation in each country. Using this framework, we show that an administrative culture of high-quality governance is critical to the success of e-participation initiatives. Our research also suggests that factors which promote online citizen participation in the political process include a government commitment to egovernment, policies that encourage e-participation, and investment in e-governance and information and communication technology (ICT) development. Sometimes these conditions are satisfied but e-participation falls short of expectations. We present evidence that this short-fall often reflects problems in the offline relationship between governments and their citizens.

G.J. “Jeff” Gulati (B) Bentley University, Waltham, MA 02452, USA e-mail: [email protected] D.J. Yates Bentley University, Waltham, MA 02452, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. Tawileh Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales F24 3AA, UK e-mail: [email protected]


71

72

G.J. “Jeff” Gulati et al.

1 Introduction E-government refers to the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve efficiency and communication within government, enhance communication between the public and the private sectors, and facilitate the availability and delivery of services from government to the public (Garson, 2006; Jaeger, 2003; West, 2005). E-government applications also have the potential to make government more transparent and accountable to its citizens and allow citizens more opportunities to participate in the political process. Applications that broaden and deepen political participation are not simply top-down government initiatives to engage with citizens, but rather a way to include all stakeholders in participatory decision-making. By enhancing government’s ability to request, receive, and incorporate feedback from constituents, policies can be better tailored to meet the needs and priorities of citizens (Curtin, 2006; Macintosh, 2006; United Nations, 2008). Moreover, e-participation offers hope for revitalizing community and promoting social change by facilitating communication and the discussion of policy and politics with neighbors from other communities, near or far, at greater length, and in an ongoing format (Dutton & Peltu, 1996; Heeks & Bailur, 2007; Schech, 2002; Servon, 2002). The United Nations’ 2008 assessment of the extent to which governments have developed e-government revealed that more countries were online in 2008 than in 2005 and that most countries had extensive information on policies and laws available through their national government’s online portals. Their assessment of the extent to which these same governments have proactively solicited citizen input was not as impressive. While many countries showed dramatic increases in implementing products and services related to e-participation, and more specifically e-information, since 2004, 82% of countries received relatively low assessments of their performance in developing tools for e-consultation and e-decision-making. This study seeks to explain what factors determine a country’s success in implementing e-participation initiatives and identify those obstacles preventing successful implementation. These factors are examined within a theoretical framework based on the work of King et al. (1994), which highlights the significance of developing government strategies and policies that enable and advance information technology innovations such as e-government, e-participation, and e-governance more broadly. We show that Egypt, Bahrain, Estonia, and Finland have taken different approaches to incorporating citizen input and feedback and have succeeded in different aspects of e-participation. Moreover, the critical success factors and obstacles to success vary country-to-country, partly reflecting their government structure, governance methods and practices, and also their distinct histories and cultures.

2 Background Our research seeks to understand the impact that government strategy and policy have on e-government and e-participation. By treating e-government and e-participation as information technology innovations, King et al. (1994) highlight

4

E-participation in the Middle East and Northern Europe

73

Regulation

Influence

the importance of developing government strategies and policies that enable and advance such innovations. To apply the institutional theory of King et al., we must distinguish between what a government can regulate versus what a government can influence in order to promote online governance. For example, a government can regulate to what extent it is democratic versus autocratic by choosing whether or not to promote democratic reforms. There is conflicting evidence about the impact that democracy has on e-government and e-participation. West (2005) suggests that there is little connection between a country’s e-government performance and its level of democratization. Prior case studies of European countries, e.g. (Macintosh, 2008), however, suggest that there is a link between democratic reforms and e-participation. We are not aware of similar case studies in non-democratic nations. To provide another example, a government can influence but not, in general, regulate to what degree information and communication technologies (ICTs) are accessed and used by its citizens. Greater diffusion of ICTs within a nation has the potential to increase adoption of online governance. However, we speculate that successful implementation of e-participation requires a citizenry that has a general trust in government and faith that government can be effective. We explore a small number of cases as our research methodology since e-participation is a complex issue that depends on many factors, and is related to many others. We chose our four countries—Egypt, Bahrain, Estonia, and Finland— because of their diverse government structure and also the differences in their national e-participation performance, as measured by the United Nations (2008). In terms of their governance, Bahrain is ruled by a constitutional monarchy whereas Finland’s government is a representative democracy (CIA, 2009). Egypt and Estonia lie somewhere between these two extremes (CSP, 2009). The 2007/2008 e-Participation Index rankings for these countries vary between 49th in the world (for Egypt) and 8th in the world (for Estonia). Even though Egypt’s e-participation score is not very high, Egypt has made significant progress in developing egovernment capabilities in recent years (Glück, Mitwalli, & Stemmler, 2008). Figure 4.1 shows eight factors that government strategy and policy can either influence or regulate in order to advance online governance. The four factors that governments can regulate appear in the lower portion of Fig. 4.1. These factors include, for example, the degree to which a national government is democratic

Voice & Accountability E-participation

E-government ICT Development Democracy

Regulatory Quality

Control of Corruption Government Effectiveness

Fig. 4.1 Institutional factors affecting online governance

74


which we determine using the Center for Systemic Peace’s Polity 2 score (CSP, 2009). The four factors that a government can influence appear in the upper righthand box in Fig. 4.1. These include the level of ICT development in a country which we measure using the International Telecommunication Union’s ICT Development Index (ITU, 2009). E-government and e-participation, both of which are central to our case studies, are considered factors that a government can influence more so than regulate, and thus also appear in the upper portion of this figure. The remaining four factors are measures of the overall quality of governance taken from the most recent measurements of the World Governance Indicators (Kaufmann, Kraay, & Mastruzzi et al., 2009). One of these remaining factors—voice and accountability—is a prerequisite for effective e-governance (and in particular, e-participation) that is considered something governments can influence but not regulate. Three of these factors— control of corruption, government effectiveness, and regulatory authority—are governed by necessary regulation. Figure 4.1 presents the institutional factors that will help us understand why and how e-governance is being implemented within the countries in our study. However, the institutional context summarized in this figure is part of a much broader context attributable to many other factors. Many of these factors are complex and multidimensional in their own right and therefore are discussed on a case-by-case basis. For example, we touch on the distinct history and culture of Egypt, Bahrain, Estonia, and Finland, but return to the impact of the specific factors we have described thus far. We also summarize demographic and geographic factors that might enable or inhibit the success of e-governance initiatives in these countries (Curtin, 2006). For example, based on 2005 gross national income data from the World Bank (2009), the average citizen in Finland is more than seven times wealthier than the average citizen in Egypt. It is therefore unreasonable to expect that similar e-governance initiatives in these two countries would yield the same results. Table 4.1 summarizes the present-day context for the case studies we describe below. By analyzing the first four rows of data in Table 4.1, it is easy to understand the challenges that Egypt faces in developing e-government and promoting eparticipation. First, Egypt needs to promote access and use of ICTs for a population that is an order of magnitude larger than any of our other countries. Furthermore, in comparing Egypt to Finland, Egypt’s gross national income and Internet adoption is less than 20% of the same metrics for Finland. A comparison between Egypt and Bahrain highlights other factors that put Egypt at a disadvantage relative to her regional neighbor. Specifically, the population density of Egypt is an order of magnitude less than the population density of Bahrain, making the deployment and repair of ICT infrastructure more expensive. Also, in spite of a recent surge in Internet adoption within Egypt, only 14% of its population regularly use the Internet whereas 33% of Bahrain’s population has access to the Internet (ITU, 2009). The remaining eight rows of data in Table 4.1 summarize quantitative measures of the factors described in Fig. 4.1. The first two rows show the most recent United Nations assessment of e-participation and e-government readiness of the national governments in the four countries. The E-government Readiness Index

4


75

Table 4.1 Data for factors affecting e-governance (and their source) Variable Demographics and geography Population (CIA, 2009) Population density [persons per sq km (CIA, 2009)] Annual gross national income [PPP per capita in 2005 in US$ (World Bank, 2009)] Internet users per 100 [in 2007 (ITU, 2009)] Factors influenced E-participation Index (United Nations, 2008) E-government Readiness Index (United Nations, 2008) Voice and accountability (Kaufmann et al., 2009) ICT development index (ITU, 2009) Factors regulated Democracy [Polity 2 (CSP, 2009)] Control of corruption (Kaufmann et al., 2009) Government effectiveness (Kaufmann et al., 2009) Regulatory quality (Kaufmann et al., 2009)

Egypt

Bahrain

Estonia

Finland

83,000,000 82.9

728,000 982.5

1,300,000 28.7

5,250,000 15.5

$4,310

$27,100

$15,870

$30,810

14

33

64

79

0.250

0.341

0.727

0.273

0.477

0.572

0.760

0.749

–1.19

–0.82

1.03

1.48

2.54

4.69

6.79

5.97

9

10

–3

–7

–0.67

0.44

0.94

2.34

–0.37

0.47

1.15

1.95

–0.17

0.88

1.47

1.58

is a composite index comprising the web measure index, the telecommunication infrastructure index, and the human capital index (United Nations, 2008). The e-Participation Index is a composite index that assesses national government online presence in three dimensions: e-information, e-consultation, and e-decision-making. Helped by smaller populations to manage, the e-government and e-participation scores for Bahrain and Estonia are indicative of important milestones in digital government that belong to these two countries. In 2001, Bahrain was one of the first countries in the world to administer a national referendum online (Kostopoulos, 2004). Estonia was the first country in the world to hold local and parliamentary elections in which citizens had the option to vote online (in 2005 and 2007, respectively). The fact that about 1% of the votes in these elections were cast via the Internet suggests that online voting is an emerging area, to say the least. The last

76


six rows of data in Table 4.1 are taken directly from the sources shown (CSP, 2009; ITU, 2009; Kaufmann et al., 2009). We refer the reader to these sources for details about the methodology and also the individual entries in this table. Figure 4.2 graphs data values for the institutional factors affecting online governance in Egypt, Bahrain, Estonia and Finland. The values for each factor are taken from Table 4.1 and are then scaled to a range of [–1, 1] via linear interpolation of the source data as follows. For the Worldwide Governance Indicators from Kaufmann et al. (2009), which are z-scores with a zero mean, the minimum value of –1 in Fig. 4.2 corresponds to values 2.5 standard deviations less than the mean and the maximum value of 1 corresponds to 2.5 standard deviations greater than the mean. Polity 2 scores, as measured by the Center for Systemic Peace (CSP, 2009), have a range of [–10, 10]. Thus, the democracy value for each country in Fig. 4.2 is determined by dividing the Polity 2 score by 10. For the e-Participation Index and the E-government Readiness Index (United Nations, 2008), which both lie between 0.0 and 1.0, a score of 0.0 is mapped to –1 and a score of 1.0 to 1. Finally, the ICT Development Index (IDI) as measured by the ITU (2009), which has a range of [0, 10], is scaled such that –1 corresponds to an IDI value of 0.0 and 1 corresponds to an IDI value of 10.0.

Fig. 4.2 Radar plot of scaled values for institutional factors affecting online governance

Figure 4.2 is a helpful tool for visualizing the institutional context within which online governance is being developed and deployed in the countries we study. This figure also illustrates some of the significant differences between the four countries. Navigating Fig. 4.2 with an imaginary compass, the axis pointing south highlights the differences between the level of democracy in the countries. The axis pointing north shows that Estonia is the only country that achieves an e-Participation Index score that is a greater than the mid-point of this scale (i.e., has a value greater than zero on this axis). This is somewhat surprising since three of the four countries have national E-government Readiness Index scores above the mid-point of its range. (Egypt’s E-government Readiness Index score of 0.477 is the only value that is less

4


77

than 0.5.) It is not difficult to imagine how other institutional factors presented in this figure might be critical in determining the success of online governance initiatives in these countries. Looking west in Fig. 4.2, the “gap” between government effectiveness in Finland and in Egypt is quite wide. Last but not least, Finland’s leadership in some other dimensions gives it an inherent advantage over the other three countries. Finland is one of the best countries in the world at controlling corruption and, according to Kaufmann et al. (2009), scores in the top 3% of nations when considering government voice and accountability. The remainder of this chapter focuses on understanding how the factors in Table 4.1 and Fig. 4.2 impact e-government and e-participation innovations in our case studies. We will see that Egypt’s advances in e-participation (and e-government more generally) have been driven by a “back-to-basics” approach that has centered around two goals: Developing infrastructure to provide access to information and communication technologies, and bridging the digital divide within Egypt to promote the use of and participation in online government (Helbig, Gil-García, & Ferro et al., 2009). Bahrain’s successes in online governance have been driven by a thoughtful national agenda. Specifically, the King and Prime Minister of Bahrain have provided management, resources, and support to a central body that runs government computer and communications systems and regulates ICTs within the government (Al-Amer, 2003), namely, the Central Informatics Organization (CIO). Like Bahrain, Estonia has a bold agenda for e-government (Ernsdorff & Berbec, 2007). It is a young democracy in which the national government has achieved some remarkable successes in e-participation with fewer resources than many of its European Union counterparts (Keefer, 2007; Nixon & Koutrakou, 2007). Political will and energy have contributed to these successes; however, e-participation in Estonia has also been propelled by the trust and faith that its citizens have in their young government relative to their counterparts in Egypt, Bahrain, and Finland. Finland is a more established democracy than Estonia and also has a history of governance by a more bureaucratic national government. Recently, Finland’s national government has undergone many reforms as part of decentralizing government to better address regional and local interests (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004). As a result, e-participation accomplishments in Finland have been more prevalent at the local level rather than the national level and have leveraged the Finnish tradition of technological innovation (Hargittai, 1999; World Bank, 2006). The next four sections describe cases that highlight and explain successes and challenges in implementing online governance, country by country.

3 E-participation in Egypt The Middle East has recorded the highest growth rate in Internet use over the past six years (ITU, 2009). This growth is a positive indicator of the increased adoption of ICTs in the region, and of the awareness of the value afforded by utilizing these technologies. Egypt, with more than 80 million people, is the most populous country

78


in the region. The country faces significant development challenges, such as closing the gender gap in employment, literacy, and political participation, and providing equitable access to government services and programs (El-Saharty, Richardson, & Chase, 2005). Egypt has a rather low score on the E-government Readiness Index (0.477) and the e-Participation Index (0.250). These index scores rank Egypt 49th in e-participation, and 79th in e-government readiness (United Nations, 2008). Corruption is also a significant issue in this country, as suggested by the significantly lower score on control of corruption than the other three countries (Kaufmann et al., 2009). Controlling corruption is essential to achieving meaningful success in e-participation, because corruption undermines trust between citizens and their governments, and thus reduces the probability of higher uptake of e-governance by the public. Egypt invested heavily over the past decade to improve its ICT infrastructure and to provide affordable access to ICT services. It also launched major initiatives to adopt e-government as a means to leverage ICTs in its development efforts. These initiatives, however, have focused more on basic services—i.e., e-information services—than on e-consultation or e-decision-making. Egypt is also considered a regional leader in providing public information through portals and official sites (Dutta, Shalhoub, & Samuels, 2007). The government has built an integrated portal to act as a one-stop shop for government information (Egypt E-government Portal, 2009). A major e-government plan is also underway to build a media city and several smart villages to offer training and software development services and to link ministries via a centralized network. Cutting costs and fighting corruption are cited as major drivers behind Egypt’s e-government efforts. According to the Egyptian Minister of Administrative Development, Ahmed Darwish, e-government initiatives save 600 million Egyptian pounds per year, and contribute to the elimination of corruption and bureaucracy (Abdoun, 2009). Due to limited availability of utilization data, the impact of the Egyptian e-government initiatives cannot be measured effectively. However, available evidence suggests that the uptake of online services by the population is still very limited. In a recent survey conducted by the Egyptian Cabinet’s Information and Decision Support Center (IDSC), only 38% of the Egyptians were aware of the e-government services (Abdoun, 2009). There is also significant variation in the adoption of different types of government services offered electronically. Information services, for example, are much more frequently accessed and utilized than interactive services (the IDSC survey cites inquiring about phone bills and getting high school exam results). Services that require citizen interaction command higher levels of trust and more dependable infrastructure. The most frequent complaint made by citizens is that e-government Websites take long time to load (Abdoun, 2009). Furthermore, some electronic services rely on cultural norms and habits that may not yet be prevalent in Egypt. Online payment, for example, only works in countries that have a widespread credit and debit card use. This is certainly not the case in present-day Egypt (El-Askalany, Rashad, & Darwish, 2003).

4


79

Interestingly, while increasing community participation in the governance processes in the county was clearly identified as an objective of Egypt’s e-government strategy, the e-Participation Index suggests that the government efforts yielded limited success. Several challenges have been identified as the cause of this problem (El-Askalany et al., 2003). These include the perception of low-quality government service delivery, overlapping authority among government bodies, and reluctance to share information among government agencies. These challenges indicate that successful e-governance efforts depend on previous participation by citizens in offline government activities and also on the government’s ability to improve its effectiveness. Perhaps the most entrenched obstacles to the uptake of e-government services in Egypt are high illiteracy as well as low PC and Internet penetration. The adult illiteracy rate in Egypt in 2006 was close to 30% (IRCT, 2006). This poses a major challenge to service delivery that depends on the user’s ability to read and interact with online content. This problem is complicated further by the low penetration of PCs and Internet connectivity in the country. In 2007, PCs were present in 16% of households, while about 14% of the population had Internet access (ITU, 2009). Addressing these issues requires significant investments in education and infrastructure, and the Egyptian government has embarked on several programs in these areas. Another barrier to e-participation in Egypt is the offline relationship between the government and its citizens, and the perceptions of this relationship by the public. Several authors have identified trust between the citizens and their government as an important factor in the success of e-government programs (Hachigian & Kaplan, 2002; Warkentin, Gefen, Pavlou, & Rose, 2002). This relationship in Egypt is far from ideal, and specific interventions are needed to increase transparency and accountability in governance in order to boost citizen trust in government before e-government and e-participation can achieve their full potential. Analyzing the Egyptian experience in developing and implementing e-government offers some interesting insights. Clearly, the country faces significant challenges that need to be addressed on several fronts. Investing in ICT development and providing affordable and reliable access should create an environment conducive to e-participation. This has been an important focus of the Egyptian government in recent years, evident in the country’s recent E-government Readiness Index scores. It should be noted that bridging the digital divide in Egypt is a substantial challenge partly due the country’s demographics, geography, low GDP, and high illiteracy. Thus, the government’s achievements in this regard are admirable. However, the country still has the potential to boost e-participation by controlling factors that its government can regulate. Specifically, the government should improve its control of corruption, promote democracy, and increase its effectiveness. Improvement on any of these fronts, along with continued expansion of ICT access and use, will likely result in more successful e-government initiatives and higher levels of e-participation.

80


4 E-participation in Bahrain Bahrain is a small country in the Arabian Gulf that is home to less than 800,000 people. The country is one of the richest in the region in terms of its per capita gross domestic product (GDP), with an average of US $37,300 (CIA, 2009). Bahrain also enjoys a highly developed infrastructure, and ICT infrastructure is no exception. PC penetration in households exceeds 50%, and more than one third of the population has access to the Internet (ITU, 2009). In terms of market liberalization, Bahrain is one of the most advanced in the region, ranking 13th globally on the Index of Economic Freedom (O’Driscoll, Holmes, & Kirkpatrick, 2009). Bahrain has invested heavily to develop its ICT infrastructure and capabilities. In 2004, the country devoted a remarkable 6% of its GDP to ICT spending (ESCWA, 2005). Similar investments over time are one reason that Bahrain ranks 42nd on the United Nations E-government Readiness Index. Bahrain has a score of 0.341 on the e-Participation Index, which is higher than both Egypt and Finland. The government in Bahrain is a constitutional monarchy, which explains its low score on the Polity 2 index (CSP, 2009). The government, however, is reasonably effective according to Kaufmann et al. (2009). Leveraging its investments in ICT development to provide higher quality of life to its citizens, Bahrain embarked on a comprehensive e-government program, with a mission to utilize “information technologies and new business processes to transform how government delivers services to its citizens & businesses” (Al-Amer, 2003). As part of this program, 30 ministries and government departments have been interconnected to streamline operations and facilitate service delivery processes (Charif & Ramadan, 2003). A pilot project for e-voting was also introduced in 2001 (Motorola, 2001). The system was used by more than 200,000 Bahraini citizens to cast their votes on a referendum about a variety of national issues (Kostopoulos, 2004). The pilot subsequently was expanded by issuing citizens smart identity cards to facilitate their interaction with the government and support the provision of government services (Al-Alawi & Al-Amer, 2007). ICT activities in the Bahraini government are coordinated by a central entity called the Central Informatics Organization (CIO), which was established in 1979 (Al-Amer, 2003). The CIO assumes a leadership role in planning and implementing e-government programs in the kingdom, with a vision to be a pioneer in e-government development in the region. Bahrain’s primary e-government portal (www.bahrain.gov.bh) is hosted by the CIO. This portal has been recently supplemented by a mobile version to allow anyone with a mobile phone to access available government services (FutureGov, 2009). The careful management of this centralized entity has been credited with the success of e-government and e-participation in Bahrain compared to other countries in the region (Sahraoui, 2005). Bahrain’s efforts to build a leading e-government implementation have been criticized, not on technical grounds, but rather on their lack of “an overarching social vision of citizen inclusion and participation” (Sahraoui, 2005). This limits the impact of e-government in delivering government services electronically, since opportunities to stimulate greater citizen involvement and participation are limited.

4


81

Creating the appropriate prerequisites for such participation requires political will and change, which is outside the control of the CIO. While adoption of services offered by Bahrain’s e-government presence is still modest, it has achieved significant growth over the past few years. In 2008, the e-government portal handled 12,550 electronic payment transactions, worth around US $2.5 million. This represents an increase of 250% from the previous year (ITP, 2008). According to the Bahraini e-government authority, awareness levels of e-government services increased from 26% in 2008 to 74% in 2009, and the use of e-government services increased from 7% in 2008 to 40% in 2009. The primary reason cited by survey respondents for not using e-government services was the lack of Internet access or skills, an issue the government is planning to tackle by implementing a low-cost, subsidized PC program (Al-Alawi & Al-Amer, 2007). Bahrain’s achievements in its e-government initiatives can be attributed to a strong commitment by the country’s leadership, which facilitates the mobilization of resources and establishment of entities dedicated to tackling specific challenges. Greater e-participation in Bahrain depends on increased citizen participation in the overall political sphere beginning in the offline world, and then moving online. Our model suggests that the Bahraini government can make progress in this direction by incrementally adopting democratic reforms as well as positively influencing voice and accountability.

5 E-participation in Estonia Of the countries we consider in this chapter, Estonia has made the greatest advances in implementing national e-government. Estonia scores highly on the United Nations’ most recent indices of e-government readiness (0.760) and e-participation (0.727). These scores place Estonia 13th on the E-government Readiness Index and 8th on the e-Participation Index. Estonia also ranks highly on the ICT Development Index and has a high level of Internet penetration. These impressive rankings and commitment to democratic freedoms come despite an annual gross national income per capita of under $16,000. The groundwork for Estonia’s e-government structure stems from the “Today I Decide” (TID) project, also known by its Estonian abbreviation, TOM. Launched in 2001, TID and its successor, “Today I Decide plus” (TID+), are a series of linked initiatives which are designed to promote greater awareness and involvement by citizens in the legislative process from the initial drafting through to its implementation. Over several years, the Estonian government has been successful in building a critical mass of citizens that are engaged in the policymaking process and participate in developing legislation (Ernsdorff & Berbec, 2007). The TID+ tools have given Estonians an opportunity to propose, discuss, and vote on new legislation, after which decision-makers are obliged to deliver a response to the initiatives. This effort has proven to be a success, with over 7,000 registered users proposing and discussing over 1,000 new initiatives. It also has enhanced participation by allowing

82


citizens to launch new ideas and to deliberate in an open forum, while guaranteeing a response from the decision-makers. One of the work-in-progress goals for the TID+ project is to increase civic engagement further, in part by making the legislative language and process more transparent, understandable, and accessible to citizens. TID+ is just one of the more than 20 projects that are being supported by the European Union (EU). One of the EU’s larger goals for these various e-participation projects is to enable transparent decision-making and policymaking processes by supporting the drafting of legislative texts for politicians and decision-makers. The resulting solutions should help improve the clarity and understanding of legislative text and content for non-specialists (and in a multilingual environment) thus facilitating citizens’ participation in the process. In addition, the EU is committed to enhancing the direct participation of citizens and civil society in the decisionmaking process itself by improving the access to relevant content and available options and, thus, enabling them to interact with decision-makers in real time. Many of these projects also are being designed with the larger goal of involving citizens in policy-making by enhancing social networking capacities, using new intermediation models, and creating collaborative input to policy-making (e.g., by using automated data gathering, online knowledge management, as well as Web 2.0 technologies). The funding of the TID+ project by the European Union is tied to having Estonia help develop strategies for expanding and scaling the lessons learned in Estonia so that they might be applied by national governments in other EU countries (ePractice, 2010). The EU funding is also tied to technology transfer of TID+. One of the specific goals for the TID+ project is to reevaluate and improve the present situation by making a software solution available free of charge for non-commercial use as an open source toolkit for increasing citizen participation. Another goal is to support citizens in initiating and discussing regulation. To achieve these goals, the online interface should be easy to use and should be easily adaptable by other governments and organizations. A third specific goal is to develop and disseminate the necessary documentation and guidelines that allow a productive and effective use of the toolkit in proposing and discussing government initiatives. This documentation should include past experiences and pointers on how best to take advantage of citizen input and feedback. Much of Estonia’s success in developing and implementing participatory e-government is attributed to decisions made by policymakers and citizens long before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Beginning in the 1960s, Estonia’s Institute of Cybernetics focused its resources on computer programming, spawning a vibrant and technically adept information technology (IT) community that would become crucial in setting government priorities on resource allocation and directing those resources to spending on ICTs in the early 1990s. A special administrative agency within the central government was formed that was responsible for all government ICT expenditures and IT procurement for government agencies (Kitsing, 2004). Also important for developing the ICT infrastructure was the establishment of a unilateral free trade regime in 1995, coupled with fully open telecommunication services in 2001. Trade liberalization enabled the transfer of technology into Estonia and large sums of foreign direct investment into ICTs, specifically from

4


83

neighboring Northern European states, who soon would be e-government pioneers. Furthermore, the Estonian government partially privatized telephone service, beginning with the sale of half of Estonian Telecom to Finish and Swedish telephone companies and then ending the incumbent monopoly in 2000. Privatization and direct foreign investment resulted in additional transfer of skills and technology needed to develop the telecommunications infrastructure. In 1998, an independent regulatory authority—The Estonian National Communications Board—was created (and then restructured in 2000) with authority for regulating all services within the telecommunications sector (Kitsing, 2004). Estonia’s commitment to the development of ICTs seems to have fostered a culture of technology among its citizens. The public’s confidence in the quality of policy formulation and implementation as well as administrative agencies’ independence from political pressures (i.e., government effectiveness), and in the ability of the government to implement sound regulations that promote the ICT sector (i.e., regulatory quality) all seem to have reinforced that culture. But sound public policy decisions and effective oversight cannot explain fully the Estonian people’s embrace of e-government and e-participation. Estonia has demonstrated a clear commitment to democracy and personal freedoms after the exit of the Soviet Union. Independent of the technology culture, there is a participatory culture among the Estonian people that pre-dates the development of the World Wide Web (Lane, Pabriks, Purs, & Smith, 2002; Raun, 2001; Smith, 1996). As can be seen in Table 4.1, Estonia scores very favorably on the two measures of democracy and personal freedom (i.e., Polity 2 and voice and accountability). While the Estonia experience can be seen as a model for achieving success in implementing e-participation, there are clear areas for improvement. Critics of the TID initiatives have suggested that they have been vulnerable to having a vocal minority with its own agenda gain disproportionate influence within the legislative process (Chadwick & Howard, 2008; Ernsdorff & Berbec, 2007). Legislative e-participation seems to be mirroring the lobbying that can influence the legislative process in favor of a particular stakeholder over other stakeholders or even exhibiting some of the same challenges and disappointments experienced by proponents of participatory democracy, where elites emerge and dominate the process and decision-making (Mansbridge, 1983; Pateman, 1976). Still, these disappointments withstanding, the Estonian public seems to have embraced e-governance with vigor in recent years and shows little sign of turning back.

6 E-participation in Finland Of the four countries in this study, Finland has the best scores on the World Governance Indicators (Kaufmann et al., 2009) and has the highest level of democracy (CSP, 2009). Finland’s national strengths, however, go beyond the context presented in Section 2. Finland has an advanced information society and is an ICT development pioneer in many fields (ITU, 2009; World Bank, 2006). Finland’s

84


strengths also include a high level of education, regional, and social equality, an excellent administration culture, open access to public information, modern national databases and registers, as well as citizen trust in both offline and online government services. Based on a national survey, Accenture (2006) reported that Finland is a country where citizens are likely to have tried e-government (73%) and has a high percentage of citizens who prefer an electronic government channel over alternative channels (43%). Although Table 4.1 suggests that e-participation is a work-in-progress area in Finnish public administration, past successes suggest there is reason to believe that Finland will succeed in this endeavor. For example, Pollitt and Bouckaert (2004) remind us that reforms of public administration have been featured on the political agenda in Finland since 1987. Furthermore, Finnish reform is not generally led by the civil servants, but by politicians, i.e., by the ministers. This has many implications. One of these is that the point of view of citizens is included in reforms. Another implication is that citizen-centric strategies have been put into practice in enacted legislation. It is therefore reasonable to expect that this inclusive philosophy of government will be reflected in future assessments of e-participation. Improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of government in Finland have alternately been focused at the local, regional, and national levels. One of the national strategies aims to mirror the high-quality of life in Finland’s offline society in their online society. The main goals of the National Knowledge Society Strategy promise additional government reform and citizen inclusion in the information society. Specifically, the strategy calls for the “reformation of Finland into an internationally attractive, human-centric and competitive knowledge and service society” by 2015 (Information Society Programme, 2006). A critical factor upon which this transformation into a knowledge-based society depends is that organizations and individuals extensively utilize advanced ICTs. We refer our readers to the EU e-practice factsheets for information about this and other important national initiatives in Finland (ePractice, 2010). Finland has made significant advances in regional and local e-government and e-participation. Since the mid-1990s, government administration has been decentralized and thus municipalities enjoy considerable independence. In terms of organization, Finland’s Regional Councils are joint municipal authorities responsible for regional development. There are 19 Regional Councils, which group together the country’s 446 municipalities. There is even a dedicated IT organization, KuntaIT, which is charged with rationalizing and ensuring the compatibility and interoperability of e-government services provided by municipal and regional authorities (Accenture, 2006). Finland’s growing emphasis on customer-focused, participatory, and local service delivery is evident in its use of its network of 200+ Citizen Centres to deliver an increasing number of government services (ePractice, 2010). Delivering such services at scale is embodied in Helsinki’s initiatives over the next few years, which include having it be one of the most connected cities in the world (Holzer & Kim, 2008), with online, anywhere, anytime government being a significant part of these plans. The 2009–2012 plans for Helsinki build on the lessons learned from earlier

4


85

projects in Finland, e.g., the eTampere project (Heikkilä, 2006), including the technologies leveraged by or developed for these other projects (Zwahr, Rossel, & Finger, 2005). The main goal of the City of Helsinki project is to provide universal access to digital government within city limits. To encourage e-participation, this project includes an interactive Service Map of so-called service points, composable services, service chains, service support processes, and data distribution and exchange of public information (Helsinki, 2010). Even though the Helsinki Service Map is just over a year old it contains more than 6,000 registered services and is supporting 5,000 or more searches per day. Although the vast majority of the services are for citizens, some are reserved for use by city planners, operations specialists, and public safety officials. An important benefit of using a map to present government services is being able to provide location-aware services (Virrantaus et al., 2001). For example, along with the service point information, a user can easily request information about how to get to a specific location (including a service point) using public transportation. The notion of universal access to government services is also quite broad. Helsinki intends to provide services to citizens and business users with customized interfaces and personalized content and services that cater to residents, visitors, and tourists. Thus, the Service Map presents government services differently based on the user, their preferred language, their usage, and the type of service. The Helsinki Service Map also includes an open and public feedback system to promote citizen inclusion in improving their online relationship with their government. One benefit of this feedback system is that users sometimes find and point out problems with government services and errors in the information provided, which then can be corrected (Helsinki, 2010). Like the TID+ project in Estonia, the City of Helsinki hopes to establish common practices in public administration and harmonize information and data management for similar projects (ePractice, 2010). Specifically, the information and data models are offered to other stakeholders so that the Service Map concept can be replicated and exploited both regionally and nationally. Within the Helsinki Service Map, there are also service points of private and third-party actors (e.g., businesses and nonprofits), which provide public services for the citizens, thus promoting cross-sector cooperation using open standards for information exchange. Perhaps the most significant goal for e-government and e-participation projects like the ongoing efforts in Helsinki is to make the hierarchical and organizational boundaries of governance invisible to its citizens (Information Society Programme, 2006). The Helsinki planners believe that Service Map users should not need to know which office is responsible for the issue at hand, just that an online user can find and access the service that they need, when they need it. This belief resonates in the broader Helsinki at Your Service vision for 2015, which states that Helsinki intends to offer “extensive, customer-oriented services via information networks for the city’s inhabitants, companies, communities and visitors.” Reflecting national attitudes toward government in Finland, the same Helsinki vision also states that citizens will “trust the services and use them widely” (Helsinki, 2009).

86


7 Summary and Implications We have examined e-governance strategies and policies in four countries (Egypt, Bahrain, Estonia, and Finland) to understand what factors contribute to a country’s success in implementing e-participation initiatives and to identify obstacles preventing success. We developed a framework for our analysis based on King et al.’s model for the impact of government regulation and influence on IT innovations. Our framework identifies four factors that governments can regulate to improve their e-governance, namely, the level of democracy, control of corruption, regulatory quality, and government effectiveness. The framework also presents four factors that governments can influence in the same context. These factors are voice and accountability, ICT development, e-government readiness, and e-participation. Differences in the adoption and use of online participation within the four countries were presented in their respective contexts. In Egypt, for example, the skepticism surrounding electronic payment, access limitations imposed by insufficient ICT infrastructure, along with issues of illiteracy, poor governance, and lack of transparency have all seriously affected e-government initiatives and prevented them from achieving their full potential. Of course, expectations for e-governance in Egypt need to be tempered by the reality that any initiative is being undertaken in a country with a large population and relatively limited resources. The Bahraini, Estonian and Finnish experiences, on the other hand, were more promising. Successes in these countries have been built on the high penetration of ICTs as well as sound governance and carefully managed approaches that have been tailored to meet the needs and expectations of their citizens. Although beyond the scope of our research, we expect that one reason that Estonia has the highest e-Participation Index in comparison with the other three countries is that each national government perceives the benefits and value of e-governance differently. In Egypt, for example, the government stresses costcutting and also reducing bureaucracy and corruption. Estonia, while not blind to these issues, also emphasizes greater awareness and involvement by citizens in the political process. Although there are several ways to improve e-participation in the countries we examined, two are worth highlighting. First, in Bahrain, e-governance initiatives clearly need to be designed to stimulate higher levels of citizen involvement and participation. Second, in Finland, the central government’s online capabilities need to expand to include e-consultation and e-decision-making. Our research also validates the utility of a theoretical framework in assessing e-governance performance and understanding factors that contribute to the same. By demonstrating a structured and methodical approach to analyzing e-participation strategies and policies, practitioners and decision-makers can work to improve outcomes by managing the institutional factors that governments can regulate and influence. Finally, researchers can reuse, modify, or extend our proposed framework to evaluate the success of e-participation and e-government initiatives in different countries, and test their own hypotheses regarding the impact of both online and offline factors on such initiatives.

4


87

8 Conclusions and Future Directions Our exploration of e-participation in Egypt, Bahrain, Estonia, and Finland revealed that there is no single path for enhancing a government’s ability to request, receive, and incorporate feedback from citizens. In each country, different factors emerged as critical for developing substantive e-participation capabilities. In Egypt, one important factor in introducing e-participation tools was financial investment in the further development of its ICT infrastructure in order to build its e-government capacity and increase access to ICTs among the wider population. In Bahrain, which already was an e-government pioneer and had experienced wide diffusion of ICTs, the most important factor was a national commitment in terms of both strategic vision and a central entity authorized to implement ICT policy. This suggests that a smaller, more homogenous population and more authoritarian form of government can provide the context for strategic planning and implementation to succeed in developing e-participation capabilities. However, Estonia’s success with e-participation shows that implementing a national vision can also be possible in a democratic state, even one that is relatively young. Finland, which has the most mature democracy of the four cases we examined, found success by providing some broad guidelines and assistance to regional and local authorities but allowing these governments to develop and implement their own e-participation projects. A common theme that emerges from our examination of these four cases is that successful implementation of e-participation requires a citizenry that has a general trust in government and a belief that government can be effective. It is not necessary that the government be democratically elected or closer to the people. What matters is that some form of government-to-citizen communication already has been institutionalized offline. Regardless of how many resources the Egyptian government directs toward ICT development, it is unlikely that effective e-participation tools will be established and utilized until the regime undertakes major political reforms that revitalize the relationship between citizens and their government. Finally, our work suggests that future studies should account for government efficacy and citizen trust in their models of e-government and e-participation. Even with significant e-government capacity, the public’s willingness to use online tools may depend on their confidence in the overall political system. Further research might also focus on studying the level of government at which e-governance initiatives are targeted, and what are the real short- and long-term impacts of each initiative in promoting e-participation and civic engagement.

References Abdoun, S. (2009, August 11). E-government services usage relatively low, says government poll. Daily News Egypt. Retrieved from http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/ article.aspx?ArticleID=23725 Accenture. (2006). Leadership in customer service: Building the trust. Chicago, IL: Accenture. Al-Alawi, A. I., & Al-Amer, M. A. (2007). Smartcard implementation in Bahrain: Public acceptance and readiness. Electronic Government: An International Journal, 4(2), 227–246.

88


Al-Amer, M. A. (2003). Bahrain and the information society. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. Baum, M. A., & Lake, D. A. (2003). The political economy of growth: Democracy and human capital. American Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 333–347. Best, S. J., & Krueger, B. S. (2005). Analyzing the representativeness of internet political participation. Political Behavior, 27(2), 183–216. Chadwick, A. & Howard, P. (Eds.). (2008). Routledge handbook of internet politics. New York: Routledge. Charif, H., & Ramadan, M. (2003). E-government attempts in ESCWA member countries. Berlin, Germany: Springer. CIA. (2009). The CIA world factbook. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from https://www.cia.gov/ library/publications/the-world-factbook/ CSP. (2009). Center for systemic peace polity IV project: Dataset users’ manual. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University. Curtin, G. G. (2006). Issues and challenges: Global e-government/e-participation models, measurement and methodology – A framework for moving forward. In Proceedings of the workshop on e-participation and e-government: Understanding the present and creating the future. New York, NY: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Dutta, S., Shalhoub, Z. K., & Samuels, G. (2007). Promoting technology and innovation: Recommendations to improve Arab ICT competitiveness. In Arab World Competitiveness Report. Dutton, W. H., & Peltu, M. (1996). Information and communication technologies: Visions and realities. New York: Oxford University Press. Egypt E-Government Portal. (2009). Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.alhokoma.gov.eg/ El-Askalany, H., Rashad, M., & Darwish, A. M. (2003). EISI-Government: The Egyptian information society initiative for government services delivery. Proceedings of the Kuwait Conference on e-Government. El-Saharty, S., Richardson, G., & Chase, S. (2005). Egypt and the millennium development goals: Challenges and opportunities. Washington, DC: The World Bank. ePractice (2010). ePractice.eu factsheets. Web site for eGovernment and eInclusion in Europe, http://www.epractice.eu/en/factsheets, accessed January 31, 2010. Ernsdorff, M., & Berbec, A. (2007). Estonia: The short road to e-government and e-democracy. In P. G. Nixon & V. N. Koutrakou (Eds.), E-government in Europe: Re-booting the state (pp. 171–183). New York: Routledge. ESCWA. (2005). Regional profile of the information society in Western Asia. New York: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. FutureGov. (2009). Bahrain e-government services now on mobiles. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.futuregov.net/articles/2009/may/26/bahrain-e-government-servicesnow-mobiles/ Garson, G. D. (2006). Public information technology and e-governance: Managing the virtual state. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Glück, M., Mitwalli, A., & Stemmler, R. (2008). IT for emerging markets—commentary. New York: McKinsey & Company. Hachigian, N., & Kaplan, J. A. (2002). Roadmap for e-government in the developing world: 10 questions e-government leaders should ask themselves. Los Angeles, CA: Pacific Council on International Policy, USC. Hargittai, E. (1999). Weaving the western web: Explaining differences in internet connectivity among OECD countries. Telecommunications Policy, 23(10/11), 701–718. Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 243–265. Heikkilä, J. (2006). eTampere programme 2001–2005 summary. Tampere, Finland: City of Tampere Information Office.

4


89

Helbig, N., Gil-García, J. R., & Ferro, E. (2009). Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 89–97. Helsinki. (2009). “Helsinki at your service” vision 2015. Helsinki, Finland: Economic and Planning Centre, February 20. Helsinki. (2010). City of Helsinki Service Map. Web site for government service map, http://www.hel.fi/servicemap, accessed January 31, 2010. Holzer, M., & Kim, S. -T. (2008). Digital governance in municipalities worldwide (2007) – A longitudinal assessment of municipal Websites throughout the world. Newark, NJ: National Center for Public Performance, Rutgers University. Information Society Programme. (2006). A renewing, human-centric and competitive Finland: The National Knowledge Society Strategy 2007–2015. Helsinki, Finland: Prime Minister’s Office. IRCT. (2006). Country assessment report: The Arab Republic of Egypt. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.irct.org/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2FFiles%2FFiler %2FIPIP%2Freports+documents%2FEgypt_Country_Report.pdf ITP. (2008). Bahrain e-government portal handles $2.5m in 2008. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.itp.net/542361-bahrain-e-government-portal-handles-25m-in-2008 ITU. (2007). ICT indicators for Africa. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/af_ictindicators_2007.html ITU. (2008). ICT Eye database. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.itu.int/ITUD/icteye/DisplayCountry.aspx?countryId=35 ITU. (2009). Measuring the information society: The ICT development index. International Telecommunication Union Report. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations. Jaeger, P. T. (2003). The endless wire: E-government as global phenomenon. Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 323–331. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2009). Governance matters VIII: Aggregate and individual governance indicators, 1996–2008, Policy research working paper 4978. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Keefer, P. (2007). Clientelism, credibility, and the policy choices of young democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 804–821. King, J. L., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, K. L., McFarlan, F. W., Raman, K. S., & Yap, C. S. (1994). Institutional factors in information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 5(2), 139–169. Kitsing, M. (2004). The impact of economic openness on Internet diffusion in Estonia and Slovenia. Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy Thesis. Medford, MA: Tufts University. Kohli, A. (2004). State-directed development: Political power and industrialization in the global periphery. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kostopoulos, G. K. (2004). E-government in the Arabian Gulf: A vision toward reality. Electronic Government: An International Journal, 1(3), 293–299. Lane, T., Pabriks, A., Purs, A., & Smith, D. J. (2002). The Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. New York: Routledge. Macintosh, A. (2006). eParticipation in policy-making: The research and the challenges. In Exploiting the knowledge economy: Issues, applications, case studies. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press. Macintosh, A. (2008). E-democracy and e-participation research in Europe. In Digital government: e-government research, case studies, and implementation. New York: Springer. Mansbridge, J. J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Motorola. (2001). Bahrainis become Middle East’s first E-voters. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.symbol.com/news/pressreleases/pr_releases_inter_bahrain.html Nixon, P. G. & Koutrakou, V. N. (Eds.). (2007). E-government in Europe: Re-booting the state. New York, NY: Routledge. O’Driscoll, G. P., Holmes, K. R., & Kirkpatrick, M. (2009). Index of economic freedom. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.

90


Pateman, C. (1976). Participation and democratic theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Raun, T. U. (2001). Estonia and the Estonians. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. Sahraoui, S. (2005). e-Government in the Arabian Gulf: Government transformation vs government automation. In Proceedings of the e-Government Workshop. Schech, S. (2002). Wired for change: The links between ICTs and development discourses. Journal of International Development, 14(1), 13–23. Servon, L. J. (2002). Bridging the digital divide: Technology, community, and public policy. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Smith, G. (1996). The Baltic states: The national self-determination of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. Virrantaus, K., Markkula, J., Garmash, A., Terziyan, V., Veijalainen, J., Katanosov, A., & Tirri, H. (2001). Developing GIS-supported location-based services. In Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering (Vol. 2). United Nations. (2008). UN e-government survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance. UN Publication ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/112. New York, NY: United Nations. Warkentin, M., Gefen, D., Pavlou, P. A., & Rose, G. M. (2002). Encouraging citizen adoption of e-government by building trust. Electronic Markets, 12(3), 157–162. West, D. M. (2005). Digital government: Technology and public sector performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. World Bank. (2006). Information and communications for development 2006: Global trends and policies. Washington, DC: The World Bank. World Bank. (2009). GNI per capita, PPP (current international $). Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD Zwahr, T., Rossel, P., & Finger, M. (2005). Towards electronic governance – A case study of ICT in local government governance. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Digital Government Research.

Chapter 5

Evaluation of the Impact and Adoption of E-government Services in the Balkans Ourania I. Markaki, Dimitris E. Charilas, and Dimitrios Askounis

Governments around the world are embracing the digital revolution to enhance services for their citizens. However, the development of quality e-services and delivery systems that are efficient and effective is only one aspect of e-government. The essence of the latter lies as well in engaging citizenry into the use of e-government services. This chapter studies the impact and actual utilization of e-government services in certain countries of the Balkans (Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Romania, and Slovenia) using fuzzy numbers and statistics. Building on the elementary concept of the time that citizens/businesses spend on their transactions with public administration and taking into account the current sophistication stage of online public services, the chapter provides a framework for evaluating (a) e-government services in terms of the benefits that their use involves for citizens/businesses compared to the use of conventional ones and (b) the actual adoption (take-up) of e-government services by the aforementioned stakeholders. In this context, the scheme proposes the use of data expressed in linguistic terms with regard to the time citizens/businesses spend on transactions with public administration using either conventional or e-services, which are then converted to fuzzy numbers to be further processed so as to incorporate the uncertainty factor which is innate in the relevant estimations. The proposed framework is then applied for each one of the aforementioned countries for a basket of 20 basic public services (12 for citizens and 8 for businesses), exploiting the current sophistication stage and the actual utilization of e-government services per sophistication stage, provided

O.I. Markaki (B) National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, 15780 Athens, Greece e-mail: [email protected] D.E. Charilas National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, 15780 Athens, Greece e-mail: [email protected] D. Askounis National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, 15780 Athens, Greece e-mail: [email protected]


91

92

O.I. Markaki et al.

by the corresponding e-government factsheets and Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities, respectively, and allowing for useful conclusions to be reached.

1 Introduction In Europe, e-government is considered to be one of the main goals for the future. Hence, a project was launched in 2002 under the title “e-Europe 2005 action plan: An information society for all” (Commission of the European Communities, 2002). Likewise, in June 2005 the “i2010—A European Information Society for growth and employment” initiative was launched by the Commission as a policy framework for promoting the positive contribution that information and communication technologies (ICT) can make to the economy, society, and personal quality of life (Commission of the European Communities, 2005), to be followed by the announcement, in early September 2005, of a Communication call for synchronized actions that can provide broader accessibility to ICT. Main issues in the EU agenda on ICT strongly relate to three contact elements in between government and citizen/business relations, which are attaining information, downloading forms, and returning filledin forms. According to the statistical information provided by Eurostat (2008), the Statistical Office of the European Communities, nevertheless, only 25.5% of individuals are frequently accessing information via e-government’s establishments in the European Union (EU27), while 15.9% are downloading official forms, and even less (11.7%) are returning filled-in forms. The numbers of e-government users in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden as well as the United Kingdom are higher than those in the remainder of the EU member states. The situation is even worse in the Balkans, where administrations have failed so far to provide a variety of fully transactional services to their citizens and businesses. Due to the political and economical status in these countries, until recently there were no infrastructures for e-government transformation. During the last years, however, each country has taken significant steps toward the directions posed by the European Union. The next paragraphs describe briefly the most important achievements and current status of e-government in five countries of the Balkans: Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Romania, and Slovenia. Bulgaria’s E-government Web site (www.egov.bg) was launched in 2007. The Web site in question was the outcome of the Inter-regional System for Electronic Government and the Pilot Integration System for Electronic Regional Administration, two projects run by the State Administration Ministry. According to the e-government strategy of Bulgaria, a number of strategic documents have been developed and adopted to guide the public administration’s activities with regard to e-government transformation. The legal framework in Bulgaria has been largely harmonized with that of the European Union and can rather quickly be developed further to serve the requirements and purposes of e-government transformation. A national asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) network is also in the process of

5

Impact and Adoption of E-government Services in the Balkans

93

development. An integrated optical communication network linking ministries and other state agencies in Sofia is already in operation, while its extension to the regional centers of Bulgaria is currently underway. The Romanian government has been making significant attempts to set up a proper framework for the development of e-government. An e-government portal (www.e-guvernare.ro) was launched in September 2003, providing a one-stop shop to online public services and incorporating a transactional platform that enables users to register for interactive and transactional services. In 2003, Romania’s national portal received an achievement award from the World Summit of the Information Society for its comprehensiveness and innovation and the authorities responsible aim at progressively making all services and information accessible through it (Colesca & Liliana, 2007). Still, with a percentage of e-government utilization at about 9% (Eurostat, 2008), Romania needs to increase its efforts to encourage potential users to use the available online public services. In Slovenia the Ministry of Public Administration is responsible for e-government as well. The ministry was set up in 2004, incorporating all offices whose common goal is to improve public administration. This step indicates an effort to improve and simplify public administration procedures and to develop e-government under one roof and one leadership. In the past years, several e-government applications have been developed; nevertheless, measures are still being taken toward the horizontal integration of several departments and institutions (Dobnikar & Nemec, 2007). In April 2006 the Slovenian government adopted an egovernment strategy covering the period from 2006 to 2010. The purpose of this new strategy has been to lay down the general framework as well as the individual goals for further undertaking new and unfolding existing e-government projects, especially with regard to user satisfaction, rationalization of administration, and development of modern e-services that will raise the quality of everyday life and make the contact with public administration more convenient and citizen-friendly. The strategy in question takes into account modern guidelines and initiatives which have been adopted at EU level. In July 2001, Hungary introduced an e-government program. The program was designed by the Office of the Government Commissioner in charge of information technology, a department of the Prime Minister’s Office, and aimed at integrating the strategies and IT development projects of various sectors and institutions in order to offer better services to citizens. More specifically, the two main objectives of the e-government program were to provide citizen-friendly services and to improve the efficiency of internal administrative procedures. The envisaged services would assist significantly in the resolution of administrative issues, since Hungarian citizens spend around 18 million hours every year on administrative tasks. Although there are recent improvements in certain fields (e.g., the issuing of passports), there still remain plenty of time-consuming, complicated, and complex tasks, such as registering vehicles, issuing birth and marriage certificates, and determining maternity allowances (Erzsébet, 2002). The Hungarian Information Society Strategy is in fact the adaptation of e-Europe Program for Hungary. This Strategy was adopted in 2003 and the basic method for its realization is the so-called moving planning.

94

O.I. Markaki et al.

Currently in Greece, the Operational Program for the Information Society (OPIS) is promoting ICT in the public sector. In Greece, e-government is at an early stage of establishment (Hahamis, Iles, & Healy, 2005). If we consider that e-government has five basic infrastructure elements, in Greece only two are actually functional. It can be argued that Greece had a minor success in getting a functional portal, known as Citizen Service Center (KEP) (www.kep.gov.gr), which provides access to public service information and to a number of standard administrative procedures (Markoulakis, 2005). Beside the e-government strategies and initiatives that have been adopted across the countries around the world, what is really needed is an efficient way to evaluate the impact of e-government transformation so that the achievements of each country in the field can be quantified and thus compared; e-government performance evaluation has become extremely important in guiding and inspecting e-government’s development. A variety of models have been proposed in the literature to assess e-government performance (Panopoulou, Tambouris, & Tarabanis, 2008; Wang, Bretschneider, & Gant, 2005; Wauters, 2006). Such models have an unquestionable usability; nevertheless their use in isolation leaves the impression that e-government is solely about delivering government services over the Internet and that a nicely designed, user-oriented Web site is all that matters. Such an assumption however ignores the substantial investments that are needed in people, tools, and policies. An innovative indicators’ system is proposed by the Greek Observatory (2008) as a measurement and evaluation tool of the national strategic objectives regarding the improvement of the administrative capacity of the Greek Public Administration; the proposed system includes mainly indicators of impacts, rather than indicators of flows, meaning that the actual focus is on the final recipients of the actions undertaken to support these strategic objectives, i.e., the citizens, the enterprises, and the state itself; however a complete framework in terms of measurement methodology and base values to be used is not suggested. Still, the potential impact of e-government transformation on the improvement of the citizens’ quality of life or in the businesses’ productivity and competitiveness is only one side of the problem. The statistical information provided by Eurostat (2008) is rather disappointing, since only a small percent of the population exploit currently the e-government services. At the normative level, concerns have already been expressed about the “digital divide” and whether e-government will exacerbate inequities among citizens (Hubregtse, 2005). Addressing this concern and finding an amicable way out should also constitute a part of the effectiveness of governments. Bringing public services online is thus only one way to enhance the quality of public service delivery. The next challenge that e-government has to tackle is, as implied by Wauters (2006), to shift the focus from “availability” and “quality” of e-government services, through a transition stage of “use,” which refers to e-government services’ take-up and user satisfaction, to a desired end-state of “impact,” which concerns long-term results of e-government initiatives on society. As a consequence and with a scope of application that covers the Balkan countries of Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Romania, and Slovenia, the evaluation analysis presented in this chapter is oriented toward two main axes: (a) the evaluation of

5


95

e-government services in terms of the benefits that their use involves for citizens/businesses compared to the use of conventional ones and (b) the evaluation of the actual utilization of e-government services by the aforementioned stakeholders. More specifically, the chapter builds on the elementary concept of the time that citizens/businesses spend on transactions with the public authorities to provide a quantitative indication of the impact of the modernization of public administration on the improvement of the citizens’ quality of life or the businesses’ efficiency, respectively, taking as well into account the current sophistication stage of online public services. The impact is in fact expressed in terms of the time gained through the use of e-services within the frame of transactions with the public authorities, and time is chosen as the measurement unit to be used, since the resulting time savings constitute a quite comprehensible and tangible benefit for the aforementioned stakeholders. The scheme adopts the collection of information expressed in linguistic terms with regard to the time citizens/businesses spend on transactions with public administration (using either conventional or e-services), which is then converted to fuzzy numbers to be further processed, so as to incorporate the uncertainty factor that is innate in the relevant estimations. On an upper level, statistical information is exploited in order to perform e-government evaluation in the selected countries in terms of e-government services take-up. The discussion in this chapter proceeds as follows: Section 1 is an introduction to the issue of e-government transformation in the selected Balkan countries and to the problem of e-government evaluation. Section 2 presents the e-service sophistication model used to benchmark the sophistication of online public services, as well as the basket of services for citizens and businesses that has been selected for the evaluation analysis. Section 3 provides an insight into fuzzy set theory and linguistics, which constitute important tools in the evaluation attempted, while Section 4 clarifies how information with regard to transaction time, expressed in linguistic terms, can be converted to fuzzy numbers and be exploited by the proposed framework. Section 5 introduces the evaluation framework through the definition of three evaluation metrics. In Section 6 the framework is applied to Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Romania, and Slovenia (for all selected services) and a discussion over the results is made. Finally, Section 7 defines the basic directions for future research and Section 8 summarizes conclusions.

2 E-government Services 2.1 Sophistication of E-government Services In order to measure the sophistication of online public services, an e-service sophistication model is used by Capgemini (2007). This model illustrates the different degrees of sophistication of online public services going from “basic” information provision over one- and two-way interactions to “full” e-case handling, as seen in Table 5.1. More specifically:

96

O.I. Markaki et al.

• Stage 1 corresponds solely to the online availability of the information required to start the procedure to obtain a specific public service. • Stage 2 indicates that the publicly available Web site offers the possibility to obtain in a non-electronic way, thus by downloading forms, the paper form necessary to commence the procedures related to the specific public service. • Stage 3 represents as well the possibility of an e-intake of an official e-form in order to obtain the service, implying the existence of an authentication mechanism for verifying the identity of the person requesting the service. • Stage 4 is indicative of full e-delivery of services, where no other formal procedure is necessary for the applicant via “paperwork.” • Stage 5, built around the concepts of pro-activity and personalization, gives an indication of fully integrated e-procedures that help reduce “red tape” and improve data consistency. Both Stages 4 and 5 represent full e-case handling. • Besides these five stages, a zero stage (Stage 0) may also be introduced to capture two possible research outcomes: (a) total absence of any publicly accessible Web site managed by the service provider and (b) the public service provider has a publicly accessible Web site, but the latter does not offer any relevant information concerning the public service. Stage 0 corresponds in fact to conventional public services.

Table 5.1 The five levels of sophistication in e-government Stage

Degree of sophistication

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Information One-way interaction (downloadable forms) Two-way interaction (e-forms) Transaction (full e-case handling) Personalization (pro-active, automated service delivery)

At this point, attention must be drawn to the fact that the existence of an e-public service with a sophistication stage lower than 4 or 5 does not mean that the citizen is not able to complete a transaction, e.g., a third-stage service, implies that the citizen may obtain information on the service, download the paper form necessary to commence the relevant procedures or even fill in and submit this paper form electronically, but also that he afterward has to reach the premises of the responsible public agency to arrange perhaps some economic debt as well. The absence of fully transactional services corresponds obligatorily to the use of both lower level e-services (ideally the highest level e-service available) and conventional methods or mere conventional services. The point in this chapter is to show that the use of e-services offers citizens/businesses the advantage of saving time and that this advantage is more perceptible in case of fully transactional services.

5


97

2.2 Basket of E-services A representative list of public services, suitable for measuring the online sophistication of the latter, should include services in the areas of e-government, e-learning, and e-health. In this frame, the European Commission and the EU Member States developed and published a list of 20 basic public services that covers reasonably well the different tasks and interactions of the public sector with citizens and businesses (Capgemini, 2007). In fact, for 12 of these services, the final recipients are the citizens, while for 8 of them, the target group are businesses. Tables 5.2 and 5.3 provide an overview of the aforementioned 20 basic public services along with an indication of the maximum sophistication stage possible for each service. Table 5.2 Basket of services for citizens Citizen services CS1 CS2 CS3

Max. stage Income taxes: declaration, notification of assessment Job search services by labor offices Social security benefits (unemployment benefits, child allowances, medical costs, student grants) Personal documents (passport and driver’s license) Car registration (new, used, imported cars) Application for building permission Declaration to the police (e.g., in case of theft) Public libraries (availability of catalogues, search tools) Certificates (birth, marriage): request and delivery Enrolment in higher education/university Announcement of moving (change of address) Health-related services (availability of services in different hospitals, appointments for hospitals)

CS4 CS5 CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 CS11 CS12

5 4 5 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 4

Table 5.3 Basket of services for businesses Business services

Max. stage

BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BS5 BS6 BS7 BS8

4 4 4 4 5 4 5 4

Social contributions to employees Corporate tax: declaration, notification VAT: declaration, notification Registration of a new company Submission of data to statistical offices Customs declaration Environment-related permits (incl. reporting) Public procurement

98

O.I. Markaki et al.

3 Fuzzy Numbers In this section the authors set the background for the evaluation framework by presenting basic information on linguistics and fuzzy set theory, which constitute the main tools in the evaluation attempted.

3.1 Linguistics and Fuzzy Set Theory There are some situations in which information may be hard or even impossible to quantify due to its nature, and thus it can only be expressed in linguistic terms (e.g., when evaluating the comfort or design of a car, terms like “good,” “fair,” “poor” can be used). In other cases, precise quantitative information cannot be provided because either it is unavailable or the cost for its computation is too high and an approximate value can be tolerated (e.g., when evaluating the speed of a car, linguistic terms like “fast,” “very fast,” “slow” can be used instead of numeric values). Such qualitative information can be mathematically modeled through the use of fuzzy set theory. The latter handles fuzziness and represents qualitative aspects as linguistic variables, i.e., variables whose values are not numbers but words or sentences according to a natural or an artificial language. More specifically, qualitative information expressed through linguistic terms (e.g., “low,” “medium,” “high”) can be converted to fuzzy numbers using a suitable conversion scale. Processing of the relevant information takes place using these fuzzy numbers, which are finally converted to crisp numbers through the process of defuzzification. Obviously, the same linguistic terms in different conversion scales can have different crisp values.

3.2 Fuzzy Numbers The fuzzy set theory, introduced by Zadeh (1965) as a means of dealing with vagueness, imprecision, and uncertainty in problems, has been used as a modeling tool for complex systems that can be controlled by humans but are hard to define precisely. The main characteristic of fuzziness is the grouping of the individuals’ judgments into classes that do not have sharply defined boundaries. An uncertain comparison can be represented by a fuzzy number. A fuzzy set is one that assigns grades of membership between 0 and 1 to objects using a particular membership function μA (x). The membership function of a triangular fuzzy number is defined by three real numbers as ⎧ x−l ⎫ ⎪ ⎨ m−l , l ≤ x ≤ m ⎪ ⎬ μA (x) = u−x , m ≤ x ≤ u , ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ u−m ⎭ 0, otherwise where l is the lower limit value, m is the most promising value, and u is the upper limit value. Figure 5.1 shows the typical form of a fuzzy triangular number.

5


99

Fig. 5.1 Fuzzy triangular number

˜ (b1 , b2 , b3 ), and Given any two triangular fuzzy numbers Ã = (a1 , a2 , a3 ), B= a real number k > 0, the basic mathematical operations of fuzzy numbers can be expressed as follows: A˜ ⊕ B˜ = (a1 , a2 , a3 ) ⊕ (b1 , b2 , b3 ) = (a1 + b1 , a2 + b2 , a3 + b3 ) A˜ B˜ = (a1 , a2 , a3 ) (b1 , b2 , b3 ) = (a1 − b3 , a2 − b2 , a3 − b1 ) A˜ B˜ = (a1 , a2 , a3 ) (b1 , b2 , b3 ) = (a1 b1 , a2 b2 , a3 b3 ) A˜ B˜ = (a1 , a2 , a3 ) (b1 , b2 , b3 ) = (a1 /b3 , a2 /b2 , a3 /b1 ), a1 ≥ 0, b1 > 0 ∀ k > 0, k ∈ R : k (a1 , a2 , a3 ) = (ka1 , ka2 , ka3 )

3.3 Defuzzification Methods Defuzzification is the process of producing a quantifiable result in fuzzy logic; in other words, the extraction of a crisp value that represents effectively a given fuzzy number. The simplest but also the least usefuldue to important information loss—defuzzification method is to choose the set with the highest membership. Alternatively, the following common methods of defuzzification may be used.

3.3.1 Center of Gravity (COG) It is one of the most commonly used defuzzification techniques and is based on the determination of the center of the area under the combined membership functions, i.e., the area under the curve. The centroid or the center of gravity of the area is calculated as : −1 FCOG

μA (x) · xdx = x x μA (x) · dx

100

O.I. Markaki et al.

3.3.2 Bisector of Area (BOA) The bisector is the vertical line that divides a region into two sub-regions of equal area. It sometimes coincides with the centroid line. xBOA

β

μA (x)dx = a

μA (x)dx xBOA

4 Expressing Time with Fuzzy Numbers Common approaches for e-government service evaluation rely on questionnaires, in which the citizens are requested to express their overall experience of a service or their opinion on a specific feature on a predefined satisfaction scale (Abhichandani & Horan, 2006) that in several cases consists of a series of linguistic values, similar to those described in the previous section. Final conclusions are then usually reached through statistic processing of these values. Such an approach may be adopted in the framework of this study as well in order to obtain information on the time allocated by the citizens/businesses across the countries under examination on interactions with public administration; however in this case it is suggested that the relevant information, expressed in linguistic terms, is converted to fuzzy numbers to be further processed. As a consequence, this section describes how fuzzy sets theory can be exploited and thus how fuzzy numbers can be extracted so as to model the time required for the completion of a public service. In this frame, the latter is generally defined as the time required for a citizen to obtain information on a specific service, collect—if applicable—the documents necessary for his request to be served, and finally submit either in person or electronically his personal data along with any documents to the responsible public agency so that his request can be processed. Such a definition is quite generic to cover all different services, independently of their outputs, and presupposes furthermore for simplicity reasons that the e-government Web site providing a public service is always available and characterized by low response time as well as that citizens/businesses can access e-public services, if the latter are available. At this point, attention must be drawn to the fact that even if time is a countable quantity, it is considered extremely difficult or even impossible to record accurately the time spent by the citizens/businesses for interactions with public administration; people cannot be constantly monitored and neither can they provide with absolute precision the necessary information when asked to do so. The use of fuzzy instead of crisp numbers is therefore suggested as a means of ensuring that the uncertainty factor that is innate in subjective estimations is incorporated into the analysis and more reliable results are produced. For its ability to handle the fuzziness or subjectivity involved in numerous problems, fuzzy set theory and consequently fuzzy numbers has been applied in various similar or different evaluation contexts

5


101

(Fasanghari & Habibipour, 2009; Kahraman, Demirel, Demirel, & Ate, 2008; Lu, Ruan, & Zhang, 2008; Wu, Tsai, Shih, & Fu, 2010). In the context of the proposed framework, the citizens and businesses may evaluate each one of the pre-selected package of services (“basket of services”), the use of which is suggested for practical reasons, in terms of the time they spend on transactions with public administration using either conventional or e-services, based on a qualitative seven-level scale of linguistic variables that range from “Very Low” to “Very High.” To exclude the factor of subjectivity involved, due to the fact that different people may have a different understanding of expressions such as “Very Low,” “Low,” etc., an indication of the respective amount of time, defined according to the personal experience of the designer of the survey, may also be provided. For the purposes of this study, the authors have used the conversion scales presented in Table 5.4. The latter shows the equivalence between the linguistic variables and the respective fuzzy sets for both citizen and business services. Of course, since the services that are addressed to businesses are in general more time consuming, the relevant scale involves significantly larger amounts of time. Note that all values in Table 5.4 indicate time measured in minutes.

Table 5.4 Relations between linguistics and fuzzy numbers Citizens

Businesses

Linguistic

Abbreviation

Fuzzy set

Fuzzy number

Fuzzy set

Fuzzy number

Very low Low Medium low Medium Medium high High Very high

VL L ML M MH H VH

1–20 10–30 20–40 30–50 40–60 50–70 60–80

(1,10,20) (10,20,30) (20,30,40) (30,40,50) (40,50,60) (50,60,70) (60,70,80)

1–50 25–75 50–100 75–125 100–150 125–175 150–200

(1,25,50) (25,50,75) (50,75,100) (75,100,125) (100,125,150) (125,150,175) (150,175,200)

In this way a citizen may describe, for example, the amount of time required to obtain a birth certificate, using the respective e-service, as “very low,” which means that the time needed does not exceed 20 min and it is approximately around 10 min. The concept of fuzziness is expressed through the term “approximately.” Using the selected conversion scale, such observations obtained from questionnaires for both conventional and e-services are to be transformed into fuzzy numbers and average values are to be calculated for each one of the pre-selected public services. A frequency has to be assigned to each service as well, providing an indication of the number of times that the service is used during a specific period of time. The exact use of the frequency value assigned to each service will be explained in the next section, where the authors define the evaluation metrics.

102

O.I. Markaki et al.

4.1 Forming the Time Matrices As already indicated in the previous paragraph, questionnaires could have been deployed in the frame of this study in order to obtain information on the time allocated by the citizens/businesses on interactions with public administration. Nevertheless, the conduction of a survey across the Balkans would present certain difficulties that would be mainly generated by the large geographical area to be covered as well as by the heterogeneity of the selected public services across the countries under examination and the variance of the relevant service delivery methods. Due to this fact and also based on the assumption that a specific service that possesses the same level of sophistication in two or more different countries shall not differ significantly as far as transaction time is concerned, the authors present in this paragraph a mapping of the estimated transaction time for each one of the selected services per sophistication stage; Tables 5.5 and 5.6 aggregate the estimated average transaction time per sophistication stage for citizen and business services, respectively, expressed in linguistic terms. At this point, attention must be drawn to the fact that the relevant values have been determined based on the authors’ background and personal experience and that the former assumption has solely been made for simplicity reasons, since normally, even if a specific service possessed the same sophistication stage in two or more different countries, the corresponding transaction time would differ slightly as a result of the impact of other factors, such as the complexity of the internal administrative procedures or the variance of the relevant service delivery methods. Of course, as already stated, the relevant estimations could have been extracted through the use of questionnaires. Table 5.5 Time matrix for citizens

CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 CS11 CS12

Conventional Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

High High Very high Very high High High Medium high Medium Medium High High Low

Medium high Medium high Medium high High Medium high Medium high Medium Medium low Medium low Medium Medium high Low

Medium Medium low Medium low Medium low Medium Medium Low Very low Medium low Low Medium low Very low

Very low Very low Low Very low Low Low – Very low Very low Very low Low Very low

Very low – Very low – – – – Very low – – – –

High Medium high High Very high Medium high High Medium Medium low Medium Medium high Medium high Low

In order to render clearer the use of the matrices below, the reader may consider the following example. Assuming that CS1 (income taxes: declaration, notification of assessment) in Bulgaria has reached the second level of sophistication maturity, the time allocated by the citizens on the relevant transaction may be considered,

5


103

Table 5.6 Time matrix for businesses

BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BS5 BS6 BS7 BS8

Conventional

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

Medium Very high High Medium Medium Medium low Medium Very high

Medium low Very high Medium high Medium low Medium Low Medium low Very high

Low High Medium Low Low Low Low High

Very low Medium high Medium Very low Low Very low Low Medium high

Very low Medium Medium low Very low Very low Very low Very low Medium high

– – – – Very low – Very low –

according to Table 5.5, as “Medium high,” which corresponds to 40–60 min, according to Table 5.4.

5 Evaluation Metrics As already stated in Sect. 1, the aim of this chapter is to examine the impact and adoption of e-government services across some countries of the Balkans. In this context, building on the elementary concept of the time allocated on transactions with public administration and taking as well into account the current sophistication stage of online public services, the authors introduce a series of metrics to evaluate i. e-government services in terms of the benefits that their use involves for citizens/businesses as opposed to the use of conventional methods and ii. the actual adoption (take-up) of e-government services. Following the classification of public services in the respective categories, the evaluation metrics are defined for both citizens and businesses and refer to the real impacts that technology brings about in the improvement of the relationship between the state and the aforementioned stakeholders; they provide an indication of the impact of the modernization of public administration on the improvement of citizens’ quality of life and the businesses’ productivity and competitiveness, respectively. The three metrics in question are presented in the following paragraphs along with their mathematical definitions.

5.1 Average Gained Time I The evaluation of the impact of the modernization of public administration with regard to the benefits that the utilization of e-services involves for citizens/businesses as opposed to the use of traditional methods is performed in terms of

104

O.I. Markaki et al.

the time that citizens/businesses save because of the implementation of the relevant transactions with e-services. A composite indicator, called average gained time I, representing the time (%) that citizens/businesses may gain exploiting the current sophistication stage of eservices as opposed to conventional methods is suggested in this frame and is defined as follows: AGTI = 100%

ATcs − APTs ATcs

(1)

where ATcs , is the weighted mean time required per service using conventional services and is calculated as: n i=1 fi ti,c (2) ATcs = n i=1 fi and APTs is the weighted mean time potentially required per service exploiting the current sophistication stage, being calculated as follows: n i=1 fi ti,s APTs = n i=1 fi

(3)

Note that ti c and ti s are fuzzy numbers,extracted after applying the selected conversion scale and cover the pre-selected services, and fi are the corresponding frequencies assigned to the latter. Of course, in case of prior use of questionnaires, the former fuzzy numbers correspond also to the mean values, calculated using the received sample of observations.

5.2 Average Gained Time II The sophistication of online public services is indicated, as already mentioned in Section 2, with regard to the maximum level of sophistication for each specific service. That means that if the sophistication stage that is currently available is not equivalent to the maximum one defined, there is still the potential for greater improvement with regard to the maturity-level e-government services. As a result, we assume the optimal scenario of fully transactional services to provide a quantitative indication of the benefits of the implementation of the relevant transactions exclusively via e-means as well. In this case, the metric in question is referred to as average gained time II, represents the average time (%) that citizens/businesses could potentially gain, in case there were fully transactional services, and is defined as AGTII = 100%

APTs − APTfs APTs

(4)

5


105

where APTs is calculated as above and APTf s is the average time potentially required if there was full e-case handling. As it is assumed that not all public services of the pre-selected package may have reached a stage of transactional maturity, APTf s can only be calculated using the subset of services, for which Stage 4 or 5 is defined as the maximum sophistication level APTfs =

n i=1 fi ti , f s n i=1 fi

, ∀i : Si ∈ (Stage4 ∪ Stage5 )

(5)

Both the above compound indicators may be of great strategic and political significance, since their estimation concerns the general political planning of public administration.

5.3 Average Gained Time III The last evaluation metric of the analysis refers to the evaluation of the actual utilization of e-government services by the citizens/businesses. The goal this time is to estimate the average time (%) that citizens/businesses could potentially save exploiting the current sophistication stage, which however is left unexploited since not all of them make use of e-services and even if they do, they do not necessarily exploit the maximum sophistication stage that is currently available. The metric in question is referred to as average gained time III and may be defined as: AGTIII = 100%

ARTs − APTs ARTs

(6)

where APTs is calculated as above and ARTs , which denotes the actual mean time that is currently allocated by the citizens/businesses on their interactions with public administration, may be determined using relevant statistical information, i.e., the percentage of citizens/businesses that actually benefit from the available sophistication level of a service. Assuming that si (Stagei ) denotes the subset of services that have currently reached the ith stage of sophistication, we define the average real time per service as 1 ARTs = n=4 i=0

Fi

F0 · T0 +

n=4

m=i−1 , pj > pj+1 Fi · pi Ti + pj − pj+1 Tij + (1 − p1 ) Ti,c i=1

j=i

(7)

where Ti is the average time (weighted mean) required for the completion of an i-stage service; Tji is the average time required for the completion of an i-stage service when exploiting the jth (a lower) level of sophistication; Ti,c is the average time required for the completion of an i-stage service with traditional methods; and Fi is the frequency assigned to the ith sophistication stage, as Fi = nk=1 fk , ∀k : sk ∈ Stagei .

106

O.I. Markaki et al.

We also assume that stage i is the maximum stage that is being used by percentage pi of citizens/businesses. In Eq. (7), pi Ti indicates that a percentage pi of citizens/businesses exploit the maximum sophistication stage available and spend m=i−1 (pj − therefore Ti time for the completion of an i-stage service. The sum j=1 pj+1 )Ti, j denotes the time allocated on transactions with the public authorities by the rest of the citizens/businesses who make use of e-government services but do not exploit the maximum sophistication stage offered. Finally, a percentage (1 − p1 ) of citizens/businesses do not rely on e-services at all and therefore the time they spend is (1 − p1 )Ti,c .

5.4 Defuzzification As already implied, all the aforementioned metrics are fuzzy numbers. Given two ˜ B˜ is fuzzy numbers A˜ = (a1 , a2 , a3 ) and B˜ = (b1 , b2 , b3 ), the fuzzy number B˜ − A/ calculated based on operations on triangular fuzzy numbers as B˜ − A˜ = B˜

b1 − a3 b2 − a2 b3 − a1 , , b3 b2 b1

Although this equation possesses mathematical correctness, the values (fuzzy numbers) resulting from its calculation have no physical sense (in fact the lower limit values may even be negative in some cases) and have to be converted to crisp values first so as to allow for useful conclusions to be drawn. In order therefore to obtain the average gained time, a defuzzification method has to be applied. In this study, both the bisector of area (BOA) and center of gravity (COG) defuzzification methods were applied with BOA providing more moderate results (compared to COG) and thus being adopted to obtain the final crisp numbers based on which comparisons among the countries were made.

6 E-government Adoption Across the Balkans 6.1 Sophistication Stage of Services In this section the proposed evaluation framework is applied for Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Romania, and Slovenia using the basket of 20 basic public services for citizens and businesses that has been composed by Capgemini for the European Commission. The services under evaluation along with their sophistication stage, as this is defined in the latest version of the corresponding e-government factsheet of each country (ePractice, 2009a, b, c, d, e), are summarized in Tables 5.7 and 5.8. Tables 5.9 and 5.10 present the actual utilization of e-government services per sophistication stage, according to Eurostat (2008). Note that as far as citizen services are concerned, since no information is available on the use of fully transactional services (Stages 4 and 5), we assume that the corresponding utilization percentage is

5


107

Table 5.7 Sophistication stage for five countries—citizen services

CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 CS6 CS7 CS8 CS9 CS10 CS11 CS12 Date Version

Bulgaria

Greece

Hungary

Romania

Slovenia

Frequency

5/5 4/4 4/5 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/5 2/4 2/4 0/4 2/4 February 2009 v6

5/5 4/4 1/5 1/4 4/4 1/4 1/3 3/5 4/4 2/4 2/4 2/4 July 2009 v12

4/5 4/4 2/5 2/4 3/4 1/4 3/3 3/5 3/4 4/4 3/4 0/4 March 2009 v11

2/5 4/4 2/5 1/4 2/4 1/4 1/3 1/5 – 1/4 1/4 2/4 May 2009 v6

5/5 4/4 4/5 4/4 4/4 4/4 3/3 5/5 4/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 June 2009 v12

30 18 115 7 4 1 8 90 10 1 2 90

Table 5.8 Sophistication stage for five countries—business services

BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BS5 BS6 BS7 BS8 Date Version

Bulgaria

Greece

Hungary

Romania

Slovenia

Frequency

3/4 3/4 3/4 2/4 2/5 3/4 1/5 2/4 February 2009 v6

4/4 4/4 4/4 2/4 4/5 4/4 2/5 2/4 July 2009 v12

2/4 4/4 4/4 3/4 5/5 4/4 3/5 2/4 March 2009 v11

4/4 4/4 4/4 3/4 5/5 4/4 2/5 4/4 May 2009 v6

4/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 5/5 4/4 5/5 2/4 June 2009 v12

12 1 4 1 2 5 2 6

Table 5.9 Utilization percentage per sophistication stage—citizen services Utilization percentage (%) Sophistication stage

Bulgaria

Greece

Hungary

Romania

Slovenia

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4,5

6.4 4.6 3.2 0.0

8.8 4.0 3.6 0.0

22.2 17.1 11.1 0.0

8.5 3.6 3.2 0.0

29.2 16.1 6.7 0.0

equal to zero. Note also that, based on the data provided by Eurostat, it is not possible to distinguish between Stages 4 and 5, therefore for the calculation of metric AGTIII , the latter are treated as a single stage (which is referred to as Stages 4 and 5). The time values for Stages 4 and 5, which correspond to full e-case handling, are calculated as the weighted mean of the two separate stages.

108

O.I. Markaki et al. Table 5.10 Utilization percentage per sophistication stage—business services Utilization percentage (%) Sophistication stage

Bulgaria

Greece

Hungary

Romania

Slovenia

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4,5

53 51 43 36

68 66 66 53

56 58 50 25

37 35 23 20

85 82 69 60

The frequency assigned to each service corresponds to the number of times that a specific service is used during a certain period of time. For citizens we have chosen this period to be equal to 30 years, while for businesses 1 year. Note that since a comparison is sought, we have maintained the same frequency values for all countries. If that was not the case, countries with identical sophistication stages for all services would present different results solely due to the use of different frequency values, which would not reflect correctly the impact of e-services.

6.2 Citizen Services In this paragraph, the evaluation methodology is applied for 12 services for citizens in the five selected countries. Note that once the three evaluation metrics have been calculated, using the fuzzy numbers that derive from the combination of Tables 5.5 and 5.7, the goal is to produce (through BOA) for each proposed metric a crisp value. Since the calculating process is the same for all the countries under examination, the intermediary results are presented only indicatively for the case of Slovenia in Table 5.11. The latter contains the fuzzy and corresponding crisp values of all metrics for the specific county (Slovenia). Note that the first four lines of the last column are left blank, since there is no point in providing crisp values for the intermediary results. The final results are aggregated for all five countries in Table 5.12.

Table 5.11 Fuzzy and crisp values of the evaluation metrics for the case of Slovenia (citizen services)

ATcs APTs APTfs ARTs AGTI AGTII AGTIII

L

M

U

Crisp values (%)

38.1383 4.279255 4.10102 27.64711 24.93138 –80.6385 9.27007

48.1383 13.6436 13.3983 35.4172 71.65746 1.798059 61.47745

58.1383 23.64362 23.34511 43.18733 141.2204 456.6822 140.731

78 61 76

5


109

Table 5.12 Synopsis of the evaluation metrics for the selected countries (citizen services) Crisp values (%)

AGTI AGTII AGTIII

Bulgaria

Greece

Hungary

Romania

Slovenia

57 68 57

43 74 42

50 71 47

32 78 31

78 61 76

6.3 Business Services Similarly, the evaluation methodology is applied here for the selected basket of business services in the five countries of interest. In this case, the fuzzy numbers used to calculate the evaluation metrics have been acquired through Tables 5.6 and 5.8. Once again, the intermediary results are provided only for the case of Slovenia in Table 5.13, and the final results for all countries are collected in Table 5.14. Table 5.13 Fuzzy and crisp values of the evaluation metrics for the case of Slovenia (business services)

ATcs APTs APTfs ARTs AGTI AGTII AGTIII

L

M

U

Crisp values (%)

93.18182 31.72727 9.580645 44.63343 8.465608 –25.5267 –56.8159

118.182 56.0606 30.6452 54.3739 52.5641 45.33566 –3.10205

143.1818 81.06061 52.41935 64.11437 119.6098 225.295 72.56242

59 45 42

Table 5.14 Synopsis of the evaluation metrics for the selected countries (business services) Crisp values (%)

AGTI AGTII AGTIII

Bulgaria

Greece

Hungary

Romania

Slovenia

51 46 40

57 45 42

44 46 40

61 46 55

59 45 42

6.4 Discussion The results for AGTI in Tables 5.12 and 5.14 indicate that thanks to the current sophistication stage, there is for citizens and businesses a gain with regard to transaction time, which is not negligible. In fact, as far as citizen services are concerned,

110

O.I. Markaki et al.

Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Hungary have made, as seen in Table 5.12, significant progress in the field of e-government transformation such that it enables their citizens to potentially save more than 50% of the time they spend on transactions with the public authorities, by exploiting the sophistication stage of online public services that is currently available. Presenting an overall sophistication maturity level that corresponds to fully transactional services, Slovenia keeps the leadership among the selected countries toward this direction (78%), while Romania still lags behind with a gain of only 31%. The results seem to be more homogeneous in the case of business services. In this case, the highest percentages are held by Romania and Slovenia (∼60%), and only Hungary possesses for the specific indicator in question a value that is lower than 50%. It is also remarkable that especially for Bulgaria, Hungary, and Slovenia, the citizens are “favored” perceptibly, compared to businesses, while another interesting observation is the fact that Romania, possessing the lowest value of AGTI for citizen services, demonstrates the highest percentage for business services, which indicates the country’s e-government strategy orientation as well as the necessity for the authorities responsible to encourage citizens in using e-services in their everyday life. As far as the second evaluation metric, i.e., AGTII , is concerned, one may state that the relevant percentages (Tables 5.12 and 5.14) illustrate in an explicit way that the actual benefits of e-government transformation are located in the upper stages of sophistication. These percentages indicate the resulting time savings in case all services had reached the highest possible level of sophistication as opposed to the current situation. At this point, attention has to be drawn to the fact that through AGTII , the average gained time in case of fully transactional services is rendered as a percentage of the time allocated by the citizens/businesses on interactions with public administration when exploiting the current sophistication stage. On the other hand, AGTI is estimated as a fraction of the equivalent time using conventional methods, which explains why the sum of these values is not equal to 100%. However, there is still a cross-correlation between the two metrics, since countries with a higher value for AGTI possess a lower value for AGTII , as they do not have major opportunities for improvement. The value of AGTIII incorporates the actual utilization of e-government services and expresses the amount of transaction time, which remains unexploited by the citizens/businesses due to limited use of online public services, as a fraction of the actual mean time that is allocated on the relevant transactions. The values of this metric are high for both citizen and business services and provide strong evidence that, especially in the former case, the authorities responsible should take into account the information and technology literacy of citizens as well as the challenges they encounter with regard to the use of e-government services due to physical impairments. It is not the case that all citizens are familiar with computing and Internet-based technologies nor does the design of e-government Web sites currently encompass all different disability types (associated with aging, visual, auditory, speech, motor, and cognitive deficiencies). Furthermore, issues related to security and privacy continue to be a challenge; users must be confident that the Web sites they visit and transactions they complete are safeguarded against theft, fraud,

5


111

and unauthorized access. Such an aspect is also crucial in business transactions, where financial data are often exchanged. The percentage of AGTIII is particularly high in the case of Slovenia for citizen services, which is quite impressive since, as already mentioned, this country possesses among the selected ones the leadership with regard to the overall sophistication maturity of online public services and presents as well higher utilization percentages per sophistication stage. More specifically, the values of AGTIII for citizen services (Table 5.12) reveal that Slovenia and Bulgaria (>50%) can contribute significantly in the improvement of their citizens’ quality of everyday life, by encouraging them to adopt the use of e-services. On the other hand, the rest of the countries have to focus more on upgrading the basket of services they offer, since an increase in the number of people actually using e-government services would not be enough by itself to bring major improvements, due to the low level of sophistication. With the exception of Romania, the values of AGTIII for business services are in general lower than the ones for citizen services. Of course, this fact was anticipated, given that the utilization percentages for businesses in Table 5.10 are fairly higher than the respective ones for citizens in Table 5.9, suggesting that already a remarkable number of businesses have embraced the use of e-public services. Romania presents an enhancement capacity of 55%, while for the rest of the countries the corresponding percentage is around 40%. As a concluding remark, one could state that the countries under examination have to continue to make sound progress on the supply of online public services, while also putting effort to engaging their citizens into their use. In general, businesses appear better served and more suitably engaged. However, still much remains to be done to serve citizens who are increasingly exposed to and versed in e-services. As a result, the challenge for the aforementioned countries, as for most countries across the world, is to deliver an e-government service experience that attracts and fulfills citizens’ needs efficiently and effectively and reaffirms trust in public services.

7 Future Research Directions The goal of this chapter has been to provide a generic framework that can be used to assess the e-government services implemented by a country. The indicators presented are of great strategic and political value since their calculation reveals the actual impact of e-government transformation for citizens and businesses; the impact is in fact expressed in terms of the time gained through e-services within the frame of transactions with public authorities, which constitutes a comprehensible and tangible benefit for both citizens/businesses and policy makers. Special attention was paid in the frame of the evaluation analysis to address the issue of imprecision in the estimations involved with regard to transaction time and to form solid comparisons.

112

O.I. Markaki et al.

Of course, the framework could be further enhanced and optimized: potential enhancements could be achieved through the creation of more appropriate conversion scales, and consequently fuzzy sets that best suit the information collected. Another aspect would be to carry out a more thorough study on the transaction time that corresponds to each one of the selected services for both citizens and businesses per sophistication stage. A suitable perspective for reaching this goal would be to conduct a questionnaire-based survey across the countries under examination. Further enhancements could be based on the consideration, instead of the time, of different measurement units, such as the cost involved in the relevant transactions or the usefulness perceived by the citizens/businesses as a result of the public administration modernization. It would also be interesting to study the evolution of the proposed metrics across the years, so as to reach useful conclusions especially with regard to the fluctuation of the actual utilization of e-government services. Finally, in case of more accurate information on transaction times, it would be meaningful to compare the average time required per service using conventional services to the equivalent one in case of full e-case handling, so as to provide a quantitative indication of the total impact of e-government transformation.

8 Conclusions This chapter proposed an evaluation framework to project some aspects of the impact of the modernization of public administration on the citizens’ quality of life and the businesses’ efficiency through the adoption of a series of metrics with regard to the time required for the completion of transactions with the public authorities. The framework was applied for the EU member states of Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Romania, and Slovenia, allowing for interesting conclusions to be drawn. In fact, the evaluation analysis pointed out that the benefits associated with e-government transformation are partially counterbalanced by the fact that only a small fraction of the population makes use of e-services and suggested that effort should be put in raising public awareness around e-government services so that both citizens and businesses realize the envisaged e-government benefits.

References Abhichandani, T., & Horan, T. A. (2006). Toward a new evaluation model of e-government satisfaction: Results of structural equation modeling. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th Americas Conference on Information Systems, (AMCIS 2006), Acapulco, Mexico August 04th–06th 2006. Capgemini (2007). The user challenge: Benchmarking the supply of online public services, 7th measurement, September 2007. Retrieved 20 March 2009, from http://ec.europa. eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/egov_benchmark_2007.pdf Colesca, S. E., & Liliana, D. (2007). e-Government adoption in Romania. International Journal of Business, Economics, Finance and Management Science, 1(2), 121–125.

5


113

Commission of the European Communities (2002). eEurope 2005: An information society for all, COM (2002) 263 final, Brussels, 28.5.2002. Retrieved 15 September 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/2002/news_library/documents/ eeurope2005/eeurope2005_en.pdf Commission of the European Communities (2005). i2010 – A European information society for growth and employment, COM (2005) 229 final, Brussels, 1.6.2005. Retrieved 15 September 2009, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= COM:2005:0229:FIN:EN:PDF Dobnikar, A., & Nemec, A. Ž. (2007). e-Government in Slovenia. Informatica, 31, 357– 365. ePractice (2009a). eGovernment factsheets – Bulgaria. Edition 7.0, August 2009. Retrieved 10 September 2009, from http://www.epractice.eu/en/factsheets/ ePractice (2009b). eGovernment factsheets – Greece. Edition 12.0, July 2009. Retrieved 10 September 2009, from http://www.epractice.eu/en/factsheets/ ePractice (2009c). eGovernment factsheets – Hungary. Edition 12.0, September 2009. Retrieved 10 September 2009, from http://www.epractice.eu/en/factsheets/ ePractice (2009d). eGovernment factsheets – Romania. Edition 6.0, May 2009. Retrieved 10 September 2009, from http://www.epractice.eu/en/factsheets/ ePractice (2009e). eGovernment factsheets – Slovenia. Edition 12.0, June 2009. Retrieved 10 September 2009, from http://www.epractice.eu/en/factsheets/ Erzsébet, C.-V. (2002, January). e-Government programme in Hungary. ERCIM NEWS No. 48. Retrieved 11 September 2009, from http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/ enw48/varju.html Eurostat Home (2008). Information society: Structural indicators. Retrieved 30 December 2008, from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu Fasanghari, M., & Habibipour, F. (2009). E-Government performance evaluation with fuzzy numbers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2009 IACSIT Spring Conference (IACSIT-SC 09), Singapore, pp. 231–235.doi: 10.1109/IACSIT-SC.2009.122. Greek Observatory (2008). Indicators for the quantification of G.S.P.A & E.G.’s objectives with regard to eGovernment. The use of Information and Communication Technologies in the Public Sector (eGovernment). Retrieved 18 March 2009, from http://www.observe.gr/files/meletes/eGov_D6_Indicators_EN_v1.0.pdf Hahamis, P., Iles, J., & Healy, M. (2005). e-Government in Greece: Opportunities for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of local government. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on e-Government (ECEG 2005), 16–17 June 2005, Antwerp, Belgium, pp. 203–212. Hubregtse, S. (2005). The digital divide within the European Union. New Library World, 106(1210/1211), 164–172. Kahraman, C., Demirel, N. C., Demirel, T., & Ate, N. Y. (2008). A SWOT-AHP application using fuzzy concept: E-Government in Turkey. Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making, 85–117. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-76813-7_4. Lu, J., Ruan, D., & Zhang, G. (2008). Fuzzy set techniques in E-service applications. Fuzzy Sets and Their Extensions: Representation, Aggregation and Models, 220/2008, 553–566, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73723-0. Markoulakis, N. (2005, October). e-Government in Greece. GPSG Article #002. Retrieved 11 September 2009, from http://www.gpsg.org.uk/docs/Article_002.pdf Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2008). A framework for evaluating web sites of public authorities. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 60(5), 517–546. doi: 10.1108/00012530810908229. Wang, L., Bretschneider, S., & Gant, J. (2005). Evaluating web-based e-government services with a citizen-centric approach. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’05), Big Island, Hawaii, January, 3-6, 2005, 5, 129b. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2005.252.

114

O.I. Markaki et al.

Wauters, P. (2006). Benchmarking e-government policy within the e-Europe programme. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 58(5), 389–403, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi: 10.1108/00012530610692348. Wu, J. C. -T., Tsai, H. -T., Shih, M. -H., & Fu, H. -H. (2010). Government performance evaluation using a balanced scorecard with a fuzzy linguistic scale. The Service Industries Journal, 30(3), 449–462. doi: 10.1080/02642060802248017. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.

Chapter 6

A Challenging E-journey Along the Silk Road: Lessons Learned from E-governments in China and India Alankar Bandyopadhyay and Sahar D. Sattarzadeh

Recent experiments from around the world have offered testimony to the relevance of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in disseminating and simplifying the delivery of government-to-citizen services. Even in developing countries, successful e-government service delivery can, achieve three vital objectives—transparency, accessibility, and development. China and India are the first and second most populous nations in the world, respectively, accounting for over 37% of the world’s total population. Both countries are characterized by urban–rural disparities, income gaps, and inequalities in access of essential services. Toward the goal of bridging these divides in access to the government or its services, ICT opportunities for development are being explored by extensively implementing e-government networks within urban and rural regions. However, both successes and failures are prevalent within their current e-government infrastructures. This chapter probes the question of what determines a project’s success, using Heeks’ “DesignReality Gap” model and infoDev’s criteria for successful e-government projects. An analysis is attempted of two e-government projects each in China and India. The authors’ analyses are solely based on secondary sources from practitioners, scholars, and governments that were involved with the projects in China or India. This chapter aims to emphasize the necessary role of underlying factors relevant to Indian and Chinese e-governments, such as education, funding, connectivity, leadership, and governmental control. In the absence of these factors, it is expected that success might be elusive.

A. Bandyopadhyay (B) University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA e-mail: [email protected] S.D. Sattarzadeh University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA e-mail: [email protected] C.G. Reddick (ed.), Comparative E-Government, Integrated Series in Information Systems 25, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-6536-3_6, C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

115

116

A. Bandyopadhyay and S.D. Sattarzadeh

1 Introduction Beginning with the late 1990s, e-government has become the exhortation for public sector reform. It is broadly understood as the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to simplify the delivery of government services by making them more simple and accessible (APDIP, 2006; Bhatnagar, 2003; infoDev, 2002). It is a mechanism by which government services are produced and delivered through IT means. Today there exists, numerous examples where governments have invested in creating an online presence. The premise to these experiments is that if implemented appropriately, the integration of ICTs with the day-to-day functioning of the government has great potential in enhancing and improving organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Simultaneously, however, it is evident that e-government does not simply signify an online government presence. Rather, it implies that ICTs provide the opportunity for improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of how governments are run, thus also transforming the political climate as well as relations between governments and citizens. Additionally, it is predicted that an online public sector would become a cost-effective way of achieving socially inclusive governance, through the facilitation of information dissemination and the opportunity for feedback. Undoubtedly, e-governments also offer governments an opportunity to overturn their often-negative image. In many countries, citizens view their governments as bloated, wasteful, and unresponsive to the needs of its populace (PCIP, 2002). Those that reside in remote areas perceive the government as inaccessible and unapproachable. Skepticism is evident among the business community that views the government with doubt and is not convinced about its capabilities and views civil servants as profiteers (PCIP, 2002). Ho (2002, p. 435) quoting Scavo and Shi (1999) and Seneviratne (1999) observes that with the advent of ICTs, the focus of governance has shifted to its external relationship with citizens. He argues that public administration, and perhaps its image, is undergoing a metamorphosis instigated by technology tools and the Internet. Countries that have afforded the blend with technology have done so partly in the belief that the tools would enable them to become more accessible, accountable, transparent, and efficient. The direct and tangible advantages of e-government include cost effectiveness in public operations, tax collection, simplified communication between governmental entities, and prolonged engagement and interaction with citizens. Indirect benefits comprise greater transparency and accountability in public decisions, a means to fight corruption, and strengthening democracy (infoDev, 2002). The evidence in favor of e-government points toward its ability to impact citizens, businesses, and other governmental departments and organizations. However, the effectiveness of the impact and the success of e-government are dependent on a host of factors that are unique to the context; stakeholder needs; and political, social, and economic climate. The enthusiasm surrounding e-government projects has manifested in both developed and developing countries making considerable financial commitments in ICT-led developmental efforts. By 2003, approximately 90 countries had functional

6

A Challenging E-journey Along the Silk Road

117

national e-strategies with e-government as the most common focus. The emerging economies of China and India have spearheaded efforts across the developing world. However, while success has been a tricky affair, generalizability between project sites is almost non-existent. The complexity is further aggravated on account of country-specific characteristics, which inhibits the transfer of best practices. However, what is emerging from the various e-governments across the world is a checklist of factors that are imperative pre-requisites to success. It is becoming increasingly obvious that success would depend on how the government works, how its officials perceive their jobs, and interact with the citizens. A positive outcome would depend on active, meaningful, and functional partnerships with the various stakeholders, which would in turn ensure a constant process of input, output, and feedback (PCIP, 2002).

2 Role in Development Before addressing how e-government contributes to development, it is important to understand the link between e-government and development. Since the implementation of e-government is dependent upon the ICT resources available, consideration of ICT for development is just as vital to address. First and foremost, however, we must explore what is meant by development. Indicators of human development are true reflections of a country’s overall development, taking into account economic, political, democratic, social, and cultural progress. The World Bank and several UN agencies and regional commissions have been key proponents of utilizing ICT for socioeconomic progress and international development, especially within developing nations. Vrasidas et al. (2009) take it a step further by arguing that ICT, “if critically and strategically approached,” has the likelihood of promoting development and social justice, especially in the education sector, for example. There are various areas where indicators of ICT for overall human development is achievable (Kelles-Vitanen, 2003; Mansell & Wehn, 1998), especially with regards to indicators of health, education, governance, democratic participation, and the like. Despite the numerous critics who warn about the risks of e-government in developing countries, there have also been several successful cases of e-government implementation in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, India, and the Philippines, for example (Ndou, 2004). Based on her case study research, Ndou also found regardless of which stage of development a country is in, they all benefit from e-government in the following ways: – – – – – – –

There is an increase in efficiency and a reduction of costs. The quality of service delivery improves. Issues of transparency, anticorruption, and accountability take precedence. The government’s capacity to serve citizens increases. Networks are created within communities across all levels of government. There is an improvement in decision-making processes. ICT use is encouraged and promoted in other sectors of society.

118


While e-government has its share of critics, there are proponents who praise the many benefits it has for the social, political, and economic development of emerging economies such as India and China. Some of these advantages are • E-government can offer numerous possibilities for improving a nation’s public sector response to the basic needs of its citizens. People always want information or services delivered quickly and easily. • Today, the governmental agencies are wanted to deliver “outcomes” and outputs, achieve better results for serving people’s various needs. This will involve agencies working more effectively across their traditional boundaries and collaborating with one another. • By fostering transparency, and empowering people to participate in the political processes, e-government will strengthen the legal system and law enforcement; make policy processes more open and consultative. • Under e-government projects, governments will minimize its intervention to business, on the one hand; and promote the development of priority economic sectors and regions, on the other hand. • It can improve the quality of life for vulnerable people and disadvantaged communities. • E-government will eventually transform the processes and structures of government to create a public administration regime with less hierarchical bureacracy, one that is citizen-centered and results-oriented.

3 Factors for a Successful E-government Categorizing outcomes into full failures, partial failures, and successes, analysts (Heeks, 2003) concluded that only 15% of e-government projects succeed in developing or transitional economies. Of the remaining, approximately 50 and 35% of the projects are either partial or full failures. Total failure refers to the failure of a proposed reform to ever take-off. Partial, on the other hand, refers to a situation where only a subset of the intended reform is implemented. The daunting question is what causes a project to fail. Hypothesizing on the reasons, researchers conclude that the cause is partly due to the overemphasis on the “technology” aspect of e-government. Projects are apparently conceived either without a clear understanding of the issue in hand or with the purpose of addressing immediate problems without analyzing deep-rooted causes (De, 20051 ). Some of the crucial factors for success emerging from the various experiments conducted across developing countries include having a clear vision, plan, 1 The impact of Indian e-government initiatives: issues of poverty and vulnerability reduction, and conflict. Name of Journal: Regional Development Dialogue, 2005, UNCRD and UNDP.

6


119

and scope, designing a citizen-centric delivery mechanism, ensuring complete stakeholder participation, willingness on the part of government officials to undergo change, and the need for strong leadership and management. Further, in the backdrop of high costs and constant risks, a prudent approach to integrating ICTs into the day-to-day functioning of the government is to be practical and cautious. An over ambitious project entails too many stakeholders and increases the risks involved. Thus, the emphasis is on identifying feasible goals, which partially minimizes the perils of failure.

3.1 infoDev and E-government in Developing Countries The E-government Handbook for Developing Countries (infoDev, 2002) consolidates the findings from several e-government projects across the world and highlights the commonalities in the factors for success. Dividing the implementation of e-government into three phases—publishing, interacting, and transacting, the handbook emphasizes that five factors integral to ensuring the successful transformation of offline governance into online are: • Process reform: The government must first gauge what processes need to be ICT-ized. The decision to integrate ICTs in certain aspects of government functioning must be driven by end-user needs. After all, the driving force behind ICT integration should be to rid the system of inefficiencies and redundancies than accentuating them. • Leadership: This factor stresses the need for a central agency that has the expertise, manpower, institutional authority, and vision to implement e-government. • Strategic investment: The government should choose projects that have the strongest ability to enhance transparency, citizen participation, diminish corruption, minimize complex, time-consuming bureaucratic procedures, and consider both cost-effectiveness and -feasibility. • Collaboration: The success of an e-government project is heavily dependent on strategic partnerships. The most important partnering sectors include other departments in the government, the private organizations, and nongovernmental organizations that can impact grassroots delivery. Further, successful e-government also requires adequate buy-in from those who are already in the system. There is constant apprehension from government employees that e-government jeopardizes their role in an organization. These concerns cannot be disregarded. On the contrary, the government must do enough to placate such concerns if they want e-government to succeed. • Civic engagement: If citizens are the singular focus of e-government projects, the design phase must accommodate what citizens envision or expect a project to deliver on.

120


3.2 Heeks’ Design-Reality Gap Model Heeks (2003) conceptualized the ITPOSMO framework, which is derived from the “Design-Reality Gap” model. Its broad purpose is to give a sense of what factors might inhibit the success of a project. Concentrating primarily on the design phase, Heeks suggests that undertaking such an analysis illustrates the risks a project might run into on account of the mismatches on each of the dimensions. The design gap is an outcome of the interaction of several factors, which lead us to the coinage of ITPOSMO: Information: The relevancy, currency, and accuracy of content Technical: The compatibility of the technology with processes Processes: Objectives, values, and motivations People: Objectives, values, and motivations People: Staffing and skills Management: How successfully are these changes managed? Other resources: Time and money Understanding the design-reality gap entails analyzing the organizational reality and the corresponding project design relating to each of the seven dimensions mentioned above. Following that, Heeks advises assigning a numerical rating that would capture this gap.

4 Case Studies on China and India China and India are different in their implementation of e-government projects. India’s approach until now has been primarily from the bottom up,2 with states taking the lead in implementation of projects. Initiatives in China, on the other hand, have been top-down,3 fully supported by a functional national e-government framework that conceptualizes, implements, and monitors initiatives across the country. India did not have a formal national framework for citizen-centric e-government initiatives until very recently, as national e-government efforts earlier were solely focused around defense, economic monitoring, planning, and deployment of IT to manage data-intensive services such as tax administration, elections, and censusrelated information. China, on the other hand, was driven by a national policy to implement e-government all across the country in gradual stages with the intention of digitizing the entire nation with a focus on areas such as commerce, tourism, and government transparency. This chapter examines four distinct projects—two in China and two in India. In China, Beijing and Nanhai are provincial and municipal

2 Where 3 Where

the effort is far more localized in nature. the effort is dictated by a central government.

6


121

e-government projects, respectively. While in India, both Bhoomi and Gyandoot are spearheaded by state governments.

4.1 China China has been connected to the Internet since 1994. Due to the government’s high motivation to expand economically, ICTs have been employed as popular outlets for networking, communicating, and disseminating information all across China. Both online activists and government officials alike have found the Internet to be a vital means of making their information accessible to the masses in rural and urban regions of the country. Like India, China had various ICT networks already in place prior to the establishment of any formal e-government system. While the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was determined to control the Internet, it by no means included limiting the technology utilized in the country (Zhou, 2004). If anything, the government was determined to ensure that governments at the provincial, county, and municipal levels were all linked through and controlled by the country’s central government. The government believed that in order to continue developing the country, it was necessary to implement an e-government infrastructure nationally, which was catalyzed by the successful initiation of a few pilot projects for local governments within a select few highly populated, industrialized provinces and municipalities. China’s national e-government policy began in 1999 with the launching of the Government Online Project (GOP) by the State Economic and Trade Commission’s (SETC) Economic Information Center, over 40 government information offices, and China Telecom—the world’s largest ICT service provider and operator. The GOP was designed to be implemented in three progressive stages: (1) connecting 800–1,000 government offices and agencies to the Internet; (2) transferring information systems of government offices and agencies to an electronic format; and (3) ensure that government offices and agencies will become paperless (Lovelock & Ure, 2002). Prior to the public launching of China’s GOP, there were only 145 e-government sites online at the time. By 2002, the number of government sites online dramatically increased to 5864 (ICCCID Consulting Co., Ltd., 2009). The following section will address two special cases on “Digital Beijing,” where the provincial government has proven to implement an overall effective, successful e-government and Nanhai, a district where the e-government process evolved into something that became much more complicated than government officials had initially expected. 4.1.1 The Success of Beijing’s Business E-park Beijing, the capital city of China, began its “Digital Beijing” initiative in the year 2000. The Beijing Municipal Office of Informatization (BMOI) was initially responsible for the development and design of “Digital Beijing” and the Digital Olympics in 2008. As time progressed, an e-government for Beijing was soon to be the next

122


big project that BMOI would take on. Currently, Beijing’s e-government functions cover the citywide promotion of e-government, e-business, e-community, infosecurity, IT applications, and administration by provincial laws and standards set by the government. Beijing has approximately 4.5 million citizens in the province, and nearly 29% of Beijing has Internet coverage, accounting for the highest coverage nationwide. Beijing also has the first and second highest number of government domain and general domain names, respectively, in China, but it has been recognized as China’s model e-government ever since it was launched in 2006 (Yan, 2006). The provincial government has especially been committed to establishing an e-government that serves its thriving business sector. Zhongguancun E-park4 is a pilot project that applies the latest computer and Internet technologies to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the government. Since the e-park system went online in 2000, more than 6,000 businesses in the Beijing hi-tech park of Zhongguancun have been able to apply for a license, file monthly financial reports, submit tax statements, and conduct 32 other “government to business” and “government to citizen” functions online. The e-park, therefore, very much aligned itself with infoDev’s key components of process reform and collaboration. The system has greatly increased government transparency and efficiency, and reduced the opportunities for corruption. The mayor of Beijing announced that in 5 years, most government administrative functions in the city would follow the online model of the e-park (Yan, 2006). The old system was more time-consuming and difficult for businesses to work with the government. There was a much longer wait time in registering and processing business forms, and all departments within the government’s commerce sector were completely independent of one another, so there was no systematic means of communication and resource allocation to efficiently meet the demands of citizens in a timely manner. These obstacles also burdened IT companies that catalyze the science and technology industries—that which the Chinese government believes is vital for the Chinese economy. In 2000, enterprises in the e-park generated a total of $12 billion in revenue and $200 million in foreign investments, significantly contributing to the nation’s economy (Yan, 2006). Therefore, the design and implementation of Beijing’s e-park was seen as prospective solution to such problems, resulting in an increase in interactivity, transparency, and efficiency. In addition to the successes of the e-park, its disadvantages are just as important to consider. However, in the case of Beijing, the problem of digitizing the government yields consequences that all governments will have to face—the replacement of human resources with computerized ones, thus leading to a significant number of job losses for many former government employees. Apparently, China already has a high unemployment rate, so the expansion of e-government systems throughout the country will only further aggravate the problem.

4 www.zhongguancun.com.cn

6


123

4.1.2 Nanhai’s District-Level E-government In 2001, the Chinese government chose Nanhai as the pilot city for e-government and “informatization” at the county level. In 2002, Nanhai was designated as a district by the central government due to its growth and expansion throughout the years. The population is over one million in number, and the area is well-known for its manufacturing and agricultural industries. In 1996, prior to its designation as a pilot e-government project, Nanhai started to build its first network infrastructure followed by the launch of the Nanhai Comprehensive Information Network (NCIN), resulting in the interconnection of all government departments and agencies within the city. Although Nanhai’s local ICT infrastructure and e-government developed rapidly, the application of e-government has found to been rather inadequate. Several employees still prefer working in the “real world” rather than utilizing e-government facilities. Computers are most often used for word processing and e-mail communications internally, but they still print paper files, rather than manage them electronically (Luo, 2009). In conducting interviews with Nanhai e-government employees, Luo (2009) discovered that less than 50% of government departments have effective online interactions with citizens and more than 30% of government Web sites do not update their information on a regular basis. Furthermore, since Nanhai’s government introduced ICTs into the local society, they have shifted their industry emphasis from traditional manufacturing to the emerging ICT industry, where some have expressed their anxiety about the industrial reconstruction under the central government’s control. According to Heeks (1999), e-government is a means to solve such problems and achieve efficiency, accountability, decentralization, and marketization. Although, Nanhai’s e-government officials reinvented the public administration structure through the aid of ICTs, the e-government greatly enhanced the direct supervision of top officials at the municipal level, thus significantly reducing the power and autonomy of all local agencies throughout the district.

4.1.3 Comparative Analysis of Beijing and Nanhai There are some obstacles to realizing the Chinese government’s ambition of e-government. First, there is a fundamental contradiction between the leadership’s intention to promote an e-government and the institutionalized way of thinking and behavior of the central government. A country, known for its centralized government is introduced to the concept of local e-governments, where central government is either not as strong such as in the cause of Beijing or has too much control as in Nanhai’s case. Second, the idea of e-government is based on the belief that government work should be transparent and authorities are obliged to deliver services to citizens (Carrow, 2001). The Internet culture represents modern political culture in which transparency, a fair share of information, and political equality are required. With the case of Beijing and Nanhai, however, there are two distinct cases where

124


issues of the actual process, leadership roles, investments, collaboration, and civic engagement are at odds. In the case of the e-park, the process is very much deeply rooted within a business framework, where competition is highly anticipated. At first, it was difficult for the e-government in Beijing to gain the trust and recruit cooperative ideals among businesses involved. However, the relevancy and accuracy of the information, as indicated in Heeks’ model was of such a high caliber, which was interestingly attributed to the contributions of so many transnational and international corporations that offered their expertise as well as their resources to contribute to e-park’s success. Nanhai’s launch of the e-government, however, began quite rapidly and almost effortlessly, where government employees at the local and national levels were working collaboratively to move forward. Unfortunately, however, the quality of information provided in Nanhai was not sufficient or necessarily relevant to the needs and demands of the citizens the e-government was serving. There were too many services offered, which were quite overwhelming for both the users and for government employees to handle. The cases of Beijing and Nanhai indicate that despite their successes, both e-governments are facing major challenges in ensuring that all users have access to online government services. Most importantly, however, is how to offer educational services to best serve and meet the needs of the citizens. Beijing has a greater task than that of Nanhai, yet it still manages to have more resources available and be more successful since the private sector has been working so successfully with the public sector. Additionally, ICT literacy among Beijing’s population is much greater than that of Nanhai’s, because the resources are more readily available. If anything, the success and failures of Beijing and Nanhai, respectively, should also be determined by the influence and role of China’s central government. The amount of time and resources invested in each project revealed great discrepancies and gaps with regards to the types of services offered and the technological capabilities and expertise of both government employees the citizens being served. Neither case addresses how rural, poor populations can benefit from e-government services when factors of ICT proficiency and literacy are vital to even being able to utilize and access e-government services. While the e-park has one of the most advanced innovative technologies available to the public, only an elite few can actually benefit from such an opportunity, and primarily those who are wealthy, successful business owners.

4.2 India The following section compares the success of Bhoomi with the failure of Gyandoot in India. Bhoomi started with the intended purpose of computerizing land records and infusing a sense of transparency and accountability into the land record system. Gyandoot was started with the aim of installing an intranet system that would connect rural Internet kiosks across one of the poorest districts in the central

6


125

Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. Gyandoot won the 2000 Stockholm Challenge IT Award because of its ability to provide “numerous benefits to the region, including a people-based self-reliant sustainable strategy” (Bhatnagar & Vyas, 2001). Their selection as success and failure, respectively, is based on De’s (2005) assessment in the paper titled The Impact of Indian E-government Initiatives: Issues of Poverty and Vulnerability Reduction, and Conflict. 4.2.1 Success of Bhoomi Like the rest of India, the southern state of Karnataka is predominantly agricultural. For its primarily agricultural population, land records are extremely crucial documents that confirm ownership, are decisive during the process of loan procurement, and are extremely vital as protectors of property. Bhoomi (meaning land) was a response to calls for reforms in land administration in India, which was infamous for being outdated, corrupt, and difficult to maneuver. Formerly, village accountants (VAs) in Karnataka maintained land records. Their primary responsibilities entailed maintaining land records and altering these records upon sale or inheritance (also known as mutation requests). However, the VAs were notorious for being inaccessible, procrastinating on basic responsibilities, and extracting bribes from customers (Chawla, 2004; Hanlon, 2004). Often times, the accountants would delay providing land records for up to 30 days. Additionally, they requested “speed money” that ranged from $2 to $40,5 depending on the nature of work. In some cases, bribes exceeded $200, when the task involved entering ambiguous information (Chawla, 2004). Similarly, mutation records would run into severe administrative policies. While a revenue inspector was expected to update mutation records after a 30-day period of enquiry and verification, the process was ordinarily prolonged to more than 2 years (Bhatnagar, 2003). Besides, the lack of transparency in the system aided the scope for further manipulation. The premise for Bhoomi’s implementation was that computerized land records would inhibit the malpractices inherent in the manual system and infuse greater accountability and transparency. The call for electronic land records first emerged in 1989–1990, when India’s Ministry of Rural Development began disbursing funds to state governments to facilitate the process. Using these funds, Karnataka rolledout a pilot in its Gulbarga district. By 1996, the project was expanded to include all the districts in the state. The taluks (towns that serve as headquarters for a cluster of villages), however, remained under the manual system of record keeping. Though funds were sanctioned for digitizing the land records data, there was not enough clarity about their validation and subsequent updating. Due to varying reasons, ranging from apathy to bureaucracy, the project failed in its objective (Gadiyar, 2007). In 2002, the state government issued a directive stating that digitization of land records would be expanded to include sub-districts and a system would be developed

5 $1

= 45 Indian Rupees.

126


that would enable a citizen-centric land record keeping. This led to the conceptualization and design of the Bhoomi software by the National Informatics Center (NIC), the government’s Ministry of Information Technology (MIT). While Bhoomi is primarily under the onus of the State government, it is jointly sponsored by Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India and State Government of Karnataka. Subsequently, the objectives of Bhoomi were identified as (Chawla, 2004, p. 8): • • • •

Facilitating easy maintenance and prompt updating of land records. Making land records tamper proof. Allowing farmers easy access to their records. Collating the information to construct database regarding land revenue, cropping pattern, land use, etc. • Utilizing the data for planning and for formulating development programs. • Enabling usage for this database by courts, banks, private organizations and companies, Internet service providers (ISPs). Once the decision to reach the taluks was made, the state government’s Department of Revenue installed computer kiosks across its 177 taluk offices. The primary purpose of these kiosks was to provide farmers with land ownership documents, also referred to as “Record of Rights, Tenancy and Cultivation” (RTC). Simultaneously, the emphasis was on computerizing the 20 million land ownership records of the approximately 6.7 million farmers in the state. Farmers, today, can acquire a copy of the RTC at the computer kiosks in the designated taluks against a payment of $0.33. Similarly, farmers can also place mutation requests at the kiosk. Against that request, a checklist of required documents for manual verification is generated. The mutation request is also assigned a number and farmers can determine the status of their application by feeding in the number into a touch screen device at some kiosks. On completion of the required manual verification, the new information is electronically entered and a notice generated. The notice is delivered to the original applicant, who acknowledges receipt and verifies all the information. In case no further changes are needed, a revenue inspector passes the order immediately after the 30-day expiration from the date of the issuance of the notice. Further, the entire process of land record procurement and ownership mutations are made foolproof by a bio-metric fingerprinting interface that ensures that records are tamper proof. This also infuses accountability of officials into the system. 4.2.2 Failure of Gyandoot Gyandoot (meaning purveyor of knowledge) was started in 2000 in the Dhar district of the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh (MP). With a population of 1.7 million, which is predominantly tribal (54%), Dhar is also one of the poorest districts in India with approximately 60% of its population living below the poverty

6


127

line. Also, for the primarily rural population, access to basic government services is an arduous task. Requesting official copies of property records, or even securing an appointment with government officials is time consuming. For most of Dhar’s population, the opportunity cost of accessing these fundamental services is huge. The proponents of Gyandoot endeavored to establish community-owned, technologically innovative and sustainable information kiosks in a poverty-stricken, tribal dominated rural area of MP (Bhatnagar, 2004). Yet, again, the purpose of exploring ICT usage in Dhar was to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, and transparency of local government through increasing access to services, information, and policy documentation by the public (Spence, 2003). The focus of Gyandoot has both been e-commerce and e-government. The overall objectives of Gyandoot were the following (UNDP): • To ensure equal access to emerging technologies for marginalized segments of the society. • To create a cost-effective, replicable, economically self-reliant, and financially viable model for taking the benefits of IT to the rural masses. • To implement a new grassroots entrepreneurial model with the participation of groups of non-traditional entrepreneurs. • To provide self-employment through entrepreneurship to local rural youth. • To improve the quality, speed, and sensitivity of the state delivery apparatus toward the needs of local citizen-customers. • To impact IT on the government–citizen interfaces as the thrust area, so that the benefits of the knowledge economy directly reach the marginalized have-nots and know-nots. • To search for the potential of rural markets in the digital domain. • To analyze the processes and modalities involved in the socio-cultural environment while taking technology to the deprived communities. The State Government, with help from the World Bank, installed the Gyandoot infrastructure. The management of the Gyandoot Intranet comprises the Gyandoot Samiti whose president is the District Collector. He is assisted by a secretary, project manager, an assistant project manager, a technical head, and four computer operators. The kiosks are known as soochanalayas and function at the local level through one of two ownership models—the first model involves financial investment by the village Panchayat on the hardware, and infrastructure. Operation at the kiosk is handled by a trained operator. Expenses on account of day-to-day functioning of the kiosk is borne by both the Panchayat and the operator. The second model of kiosk ownership is a local entrepreneurship model wherein someone from the village invests in the infrastructure and hardware to start a local business. These entrepreneurs are required to pay the Samiti approximately $110 every year. Having identified Dhar as the site for the project, an intranet was installed by stationing computers in 20 selected soochanalayas. By 2002, the number had expanded to 40. The kiosks are especially placed in villages, which hold weekly

128


markets, or are in proximity of major roads, to facilitate access for those residents living in far-flung areas (Cecchini & Raina, 2004). On an average, each of the soochanalayas cater to the needs of approximately 30 villages, comprising at least half a million residents. Of the 40 kiosks, the village Panchayat opened 21 and the remaining were privately owned. The server or hub of the Gyandoot intranet network is called Soochana Kosh (“Store of Information”) and is a remote access server (RAS), placed in the Zila Panchayat or “district headquarters” (Jafri, Dongre, Tripathi, Aggrawal, & Shrivastava, 2002). In order to make the kiosk a sustainable business operation, facilities such as long-distance telephony, photocopying, and Internet connectivity are also present. While the district council owns the Gyandoot intranet, each village council is responsible for the functioning of the soochanalayas. A project manager is responsible for database maintenance and safe keeping of the server in the District Council. Assistant managers, who are government servants, aid him. The soochanalayas are staffed by village youth with a minimum school-leaving certificate to their credential. Added qualifications include average proficiency in typing, data entry capability, and managerial skills. The kiosks are operated as businesses and a fee is charged against every service accessed. At the inception of the project it was decided that further expansion of kiosk centers will take place only when local youth come forward to start new centers as private enterprises (Bhatnagar & Vyas, 2001). Among a variety of services, customers coming to the soochanalayas, have the opportunity to place complaints online, access government applications, and send enquiries to the proper authorities. While the electronic front-end allows for these services, the back-end continues to be manually operated. Printouts of the applications, complaints, and enquiries are sent to the appropriate government department. Responses from officials are then manually entered into the Gyandoot intranet. The average time lag between placing a query and receiving a response is approximately seven days. For grievances that are not immediately addressed, the project manager meets with the district collector to ensure follow-up and action. 4.2.3 Impact, Analysis, and Comparison Bhoomi is hailed as one of the most successful e-government projects in India. A finalist in the 2002 Stockholm Challenge Awards, Bhoomi has earned greater laurels, especially because other states have been unable to replicate its implementation and success. Bhoomi has infused a sense of organization into the agricultural sector, which enabled the state to take further steps toward keeping an online database and scrutinizing the sector more closely. Since its inception, Bhoomi has computerized 20 million land records covering 27,000 villages. Overall, 6.7 million farmers from approximately 177 sub-districts in Karnataka have benefited from its services. However, the total number of beneficiaries is well over 35 million. Bhoomi has drastically reduced the time frame

6


129

required to acquire an RTC from 1 RTC in 30 days to 5 RTCs 15 min. Similarly, with Bhoomi, the wait time for mutation requests has been reduced to a maximum of 45 days from the earlier maximum of 2 years. Bhoomi revenues are generated through the user fees charged against the services on offer at the kiosks. Against the total investment of approximately $4 million,6 Bhoomi collects $0.33 million7 every month on account of the 600 million user charges collected (Chawla, 2007). Gyandoot, on the other hand, received the 2000 Stockholm Challenge Award8 in the Public Administration category. The award was a tribute to Gyandoot’s ability in giving the marginalized tribal masses a chance to access information and knowledge. However, since the longevity of the kiosks depended on their economic viability, a host of services are offered to supplement kiosk income. Documents relating to farmer’s land area, including map are available at the kiosks for a marginal rate of $0.33. The bulk of the services on offer at the kiosk span delivery of several e-government services9 including the land records, domicile, and income certificates. Customers also use the kiosks to voice concerns and grievances about services or issues in the community. The services given to the public from the Soochanalayas will be based upon user charge and through this the local matriculate trained village youth will earn his livelihood and will also generate the small amount needed to maintain and run the system. In future, through private investment, bank loan or Panchayats, entrepreneurs may purchase computers, etc. and set-up more Soochanalayas/cybercafe-cum-cyberoffices. Thus, the entire scheme is independent of the government from an economic point of view and is financially self-sustainable and viable. Through this strategy, without any additional burden on the government, a mass-based and public-oriented autonomous and independent information technology system may be established in the rural areas in a short time. In thus designing its business plan, while Gyandoot minimized its financial dependence on the state, it increased it on both the Panchayat bodies and private resources. It was hoped that the myriad services on offer at the kiosks and user fees generated there from would ensure the sustainability of the kiosks.

4.2.4 Analysis and Comparison Bhoomi, today, is one of the most successful e-government projects in India. Perhaps, its most significant impact has been on lending transparency to the system

6 Rs.

180 million (Chawla, 2007). 15 million. 8 http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/project/data/Gyandoot 9 http://www.Gyandoot.nic.in/ 7 Rs.

130


of land records, which was wrought with corruption and bureaucratic procedures. Footfalls at Bhoomi kiosks, RTC procurement, and number of mutation requests are testament to the continued relevance of Bhoomi kiosks in Karnataka. Gyandoot, on the other hand, started with immense promise. However, 3 years into its implementation, attrition was high and usage relatively low (Cecchini, 2002; Ratan, 2008). By 2002, of the 40 soochanalayas, almost half had closed down. Services, whose usage had met with initial enthusiasm, waned with time. To begin with, customers were interested in crop prices. That demand also diminished with time because of two crucial factors—first, the installation of these kiosks coincided with the fall in telecom prices in India, which made it possible for farmers to acquire current prices by making local calls at a much cheaper rate than what it would cost them to obtain the same information at the kiosks; second, the Web sites were not updated regularly. Thus, the information available was, often times, dated and irrelevant to farmers. Additionally, challenge on account of distance was a major hindrance to optimal kiosk usage. While both projects began with immense promise, within 2 years of implementation, their trajectories diverged. While Bhoomi, continued to thrive and enjoy adequate demand from among farmers, Gyandoot’s performance dwindled. A matrix is proposed (see Tables 6.1 and 6.2 below) of infoDev factors and Heeks’ IPTOSMO framework to analyze what factors were catalysts and what inhibited success.10 While we understand that not all factors might be contextual in the case of Bhoomi and Gyandoot, the matrix below is only an attempt to gauge the factors that played a role in either project’s performance. The genesis of Bhoomi and Gyandoot was based on the premise that ICTs can play a relevant role in facilitating access to the government and its services. But due to inherent malpractices, access to the government was either delayed or nonexistent. However, in the analysis of the performance of both of these projects, two issues stand out—first, the issues of choice of services that were made available at the kiosks; and second, the mechanism or model of service delivery. As pointed out earlier, the project Bhoomi was singularly focused on making land record available to the farmers in a manner that was both simple and prompt. In the years since its inception, this objective has not been diluted. Further, the Bhoomi infrastructure provided the necessary support for timely and adequate service delivery. Gyandoot, on the other hand, attempted to shuttle between two broad categories of services— e-government and e-commerce. Of course, other services like redressal forums, communication, and entertainment were also offered at the kiosks. Perhaps, offering too many services, instead of concentrating on a select few has jeopardized Gyandoot’s chances of success. The prevalent technical issues have only accentuated these challenges.

10 Table 6.1 refers to the Bhoomi and Gyandoot projects in India as compared to infoDev’s criteria, while Table 6.2 addresses characteristics of Heeks’ model for all the projects in China and India.

Simplified the process of procuring land ownership documents

There was skepticism the system would remove corrupt VA’s. Government officials were apprehensive that the new system would replace their own responsibilities. But the planning assured there was adequate buy-in from existing VAs and government officials because of their inherent importance to the successful implementation of Bhoomi Funds were made available from both center and state

The state government has identified the success of Bhoomi as one of its priorities

E-government Very clear organizational structure

Respond to local needs end-user demand-driven projects

Adequate buy-in from those within the system; e.g., civil servants

Top-brass support integral

Set clear goals Designate an officer/body that will oversee planning and budget

Long-term resource commitment

Bhoomi

Recommendations

The infrastructure has been funded by the state and World Bank. But sustainability of kiosks is entirely dependent on the Panchayats and private entrepreneurs While there is extensive state-government support and commitment for Gyandoot its success depends heavily on local support, i.e., Panchayat bodies, and private entrepreneurs Diluted by the several services on offer With the presence of several private entrepreneurs, the question is who would be responsible for monitoring the performance of the soochanalayas?

Responded to critical needs—agricultural prices and procurement of important official documents. But diluted the entire purpose of addressing key needs by attempting to offer too many services at the same time The buy-in in Gyandoot’s case was mainly a function of selling the concept to the Panchayat bodies and private entities who were ultimately responsible for the last chain in the ICT service-delivery mechanism

Gyandoot

Table 6.1 E-government recommendations for Bhoomi and Gyandoot (based on infoDev factors)

6 A Challenging E-journey Along the Silk Road 131

Extensively consulted The services were too diverse and not necessarily responses to very critical needs of the end-beneficiary. It would be safe to assume that some services were introduced for the sole purpose of making the kiosks viable business operations It is unclear whether customer feedback is accounted for

The successful implementation of Bhoomi necessitates departmental integration

Ambiguous Ambiguous Center, state, and taluk offices No definite evidence of end-user consultation Very strongly citizen-centric

Involve local leaders Local ownership

Federal agencies, state and municipal agencies need to partner Consult end user Design applications that are citizen-centric

While feedback is forthcoming, there is ambiguity about how much of it is integrated

Government departments would have to be relatively integrated to ensure that services were delivered to the end-beneficiary in a timely manner. But the more varied the nature of the services, the more integrated the departments would have to be, which makes service delivery complicated Very strongly Yes, both through the Panchayat designated operator and the entrepreneur State, Panchayat bodies, local entrepreneurs

Ambiguous

Create incentives for private sector to become an active partnership Encourage participation/integration from other departments

Feedback

Extensively consulted with local communities and end beneficiaries at the planning stage to gauge what services would prove contextual and relevant Micro-enterprise/entrepreneurship model

Ambiguous

Consult with local communities

Gyandoot

Bhoomi

Recommendations


132 A. Bandyopadhyay and S.D. Sattarzadeh

Bhoomi

Ensure that RTCs and mutation records—extremely important documents of land ownership—could be easily procured at the kiosks

Bhoomi has ensured the compatibility of front-end and back-end operations

Factor

Information: The relevancy, currency, and accuracy of content

Technical: The compatibility of the technology with processes

Purposes of e-government and e-commerce: With the Gyandoot Web site being updated once in 2–3 days, the content was no more relevant to farmers whose priority was to acquire real-time price information Gaps in processes exist. In certain cases, while customers have the opportunity to place a complaint, the process does not necessarily ensure a solution. Since transactions at the back-end are handled manually, Gyandoot customers have not had the privilege of better service response time. This is further aggravated by issues of power shortage

Gyandoot

Nanhai

Digital Beijing has the most technological innovations in the nation-state that have advanced in such a short period of time

Many citizens are not able to use the tools, due to computer illiteracy and lack of proficiency. The e-government’s technological training for employees is also faulty and disconnected with that of the central government

Resources are readily Information available available to businesses and through the e-government corporations in the private cannot keep up with and public sectors, citizens’ demands specifically targeting science and technology sectors of society

Beijing

Table 6.2 E-governments in China and India compared to Heeks’ ITPOSMO Model


Singularly focused on online land record delivery

The purpose of Bhoomi was to rid the land record system of existent corruption and bureaucratic procedures. While overall, customers seem satisfied with the efficiency of land record acquisition through the Bhoomi kiosks, some customers feel that corruption has not been completely dealt with Centralized staffing with control in the hands of the state body

Processes

Objectives, values, and motivations

Staffing and skills

Bhoomi

Factor

Decentralized with more grassroots-level participation

More and more services added under the Gyandoot umbrella because the kiosks function as businesses. Quality suffers on account of a lack of priority between what to offer to customers Because of the varied nature of kiosk operators, it is very difficult to gauge and determine whether objectives, goals, and motivations were the same for everyone

Gyandoot


Centralized at the local and national level. Staff structure of e-government is very hierarchical

Digital Beijing was created to promote transparency and simplified processes between the public and private sector. The cooperation of businesses and government have strengthened the overall goals of the project

E-government has shown to be very effective and characteristic of high levels of transparency

Beijing

Staff is not trained, and there is a shortage in human resources. There is frustration between staff in Nanhai and the central government

Initially, the goals and objectives of Nanhai were realistic and effective. However, as the demand grew, the central government became more involved, causing more obstacles to achieving goals and objectives.

There is a disconnect between the central government and Nanhai’s government as to how to provide resources and which are prioritized

Nanhai

134 A. Bandyopadhyay and S.D. Sattarzadeh

With support from both the With kiosk life dependent on center and state, prolonged income makes fund resource engagement has commitment at the kiosk been ensured level erratic. This has resulted in problems of attrition, closure, and even the dilution of “development” as an objective

Other resources: Time and Money

Extremely decentralized

Fairly centralized

Management

Gyandoot

Bhoomi

Factor


The role of the private sector has contributed a high number of resources, including financial and human resources

Controlled by central government, but Beijing has a lot of autonomy to drive and control most of the infrastructure locally

Beijing

Controlled by central government, but Nanhai has some autonomy. Although, the role of the central government seems to be dominant even at the local level Nanhai has an affluent community, which is more dependent on agricultural exports. However, the e-government has become very small scale

Nanhai


136


5 Overall Summary The cases of Bhoomi and Gyandoot in India and Beijing and Nanhai in China are four examples of where instances of e-government are both a tangible and realistic amidst barriers and obstacles occurring from the planning phase to actual implementation. The five factors of successful e-government as established by infoDev and Heeks’ ITPOSMO framework are only two examples of how effective an egovernment can be in the design and process stages of e-government. Information regarding the actual implementation of an e-government system would require further study. The examples and descriptions provided here from China and India are not homogeneous to existing e-governments in both countries, and they may not fully represent the complexities that each e-government currently faces both in the design and implementation phases, as all case studies were based on secondary sources of data. Therefore, further study and field research may reveal alternative perspectives that may have been lacking in this chapter. Exploration of the experiences of citizens and e-government employees alike would benefit government officials to identify areas for improvement in the planning, design, and delivery phases of e-government. Issues of Internet and computer literacy as well as the role of the central government in e-government implementation are also crucial factors to consider. China’s e-government system is based on a national policy, while India’s e-governments were established by local governments. The debate between centralized and decentralized governments continues, but the rapid rise of e-governments systems across the country have also proven that central and local governments can indeed work collaboratively and successfully as long as there are compromises in what type of resources, values, management and process structures, technology, training, and information is shared and will be most beneficial to citizens, and therefore, the overall development of the country. National and local practices and policies (that compliment rather than contradict each other) should be implemented so that e-government systems run smoothly and interconnectivity across governments is feasible and efficient. Most importantly, national and local governments should have policies in place for ICT training and implementation, ensuring that rural citizens have equal access to e-government resources as their urban counterparts and employees are efficient in service delivery.

References APDIP (2006). Fighting Corruption with e-Government Applications. APDIP e-Note. Bhatia, D., Bhatnagar, S. C., & Tominaga, J. (2009). How do manual and e-government services compare? Experiences from India. In Information and communications for development 2009: Extending reach and increasing impact (pp. 67–82). Washington, DC: World Bank. Bhatnagar, S. (2003). Access to information report: E-government. London: Profile Books Limited. Bhatnagar, S. (2004). E-government: From vision to implementation. India: Sage.

6


137

Bhatnagar, S., & Vyas, N. (2001). Gyandoot: Community owned rural intranet kiosks. Washington, DC: World Bank. Carmine, S., & Yuhang, S. (1999). World wide web site design and use in public management. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Information technology and computer applications in public administration: Issues and trends (pp. 246–266). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Carrow, J. (2001). Five keys to e-government. Interactive Week, 8(2), 86. Cecchini, S. (2002, July 10). Evaluation of Gyandoot and Bhoomi (India). (H. Arazyan, Interviewer) Development Gateway. Cecchini, S., & Raina, M. (2004). Electronic government and the rural poor: The case of Gyandoot. Information Technologies and International Development, 65–75. Center for Democracy and Technology. (2002). The e-government development handbook for developing countries. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Chawla, R. (2004). BHOOMI: Online delivery of record of rights, tenancy and crops to farmers in Karnataka, India. New Delhi: National Institute for Smart Government. Chawla, R., & Bhatnagar, S. (2004). Online delivery of land titles to rural farmers in Karnataka, India. In Reducing poverty, sustaining growth—what works, what doesn’t, and why a global exchange for scaling up success. Washington, DC : World Bank. Chen, A. J., Pan, S. L., Zhang, J., Huang, W. W., & Zhu, S. (2009). Managing e-government implementation in China: A process perspective. Information & Management, 46, 203–212. Ciborra, C. (2005). Interpreting e-government and development: Efficiency, transparency or governance at a distance? Information Technology & People, 18(3), 260–279. Ciborra, C., & Navarro, D. D. (2005). Good governance, development theory, and aid policy: Risks and challenges of e-government in Jordan. Information Technology for Development, 11(2), 141–159. Dada, D. (2006). The failure of e-government in developing countries: A literature review. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 26(7), 1–10. De, R. (2005). E-government systems in developing countries: Stakeholders and conflict. In M. A. Wimmer., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Electronic Government, 4th International Conference (pp. 26–37). Berlin: Springer. De, R. (2006). The impact of Indian e-government initiatives: Issues of poverty and vulnerability reduction, and conflict. Regional Development Dialogue. UNCRD and UNDP. De, R. (2006, December 14). Design and evaluation of the societal impact of GII: The case of bhoomi in Karnataka, India. Bangalore, Karnataka, India: Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. Gadiyar, C. (2007, December 10). Bhoomi empowers rural Karnataka. Retrieved August 17, 2009, from Dataquest: http://dqindia.ciol.com/content/top_stories/2007/107121001.asp Hanlon, C. (2004, May 20). On the road to Shanghai: India; closing the digital divide to cut corruption and poverty. Retrieved from http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/ NEWS/0„contentMDK:20204636∼menuPK:34459∼pagePK:34370∼piPK:34424∼theSitePK: 4607,00.html Heeks, R. (Ed.). (1999). Reinventing government in the information age: International practice in IT-enabled public sector reform. London, UK: Routledge. Heeks, R. (2003). Most eGovernment-for-development projects fail: how can risks be reduced? Manchester: IDPM. Ho, A. T.-K. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62, 434–443. infoDev. (2002). The e-government handbook for developing countries. Washington, DC: infoDev and Center for Democracy and Technology. Jafri, A., Dongre, A., Tripathi, V. N., Aggrawal, A., & Shrivastava, S. (2002). Information communication technologies and governance: The Gyandoot experiment in Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh, India. London: Overseas Development Institute.

138


Kelles-Viitanen, A. (2003). The role of ICT in poverty reduction. The Finnish Economy and Society, 82–94. Lan, L. (2004). E-government: A catalyst to good governance in China. In Knowledge management in electronic government (pp. 317–324). Berlin: Springer. Lovelock, P., & Ure, J. (2002). Assessing China’s efforts in constructing an e-government. In M. Woesler & J. Zhang (Eds.), China digital dream: The impact of the internet on Chinese society (pp. 177–200). Bochum: The University Press Bochum. Luo, G. (2009). E-government, people and social change: A case study in China. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 38(3), 1–23. Mansell, R., & Wehn, U. (1998). Knowledge societies: Information technology for sustainable development. New York: Oxford University Press. Ndou, V. (2004). E-government for developing countries: Opportunities and challenges. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 18(1), 1–24. PCIP. (2002). Roadmap for e-government in the developing world: 10 questions e-government leaders should ask themselves. Los Angeles: PCIP. Scavo, C., & Shi, Y. (1999). World Wide Web site design and use in public management. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Information technology and computer applications in public administration:Issues and trends. Hershey: IDEA. Seneviratne, S. J. (1999). Information technology and organizational change in the public sector. In Information technology and computer applications in public administration: issues and trends (pp. 41–61). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Spence, R. (2003). Information and communications technologies (ICTs) for poverty reduction: when, where and how? Ottawa: IDRC. Tan, X. (2002). Development of e-government in China—present status, challenges, and problems. In M. Woesler & J. Zhang (Eds.), China digital dream: The impact of the internet on Chinese society (pp. 177–200). Bochum: The University Press Bochum. Vrasidas, C., Zembylas, M., & Glass, G. V. (2009). ICT for development: Challenges and possibilities. In C. Vrasidas, M. Zembylas, & C. V. Glass (Eds.), ICT for education, development and social justice (pp. 3–17). Greenwich: Information Age. World, T. W.-G. (2002). Roadmap for e-government in the developing world. Pacific Council on International Policy. World Bank. (2009). Definition of e-government. http://go.worldbank.org/M1JHE0Z280 Xu, D., & Astone, M. (2005). E-government in China. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/ intradoc/groups/public/documents/ APCITY/UNPAN022802.pdf Yan, Z. (2006). Municipal e-government in China: The case of Beijing. Beijing: BMOI. Zhou, X. (2004). E-government in China: A content analysis of national and provincial web sites.

Chapter 7

Digital Government in North America: A Comparative Analysis of Policy and Program Priorities in Canada, Mexico, and the United States Luis F. Luna-Reyes, Theresa A. Pardo, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, Celene Navarrete, Jing Zhang, and Sehl Mellouli International digital government research has increased in the last 10 years. However, international research comparing or analyzing relevant problems for the North American region is scarce. In an effort to lay the foundation for new research in the context of North America, this chapter presents a comparative analysis of policy and program priorities of digital government in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Common themes in the agendas of the three countries include services to the citizen, improved government operations, transparency, connectivity, and economic development. Main differences can be explained on the basis of differences in development. In general, we could say that the US government is renewing its egovernment agenda, as a component of a wider innovation system. The government of Canada is also in a refreshing process, but more directed to consolidate a digital architecture for government services and operations, and Mexico is in the process of consolidating a digital government program.

L.F. Luna-Reyes (B) Universidad de las Americas Puebla, Cholula, Puebla 72820, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] T.A. Pardo Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY 12205, USA e-mail: [email protected] J.R. Gil-Garcia Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas, Mexico DF 01210, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] C. Navarrete California State University, Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA 90747, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. Zhang Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. Mellouli Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada G1V 0A6 e-mail: [email protected] C.G. Reddick (ed.), Comparative E-Government, Integrated Series in Information Systems 25, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-6536-3_7, C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

139

140

L.F. Luna-Reyes et al.

1 Introduction As a research discipline and professional field, digital government has a global reach. In this global arena, researchers have conducted an important amount of international research. In a recent review, Helbig, Dawes, Mulki, Hrdinová, and Cook (2009) discovered that international studies in digital government are very few before 2001, growing in number until 2005, reaching a maximum of 65 studies, and decreasing again from 2006 to 2008. Articles in the sample included comparative and benchmark studies, research focusing on regional issues, best practices, and transnational studies. Although these findings are encouraging, international research efforts are still scarce, particularly in a world where jurisdictional overlaps and collaboration among governments to solve public problems are becoming common (Helbig et al., 2009). Relevant studies are underway in Europe, but very few similar efforts can be found in North America (Helbig et al., 2009; Navarrete, Mellouli, Pardo, & Gil-Garcia, 2009). In order to lay the foundation for understanding these issues in the context of North America, this chapter presents a comparative analysis of digital government in Canada, Mexico, and the United States at the national level. This analysis is based on a set of official documents, press and news reports, as well as three, one-daylong face-to-face meetings with government officials from Mexico, Canada, and the United States, which took place in 2007, 2008, and 2009. The main objective of this analysis is to understand the priorities, policies, and strategies in place in the three countries. The chapter presents a description of the objectives, strategies, themes, budget priorities, and main projects in each of the three countries, including a comparative analysis of these components. In this way, the chapter constitutes a first description of digital government in North America. The chapter is organized into six sections including the foregoing introduction. Section 2 presents some important concepts about digital government. Section 3 describes the research methods used in this chapter. Section 4 provides an introduction to each of the three countries e-government efforts. Section 5 presents comparisons among the three countries in terms of objectives, strategies, projects, budget priorities, and information technology (IT) governance. Finally, section 6 includes the conclusions of the chapter.

2 Understanding Digital Government Information and communications technologies (ICTs) create possibilities and benefits for governments around the world. They are used to improve the quality of services, to reduce costs, and make policies and programs more effective (Gil-Garcia & Helbig, 2006; Lim & Tang, 2008; Roy, 2007). Information and communication technologies are used as a catalyst for organizational change (Dawes, 2002; Rocheleau, 2003). They are also considered a tool to improve democratic

7

Digital Government in North America

141

participation in political and civil organizations (Carbo & Williams, 2004; Hiller & Bélanger, 2001). The terms “digital government” and “e-government” have emerged over the last 15 years to refer to ICT use in government, and its meaning has been evolving over time (Gil-Garcia & Luna-Reyes, 2006; Yildiz, 2007). Conceptualizations of electronic government are diverse (Brown & Brudney, 2004; Edmiston, 2003; Roy, 2003; West, 2004). The more restrictive views of e-government only consider the use of the Internet to provide public services, while others consider any use of ICT in government. The field of e-government is located at the intersection of government, society, and ICT. Some general characteristics of e-government are (1) using information and communication technologies, (2) supporting government actions, (3) improving the relationships between government and citizens, and (4) following a strategy to create public value (Gil-Garcia & Luna-Reyes, 2006). Some other conceptualizations of digital government also involve the creation of a legal framework and a strategy to promote ICT adoption and the knowledge society. For this chapter, digital government is defined as “the selection, implementation, and use of information and communication technologies in government to provide public services, improve managerial effectiveness and promote democratic values and mechanisms; as well as the development of a regulatory framework that facilitates information-intensive initiatives and fosters the knowledge society” (Gil-Garcia & Luna-Reyes, 2006, p. 639). Governments around the world are developing national agendas to ensure that they’re capitalizing on the benefits of digital government. These national agendas integrate different aspects of digital government into a single, nation-wide strategy. In the management area, strategy is associated with the development and achievement of a grand goal, usually called mission or vision, as well as several critical objectives. In general, strategy involves three interrelated activities: strategic planning, strategic thinking, and opportunistic decision-making (Andersen, Belardo, & Dawes, 1994). Making strategy in the public sector, however, is not a straightforward process. One conceptualization is that “strategic management is a way of regenerating an organization, through continuous attention to a vision of what the people who make up an organization wish to do. It is a pro-active process of seeking to change the organization, its stakeholders (in as much as they are different from the organization), and the context, or environment, within which it seeks to attain its aspirations” (Eden & Ackermann, 2000, p. 3). This view recognizes strategy-making as an emergent process of change. In fact, from Eden and Ackermann’s (2000) point of view, strategy-making is a continuous process of sense-making and negotiation among all stakeholders, who consciously explore and reveal emergent and planned strategies. Given that actors and stakeholders may have different or even conflicting views of the mission and critical objectives, strategy-making needs to be understood as a process of continuously developing shared understandings about key problems and objectives (Bryson, 2004; Eden & Ackermann, 2000). Reflection on power relationships and the political environment are important components of strategy-making in

142


the public sector because it helps to balance planned with unplanned opportunities. It is common to find, both in the public and private sectors, governance bodies in charge of the development of IT strategy. These groups lead the process, negotiating objectives, priorities, and strategies, as well as main projects. The exploration of digital government in North America presented in this chapter intends to capture and compare the main strategic elements of digital government in each country.

3 Research Design and Methods Digital government research is a very young area of inquiry. As such, there is not yet an agreement in terms of a leading methodological approach (Scholl, 2007). International research efforts in this field are also quite new, and also show a breadth of research methods and traditions (Helbig et al., 2009). The lack of comparative research in digital government may be a consequence of the lack of a tradition in comparative research in other associated areas such as public administration, information science, or computer science; the only e-government-related field with a long tradition conducting comparative research is political science (Eglene & Dawes, 2006). Attending to the tradition of comparative politics, we understand comparative research as one of the basic scientific methods focusing on discovering relationships among variables (Lijphart, 1971). Given that the comparative method is usually applied to few cases, it shares strengths and weaknesses with case studies. Case studies’ main strength rests in their emphasis on deep description and context, helping to bridge theory and practice (Yin, 1994). The particular approach we use in this chapter is compatible with most of the work on comparative politics, mainly descriptive and inductive (Mahoney, 2007; Munck & Snyder, 2005). The three countries in North America are the selected cases. These three countries are different in many aspects (providing good variation), yet they have important similarities in government structures (three levels of government and a federal system). Therefore, comparing these countries may have important policy implications for each of the three countries and North America as a whole. Moreover, analyzing and comparing a developing country, a country with a highly developed presidential-system, and one with a highly developed parliamentarian-system will allow the results to be relevant to other countries around the world. Descriptive information for each country comes from government Websites, government documents, newspapers, and meetings with government officials of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. These meetings took place during the last 3 years as part of the activities of the North American Digital Government Working Group, in November 2007 (Mexico), November 2008 (Canada), and December 2009 (the United States). Each of the three meetings were organized as informal information exchanges, with a focus on common interests and ways to collaborate. In addition to the working group members, government officials also participated in the meetings (eight in Mexico, three in Canada, and ten in the United States).

7


143

The analysis focuses on five main themes: objectives, strategies, main projects, budget priorities, and IT governance structures. These themes constitute the core components of strategy as we described it in the previous section. In the following paragraph, we define each of these themes with more detail. Digital government objectives outline the goals and directions that each country intends to achieve. To a certain degree, objectives indicate the competitive position that each country strives to obtain. Although it is common to understand strategy in the literature as a plan of action, we are referring to strategies in this chapter as main action lines to accomplish objectives. Digital government projects are the building blocks of each country’s digital government program. They indicate priorities, attracted visibilities, provided tangible results, and collected important lessons for future development. Budget priorities refer to the amount of money allocated to e-government and to specific projects. The size of budget dedicated to the egovernment program demonstrates the overall commitment of government to IT as a key enabler of government operations. Allocation of resources to individual projects suggests the strategic importance of each of them. IT Governance structures represent the approach to allocating decision rights and accountability in the process of developing strategy and objectives, identifying budget priorities, making investment decisions, developing policies and technological standards, and managing and coordinating activities to reach objectives and adopt strategies. After a brief overview of the digital government strategies and actions of the three countries, the following sections describe and compare the three countries’ approaches in each of these main themes.

4 Country Overviews The following subsections provide a summary overview of digital government in Mexico, Canada, and the United States. Both official documents and leader speeches in the three countries make continuous linkages between digital government, digital economy, and the information society.

4.1 Mexico Digital government in Mexico has the shortest history from the three countries in North America, starting in the year 2000 with the e-Mexico program and President Fox’s Good Government Agenda (Luna-Reyes, Gil-Garcia, & Cruz, 2007). The use of ICT by government was one of the six key strategies of the Good Government Agenda, and the issues associated with ICT in government were very frequently mentioned in President Fox’s speeches. The e-Mexico program promoted the information society, citizen access to the Internet and a government technology platform.

144


In the current presidential administration, however, digital government is much less prominent in the strategy. President Calderon started his administration with an Austerity Decree calling for a reduction in federal government expenditures (Presidencia de la República, 2006). This decree had a negative impact on ICT investments. Current e-government efforts are tied to the 2008–2012 Special Program for Federal Public Management Improvement. However, this special program brings up-front the Austerity Decree, and mainly emphasizes efficiency, reducing operational costs of government, effectiveness, and transforming government to increase the social impact of public programs without making a special reference to the role of ICTs to achieve these goals. In terms of digital economy performance, while Mexico is one of the leaders of Latin American countries, the gap between performance in Mexico and the leading countries is significant. The World Economic Forum 2008–2009 Networked Readiness Index, for instance, ranks Mexico 67 out of 134 economies. The Economist 2007 E-readiness Index ranks Mexico 38th out of the 69 economies. Finally, Mexico ranks 37th considering the UN E-government Readiness Index. Although initial efforts have resulted in significant changes in infrastructure and systems for digital government, Mexican opinion leaders, researchers, and government officials point out the need for a clearer and more coordinated digital government agenda for the country. The lack of this strategy has been associated with a loss of the competitive position of the country (AMITI, CANIETI, & FMD, 2004).

4.2 Canada In the 1990s, Canada was one of the first countries in the world to develop a national strategy for digital government. However, many observers believe that major components of the strategy now require replacement or reinforcement in the face of technological and market change, as well as mounting pressures on the competitiveness of the Canadian economy. Accordingly, both the 2006 report of the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel and the 2007 National Round-Table recommended that Canada refresh its policies and programs and develop a new national strategy for the digital economy. Information and communication technologies are among the priorities of the government of Canada. This priority is reflected in different speeches of the Throne since 2001. In 2004, the government set out a goal of becoming a “model user of information technology and the Internet” and to “be known around the world as the government most connected to its citizens, with Canadians able to access all government information and services online at the time and place of their choosing.” To fulfill its responsibilities, Canada decided to have a public service distinguished by excellence and equipped with the skills for a knowledge economy and society. To this end, the Government of Canada is committed since 2001 to the reforms needed for evolving and adapting to the new conditions. These reforms will ensure

7


145

that the public service is innovative, dynamic, and reflective of the diversity of the country—able to attract and develop the talent needed to serve Canadians in the twenty-first century. Canada stands as one of the leading countries in terms of digital economy performance. The World Economic Forum 2008–2009 Networked Readiness Index ranks Canada 10th out of 134 economies. The Economist 2007 E-readiness Index ranks Canada 13th out of 69 economies. The United Nations (UN) 2008 E-government Readiness Index ranks Canada in the 7th out of 192 countries.

4.3 The United States E-government initiatives in the United States can be traced back to the 1993 ClintonGore administration’s “reengineering through information technology” efforts to enable government to be more customer-oriented and responsive to societal needs (Homburg, 2008). The reform focused on improving efficiency, accountability, and performance in the federal government through the use of information systems. The reengineering effort fueled the development of several national and inter-governmental information systems (Fountain, 2001). The Bush administration adopted the concept of e-government and identified e-government as a critical element in the management of government (“E-government Act of 2002,” 2002). The e-government strategy claimed a focus on cross-agency integration and interoperability to achieve performance and efficiency gains, identifying 24 projects that constituted the so-called “quicksilver initiative” (Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget, 2002). The Obama administration is focused on building a new Internet infrastructure and using ICT to improve openness and transparency of government operation. President Obama stated on April 25, 2009, “To help build a new foundation for the twenty-first century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative” (The White House, 2009). On 21 January 2009, the president delivered a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Department and Agencies, stating his commitment to openness, transparency, public participation, and collaboration (The White House Office of the Press Secretary, 2009). The memorandum also requires the Federal Chief Technology Officer (CTO), in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Services Administration (GSA), to draft an Open Government Directive to implement the key principles set forth in the memorandum. Prior to the election of President Obama, the World Economic Forum 2008–2009 Networked Readiness Index ranked the United States 3rd out of 134 economies. The Economist 2007 E-readiness Index ranked the United States 2nd out of the 69 economies, and finally, the United States ranks 4th in the UN E-government Readiness Index. The impact of the Obama administration on these rankings is not yet clear, but expectations for change are quite high.

146


4.4 Comparing the Three Countries Digital government has played an important role in the three countries of North America, and it is perceived as a central element of economic competitiveness, transparency, democracy, and effectiveness of services and government programs. Although these themes are important across the three countries, national leaders in Canada and the United States appear to position ICT in government as a key enabler to accomplish these important objectives. In Mexico, on the other hand, the centrality of ICTs in terms of achieving leadership objectives is not recognized in the same way. Integration and interoperation of systems to provide better services to citizens and economic development are common themes in the three countries. However, it is important to note that the three countries are in transition, in which the need for renewal and consolidation of a digital government agenda has been made a priority. The emphasis on the United States and Canada is on renewal, while the emphasis in Mexico is consolidation.

5 Understanding Digital Government Related Priorities in the Three Countries of North America The path each of the three countries of North America has taken toward digital government capability is varied. Understanding the characteristics of each provides a foundation for future comparative and transnational research in digital government in the region. In the following sections, we present the digital government programs of the three countries in terms of five key aspects: objectives, strategies, budget priorities, main projects, and IT governance. Each section starts with a description of key aspects of digital government policy, followed by a brief comparison among the three countries.

5.1 Objectives In this section, we first provide the main objectives of e-government in the three countries, and then provide a discussion on these objectives. Although the comparison focuses primarily on current developments, the discussion also includes information of objectives previously established in each of the three countries to provide some sense of the evolution in each of them. In early 2009, the Mexican House of Representatives approved the first Mexican digital government agenda to coordinate digital government efforts at the federal level, including elements to promote links and coordination across the three levels of government. The vision statement in the agenda considers Mexico as a “a competitive information and knowledge society, an inclusive and innovative nation, where public policy has as a fundamental axis the use of information and communication technologies” (Secretaría de la Función Pública, 2009). The general objective is

7


147

much more modest, focusing on “taking advantage from information and communication technologies to improve internal operations of Public Administration to offer better services, to improve access to the information, accountability, transparency and to strengthen citizen participation” (Secretaría de la Función Pública, 2009). Particular objectives of the digital government agenda comprise two main areas: generating government operational efficiencies and providing better citizen services. The first group of objectives responds to the Austerity Decree, but also includes objectives associated with the creation of information systems standards, knowledge management, evaluation, process improvement, training, and IT governance. The objectives grouped under Service to the Citizen include aspects such as service digitalization and integration, the promotion of particular applications such as the advanced digital signature, the incorporation of information technology in agency’s strategic planning, and creating linkages with other levels of government, the industry, and academia. The digital government agenda objectives are different from objectives established during the previous presidential administration. In 2003, the main objectives were oriented to promote ICT adoption in Federal Government Agencies (GilGarcia, Mariscal, & Ramírez, 2008). Security became an important objective—and still is—as a result of the digitalization of services. Themes of customer satisfaction and evaluation are new on the agenda, as well as objectives related to knowledge management, IT governance, and collaboration. Generating efficiencies, cost savings, and increasing accountability and transparency have been important goals since 2000. At the first stages of e-government in Canada—in the 1990s, the objectives were to provide Canadians with online access to public services. As of 2009, with the Gov 2.0 project, the main objectives are to provide a more efficient user experience as a result of effective design and navigation, to capture core content from the authoritative source in order to reduce duplication and inconsistencies, to conduct systematic client engagement to drive continuous improvement, to ensure that the Internet helps fulfill policy imperatives and client needs, to establish clear accountability, roles, and responsibilities for its Internet sites, to allow for more effective resource investments in its Internet sites, to provide for greater integration of services with partner departments, and to yield more operational efficiency through common processes and technology shared with partners. Through Gov 2.0, the Government of Canada aims to use the capabilities of Web 2.0 in order to improve the relations among ministries and agencies of the Government of Canada, and between citizens and these agencies. To this end, the government intends to use social networks and semantic techniques. Prior to the Gov 2.0 project, the Government of Canada adopted the project Canada’s Government On-Line (GOL). This project was deployed from 2000 to 2007 with the commitment that “government will become a model user of information technology and the Internet.” The specific objectives of the GOL project included giving citizens education on Internet skills, connecting government to citizens, providing Internet access to communities, creating an appropriate legal framework for e-commerce, attracting investment, promoting development, and using the Internet to make Canadians more aware of their unique history, identity, and culture.

148


In the case of the United States, the Bush administration passed the first Egovernment Act in 2002 and formulated the first e-government strategy. The general objectives of the Bush administration’s e-government expansion are largely citizen-oriented. Those include: “make it easy for citizens to obtain service and interact with the federal government; improve government efficiency and effectiveness; and improve government’s responsiveness to citizens” (Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget, 2002). These general objectives are further articulated as value creation in simplifying delivery of services to citizens; eliminating layers of government management; making it possible for citizens, businesses, other levels of government and federal employees to easily find information and get service from the federal government; simplifying agencies’ business processes and reducing costs through integrating and eliminating redundant systems; enabling achievement of the other elements of the President’s Management Agenda; and streamlining government operations to guarantee rapid response to citizen needs. Besides the objectives of service delivery, efficiency, and effectiveness of government management, the new Obama’s Administration has intended to achieve the following objectives: transparency, participation, collaboration, and improving innovation. Two primary objectives for the new administration are deploying a modern information technology infrastructure and fostering innovation in order to achieve the goals of a transparent democracy, greater citizen participation, and collective problem solving for societal challenges such as healthcare, renewable energy, and public safety.

5.1.1 Comparing the Three Countries It appears that all three countries attempted to leverage e-government to achieve objectives along two directions: providing better services to the citizens and improving the government’s internal operations and transparency. However, as it is stated in the objectives, it appears that the Canadian government is more ambitious in setting up the goal to be a leader in using advanced information technology and the goal to make Canada a preferred environment for investment, research, and development. Similarly, the new administration in the United States moves toward the direction to create economic and developmental opportunities, solve social and economic problems, and improve democratic participation for the citizens through the development of an advanced information technology infrastructure. Mexico, on the other hand, only includes the broader idea of information technology as an enabler of competitiveness and knowledge society in its vision, but the objectives are more modest, focusing on the provision of services and improving internal operations and transparency. Moreover, Mexican e-government objectives had a component related to costs savings, which are not as explicit in the other two countries’ objectives. The goal of systems integration is present in the objectives of the three countries. It is explicitly included in the Canadian and US objectives, and included in the Mexican objectives implicit in the goal of improving inter-agency collaboration.

7


149

5.2 Strategies In terms of strategies, the Mexican digital government agenda places the citizen at the core of the strategy, considering an end-to-end coordination process to effectively deliver services to the citizen. Moreover, this general framework calls for the coordination among federal, state, and local levels of government in the provision of services. The agenda establishes seven main strategies to be pursued: • Taking advantage of ICT to increase operational efficiency in government operations, also optimizing ICT investments and contracts. • Developing innovative projects applied to strategic processes in the federal government. • Increasing digital government maturity through models for training, planning, and evaluation of digital government projects. • Developing a legal framework and strengthening the IT governance structure at the federal level. • Promoting digitalization and integration of government services across levels of government. • Increase the participation and faculties of CIOs at Federal Agencies in strategy development. • Promoting partnerships with other levels of government, academia, ICT industry, and international organizations. This set of strategies continues with the main focus of the 2000–2006 strategy. Important additions are the open recognition of the need for a governance structure and an appropriate legal framework, the recognition of the figure and key role of the CIO, and the need for coordination and stakeholder involvement. The Canadian government has defined a set of strategies in order to reach its objectives. As stated earlier, e-government in Canada is now at stage Gov 2.0. The central focus of Gov 2.0 is to improve the relationships between federal employees and transparency on government operations. To this end, the strategy is built on the following elements: • • • •

Business cases must be improved. Departmental capacity must be assessed. Departmental processes are strengthened. Federal government agencies must follow CIO guidance, manage risks, monitor key success factors, and report issues.

These strategies add to the GOL main actions, which included client-centric services, establishing a common secure infrastructure, updating policy, and legislative frameworks to guarantee the security and privacy of information and transactions, the development of a skilled workforce, and providing a single-window for all service channels.

150


Looking at the US case, the past two presidential administrations have had important but very different strategies in the area of digital government. The Bush Administration agenda focused on technology as a tool to improve services and performance of federal agencies. This strategy focused on transforming service delivery to citizens and businesses, as well as improving inter-governmental coordination and internal efficiency and effectiveness. While President Obama’s strategy is still emerging, it appears to be focused more broadly on the enhancement of national technology capability in addition to the transformation of US federal government operations. One area where President Obama has broken new ground is in the appointment of the first U.S. federal government CIO—Mr. Vivek Kundra—in charge of the development of the information resource management strategic plan (The White House, 2009). This strategic plan will be organized around six guiding principles: • • • •

Innovation in the economy. Innovation in science. Innovation in public administration. Restoring a culture of accountability through openness and transparency of government operations and information. • Moving toward unprecedented openness. • Making critical government information available. 5.2.1 Comparing the Three Countries All three countries intend to use e-government to deliver an integrated experience for their citizens. They all see the creation of an integrated environment based on policy framework, IT governance structure, and technological standards. Moreover, to different degree, they strive to use e-government as a way to streamline the processes in collecting, handling, and processing information and delivering services that involve multiple levels of government or multiple agencies. In the particular cases of Mexico and Canada, there is an emphasis on improving digital government capabilities across national government agencies. In the case of Canada, it appears to be a consolidation process, while in Mexico it is a process that is just starting. What may appear to be different is the more broad focus presented by the United States, where digital government appears to be conceptualized as a part of a broader innovation system involving the development of infrastructures and science. The Canadian government also includes these objectives and strategies, but focusing on competitiveness, without stating explicitly the role of the science and technology system.

5.3 Projects Mexico, Canada, and the United States have deployed many different projects. The projects relate to different aspects of e-government.

7


151

Several projects have attracted the attention of the Mexican Government. Some of these projects are related to increasing transparency and accountability in government. A second group of projects is oriented to the improvement of government operations. A third group is pursuing improved services to Mexican citizens, and the last group of projects is oriented to increase access to the Internet infrastructure by Mexicans. CompraNet (http://www.compranet.gob.mx) and Declaranet (http://www. secogem.gob.mx/DeclaraNET/) belong to the first group of projects. Compranet was developed to increase transparency in government purchases. Declaranet is a government officials’ financial declaration application. In this system, government officials register their personal financial situation periodically allowing audits and detection of suspicious growth of their assets. DeclaraSat—the Federal Government tax filing system—is one of the main projects to improve government operations. Developing the system involved redesigning the tax-filing process to make it simpler and easier. The advanced electronic signature is also a project to increase efficiency in government operations by defining a secure standard to create paperless processes and operations. Most informational and transactional services to the citizen can be accessed through the citizen portal (http://www.gob.mx) or through the e-Mexico portal (http://www.emexico.gob.mx). The citizen portal has been winner of international recognition for its citizen-centered design and features. Another important project since 2002 consists of the development of an Internet access infrastructure through digital community centers in public schools, public libraries, health centers, regional development centers, and adult education facilities (Gil-Garcia & Luna-Reyes, 2009). Internet access has increased from about 5% in 2000 to about 23% in 2009 (AMIPCI, 2009), but Internet penetration is still low. Finally, government officials show an emerging interest in new projects using virtual communities, mobile technologies, and integrated services across government levels. The focus of e-government in Canada is not only to improve services to citizens but also to improve efficiency of the Federal government functioning. Accordingly, two kinds of projects have been put in place: projects to ease citizen access to federal government services and projects to improve the internal functioning of the federal government. In the first kind of projects, there is the redesign of the Website of the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS). This project started in the GOL initiative. TBS undertook a thorough examination of its over 40 web sites to determine the best way to consolidate the information. A new design has been developed to facilitate navigation, meeting the needs of main client groups. The second kind of projects in the GOL initiative is to improve the relationships between federal government employees. Federal departments have an obligation to present reports to Parliament on their plans and priorities and on their performance. By providing the information online in a usable format, the timeliness, quality, and usefulness of the documents would improve, saving around $300,000 annually. Canadians, Parliamentarians and others would benefit through better quality planning, decision-making, and financial performance.

152


Currently, and since 2007, GOV 2.0 main projects are still under development. The projects include the development of collaboration tools, the GCPedia (wiki for public services), and the use of Web 2.0 technologies such as Facebook. In the United States, from 2001, federal agencies identified 24 Presidential E-government initiatives that promised to deliver high impact, common technology solutions such as tax filing, rulemaking, and electronic training. Examples among these initiatives include GovBenefits.gov, which provides a single entry for citizens to locate information and determine potential eligibility for government benefits and services, Grants.gov, the federal one-stop portal to apply for over 1,000 grant programs from federal organizations, and the Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE), which provides a secure environment for government procurement. A new set of projects being pursued by the Obama administration is oriented to broadband deployment in rural areas through $7.2 billion stimulus funds distributed by the commerce department and the agriculture department. For example, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) is targeted toward developing broadband access to improve public safety and stimulate the economy to create new jobs (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/). President Obama has launched a number of projects in support of his commitment to transparency and accountability. Recovery.gov, for example, is a federal government Website that provides access to data related to Recovery Act spending and allows for the reporting of potential fraud, waste, and abuse. Additional examples include efforts to use technology to create online communities such as Business.gov, enabling online collaboration among small business owners, government representatives, and industry experts.

5.3.1 Comparing the Three Countries A common set of projects across the three countries is related to a better provision of citizen services, although in the case of the United States, it appears to be a focus on projects to help the poorest in the country, allowing them with improved access to Internet, benefits, and services. Mexico also has a running project oriented to improve Internet access. Another commonality between the United States and Mexico, but not Canada, is projects oriented to improve government transparency and reducing corruption from government officials. The three countries have projects oriented to the improvement of Government operations. It can be inferred from the projects in Canada and the United States that there is an interest in refreshing and reviewing projects from previous presidential administrations, while in Mexico there are no new projects. Finally, a common trend across the three countries is their interest in Web 2.0 tools to get a better communication with and among citizens.

7


153

5.4 Budget Priorities In the following paragraphs we describe and compare budget priorities in Mexico, Canada and the United States. As mentioned before, President Calderon’s Austerity Decree promoted a reduction in ICT investment, making a priority for federal agencies to fund current projects and contracts. In order to spend the money in a more efficient way, government agencies have developed a series of strategies and policies to negotiate better contracts with vendors. The economic crisis of the last year resulted in additional reductions in the federal budget for 2010. Given that there is not a specific budget entry for ICT investments, it is hard to estimate the total ICT investment in the federal government in Mexico. The Mexican budget for Science and Technology has also been gradually decreasing since the early 1990s. In the case of Canada, the 2000 Federal Budget identified $160 million over 2 years to design and launch Government On-Line (GOL). Of that amount, approximately one third was set aside to fund the pilot projects that facilitate cross departmental service integration. In the December 2001, additional $600 million were committed over the fiscal years 2002–2006 to continue and expand the GOL initiative: for building the common secure infrastructure and sustaining service transformation and business practices. In the United States, through the Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/ memoranda_fy2009/m09-27.pdf), the director of OMB and the director of the office of Science and Technology Policy provided guidelines for the agencies to build science and technology priorities for FY 2011. Four priority areas are identified: • Applying science and technology to drive economic recovery, job creation, and economic growth. • Promoting innovative energy technologies to reduce dependence on energy imports and mitigate the impact of climate-change while creating green jobs and businesses. • Applying biomedical science and information technology to help Americans live longer, healthier lives while reducing health care costs. • Having the technologies needed to protect troops, citizens, and national interests.

5.4.1 Comparing the Three Countries Budget priorities in Mexico and the United States show that facing economic downturn, these countries have contrasting reactions in ICT spending. In Mexico, the government attempted to cut costs by reducing new spending, while in the United States, the government attempted to boost the economy through science and technology investment, using ICT spending as a driver for economic recovery. Budget

154


priorities in the United States are pointing toward a better integrated national innovation system. From the information about the government of Canada, there appears to be a commitment of resources to continue funding digital government projects, which is not linked, at least in the documents we reviewed, with a broader view of an innovation system.

5.5 IT Governance In the following paragraphs, we briefly describe the main IT governance structures in each of the three countries. The discussion about IT governance in the Mexican federal government started in the last years of President Fox Administration. During this same period, two different government agencies were charged with closely related activities, the eMexico Coordination at the Ministry of Communications and Transportation, and the Digital Government Unit at the Ministry of Public Administration. The current IT governance structure is coordinated by the Digital Government Unit at the Ministry of Public Administration, and it is called the E-government Interministerial Committee. This committee started as an informal network with the participation of the CIOs from Federal Ministries and Institutions, and the e-Mexico coordinator, becoming a formal body on December 2005 (Secretaría de la Función Pública, 2005). Committee members are all the State Ministers plus the directors of other important institutions such as the Mexican Oil Company (PEMEX), the Mexican Institute for Social Security (IMSS), and the Internal Revenue Service (SAT). The committee president is the Ministry of Public Administration, and the executive secretary of the Committee is the Director of the Digital Government Unit from the same ministry. The Committee develops general policy and strategy for the federal government, and it is organized in several technical councils in charge of creating recommendations on important themes such as IT function organization, security, IT procurement, privacy, or interoperability. Finally, the committee has a consultant group including members from academia, the private sector, and other members of the civil society. There is a current proposal to move the Digital Government Unit from the Ministry of Public Administration to depend directly from the President’s office. If the proposal is approved, the appointed official in charge of this unit may become the first national CIO. The Chief Information Officer Branch (CIOB) provides strategic direction and leadership for the government-wide pursuit of excellence in information management and information technology in the Government of Canada. CIOB is responsible for policy development, monitoring, management oversight, and leading community development and capacity-building initiatives in information management, information technology, identity management and security, and access to information and privacy to ensure the sound management and stewardship of the Government of Canada’s information and technology assets and its communities of practice.

7


155

In the United States, the Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council serves as the principle interagency coordinating body (Federal Chief Information Officers Council). Its existence was codified into law in the E-Government Act of 2002. The Council is made up of the CIOs and Deputy CIOs from the federal executive agencies, and chaired by the Deputy Director for Management from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Council intends to improve the design, use, sharing, and performance of agency information resources through developing recommendations for IT management policies, procedures, and standards; identifying opportunities to share information resources; and assessing and addressing the needs of the federal government’s IT workforce. Another advisory body for federal e-government is the Interagency Management Council (IMC). The voting members of IMC consist of an IT Senior Executive or senior official from 14 Cabinet-level departments and representatives from the legislative and judiciary branch agencies as well as sub-Cabinet and independent agencies. The Council provides input representing the agencies’ and stakeholders’ requirements and interests, and recommends interagency strategies and initiatives to GSA (Interagency Management Council). Additionally, an information technology management and planning approach has been implemented to improve cross-agency collaboration at the federal level (Seifert, 2008). Started in 2002, the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) was initiated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The FEA includes five reference models: Performance, Business, Service, Data, and Technical. These reference models provide a common platform for agencies to use in reducing duplicate development and collaborating on shared technology solutions (Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office, 2007).

5.5.1 Comparing the Three Countries It appears that the government of Canada is the only one that relies on a specific government branch to provide direction to digital government strategy. Meanwhile, Mexico and the United States have relied on IT governance structures involving federal CIOs and other stakeholders. A possible explanation of the difference is that Canada is the only country among the three with a consolidated position of a national CIO. It may be the case that with the new CIO position at the United States, and the potential appointment of a first national CIO in Mexico, roles and functions from the existing governance bodies will change. However, the three countries are looking for better coordination and strategic alignment of ministries and agencies.

6 Final Remarks In this chapter we have presented a description of the e-government agendas from Canada, Mexico, and the United States. This first work points to an initial list of similarities and differences on the e-government approaches of the three countries.

156


Table 7.1 summarizes the key points for the five selected themes across the three countries. In general, digital government has played an important role in the three countries of North America. Although it is perceived as a central component for economic competitiveness in the three countries, the United States and Canada are taking a stronger stance toward this theme. Other shared themes across the three countries are transparency, democracy, openness, efficiency and effectiveness of services, and government programs. It is interesting to note that the three countries are in a transition process. The transition process in Canada and the United States has a refreshing concern, while in Mexico there is an interest for consolidation. In terms of their main objectives, the three countries are interested in improving services to the citizen and innovative ways of improving government operations and transparency. This later objective of transparency is more clearly stated in both the United States and Mexico agendas. The goal of integration and interoperation is present in the three countries, closely related to the provision of citizen services and the improvement of internal operations. In terms of strategies, all three countries intend to use e-government to deliver an integrated experience for their citizens. They all see the creation of an integrated environment based on a policy framework, an IT governance structure, and technological standards as the key to reach their objectives. Moreover, to different degrees, they strive to use e-government as a way to streamline the processes that involve multiple levels of government or multiple agencies. Mexico and Canada share an interest in improving digital government capabilities across national government agencies. US strategies are different from Canadian and Mexican ones given their emphasis on innovation and transformation. Moreover, the US government appears to be heading to an agenda that integrates digital government with a more wide perspective on the information society, and an integrated innovation system. The three countries are supporting either new or existing projects to improve citizen services and internal government operations. Mexico is the only country in which there are specific projects to increase transparency and accountability (DeclaraNet and CompraNet). A common area for Mexico and the United States is their interest to improve Internet access. Finally, Web 2.0 tools appear as a trend that will be included in the three countries’ agendas, but it is more clearly present in the agendas of Canada and the United States. Budget priorities across the three countries are also different. Particularly, it is interesting to note the difference between Mexico and the United States. In Mexico, government attempts to cut costs by reducing new spending, while in the United States, the government attempts to boost the economy through science and technology investment, using ICT spending as a driver for economic recovery. Budget priorities in Canada suggest the interest in building a shared enterprise architecture for government. In terms of IT governance, Canada is the only country with a consolidated CIO figure. Mexico has created a single interministerial IT governance body, while the United States currently has a more distributed model including the CIO council, the

Mexico

Promote competitive information society, improve government operations, improve access to information, accountability, transparency, citizen participation, and interorganizational collaboration

Citizen at the center, ICT to improve operational efficiency, create standards, transfer best practices, develop training programs, develop appropriate legal framework, digitalization of government services, strengthen the figure of the CIO

CompraNet and DeclaraNet (transparency); DeclaraSat (gov. operations); Citizen and e-Mexico Portal (citizen services); Digital Community Centers (access to Internet); emerging web 2.0

Budget reduction, priorities to improve efficiency in spending and maintaining current systems

Interministerial Committee and current proposals that can consolidate the position of a National CIO

Variable\country

Objectives

Strategies

Projects

Budget priorities

IT governance

Priority given to the areas of cross-departmental service integration, common security infrastructure and transforming business processes Chief Information Officer Branch

TBS Website (services); Parlamentarian Reporting System (gov.operations); GCPedia (wiki for public services) and other Web 2.0 applications

Client at the center, improve business cases, assess departmental capacity, strengthen processes, monitor key success factors and risks, improve policy framework

Improve user experience, consolidate content, enhance accountability, integrate services, increase operational efficiency and take advantage of web 2.0

Canada

Table 7.1 Summary overview of the five themes across countries

Renew infrastructure, promote efficiency and effectiveness in government management, simplify service delivery, promote transparency, participation, collaboration and innovation Enhance national technical capability, transform government operations, transform service delivery, innovate in economy, science and public administration, restore culture of accountability, promote openness and access to information Tax-filing, rule-making, electronic training and Integrated Acquisition Environment (gov. operations); GovBenefits, Recovery. Gov (services); BTOP (broadband access); Business.gov (online communities) Science and technology to drive economic growth, energy technologies, biomedical science and information technology, and security National CIO recently appointed, Federal CIO Council, Interagency Management Council and Federal Enterprise Architecture

USA

7 Digital Government in North America 157

158


IMC, and the FEA. With the recently appointed National CIO, this distributed IT governance may change. Although there has been a lot of progress in digital government in the three countries, there are some differences in their current concerns. In general, we could say that the United States government is renewing its e-government agenda as a component of a wider innovation system. The government of Canada is also in a refreshing process, but more directed to consolidate a digital architecture for government services and operations. Finally, Mexico is in the process of consolidating a digital government program. Acknowledgements This work was partially supported by the Inter-Institutional Program of Studies about the Region of North America (PIERAN), Mexico, the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT-Mexico), Grant No. I0110/127/08, and the US National Science Foundation (NSF), Grant No. 37656. Any opinions expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF, CONACYT, or PIERAN.

References AMIPCI. (2009). Estudio AMIPCI 2009 de Hábitos de los usuarios de Internet en México. Retrieved September, 2009, from http://amipci.org.mx/estudios/temp/ RESUMENEJECUTIVOEstudioAMIPCI2009UsuariosdeinternetFINAL-0334725001245691 260OB.pdf AMITI, CANIETI, & FMD. (2004). Vision Mexico 2020. Retrieved June, 2009, from http://www.cysp.com.mx/Ima/Amiti/Documentos%20Descargables/Doc_PP_vision_Mexico_ 2020.pdf Andersen, D. F., Belardo, S., & Dawes, S. S. (1994). Strategic information management: Conceptual frameworks for the public sector. Public Productivity and Management Review, 17(4), 335–353. Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (2004). Achieving advanced electronic government services: Opposing environmental constraints. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(1), 96–114. Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21–53. Carbo, T., & Williams, J. G. (2004). Models and metrics for evaluating local electronic government systems and services. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 2(2), 95–104. Dawes, S. S. (2002). Government and technology: User, not regulator. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 627–631. Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2000). Making strategy: The journey of strategic management. London: Sage Publications. Edmiston, K. D. (2003). State and local e-government: Prospects and challenges. American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 20–45. Eglene, O., & Dawes, S. S. (2006). Challenges and strategies for conducting international public management research. Administration & Society, 38(5), 596–622. E-government Act of 2002, 116 STAT. 2899, Pub. L. No. PUBLIC LAW 107–347 (2002). Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget. (2002). E-government strategy: Implementing the president’s management agenda for e-government. Retrieved from http://www.usa.gov/Topics/Includes/Reference/egov_strategy.pdf Federal Chief Information Officers Council. from http://www.cio.gov/aboutus/aboutus.cfm Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office. (2007). FEA practice guidance. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fea_docs/FEA_Practice_Guidance_ Nov_2007.pdf

7


159

Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Helbig, N. (2006). Exploring e-government benefits and success factors. In A. V. Anttiroiko & M. Malkia (Eds.), Encyclopedia of digital government. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc. Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2006). Integrating conceptual approaches to e-government. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of e-commerce, e-government, and mobile commerce (pp. 636–643). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference. Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2009). Fostering the information society through collaborative e-government: Digital community centers and the e-learning program in Mexico. In A. Meijer, K. Boersma & P. Wagenaar (Eds.), ICTs, citizens & governance: After the hype (pp. 99–118). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mariscal, J., & Ramírez, F. (2008). Gobierno electrónico en México. In Working papers. Mexico: Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. Helbig, N., Dawes, S. S., Mulki, F. H., Hrdinová, J. L., & Cook, M. E. (2009). International digital government research: A reconnaissance study (1994–2008) (p. 63). Albany, NY: Center for Technology in Government. Hiller, J. S., & Bélanger, F. (2001). Privacy strategies for electronic government. In M. A. Abramson & G. E. Means (Eds.), E-government 2001 (pp. 162–198). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Homburg, V. (2008). Information systems in public administration: understanding e-government (1st ed.). London: Routledge. Interagency Management Council. from https://www.imc.gov/TH/IMC/IMC.nsf/charter?OpenPage Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. The American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693. Lim, J. H., & Tang, S. Y. (2008). Urban e-government initiatives and environmental decision performance in Korea. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(1), 109–138. Luna-Reyes, L. F., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Cruz, C. B. (2007). Collaborative digital government in Mexico: Some lessons from federal web-based interorganizational information integration initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 808–826. Mahoney, J. (2007). Qualitative methodology and comparative politics. Comparative Political Studies, 40(2), 122–144. Munck, G. L., & Snyder, R. (2005). Debating the direction of comparative politics: An analysis of leading journals. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association. Navarrete, C., Mellouli, S., Pardo, T. A., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2009). Information sharing at national borders: Extending the utility of border theory. Paper presented at the Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences-42, Hawaii. Presidencia de la República. (2006). Decreto que establece las medidas de austeridad y disciplina del gasto de la Administración Pública Federal. Mexico: Diario Oficial de la Federación. Rocheleau, B. (2003). Politics, accountability, and governmental information systems. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Public information technology: Policy and management issues (pp. 20–52). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Roy, J. (2003). The relational dynamics of e-governance: A case study of the city of Ottawa. Public Performance and Management Review, 26(4), 391–403. Roy, J. (2007). E-government in Canada: Transition or transformation? In D. F. Norris (Ed.), Current issues and trends in e-government research (pp. 44–67). Hershey, PA: CyberTech Publishing. Scholl, H. J. (2007). Central research questions in e-government, or which trajectory should the study domain take? Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1(1), 67–88. Secretaría de la Función Pública. (2005). Acuerdo que tiene por objeto crear en forma permanente la Comisión Intersecretarial para el Desarrollo del Gobierno Electrónico. Mexico: Diario Oficial de la Federación.

160


Secretaría de la Función Pública. (2009). Agenda de gobierno digital. Mexico: Diario Oficial de la Federación. Seifert, J. W. (2008). Federal enterprise architecture and e-government: Issues for information technology management. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL33417.pdf The White House. (2009). Technology. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/techno logy/ The White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2009). Memorandum for the heads of executive department and agencies. Retrieved from http://www.gwu.edu/∼nsarchiv/news/ 20090121/2009_transparency_memo.pdf West, D. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27. Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chapter 8

Adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and US Governments F. Dianne Lux Wigand

The goal of this chapter is to compare the adoption of Web 2.0 information and communication technologies (ICT) by government agencies in Canada and the United States and to explore their respective impact on e-government. Governments at all levels recognize the need to develop and enhance multimedia and multichannel communication strategies to communicate with citizens and provide services as well as enable interaction among employees and to cross agencies’ boundaries. Governments have discovered that Web 2.0 communication channels can have an unexpected reach, and occupy a new and quite possibly an essential space in electronic communications. Government agencies, needing to or requiring to communicate with the public, are finding that Web 2.0 technologies are an effective, efficient, timely, and valuable way to get the word out. This chapter shows that Web 2.0 use is creating entirely new online communities that defy traditional communication reach and organizational boundaries. Web 2.0 ICT can enable collaborative work with external stakeholders as well as within and among agencies. By examining specific examples of Web 2.0 use in Canadian and US governments, analyzing the insights gained, and reflecting on observations and recommendations, both public administrators and IT professionals are provided with a framework to evaluate the benefits and challenges of adopting these new ICT and applications. The fundamental questions are the following: What is Web 2.0? How have government agencies in Canada and the United States adopted these technologies to encourage interaction and collaborative work?

1 Introduction For the past decade, the adoption of electronic governmental services has increased in developed and developing countries to provide and improve the delivery of public services. E-government has been defined as “The use of information and F.D.L. Wigand (B) Institute of Government, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR 72204, USA e-mail: [email protected] C.G. Reddick (ed.), Comparative E-Government, Integrated Series in Information Systems 25, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-6536-3_8, C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

161

162

F.D.L. Wigand

communication technologies, particularly the Internet, as a tool to achieve better government” (OECD, 2003, p. 23). It is a digital means for all stakeholders to communicate and work with government through multiple digital channels. The main goal of e-government is to meet citizens’ expectations and to provide more efficient and effective public services. For over a decade, ICT have been key tools for the front- and back offices in government to achieve this goal. Web 2.0 is an umbrella term used to refer to a new era of Web-enabled applications and tools such as blogs, microblogs, podcasts, Really Simple Syndication (RSS), social networking sites, video sharing, web chat, and wikis. Web 2.0 does not refer to a new software version, but rather to a new phase of the evolving and extended Internet. It is more than a mere set of technologies. Web 2.0 includes a social dimension with user-generated content, increased simplicity in design and features as well as participatory, decentralized models and processes. The key components of Web 2.0 are the following: (1) technology and architecture are web based; (2) it is built around communities and social networks and stakeholder-generated content; and (3) it consumes and remixes data from multiple sources (Wigand, 2007, p. 276). The paradigm shift enabled by Web 2.0 technologies is from end users consuming information to producing information and facilitating interaction and collaborative work. For the past 5 years, public and private organizations have been adopting Web 2.0 ICT. Consequently, citizens, particularly in developed countries, have increased their daily online Internet activities. By December 2009 the number of adults in the United States using the Internet was 74%, up from 63% reported in 2003. The types of online activities American citizens are engaged in vary widely: from using e-mail (89%), buying products (75%), searching for news or information about politics or upcoming campaigns (60%), visiting government Web sites (59%), using social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook, or LinkedIn.com (47%), reading blogs (32%), sharing user-generated content (30%), and using Twitter or other status-update service (19%) (Pew Internet and American Life Project Tracking surveys, 2009). Similarly, Canadians are very active online users with 78% reporting accessing the Internet frequently (Canadian Internet Project, 2008). According to a Forrester Research report, 57% of Canadians participate in social networks at least once a month. Americans’ social network participation follows with 51% (Elliot, Overby, Greene, & Wise, 2009). Hence, the Internet penetration by both countries places them at the leading edge of further adoption of new ICT. This growing role of new web technologies in people’s lives has changed expectations about how to find and use information as well as expectations for the delivery of information and services. In the United States, 70% of Americans report that they expect their government to provide online information and services (Pew Internet American Life Project, 2007, p. 7). As citizens’ Internet activities increase and their usage matures, citizens’ expectations of government to provide information and services online, whenever they need it through multiple channels, also have increased. Since 2004, government agencies at all levels in Canada and the United States are beginning to explore the benefits of Web 2.0 technologies and applications. Governments’ adoption of Web

8

Adoption of Web 2.0

163

2.0 technologies is regarded by some researchers as a move toward more citizencentric and participatory government as well as augmenting existing values of public service agencies (Accenture, 2009; Baumgarten & Chui, 2009). Adoption of Web 2.0 activities requires a shift in focus from publishing information to sharing information and from passive consumers of information to interactive and participative users who may also generate content. Consequently, increased expectations coupled with increased exposure to new online activities in the private sector place pressure on governments to acknowledge this trend in citizen Internet use activity and to consider adopting some of these new channels for government. As the public sector begins to experiment with Web 2.0 technologies, there is an increased understanding of the value of these technologies for their organizations and citizens’ usage trends and expectations. One of the major changes enabled by Web 2.0 technologies is the sharing of information with citizens and expanding the communication outreach to the citizenry. Along with the benefits of these technologies, challenges such as security and privacy issues have to be confronted and addressed. The goal of this chapter is to explore the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies and application by Canadian and US government agencies. To achieve this goal the chapter addresses four objectives: 1. To identify theoretical approaches to explain the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies in government. 2. To provide a descriptive analysis of secondary data to ascertain which Web 2.0 technologies are being used by Canadian and US government agencies, at various governmental levels, and for which purposes. 3. To review relevant patterns of the adoption and implementation of Web 2.0 applications in government agencies in Canada and the United States. 4. To develop a framework for government agencies evaluating the benefits and challenges of the adoption of these new ICT and applications and their respective impact on e-government services. First, a theoretical overview describing four overarching theories is presented: diffusion of innovations, collective intelligence (CI), the technology acceptance model (TAM), and uses and gratification. These theories provide an appropriate theoretical background to explain the characteristics as well as variables that affect the adoption of new technologies such as Web 2.0. Next, definitions of Web 2.0 technologies and applications used in the public sector are presented. This provides a framework for a descriptive analysis of secondary data and the trends to use Web 2.0 by Canadian and US government agencies. Understanding these developments highlights how the public sector can harness the potential of these tools. Then a review of government agencies and individuals in Canada and the United States, specifically those who are early adopters of Web 2.0, presents a picture of prevalent uses in the public sector. The fourth objective builds upon the examples presented in the third objective, i.e., to develop a framework for other public sector agencies to evaluate which applications can be adopted in which settings and for what uses. An understanding of these factors may enhance and further

164

F.D.L. Wigand

the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies by other government agencies. Finally, an understanding of how the adoption of Web 2.0 may impact the delivery of egovernment services for both developed and developing countries. The importance of this chapter for public administrators is realized in that it helps them to ascertain the relevance of these ICT and applications for governmental organizations. For researchers this effort opens new research streams to ascertain how to measure these applications determining the effectiveness and efficiency for the delivery of public services.

2 Theoretical Overview Four theoretical approaches—diffusion of innovations theory, collective intelligence (CI) theory, the technology acceptance model (TAM), and uses and gratification theory—offer insights into the characteristics and variables for how and why new ICT are adopted. The first theory applicable to understanding the adoption of a technology is diffusion of innovations. This theory explains how and why new ideas and technologies spread through certain channels among members of a social system. The model of the innovation-decision process has four stages: knowledge—awareness of an innovation and some understanding of its use; persuasion—the user has a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation; decision—a choice is made to adopt or reject the innovation; and confirmation—seeks reinforcement for the decision to adopt or not to adopt (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971, p. 103). According to these authors, the five most important characteristics of innovations explaining the rate of adoption (the speed by which members of a social system adopt an innovation) are relative advantage (amount of improvement over existing technology), compatibility (ability to incorporate the technology into an individual’s life), complexity (how difficult it will be to adopt), trialability (how easy it is to experiment with the technology on a limited basis), and observability (how visible is the technology to other users). In addition, Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) define five adopter categories: (1) innovators—first individuals to adopt, risk takers, and opinion leaders (2) early adopters—second group to adopt and individuals have a high degree of influence on later adopters, (3) early majority—cautious and slower in the adoption process, (4) late majority—adoption occurs after the majority of the group has already adopted the innovation, and individuals are skeptical, (5) laggards— last ones to adopt an innovation and individuals appear to have an aversion to change. These four stages, five characteristics, and five categories of adopters certainly provide a foundation to understand and explain how, why, and when new technologies are adopted. Canadian and US government agencies can be regarded as early adopters of emerging Web 2.0 ICT. The rapid uptake of these technologies by the private sector and citizens provides government agencies at all levels the incentives to adopt. Moreover, government agencies see the relative advantage over existing technology, the ease of use, the compatibility of these technologies with existing communication channels, the ability to experiment with these technologies

8

Adoption of Web 2.0

165

both internally and externally, as well as enhancing the visibility of the organization by using them. Collective intelligence (CI) theory, i.e., group intelligence is generated by the collaboration among many individuals, also provides a theoretical foundation for understanding user-generated content and the use of Web 2.0 technologies to enable collaborative work. According to Atlee and Por (2000), “Collective intelligence is any intelligence that arises from—or is a capacity or characteristic of—groups and other collective living systems” (p. 1). In group behavior, Atlee and Por (2000) argues that CI can overcome “groupthink” and individual bias to focus on collective processes to achieve enhanced performance. From a mass communication perspective, Flew (2008) argues that ICT enable the cooperation among independent individuals and can enhance group performance. Web 2.0 technologies allow the easy collection, storage, and sharing of knowledge and information among users. This creates a form of collective intelligence. It also provides a foundation for understanding the “wisdom of crowds” concept which supports the use of Web 2.0 ICT such as wikis to coordinate collaborative work. According to Surowiecki (2004), there are four key criteria distinguishing decisions made by wise crowds: (1) diversity of opinion—each contributor has private information and opinion about the facts, (2) independence—opinions are not influenced by others, (3) decentralization—contributors have specialized information and can draw on local knowledge, (4) aggregation—a means to change private opinions into a collective decision. Surowiecki focuses on individuals who tended to make decisions independently and their basis of making the decision was not due to the influence of mass crowds. Web 2.0 technologies can enhance the decision-making process of these independent contributors by enabling user-generated content. The technology acceptance model (TAM) developed by Davis (1989) explains how users come to accept and use technology. This theory has been applied to broader information technology (IT) environments and this model supported numerous studies. There is, however, still ongoing criticism and controversy about the use of this model. TAM posits that there are a number of factors that will influence the user as to whether or not to adopt the technology. Davis (1989) found two most common factors: perceived usefulness (the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance) and ease of use (the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free from effort) would account for the adoption of a technology. In later studies, Venkatesh and Davis (2000) expanded the model to TAM2 and explained usage intentions in terms of social influence. Then Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis (2003) developed the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) to explain user intentions to use an information system and usage behavior. The four key components of the UTAUT model are performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating condition. Social demographic variables such as gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of use were found to mediate the four key constructs. This model has been used to account for variation in usage intention. TAM, TAM2, and UTAUT are useful models to explain how an end user interacts with a technology and which variables might influence the adoption of the technology.

166

F.D.L. Wigand

Users’ expectations of Web 2.0 and social influence as well as social demographics have increased the uptake of these technologies and created an interest for government agencies to experiment with using them. Uses and gratification theory (Blumler & Katz, 1974) posits that media users actively take part in the communication process and are goal oriented in choosing a media source that maximally fulfills their needs. Moreover, the assumption is made that the user has alternative choices to satisfy his or her needs. Although uses and gratification theory was applied originally to radio and television, the basic features of this theory can be applied to a certain degree for citizens’ efforts to contact and communicate with government as well. This theory lends itself partially for the present setting in that channel choices made by citizens are also likely to be made in the sense that gratification is achieved, but the definition of gratification is different in selecting technologies to contact government agencies. In a governmental context, however, gratification is derived when a solution or a partial solution is found to a citizen’s problem while using a particular communication channel. The citizen deliberately chooses and uses a channel as a means to an end, i.e., to solve a problem or to find information in anticipation to solving it. Thus it can be seen that uses and gratification theory offers some inherent limited utility for the present setting such as channel choice. These four theoretical approaches—diffusion of innovations, collective intelligence, the technology acceptance model, and user gratification—provide conceptual guidance in developing the overall framework for understanding the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies by governments in Canada and the United States.

3 Methodology This chapter provides a descriptive analysis of secondary data derived from multiple reports on the use of specific Web 2.0 technologies by government agencies in Canada and the United States at the federal, state/provincial, and local/municipal levels of government. Before the analysis can be conducted, a brief history of the evolution of the Internet to Web 2.0 and the distinguishing characteristics between Web 1.0 and 2.0 are presented. The selection process of comparable Web 2.0 technologies and the definitions for each technology are presented.

3.1 Evolution of Web 2.0 Since 1969, the Internet, originally labeled Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), evolved from a limited number of connected military and university research computers to a worldwide system of computer networks used by millions of people for a variety of purposes. The Internet was opened for commercial purposes in the late 1980s and gained momentum for public use in the 1990s. The first Web sites were slow, static pages controlled by the owners, large businesses,

8

Adoption of Web 2.0

167

and governments to broadcast information to the world (Drapeau & Wells, 2009). This phase, 1995–2004, of Internet development is now sometimes referred to as Web 1.0. The phrase Web 2.0 was coined at the O’Reilly Media conference in 2004. O’Reilly (2007) originally defined the term: “Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continuallyupdated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an “architecture of participation,” and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences (p. 17). Today Web 2.0 is an umbrella term defining the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and content creation. The web is a platform upon which software applications can be built. Some common applications are web services, social networking, blogs, wikis, video sharing, podcasts, Really Simple Syndication (RSS), mashups, tagging, and wikis. The focus of Web 2.0 is on connecting people and harnessing collective intelligence. Users are the producers of content and not just the consumers of information. Data can be combined from more than one source and integrated into a single source called “mashups.” Users can “tag” or identify their content and can customize the organization of their information—often referred to as “folksonomy” or social bookmarking (Chang & Kannan, 2008). Common examples of technologies introduced to increase the usability of the Internet, integration, and re-use are AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript), XML (extensible markup language), and Open API (application programming interface).

3.2 How Is Web 2.0 Different from Web 1.0? Building upon the basic components, i.e., technologies, concepts of communities and networks, and the production, consumption, and remixing of data, Web 2.0 can be distinguished from Web 1.0 on several core characteristics: control, content, communication, classification systems, data, data searches, diffusion, users, and technologies. Table 8.1 depicts how Web 1.0 is distinguished from Web 2.0. This paradigm shift from a controlled, static web environment characterized by Web 1.0 to a dynamic, decentralized, and networked environment has many implications and challenges for government agencies. The Web 2.0 environment is user centric and offers multiple channels. No longer can government agencies follow a “build it and they will come” mentality. Instead, government agencies need to consider engaging users in their social network sites and online communities. Government agencies need to explore new ways of disseminating information through blogs, microblogs, RSS feeds, podcasts, video files, and wikis. This is a shift from merely presenting information to outreaching and sharing information

168

F.D.L. Wigand Table 8.1 Distinctions between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0

Core characteristics

Web 2.0 characteristics

Web 1.0 characteristics

Control

Centralized and authoritarian

Content Communication

Published by Web site owner (business or government) Unidirectional; talking

Decentralized and democratic Created by end users

Classification systems Data Data searches

Directories and taxonomies Static Portals

Data diffusion Technologies Users

Stickiness HTML Individuals are passive consumers of information

Multidirectional and interactive; listening Tagging and folksonomy Dynamic—remixing Web search engines, web crawlers or spiders Syndication AJAX, XTML, API Networks of individuals and communities are collaborating and producers of content

Source: Adapted from Chang and Kannan (2008, p. 16) and Drapeau and Wells (2009, p. 2).

with citizens. Moreover, governmental organizations will need to find ways to harness the collaborative environment enabled by these technologies, i.e., listen to users and not just talk at them, and use the input to build better services. More importantly, public administrators at all levels of government will have to decide if the benefits are worth the investment and the challenges to be overcome.

3.3 Rationale and Definitions for Comparable Web 2.0 Technologies Eight fundamental Web 2.0 tools/technologies were selected as a means for comparing the adoption by government agencies in Canada and the United States. They are blogs, microblogs, mashups, podcasts, RSS feeds, social networking sites, video sharing, and wikis. These eight tools were selected because each demonstrates one or more of the basic concepts of Web 2.0: enhance user-generated content, extend the reach of communications to new audiences, build relationships via social networks, create collaborative environments with internal and external stakeholders, and increase stakeholder engagement. Before conducting a review of existing Web 2.0 initiatives adopted by Canadian and US governments, a brief summary of common definitions used to describe these eight Web 2.0 tools/technologies is presented (Chang & Kannan, 2008, p. 11; WebContent.gov, 2009): Blogs: Chronological journal entries made on a Web site about a particular topic. Blogs are primarily text and images. Blogs are an historical archive of the topic.

8

Adoption of Web 2.0

169

Microblogs are another form of blogging, but created in a short text message style. Twitter is a prime example of a popular microblog service. Blogs and microblogs are excellent technologies for distributing content to the stakeholders. Microblog sites include Twitter.com, Jaiku.com, Tumblr.com, and Plurk.com. Mashups: A web application combining data from multiple sources to be integrated into a single-integrated service. The data from either source were created for different purposes. An example is using Google maps to add location information for real estate Web sites to provide a better and value-adding service that was not offered by the originators of the data. Podcasts: A way for publishing MP3 audio files that can be downloaded onto computers and mobile devices. Podcasts are an efficient means for the user to receive up-to-date information on topics of interest. Government agencies are adding audio and video files to existing text as a way to enhance the message and increase awareness of the information. Really Simple Syndication (RSS): A web content format (XML) that enables the owner of a Web site to alert users to new information. RSS feeds are usually used for updating blogs, news headlines, or podcasts to users. Subscribers to RSS feeds can gather information from their favorite Web sites in one location without browsing and searching for it manually. This is a channel that pushes frequently updated information out to the users and is an efficient means for both the sender and the receiver of the information. Social networking sites: Web sites designed to connect people in online communities. Participants are registered users who are allowed to interact with other users for social or professional purposes. Examples of social networking sites are MySpace, Facebook, and LinkedIn. All of these social networking sites enable users to create networks of contacts. Government information and services can be promoted through social networking sites. Interagency and intergovernmental social networking sites can promote cooperation across government. Video sharing: Use videos, images, and audio libraries to share information by enhancing communication with online audiences. YouTube is a prime example of this Web 2.0 tool. Wikis: Collaborative publishing technology enabling multiple users to work on and publish documents online. Participants from different locations can contribute and modify existing documents (usually with editorial control). Documents are archived at a central location and users can access the documents by using hyperlinks. Wikis are tools for knowledge sharing across formal boundaries and encourage participation. A framework for analyzing the adoption of Web 2.0 tools/technologies by Canadian and US government agencies will be proposed to examine the frequency of use of these eight selected Web 2.0 tools as reported for federal, state/provincial, and local/municipal government agencies. Since these are emerging technologies, there is no one source of comparable data for all levels of government (federal,

170

F.D.L. Wigand

provincial/state, municipal/local) for both countries. The purpose of this chapter, however, is to create a composite snapshot of the current adoption patterns of these technologies. This requires the use of several sources of data.

4 Results This section presents the results of how Canadian and US governments are adopting the Web 2.0 concept.

4.1 How Are Canadian Government Agencies Adopting Web 2.0? Canada was an early adopter of a single portal, multichannel service strategy. Service Canada (http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca) is an integrated, citizen-centered service initiative launched in 2005 to respond to Canadians’ request for a single point of access, multichannel delivery of government services (Results for Canadians, 2002). Accenture (2006, 2007) has ranked Canada consistently as a leader for service delivery among developed countries. Canadians can contact their government via the Internet, in person at over 500 offices, by telephone from within Canada or from abroad, and 200 mobile outreach service units for remote areas. From this single site, citizens can access over 77 governmental services. Service Canada has partnerships with other levels of government, provinces, territories, and municipalities, and can connect citizens with the services they need. The service center tracks encounters and measures continuously whether or not they are utilizing the required services. The Service Canada Web site provides Canadians with the required services through a multichannel strategy. The Canadian government, like many governments, has been cautious to adopt the new Web 2.0 technologies (Arellano, 2008). One caution in implementing Web 2.0 initiatives for many governments worldwide has been their concerns for citizens’ privacy and security. In 2008 the Canadian government announced a commitment to build a comprehensive system to develop online collaborations and social networking projects (Arellano, 2008). Prior to the announcement of this initiative, the Canadian government had banned employees’ access to blogs and social networking sites such as YouTube and Facebook (Pilieci, 2008). By October 2008 the Chief Information Officer Branch of the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada launched GCPEDIA, an internal wiki accessible only to members of the Canadian federal public service. GCPEDIA has the potential to reach 150 departments and agencies with approximately 250,000 employees. As of 5 September 2009 the statistics for GCPEDIA reflect that there are 7,982 registered users and 1,214,943 page views (GCPEDIA, 2009). The goal for GCPEDIA is to enable employees to share information and to collaborate on projects. Future initiatives for GCPEDIA are to include blog and social networking directories. Since GCPEDIA does not offer directories of blogs and social networking sites presently, a public wiki was analyzed to provide a picture

8

Adoption of Web 2.0

171

Table 8.2 Frequency of use of Web 2.0 tools for levels of Canadian governments Web 2.0 tool/technology

Federal

Provincial/state

Municipal/local

Total

Number of agencies reported Blogs Microblogs Mashups Podcasts RSS feeds Social networks Video sharing Wikis Total

33 5 17 2 5 14 11 20 16 93

14 4 8 0 3 7 3 3 3 31

10 4 7 3 0 7 7 3 6 37

57 13 32 5 8 28 24 26 25 161

Source: Government 2.0—Best Practices Wiki: Canada. Retrieved from http://government20 bestpractices.pbworks.com/Canada (2008).

of current usage of these tools. This wiki was last updated January 2010. Table 8.2 depicts the frequency of use of these Web 2.0 tools reported for various Canadian government agencies at different levels of government. Single agencies often report using multiple Web 2.0 tools. For more comprehensive data about the popular microblog Twitter, a directory of Canadian government “Tweeple” (people who tweet) lists predominantly politicians with some agency employees included. The directory (see http://politwitter.ca/) lists the number of all Canadian politicians on Twitter: 493 tweeters, 149 members of parliament (MP), and 155,692 tweets. These political tweeters are divided by level of government and party affiliation and the directory provides a useful tool for following political people and issues. While Table 8.2 does not provide a comprehensive picture of Web 2.0 initiatives that are being launched by federal, provincial, and municipal government agencies in Canada, it does provide a representative snapshot of current adoption of these Web 2.0 tools. Moreover, according to the Canadian Internet Project (2008), Canadians are among the “heaviest Internet users” when compared to other countries and Canadian Internet penetration is now 78%.

4.2 How Are US Government Agencies Adopting Web 2.0? Like Canada, US government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels are adopting Web 2.0 technologies. The public wiki used to analyze Canadian data on the use of Web 2.0 tools was also used to provide a picture of current usage in the United States (see http://government20bestpractices.pbworks.com/United-States). This wiki was last updated in December 2009. While the data provide a broad perspective of federal agencies’ use of Web 2.0 tools, the number of state and local governments is underrepresented. Table 8.3 depicts the frequency of use of these Web 2.0 tools reported for various US government agencies at different levels of government. Single agencies report using multiple Web 2.0 tools.

172

F.D.L. Wigand Table 8.3 Frequency of use of Web 2.0 tools for levels of US governments

Web 2.0 tool/technology

Federal

Provincial/state

Municipal/local

Total

Number of agencies reported Blogs Microblogs Mashups Podcasts RSS feeds Social networks Video sharing Wikis Total

27 28 1 0 4 8 7 4 0 52

3 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 5

9 4 2 4 1 2 5 3 0 21

39 32 4 4 6 11 13 7 1 75

Source: Government 2.0—Best Practices Wiki: United States. Retrieved from http://government 20bestpractices.pbworks.com/United+States+Government (2008).

At the federal level of government in the United States, an overview of the adoption of Web 2.0 tools by federal agencies is provided by the Federal Web Managers Council, an interagency group of about 40 web managers from every cabinet-level agency and many independent agencies. This guide (see http://www.usa.gov/web content/documents/ExamplesofUsingTechnologyandContenttoAchieve%20Agency. pdf) defines the technology, discusses the importance, benefits, issues, and challenges of each technology, and provides examples of federal government agencies using these technologies (Godwin, Campbell, Levy, & Bounds, 2008a, 2008b). Godwin (2008) provides a matrix of Web 2.0 technologies and government agencies. This matrix displays the technology, e.g., blogs, providing a brief definition and examples of agencies using this technology and presenting the opportunity/potential in government. For many of these Web 2.0 tools, there are directories listing which agencies are using which tools for what purposes. For example, 93 federal agencies have public blogs listed in the USA.gov government blog library (see http://www. usa.gov/Topics/Reference_Shelf/News/blog.shtml). In July 2008 there were only 33 federal agencies listed in the government blog library, i.e., a 66% increase in merely 1 year. A government directory of microblogging sites lists 2,349 Twitter users, 192,195 tweets, and 28,651,020 followers (see http://govtwit.com). The USA.gov Multimedia library (http://www.usa.gov/Topics/Multimedia.shtml) presents a list of different ways to connect with government. YouTube features 17 US government channels from different agencies and there are 82 videos listed. The library of RSS feeds (http://www.usa.gov/Topics/Reference_Shelf/Libraries/RSS_Library.shtml) lists 10 general categories ranging from business and economics to science and technology. Under each general category is a list of specific Web sites and links featuring RSS feeds. Similarly, there is a list of podcasts from across the US government (http://www.usa.gov/Topics/Reference_Shelf/Libraries/Podcasts.shtml), which is a method of publishing and syndicating multimedia content to iPods, MP3 players, computers, and other mobile devices.

8

Adoption of Web 2.0

173

Presently, there are no directories for the use of mashups, social networking sites, and wikis. The Federal Web Managers Council (http://www.usa.gov/web content/documents/ExamplesofUsingTechnologyandContenttoAchieve%20Agency. pdf) provides a list of agencies using these Web 2.0 tools. Examples of federal agencies using mashups are United States Geological Survey (USGS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with Microsoft’s Virtual Earth, Google Earth, and Google maps. Data.gov, another example, is a Web site devoted to increase public access to high-value, machine-readable datasets generated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. These datasets provide an opportunity for mashups both within government and for external aggregators of government information. Social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn are being used by EPA, NASA, CIA, and USGSA to promote government information, services, and recruitment. These public sites are a means to expand an agency’s outreach capacity by linking employees with those who are interested in an agency’s information and services. Moreover, these sites provide a channel to announce upcoming events. The Facebook USA.gov page is a way for visitors to find recent RSS feeds, videos, photos, and other government news. NASA’s CoLab site enables individuals and technological communities an opportunity to contribute to NASA. Social network sites are also being used for interagency and intergovernmental purposes to promote cooperation across government. These internal social networks enable government employees to cross traditional organizational boundaries as well as to enable geographically dispersed employees to participate on projects. Some examples of government agencies using wikis for internal collaborative work are Intellipedia (US intelligence community), Diplopedia (US foreign affairs agencies within the State Department), OMB MAX Federal Community (Executive Branch personnel to collaborate on budget issues), and USGSA’s USA Services Intergovernmental Collaborative Work Environment (incubator space for 20 intergovernmental communities). The OMB established a public wiki (OMB USAspending.gov Requirements Community) for the public to comment on the Federal Funding and Transparency Act. The US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Practitioner’s Handbook is a wiki that can be viewed by the public, but only edited by members of the bar. Wikis are seen as useful for government agencies to increase knowledge sharing, crossing boundaries within and across agencies as well as geographical boundaries, to engage more people in the process, transparency, and for more efficient project management. It is regarded as a very flexible channel for fostering collaborative work within government and with the community. Data for US cities, countries, and towns using Web 2.0 tools are not as easily identifiable as the federal data. A 2009 survey conducted by the Center for Digital Government reported the percent of local and state government respondents were using the following Web 2.0 tools. The survey did not report (NR) on some of the selected Web 2.0 for this chapter as reflected in Table 8.4.

174

F.D.L. Wigand Table 8.4 Web 2.0 adoption by US cities, countries, and states Web 2.0 tool/technology

Cities

Countries

States

Blogs Microblogs Mashups Podcasts RSS feeds Social networks Video sharing Wikis

30% NR 48% 31% 53% NR NR 16

16% NR 37% 19% 47% NR NR 9

45% NR 45% 73% 88% NR NR 28

Source: Taylor (2009).

The trend reflected in Table 8.4 is also backed by a Public Technology Institute 2009 survey in which the authors assert that the uptake of Web 2.0 is growing at the state and local levels (Bowen, 2009).

5 Discussion and Comparison of Adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and US Governments Both the Canadian and US governments can be viewed as early adopters of Web 2.0 ICT. From the data the federal level of government for both countries appears to be leading the way for state and local governments in adopting these technologies. Each government has been following the adoption of these technologies in the private sector and developed careful strategies for adopting these ICT in the governmental context. An examination of the data reveals blogs, microblogs, RSS feeds, and social networks, video sharing, and wikis seem to be preferred Web 2.0 channels at the federal level. The data for state/provincial and local governments also suggest a similar trend in adoption, but at a slower rate. At this early stage for these emerging technologies there is more anecdotal data about specific Web 2.0 tools used at the state and local government levels. In either case, both countries are testing the waters and trying to measure and match the use of a channel with the purpose of the agency and the purpose of the communication. Other countries moving in a similar direction are the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Australia, and New Zealand. Each of these countries too has had to examine carefully the benefits of each channel to achieve purpose of the agency and to deliver the appropriate message to a targeted audience. The use of a single point of access and a multichannel strategy is reflected by both countries. Service Canada (http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/), initiated in 2005, is an excellent portal through which Canadians can contact their government. Canada’s GCPEDIA provides an internal channel for employees to share information and knowledge about government projects. The Common Look and Feel Web site (http://www.commonlookandfeel.ca) provides a space for those who work for

8

Adoption of Web 2.0

175

Government of Canada web projects to share knowledge and information about the development and use of Web 2.0 ICT. Both of these initiatives are governed by the Treasury Board Secretariat. Similarly, USGSA’s single portal access (USA.gov) Web site offers a multichannel strategy for different stakeholders to contact government such as by phone, in person, web chat, e-mail, and online services and forms. Both Service Canada and USA.gov enable users to e-mail a page, receive updated government information via e-mail or RSS feeds, or share the information through numerous services. USGSA Office of Citizen Services also has developed a Web site, http://www.WebContent.gov, that is managed by the Federal Web Managers Council and is designed to provide best practices and guidelines for using Web 2.0 ICT in government at all levels. One distinguishing aspect of the USGSA’s approach is the provision of libraries to track the use of these Web 2.0 tools. These libraries make it quite easy to follow the development and use of Web 2.0 ICT in the federal government. Some comparative statistics on political tweeters show that 30% of the US Congress tweet, as compared to 22% for Canada, 12% for the United Kingdom, and 10% for Australia (PoliTwitter Blog, 2009). Both Common Look and Feel Canada and the WebContent.gov in the USA are excellent opportunities for each government to set standards, to develop guidelines, to discuss the benefits and challenges of adopting Web 2.0 initiatives in government, and to promote the dissemination of these ICT not only throughout the federal government but also for state, province, and municipalities. As early adopters of these ICT, each government has a high degree of influence on later adopters, and by following the development and use in the private sector can avoid the higher costs of pioneering and can reduce risk (both financial and technical). In addition, governments can benefit from citizens’ experiences with these technologies in the private sector. Moreover, since these two governments are not in competition with each other, there is the opportunity to share best practices for using these ICT.

6 Recommendations Web 2.0 technologies provide many benefits and challenges for governments. Leveraging the benefits and reducing the challenges for governments’ adoption of Web 2.0, one approach starts with matching the agency’s mission and outcomes with the technologies that have the potential to deliver these outcomes efficiently and at a reasonable risk to the organization (Accenture, 2009). For these technologies to add value to an organization, one needs to identify specific outcomes for using them. One example of matching outcomes with technologies is the US Department of Health Services’ public blog which was designed to involve the public in a discussion on the allocation of vaccines in case of an influenza pandemic. The blog provides a means to engage people who might not have responded via traditional channels as well as to increase awareness of the issue. Godwin et al. (2008a) provide a list of examples of federal US agencies using online content

176

F.D.L. Wigand

and technology to achieve mission and goals. This list further demonstrates the importance of matching an agency’s mission and goals with a technology designed to achieve them. Another component of the Web 2.0 framework is an understanding of the direction of the communication (internal or external) and with whom (persons known or unknown) is the information shared. Drapeau and Wells (2009) present four functions for this framework: • Inward sharing: Sharing information within an agency with known people; • Outward sharing: Sharing information across agency boundaries with other government entities; • Inbound sharing: Government receives information from people (unknown sources) outside of government; • Outbound sharing: Pushing information out to citizens. This can include ICT to connect people during emergencies or using social networking sites to increase communication. Chang and Kannan (2008) present a similar framework for government’s use of Web 2.0. In this framework, technologies are matched with types of uses, e.g., communication focused, interaction focused, and service focused. Communicationfocused uses refer to disseminating information broadly for increased awareness and to push the information to the citizen. Interaction-focused uses are designed to gain feedback from employees and to benefit from the wisdom of the crowd. Interaction-focused uses are more difficult to implement than the communicationfocused uses. Finally Chang and Kannan (2008) claim that service-focused uses are the most difficult to deploy because these uses require governments to give up control of content once it is used by intermediaries. In addition to the three types of uses, this framework also uses the direction of the communication to describe the level of engagement. Internally focused communication is defined as communication among employees and with other agencies, and externally focused communications are with citizens and businesses. Chang and Kannan (2008) claim that the internal uses of Web 2.0 technologies are somewhat easier to deploy and offer less risk than do external uses and provide examples for each level. Another framework provided by the Federal Web Managers Council compares the purpose of the technology with the benefits and challenges as well as the uses (internal or external) of the technology in a governmental context. From these approaches a composite framework was derived to evaluate the adoption of these Web 2.0 tools by government agencies at all levels. Table 8.5 presents this framework by examining the benefits and challenges in the adoption of Web 2.0 in government. Consequently, one can evaluate the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies by its relationship to agency’s mission and goals, by the direction of the communication and information sharing (internal or external), the relationship with the receiver, the type of uses, or by the benefits and challenges. Each of these components should be evaluated and be analyzed for its strategic intentions before deploying any of the Web 2.0 technologies.

Publishing content through journal entries, receive comments, collaborative tool

Short conversations enable sender and receiver to listen and share information, two-way communication Publishing audio files

Notification of new content from Web sites, blogs, microblogs, podcasts

Blogs

Microblogs

RSS

Podcasts

Purpose of technology

Technology

Engage community, outreach, broadcast emergencies, post-key events, update content (hashtags), track information on microblog sites, used on mobile devices Quick and easy way to distribute audios to augment text, increase awareness of government information, increase communication with public, process is simple and inexpensive Content from multiple sources delivered to end user, fast way to disseminate new content, increase awareness of government information, improved communication, process to develop simple and inexpensive

Spread message, update content quickly (RSS feeds), puts human face on organization, increase outreach; cheap to establish, reduce e-mail traffic

Benefits

No legal or policy requirements to implement; need to provide alternative channels

Must provide alternative channels to distribute information, no policy, legal requirements to implement

Legal issues for terms of service of site, security risks with using sites, same issues for blogs

Time consuming to produce and maintain, legal issues about information, rules for comments

Challenges

Table 8.5 A framework for the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies in government

External: quick way to communicate with public and update content Internal: track updates of other government’s content, increased collaboration and information sharing among agencies

Internal: increased communication External: used primarily for outreach to public

Internal: coordinate, communicate, knowledge management, accessible historical repository External: relationships with stakeholders Internal: communicate and coordinate External: quick updating of content for stakeholders

Internal/external uses

8 Adoption of Web 2.0 177

Purpose of technology

Connect people in online communities

Collaboration

Technology

Social networking sites

Wikis

Knowledge sharing, cross-boundary cooperation, engagement of contributors, transparency, increased project and time management, efficient use of resources, archived discussions, community repository

Promote government services and information; recruitment; announce events, achieve agency’s mission, cost effective

Benefits


Difficult to use external to the organization

Security, proper use, bandwidth

Challenges

Internal: promote inter- and intra-agency cooperation, achieve agency’s mission External: increase outreach to public, identify professional communities Internal: used primarily to foster collaboration and knowledge sharing across government boundaries. Best if dedicated to a particular project External: contribute and/or edit Wikipedia description

Internal/external uses

178 F.D.L. Wigand

8

Adoption of Web 2.0

179

7 Conclusions The goal of this chapter was to compare the adoption of Web 2.0 ICT by Canadian and US governments and to explore their respective impact on the delivery of information and services via digital channels to all stakeholders. Canadian and US Governments are early adopters of Web 2.0 ICT in government. By assuming this leadership role in the adoption of Web 2.0, each government has been able to set the standards, provide examples of best practices, identify benefits and challenges for their respective governmental context, and provide guidelines for other government entities to follow. Both governments have numerous examples of agencies and government officials at all levels using these technologies successfully for a multitude of purposes both internal and external to their respective organizations. Moreover, these governments’ decision to adopt these ICT is based upon their perception of how Web 2.0 technologies are an improvement over Web 1.0 approaches. The chosen technologies enable a shift in these governments’ respective perspectives toward how to communicate and share information with all stakeholders. The primary change is a move from merely publishing information and data and expecting the stakeholders to come to them to one of outreach to all stakeholders and communicating and sharing information in their online communities. This approach means relinquishing some control over content and data. It also means listening to stakeholders and not talking to them and enabling the stakeholders to become content contributors. It also means responding to contributors of content and paying attention to end user online behavior. For example, if someone uses Twitter only as a one-way communication channel, then the benefits of a potentially desired two-way channel as well as the contributions of the receiver are lost. Another shift in focus is on harnessing the potential of collective intelligence and using Web 2.0 ICT such as wikis for collaboration and knowledge management. Another hurdle for adopting a new technology is the ease of use and end user gratification. These technologies are relatively easy to incorporate into the existing multichannel strategies of Canadian and US governments and in many cases are also inexpensive to adopt. Since citizens use these technologies in the private sector, some audiences are familiar with these technologies and expect to use them in a governmental context as well. Each of the Web 2.0 ICT requires updating and maintenance as well as with some initiatives dedicated personnel. There are numerous challenges such as privacy, security, and ensuring authenticity of government information to overcome. Since many Web 2.0 initiatives in both of these governments are in an experimental phase, measurement initiatives are just being developed. According to Chang and Kannan (2008) the prevailing measurement techniques in the private sector are levels of engagement and effectiveness of the application. While these may be useful measurements for the public sector as well, this sector needs to focus on the net value added for the end user. This focus on the end user enhances citizen-centric multichannel strategies developed by both the Canadian and US governments.

180

F.D.L. Wigand

References Accenture. (2006). Leadership in customer service: Building the trust. Retrieved from http://www. accenture.com Accenture. (2007). Leadership in customer service: Delivering on the promise. Retrieved from http://www.accenture.com Accenture. (2009). Web 2.0 and the next generation of public service. Retrieved from http:// www.accenture.com Arellano, N. (2008). Canada embarks on major Web 2.0 initiative. Itbusiness.ca, 28 May 2008. Retrieved from http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/DetailNews Atlee, T., & Por, G. (2000). Collective intelligence as a field of multi-disciplinary study and practice. Retrieved from http://www.community-intelligence.com/files/Atlee%20-%20Por%20-% 20CI%20as%20a%20Field%20of%20multidisciplinary%20study%20and%20practice%20.pdf Baumgarten, J., & Chui, M. (2009). E-government 2.0. McKinsey on Government, Summer(4). Retrieved from http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/E-government_20_2408 Bowen, D. (2009). Local government use of Web 2.0 and social networking tools. Public Technology Institute. Retrieved from http://www.pti.org/index.php/ptiee1/inside/C29#540 Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (1974). The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Canadian Internet Project. (2008). Retrieved from www.ciponline.ca. Chang, M., & Kannan, P. (2008). Leveraging Web 2.0 in government. IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved from http://www.businessofgovernment.org/ sites/default/files/LeveragingWeb.pdf Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. Drapeau, M., & Wells, L. (2009). Social software and national security: An initial net assessment. Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University. Retrieved from http://www.ndu.edu/CTNSP/docUploaded/DTP61_ SocialSoftwareandNationalSecurity.pdf Elliot, N., Overby, C. S., Greene, M., & Wise, J. (2009). Canadian social technographics revealed: How marketers can leverage Canadians’ love of social technologies. Retrieved from http://wwwforrester.com/rb/Research/canadian_social_technograph Flew, T. (2008). New media: An introduction. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. GCPEDIA. (2009). Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCPEDIA Godwin, B. (2008). Matrix of Web 2.0 technology and government. USA.gov and Web best practices, GSA office of citizen services. Retrieved from http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/ documents/Web_Technology_Matrix.pdf Godwin, B., Campbell, S., Levy, J., & Bounds, J. (2008a). Examples of agencies using online content and technology to achieve mission and goals. Federal Web Managers Council. Retrieved from http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/documents/ExamplesofUsingTechnologyand ContenttoAchieve%20Agency.pdf Godwin, B., Campbell, S., Levy, J., & Bounds, J. (2008b). Social media and the federal government: Perceived and real barriers and potential solutions. Federal Web Managers Council. Retrieved from http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/documents/SocialMedia Fed%20Govt_BarriersPotentialSolutions.pdf Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). (2003). OECD. The egovernment imperative. Paris: OECD e-government studies. O’Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software? Communications & Strategies, 65(1), 17–36. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2009). Generations online in 2009. Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2007). Information searches that solve problems: How people use the Internet, libraries and government agencies when they need help. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org

8

Adoption of Web 2.0

181

Pew Internet and American Life Project Tracking Surveys. (2009). Retrieved from www.pew internet.org Pilieci, V. (2008). Government finally opts to be internet friendly, creates own version of Wikipedia. The Gazette (Montreal), Wednesday, 19 November 2008. Retrieved from http:// www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/business/story.html PoliTwitter Blog. (2009). How do Canadian politicians on twitter compare to other countries? Retrieved from http://politwitter.ca/blog Results for Canadians: A management framework for the government of Canada. (2002). A report for the treasury board of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/res_can/rc_ 1-eng.asp Rogers, E. M. with Shoemaker, F. (1971). Communication of innovation: A cross-cultural approach (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. New York: Little Brown. Taylor, P. W. (2009). All-a-twitter about Web 2.0. Center for Digital Government. Retrieved from http://media.govtech.net/GOVTECH_WEBSITE/EVENTS/PRESENTATION_DOCS/2009/ GTC_East/AllaTwitteraboutWeb_2.0_Center_for_Digital_Govt.pdf Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. WebContent.gov (2009). Retrieved from http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/technology/other_tech. shtml Wigand, R. T. (2007). Web 2.0: Disruptive technology or is everything miscellaneous? In A. Huizing & E. J. de Vries (Eds.), Information management: Setting the scene (pp. 269–284). Oxford, England and Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Scientific Publishers.

Chapter 9

E-government and Federalism in Italy and Canada—A Comparative Assessment Barbara -Chiara Ubaldi and Jeffrey Roy

The purpose of this chapter is to examine if and how e-government is being addressed in a holistic manner across levels of in a federalist jurisdiction such as Canada—and that of Italy which is progressively moving towards federalism. Conceptually, there are tensions between the technologically driven vision of “federated architectures”—a term which implies co-ordination and balance between centralised and devolved governance mechanisms (enjoined in some manner), and the term “federation” in a political sense—implying formal separation and autonomy between government levels. This chapter compares Italy and Canada since both have been witness to ongoing discussions around political federalism in recent years. Some comparative lessons are identified in terms of interactions and interrelations between levels of government in a more digitally and socially interdependent world.

1 Introduction Governments at all levels are seeking to improve internal operations and external service delivery through new information and communications technologies.1 Responding to both pressures and opportunities associated with online platforms and digital technologies, e-government strategies are now commonplace. The most significant of these transformations have, until now sought to integrate, rationalise and better align service offerings across traditional agency and jurisdictional boundaries (Langford & Roy, 2008). As such efforts continue, however, new questions are being raised about how governments design and organise service offerings and B.-C. Ubaldi (B) OECD, 2, rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France e-mail: [email protected] J. Roy Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 3J5 e-mail: [email protected] 1 The

authors wish to thank Ms. Obbia Barni for her research and editing assistance.


183

184

B.-C. Ubaldi and J. Roy

widen collaboration with a range of stakeholders including the citizenry (Duggan & Green, 2008; Langford & Roy, 2009; Roy, 2008). The internal transformation efforts of many governments have both confronted and created considerable tensions between department and agency-specific strategies on the one hand, and cross-governmental integrated service capacities on the other hand. Pressures to be more citizen-centric often imply a need to transcend jurisdictional boundaries across levels of government. In order to better frame a path towards such a vision, a recent Canadian report on citizen-centric federalism provides a four-stage “integrative continuum” meant to shift towards greater collaborative governance arrangements for integrated services (Ambrose, Lenihan, & Milloy, 2006). It is important to stress that the heightened complexity of each stage cannot be viewed purely through the lens of administrative innovation, as the traditions and contemporary structures and culture of how different levels of government interact also matter. The purpose of this chapter is to examine if and how e-government is being addressed in a holistic manner—across levels of government in a federalist jurisdiction such as Canada and in Italy which is progressively moving towards federalism. Conceptually, there are tensions between the technologically driven vision of “federated architectures”—a term which implies co-ordination and balance between centralised and devolved governance mechanisms (enjoined in some manner), and the term “federation” in a political sense—implying formal separation and autonomy between government levels. At the same time, there are tensions between an emphasis on e-government locally—as it is at the local level where managerial and democratic innovations have most typically emerged in a bottom-up manner—and the fiscal structures and digital visibility that may often favour the national polity in terms of resources and clout (especially so in times of fiscal and economic crisis). This chapter compares Italy and Canada since both have been witness to ongoing discussions around political federalism in recent years (both within Italy and at the European level) and both have invested significantly in their e-government apparatuses. The intent is to derive some important lessons and avenues for further research in terms of interactions and interrelations between levels of government in a more digitally and socially interdependent world. In Canada, despite limited progress in the early years of e-government, the formalisation of cross-governmental CIO and Service Delivery Councils has begun to yield specific strategies to transcend traditional political boundaries and separateness—in favour more seamless architectures. The Italian case is peculiar because of the co-existence of two parallel reform processes: E-government developments run along a deeper constitutional and institutional change towards increased federalism. In such context, the government’s competences on specific fields are changing, and there are several grey zones whose borders are still to be determined. Countries around the world are struggling with such dynamics—with responses dependent on the starting point jurisdictional boundaries and how such boundaries are transcended (or not) by various co-ordinating mechanisms (Jaeger, 2002;

9

E-government and Federalism in Italy and Canada

185

Langford & Roy, 2008; Roy, 2006a, 2006b). In a unitary state model such as Denmark, for example, multiple levels of government co-exist in an environment viewed by both the public and governments themselves as interrelated components of a single system. This sort of starting point is therefore more conducive to charting a collaborative, integrative course based upon more seamless governance architecture. Danish e-government and service transformation efforts have long featured, since their inception, formal inter-governmental planning and co-ordinating mechanisms to proceed in this manner (Langford & Roy, 2008). On a much more modest scale—and in a federalist jurisdiction, Germany piloted an integrated call centre initiative underpinned by the number “115” as a direct access line for inquiries regarding public service across any level of government (most similar 311 initiatives across North America focus exclusively on the municipal level). Belgium is perhaps the world’s poster child for inter-jurisdictional complexity. Prior to the most recent elections (that led to an extended episode of political paralysis), one national newspaper published a series of articles over several days in a valiant effort to explain to readers the intricacies of electoral processes across federal, regional and linguistic community-based legislatures. Yet a strong effort has been made over the past two decades to improve administrative alignment and co-ordination across various levels of government and a turning point in this regard came in 2001 when a formal co-operation agreement was signed between the federal government, the regions and the communities to forge a common platform for electronic service delivery. Building on this common platform, in 2003 Belgium became the first European country to launch a national electronic ID card, an exercise that began with a federally sponsored pilot in several municipalities before proceeding to national rollout. The card includes a unique identifier for each citizen that is now enabling electronic data exchanges and service provisions across widening segments of the county’s social security and health care systems. A critical aspect of this identity management system is the Crossroads Bank for Social Security (CBSS), an autonomous public sector body whose origins date back to 1990 when it was established to form an initial repository for information holdings for citizens and employers contributing to or benefiting from social security programmes. Accountable to a management board with representatives of the public, companies and government service providers, today the CBSS works as a “service integrator” for all federal social security benefits and the integration of these benefits with services provided by other government levels (Robben, 2007). The Belgian federated approach is seemingly intent on not allowing political separateness (and corresponding democratic accountabilities) to stymie a more networked and integrative approach to the organisation and management of service delivery. The ability to do so is owed in no small measure to two central elements: first, the willingness of all governments in the Belgian context to formalise a collaborative framework early on; and second, the common infrastructure provided by CBSS to the country’s public sector as a whole.

186


2 Political and Fiscal Federalism in Canada and Italy Federalism is a form of constitutional government that separates authority between the national government and provincial or state governments. This sharing of authority allows the accommodation of regional and cultural differences in a diverse nation. In some cases, such as in Switzerland, the state governments are more powerful than the national government. In Canada, the national government tends to be more powerful than the provincial governments. In the United States, the centre of power has swung back and forth over the decades. Italy, as we shall see, is a country in transition towards more federalist structures.

2.1 Canada Canadian federalism at the outset in 1867 was a reflection of the influence of the American experience on the authors of the Canadian constitution.2 The sharing of state authority between a central government and provincial governments accommodated regional language and cultural interests already reflected in the existence of pre-confederation governments. The intention of the framers may have been to create weak provincial governments, but over time, and particularly over the last half century, there has been a significant growth in the power of provincial governments and an increasing tendency for central and provincial governments to operate simultaneously in areas of jurisdiction that appear in the Constitution to be within the authority of one or the other levels of government. As constitutional creatures of the provinces, increasingly economically important municipal governments have become frustrated participants in the contemporary inter-governmental mix. These developments and the concentration of financial power in the hands of the federal government have created complex power and resource sharing arrangements and placed increasing premium on the need for more effective models of inter-governmental relations. With very few exceptions (Ambrose et al., 2006), reflections on the development of federalism and inter-governmental relations in Canada remain focused on issues such as the shifting balance of power and fiscal resources among federal and provincial governments, the appropriate leadership role of the federal government, the limitations which should be placed on the federal government’s spending power, the evolution of executive dominated federalism and the capacity of the federal system to contain robust expressions of cultural, language or indigenous identity (Bakvis & Skogstad, 2008; Langford & Roy, 2008). At the political level, contemporary debates on such issues have been focused on adjectives such as “asymmetrical” and—more recently—“open” federalism (ibid.). The conceptual flirtation with the notion of “collaborative” political federalism which began in Canada in the mid-1990s recognises the growing interdependence of 2 Much

of this section is drawn from Langford and Roy (2008).

9


187

federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments and is in tune with the new public management focus on decentralisation and the development of more flexible, informal and equal arrangements among governments (ibid.). But the discussion of collaborative federalism to date has focused largely on the “co-determination (by the federal, provincial and—more recently—northern territorial governments) of broad national policies” such as the Social Union Framework and the 1995 Agreement on Internal Trade (Cameron & Simeon, 2002, p. 49; McIntosh, 2004). Political leaders and federalism scholars have paid little more than lip service to the idea of extending the scope of the collaborative federalism model to include cross-boundary activities of service delivery agencies. This means that federal–provincial integrative initiatives such as the development of labour training agreements,3 the efforts to create a cross-country health information network4 and the more recent collaborative funding of infrastructure renewal5 are happening largely outside of the political and academic debate about the future of federalism.6 Despite the aforementioned local renaissance in many parts of the world that arose in the 1990s, its recognition and strength was partially stalled in Canada by what some observers have termed an obsession with federal–provincial relations (Andrew, 2002). Accordingly, it was not until the late 1990s and early part of this century when cities, urbanisation and territorial governance matters began to penetrate the political and policy agendas of Canadian governments (OECD, 2002), a time that would also see the emergence of e-government in a forceful manner at the federal level (Paquet & Roy, 2004). Canadian reforms have arguably lagged behind the European experience in terms of a focus on both local and multi-level capacity building. One Canadian observer notes that: “using a mix of principles, programmes and networks, the EU in the 1990s developed multi-level governance to implement more place-sensitive policies and programmes” (Bradford, 2004). The fact that Canadian municipalities face fiscal limitations is well established (Barnett, 1997; Bradford, 2004; Paquet & Roy, 2004; Wong, 2002). Although the federal government has introduced various new funding schemes designed to provide resources to the municipal level, these measures are primarily top-down in nature, such as federal infrastructure programmes, competitive granting schemes and federal–provincial agreements to share limited taxation sources with local governments.

3 See for example the 2005 bilateral agreement between Ontario and Canada: http://www.edu.gov. on.ca/eng/training/labourmarket.html 4 See: 2015: Advancing Canada’s Next Generation of Healthcare, http://www.infowayinforoute.ca/en/pdf/Vision_2015_Advancing_Canadas_next_generation_of_healthcare.pdf 5 See “Building Canada—Modern Infrastructure for a Strong Canada”, http://www.buildingcanadachantierscanada.gc.ca/plandocs/booklet-livret/booklet-livret-eng.html 6 Such developments receive very brief recognition in Johns, O’Reilly, and Inwood (2007).

188


2.2 Italy Until 1948 Italy had a unitary form of government with some modest experiments in regionalisation in the decades that followed. Today, Italy is what one commentary has described as a “devolutionary asymmetric federal system in the making” due to important yet uneven shifts over the past decade: Over the last 10 years, Italy has been in the process of federalizing. Delays along the way have led to a federal constitutional framework around a centralist political culture. At the same time, the rich regions of the North are demanding more autonomy, while the poorer regions of the South are worried that further federalization will widen the economic gap between the two parts of the country.7

Important constitutional changes undertaken in 1999 and 2001 provided greater formality to regionalisation by introducing the direct election of regional presidents on the one hand, while also strengthening the region’s constitutional autonomy on the other hand. Preceding these reforms were a number of modifications to local government during the 1990s in an effort to strengthen municipal autonomy, and the 2001 constitutional reforms went so far as to declare all government levels equal— the national government, regions, provinces and municipalities (ibid.). Since 2001 a number of additional reforms have been proposed, particularly in the realm of fiscal federalism—and while some measures have been adopted, many were initially rejected or ignored by the current Berlusconi-led government, itself divided by stronger devolutionary tendencies from the north than in the south. Nonetheless, this year Berlusconi pressed ahead with the introduction of a major set of changes that further enshrines federalist structures in terms of revenue generation and jurisdictional responsibilities: Under the bill, the three levels of subnational government—regions, provinces and communes—will share a quota of income tax and of the value added tax (VAT) with the central government. In principle, the deal will not entail a tax increase, but simply a shift of the fiscal burden from the centre to the periphery. Taxes could potentially increase, but only if regional and local governments levy new taxes for specific initiatives.8

Part of the rationale for the current government favouring such reforms is to contain the overall spending of Italy’s public sector, beginning with the national level. As such, the new reforms call for the formation of a co-ordinating body to monitor and control public spending across all levels of government. Importantly, however, the new laws may also enable national governments to step in and penalise regional authorities that overspend,9 a notion that is inconsistent with a purely federalist model where national and regional entities would be prevented from interfering with another. In Canada, for example, the federal government has no legal basis for interfering in the taxation and spending plans of provinces (though provinces may do

7 http://www.forumfed.org/en/products/magazine/vol7_num1/italy.php 8 http://www.forumfed.org/en/products/magazine/vol8_num1/italy.php 9 www.press.unibocconi.eu/dwload_doc.php?Invia=Scarica?pdf

9


189

so for municipal governments since these latter actors are subordinate to provincial authority without formal constitutional autonomy of their own).

3 Co-ordinating E-government Across Jurisdictions Pressures for devising more aligned and integrative cross-boundary service models for a country have intensified with the advent of e-government and the corresponding emphasis on single portals, convenience, shared systems and interoperability. Complex matters of governance, knowledge and people all come into play and, in a democratic context, politics cannot be absent from any such list. The commonality across these matters is an evolving thematic challenge for national and sub-national governments in Italy and Canada as elsewhere to collectively navigate an environment of growing interdependence across both policy and service realms. The primary connotation of the term “federated architecture” has typically been technological, in terms of forging interoperable electronic systems as enablers of customer or citizen-centric service delivery. We can see from above that both countries, Italy and Canada, have undertaken steps to realise something more akin to such a federated architecture for the public sector as a whole, a process that nonetheless runs into the political and fiscal dimensions of federalism. How both countries are seeking to reconcile these multiple dimensions is the focus of this section.

3.1 Canada In the late 1990s, the recognition of this need in Canada spawned two federal councils, the Public Sector Service Delivery Council (PSSDC) and the Public Sector Chief Information Officer Council (PSCIOC). A secretariat, the Institute for CitizenCentred Service (ICCS), was created to support both councils through promotion of service transformation and research.10 These councils were made up of representatives from federal, provincial and territorial governments. The same 14 governments also funded the ICCS. The mandates of the councils were to foster improved public service delivery to Canadians through collaboration, information sharing and leadership across governments in service transformation and related information management and technology. These councils and the institute reflect efforts at a low key, cross-jurisdictional bureaucratic collaborative federalism (Langford & Roy, 2008). Further evidence of the informal build-up of pressure for a common infrastructure has been a growing list of bilateral and multilateral cross-jurisdictional initiatives aimed at either sharing or integrating information including portals for

10 For

further information on the Institute see: http://www.iccs-isac.org/eng/about.htm

190


such client groups as senior citizens,11 business registration via BizPaL12 and Business Registration Online13 and vital events information sharing including the newborn registration service launched by ServiceOntario and Service Canada that provides quick and seamless access to parents for birth registration, birth certificates and social insurance numbers.14 Such information sharing is political, as vital documents for identification (notably birth certificates and drivers’ licences and medical cards) are within the provincial realm, whereas the social insurance number is national—albeit strictly created for federal government programmes and services. As stand-alone initiatives, such efforts are important examples of crossjurisdictional service integration. The stumbling block emerges in attempting to stitch a number of these likeminded innovations into a broader quilt (or architecture) for systemic information management and business model planning across the public sector as a whole. One illustration of this is the e-contact initiative— a collaborative effort between federal and provincial governments designed to create a national repository of service standards and shared modelling for more interoperability (Moule, 2007). Many past struggles of e-contact are attributable to the limited ties across jurisdictions and the difficulties of sustaining and expanding joint initiatives. An important lesson from other jurisdictions such as Belgium and Denmark is that although informal co-operation (of the sort provided by the federal councils) is a useful beginning, it cannot suffice in creating a more systemic approach to identifying opportunities and pursuing these opportunities through joint undertakings. Moving towards a collaborative mindset and a common infrastructure requires a level of trust across jurisdictional boundaries acknowledged to be lacking at present (Entwistle & Martin, 2005). The Public Sector Service Delivery Council, a stakeholder body reflecting governments themselves, lays out the issue well: Trust continues to be a significant problem . . . public sector organizations as service providers still struggle to trust one another. As such, even if Canadians were perfectly prepared to give governments permission to use and share personal information for the purpose of identification, the goal of integrated, seamless service cannot be met until service organizations establish a level of trust between themselves (p. 9).

Identity management in Canada today lies at the crossroads between two approaches: either a loose, co-operative framework for sharing information and aligning solutions across otherwise separate jurisdictional systems; or a set of truly collaborative governance mechanisms underpinned by integrative capacities for decision making. The decision as to which route to take will be consequential in shaping inter-jurisdictional service capacities. As such it deserves further examination.

11 See:

http://www.seniorsinfo.ca/ http://bizpal.ca/index_e.shtml 13 See: http://www.businessregistration.gc.ca/ 14 See: http://www.serviceontario.ca/newborn 12 See:

9


191

The need for an appropriate governance model to underpin any interjurisdictional framework for identity authentication and management has been well articulated in Canada by the recent PSSDC-housed Inter-jurisdictional Identity Management and Authentication Task Force (IATF, 2007). Following a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial deputy ministers with service delivery responsibilities held in late 2007, a decision was made to endorse the formal pursuit of a pan-Canadian framework for identity authentication and management. The intent is that a formal governance body, funding model and work plan will be in place by 2009. One important rationale for a pan-Canadian approach to identity management is to ensure some level of technological commonality across jurisdictions— provincially and locally. As such, it is important that discussions pertaining to governance models for identity management systems and other aspects of interjurisdictional collaboration that may be required are situated in a broader dialogue on how the country’s multi-level and multi-channel frameworks for service delivery impact the broader developmental capacities for communities, the basis of the next challenge. This challenge applies to all government levels especially in federal countries such as Canada and Australia where federal service delivery actors play important roles in both individual and community development (Kernaghan, 2005; Treadwell, 2007). A notable aspect of the present e-government scene in Canada is the near absence of any formal national e-government strategies (unlike the Italian example examined below), consequential for inter-jurisdictional activity by virtue of the absence of strong federal government leadership or initiative. Even as the federal government has massively expanded public works spending as a fiscal stimulus in response to the economic downturn, the vast proportion of projects are being delivered or contracted by federal authorities. While there are some shared projects with provincial and local governments, the contrast to the United States is notable where large transfers to state and local governments are an important dimension of their stimulus plans. Moreover, it is apparent that the expanded public investments are targeting traditional forms of infrastructure (shovel-ready projects is the term often deployed), while national digital infrastructure continues to languish in many parts of the country (Canada placed 25th out of 34 countries in the University of Oxford’s ranking of innovation economies, far behind top-rated South Korea and just ahead of Australia and the United States15 ). The result is that while the co-ordinating work of the Councils is likely to continue, yielding specific one-off examples of joint initiatives, e-government shall likely remain a fragmented quilt of agendas and initiatives across federal, provincial and local governments.

15 http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/10/01/broadband-study-oxford-canada-lags.html

192


3.2 Italy According to the provisions of Article 117 of the Constitution, the state regulates the electronic co-ordination of state, regional and local administration data. The state, the regions and the local bodies promote co-operation and agreements to foster co-ordinated and shared digitalisation of the administration process and to issue technical regulations. To reach this objective the E-government Code (see below) established the Standing Committee on technological innovation in regions and autonomous local authorities. The Committee has advisory and investigation functions on agreements and collaboration initiatives promoted by the local administrations. In 2005, Italy introduced an “e-government code”, a legislative measure applicable to all levels of the public administration. This code mandates the public organisations to share and exchange relevant information and documents among themselves by electronic means—i.e. e-mail—in order to make life easier for citizens and businesses; make a minimum set of contents and services available on their Websites, including a comprehensive organisation chart, an e-mail directory, a list of e-services, the possibility to download forms and details about administrative procedures; communicate by e-mail on the exchange of documents and information; accept online payments from citizens and businesses; use the electronic ID card and the National Services Card as standard means of granting access to online services. The Code furthermore grants citizens and businesses with the right to demand and obtain that public administration bodies use electronic means in their day-to-day relationship with users: this disposition applies to all levels of government. A second ministerial order (February 2007) provides for removing the barriers to the interchange of data between public administrations and the publication of negotiation activities (the so-called “Innovation Directive”). Implementation of these binding laws has proven to be difficult and no penalties are in place for non-compliant administrations. Additionally, all those norms which deal with issues on which the central government does not have a direct jurisdiction and which directly affect the internal organisation and choices of autonomous bodies such as local government are difficult to be enforced legally. The first phase of the Italian e-government plan (2000–2002) was characterised by a strong collaboration between central and local administrations. This collaboration resulted in the co-funding of 134 projects proposed by regions and local authorities and aimed at (i) making online public services available to both citizens and businesses and (ii) implementing infrastructure services. These projects were selected through a competitive tendering process, which stimulated a creative and innovative process in local public administration. At the same time, it appeared to be excessively difficult to steer ex-post the numerous projects towards an integrated system of service delivery across organisations. Therefore, the second implementation phase of the plan (2003–2006) was implemented not through an open competition, but via negotiated procedures with the local public administration—through framework agreement or “Accordi di

9


193

Programma”. These implied not only an agreement between the local government— i.e. the regions—and the national government, but also the definition of co-operation agreements at the local level between all sub-national levels of government. One of the aims of the approach adopted in this second phase was to foster the submission and sponsor projects involving smaller municipalities.16 During the first phase of e-government development public agencies from larger municipalities had been among the most active in proposing, designing and implementing e-government projects. This revealed a high degree of dynamism in the context of larger municipalities (Frosini & Nasi, 2010). This approach to sub-national co-operation constitutes an important feature of the Italian partnerships across levels of government. It is interesting to see how the patterns of collaboration at the sub-national level vary across the country, with instances where the regions are more collaborative, others where they are more in command and control, and some where the regions are absent (Sabetti, 2004). For example the Region Emilia-Romagna sees its e-government plan as a “territorial” plan, shared by all local authorities. The Region formalised the sub-national collaboration through the constitution of a “Community Network”, approved by all local councils. The Network has the responsibility to co-ordinate e-government development across the 350 public authorities in the Region. The focus of the collaboration among local authorities goes beyond the wider e-government strategy and touches matters that cover joint purchases, joint participation to national projects, shared monitoring system, shared training, etc. The projects financed in the second phase of the national Action Plan provided mostly for the strengthening and the territorial extension of the projects launched during the first phase: – Through the development of infrastructural services for the unitary connectivity and co-operation system between all government agencies. – Through the establishment of support centres for providing small municipalities with the necessary applications. – Through the re-usage of solutions already developed in the first phase. In this case, the products and the expertise of the first phase projects are made transferable to other local public administration. Both the first and the second phases included dedicated resources for the central monitoring of the projects’ execution. Funding was linked to the actual achievement of the milestones described in the project proposal. The publication of the strategic document “E-government for an efficient federalism: a shared vision, a co-operative implementation” agreed by the central state, the regions and the municipalities (April 2003) represented a critical step in relation to the broad implementation of

16 85% of the 8,101 municipalities have a population of less than 10,000 inhabitants. Most of them

were not involved in the first phase of e-government implementation.

194


e-government. This document laid the foundations for the development of a consistent and sustainable e-government development in the Italian Public Administration, which was heading towards a federal system. The Italian e-government strategy of 2007 marked the third phase of Italian e-government development process. The previous ones gave the responsibility for decision making to the local authorities in a wide array of areas concerning information systems, infrastructure investments and innovation. The 2007 strategy embraced the concept of “co-operative governance” and focused more on the sharing of common and consistent objectives between all types of administrations. The aim is to guarantee full administrative interoperability based on the principle according to which citizens should perceive public administration as a single entity. The priority is to re-launch the administrative reform through a consistent multilevel strategy combining technological innovation, legislative levers, organisational and management changes, as well as the valorisation of the human capital and the measuring and evaluation of results. This new reality, coupled with the fact that e-government-related competences are by nature interlinked, strengthens the need for increased collaboration and partnership across levels of government to support e-government implementation. Furthermore, even though Italy has invested large amounts of public financial resources in e-government development (estimated at around 1,000 M/Euros per year for the last 6 years), there is a widespread feeling that the impact of these investments has not yet spurred the expected transformation on the performance of public administration, which is generally considered to be a factor negatively impacting the country’s competitiveness. The perception of the deceived expectations reinforces the case for increased collaboration across levels of government to achieve a real impact on the performance of the public administration and on the quality of the services it delivers to citizens and business. The new Italian E-government Plan 201217 proposes a set of actions that are in line with the approach and principles spelled out in the European Union Lisbon Strategy. Taking into account the challenges that have arisen from the economic crisis it focuses on increasing the users’ access to public services while reducing the increasing digital gap between Italy and the other European Union member countries. The E-government Action Plan 2012 further develops the instruments and systems deployed, and approach adopted, in recent years (i.e. the increase of the online public services, enhanced use of Web 2.0 tools, focus on customer satisfaction, implementation of the Digital Public Administration Code) with the aim to use ICT in order to make service delivery more responsive to the citizens’ changing needs and preferences, and to align Italy with the best European performances in the area of e-government. In addition to the cultural, economic and social factors the citizens’ use of Internet and online access to public services is also negatively affected by the limited public information and services provided online. The Italian Government seems to

17 http://www.governo.it/GovernoInforma/Dossier/piano_e_gov_2012/

9


195

be quite aware of the negative impact the latter factor may have on citizens’ online access to public services and information as well as of the fact that improving the low figures of public online access requires collaboration and co-ordination between the local and the central government. The Plan foresees an inter-governmental collective effort for the improvement of the human and financial resources and of the managerial skills required within the public administration to support an efficient implementation of e-government initiatives. The Plan also envisages the involvement of the private sector, which is seen as a key player both as user and provider of public services. The Plan calls upon the private sector, the central and local governments to sign a “Pact for E-Government Development”, which is seen as the most critical instrument for the implementation of the e-government Action Plan 2012. The pact should support an effective and efficient use of the resources available and the completion of all initiatives and projects envisaged by the Plan. In order to enable the execution of the above-mentioned Pact and to facilitate the co-operation and co-ordination across levels of government, the Action Plan 2012 foresees the use of 60 “institutional agreements”. The agreements concern the public administration at the central, regional and municipal level. They are seen as the most adequate framework to ensure an effective collaboration across levels of government that focuses on specific objectives and which is thus capable of mobilising the financial, human and organisational resources needed to achieve the targeted results. One can see e-government policy in Italy as a progressive structuring of local–regional–central collaboration. The first phase was characterised by a set of distinctive projects, which were then integrated ex-post in the second phase. The third phase builds on stronger and more structured collaboration approach to the deployment of interoperable systems and applications and the fostering of co-ordination and co-operation across levels of government to pursue the goal of operating on the basis of a whole of public sector perspective.

4 Comparative Assessment The first main lesson from the preceding analysis is the most obvious one—namely that two countries are not alike even when they have both federated systems or have progressively shifted towards a more federal one. Accordingly, in terms of e-government strategies and architectures it is not surprising to find variance across national jurisdictions due to different historical contexts and more recent structural and policy reform trajectories that are shaped by such differing contexts. In the case of Italy, being something of a latecomer to the club of countries that are moving towards a more federal system means that recent changes remain a work in progress—contested by some and in need of adaptation and implementation over time. Paradoxically, in an era where citizen-centric governance is the mantra of almost all governments—facilitated by more interoperable public administrations

196


and service integration mechanisms that tend to downplay jurisdictional separation, Italy is in the midst of more starkly providing political autonomy through legal and fiscal devolutionary mechanisms to sub-national entities. What we see in both countries is the manner by which the advent of the Internet and information and communications technologies has created pressures for governments at all levels to work more closely and collaboratively. While progress towards a truly seamless public sector in both countries has been uneven and limited, we can nonetheless draw some important comparative observations from developments to date. First, perhaps in light of the newness of the shift towards increased federalism to the Italian context, there was very early on a commitment to multi-level planning and co-ordination (such as the 2003 strategic document on e-government and federalism). This commitment has given rise to national frameworks that provide financing and incentives for local and regional authorities—and encourage joint action among sub-national actors. By contrast, despite some of the co-ordinating work of the inter-governmental councils in Canada, e-government has by and large been pursued separately at each level of government, with little or no effort at overall planning and integration. Accordingly, while Canada has been lauded by many observers in recent years for its national government performance (notably Accenture reports), far less is known about sub-national governments and how they are faring relative to their counterparts elsewhere. It is notable here that Italy resides within the European Union which has many federalist members and a culture more sensitive to multi-level realities, whereas North America is arguably in a time of national fixation due to the nexus between e-government, media visibility and stimulus spending plans that have tended to bolster national policy and service apparatuses relative to sub-national counterparts. Nonetheless, any notion of an Italian advantage here is questionable in the light of what many observers regard as an intransigent, and demographically aging national bureaucracy that has not yet accepted the political and organisational realities of federalist reforms. A similar dynamic exists politically where a media and notably television-driven fixation on national politicians and political debates may impede greater attention and engagement at regional and local levels. Clearly, such a characterisation varies across Italian regions considerably, as well as across the more traditional cleavages of the north and south (where starkly different views on federalism remain), giving rise to something of a patchwork of e-government strategies due to a variety of technological, socio-economic and political factors. In this regard both Canada and Italy share a growing amount of differentiation across regions and communities due to the relative economic and civic strength of certain areas historically (well documented in Robert Putnam’s research on social capital for example), and the more recent evolution of e-government that tends to be accelerated in more affluent parts of the country where endogenous resources capacities are greater along with more developed infrastructure and higher usage rates. Indeed, evidence suggests that both countries are beginning to lag fellow G8 countries in broadband penetration rates for individuals and households.

9


197

With regard to the digital gap existing between Italy and the best performing EU countries, Italy’s delay worsened in the last few years. In 2007, in Italy only 17% were reported to use Internet against the European average of 32% (in the larger European countries goes up to 40% to reach values close to 60% in Northern Europe).18 The 2009 European Commission Broadband Performance Index (BPI) reflects considerable delays in the development of the broadband, as well as on the online accessibility to public information and services. Clearly, such results are insufficient to reduce the digital gap between Italy and the highest performing members of the European Union, as well as the digital divide within the country. Broadband access to Internet (ADSL 2 and 2+) registers negative demographic trends and density differentials, which create a gap between urban and rural areas. While the broadband is available in 89% of urban areas, only 17% of the rural regions with comprehensive development problems have access to such a service and the situation is worse in the “convergence” part of the country, i.e. the Southern administrative regions of Campania, Puglia, Calabria, Sicily and Basilicata. To date, Italian telecom companies provide broadband only to those municipalities where they can reach a minimum number of 1,000 customers. Such a commercial policy affects some 5,600 municipalities with less than 5,000 inhabitants, whose population level impedes them to reach the 1,000-customer quota. The limited access to broadband Internet may negatively impact the use of ICT in rural regions where its development is quite limited.19 Similar gaps and concerns between urban centres and rural and remote regions in Canada persist (Falconer, 2009).

5 Conclusion Looking ahead, both countries will face rising pressures to better align e-government, territorial development efforts and federalist governance arrangements. Importantly, the Italian case may well be further shaped by the European dimension to such contrasts—and the recognition paid at the European level to the link between technological development and social cohesion for the continent as a whole. By contrast, while federalism is engrained in the political culture and structures of the Canadian public sector, it does so in a way that reinforces separateness and notably provincial autonomy. There is very little debate in Canada, as a result and relative to much of Europe, about the nexus between e-government, the governance of large cities (with no constitutional recognition) and the specific plights of rural and remote communities. Indeed, the OECD (2002) flagged this handicap several years ago during a territorial governance review of Canada and the logic of this chapter suggests that its weight has increased since.

18 OECD.

(2008). The future of the internet economy. A Statistical Profile. (2009). Rural policy reviews. Italy, Paris: Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate. 19 OECD.

198


This chapter has dealt exclusively with infrastructure and service-oriented issues of e-government, leaving aside questions of democracy that tend to augment the tensions of federalism in terms of citizen engagement and public participation. While local and regional governments have historically been the most flexible and prone to direct participation in decision making, in an era of e-government it is a higher order for governments, especially at the national level that enjoys spending capacities to augment digital visibility and experimentation (though the fiscal federalism reforms currently underway in Italy may go part way to correcting such resource centralisation). Given the absence of strong political interest in e-democracy and online participation in both countries, it stands to reason that such change will emerge in a more piecemeal manner, via local, provincial and regional experimentation. There are many such localised examples underway in both countries.20 In sum, political and fiscal federalism shall remain an important dimension of public sector life in both Italy and Canada, and greater political leadership and involvement will play an important role in shaping how e-government is coordinated either informally or formally across jurisdictional boundaries. The shared challenge for both countries is to find a way to capture the traditional benefits of federalism in a political model in a manner that facilitates collaborative opportunities that must also be seized in an increasingly digitally and socially networked world.

References Accenture Consulting. (2007). Leadership in customer service – delivering on the promise (www.accenture.com). A How-to Guide for Service Improvement Initiatives. (2007, May). Ambrose, R., Lenihan, D. & Milloy, J. (Eds.). (2006). Managing the federation: A citizen-centred approach. In The crossing boundaries papers (p. 7). Ottawa: Crossing Boundaries National Council. Andrew, C. (2002). What is the municipal potential? Regina: Saskatchchewan Institute of Public Policy. Bakvis, H. & Skogstad, G. (Eds.). (2008). Canadian federalism: Performance, effectiveness and legitimacy (2nd ed.). Toronto: Oxford University Press. Barnett, R. (1997). Subsidiarity, enabling government and local governance. In H. R. Hobson & F. St-Hilaire (Eds.), Urban governance and finance: A question of who does what (pp. 62–79). Montreal: Institute of Research on Public Policy. Bradford, N. (2004). Place matters and multi-level governance: Perspectives on a new urban policy paradigm. Policy Options, 25(2), 39–44. Cameron, D., & Simeon, R. (2002). Intergovernmental relations in Canada: The emergence of collaborative federalism. Publius, 32(2), 49–71. Crossroads Bank for Social Security. E-government in the Belgian social security sector: A successful combination of back-office integration and an e-portal solution.

20 The City of Milan, for example, has introduced an online mechanism for direct citizen involvement in local decision making (www.partecipami.it). In Canada, many cities such as Toronto and Vancouver are experimenting with online public consultation and the introduction of Web 2.0 mechanisms to facilitate greater citizen involvement in local governance, especially policy and budgetary matters and developmental initiatives.

9


199

Crossroads Bank for Social Security. (2007). E-government program of the Belgian social security. Belgium. Duggan, M., & Green, C. (2008, May). Transforming government service delivery: New service policies for citizen-centered government. IBM Global Social Segment. Entwistle, T., & Martin, S. (2005). From competition to collaboration in public service delivery: A new agenda for research. Public Administration, 83(1), 233–242. Falconer, D. (2009). Rural and remote broadband access: Public policy issues. Journal of Policy Engagement, 1(3), 15–20. Frosini, F., & Nasi, G. (2010, February). Vision and practice of e-government: An empirical study. Financial Accountability and Management, 26(1), 0267–4424. IATF. (2007). A Pan-Canadian framework for identity management and authentication (interim report). Toronto: Institute for Citizen-centric Service Delivery. ICCS. (2003). Integrated service delivery: A critical analysis. Report sponsored by the Public Sector Service Delivery Council (www.iccs-isac.org). Jaeger, P. T. (2002). Constitutional principles and e-government: An opinion about possible effects of federalism and the separation of powers on e-government policies. Government Information Quarterly, 19, 357–368. Johns, C. M., O’Reilly, P. L., & Inwood, G. J. (2007). Formal and informal dimensions of intergovernmental administrative relations in Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 50(1), 21–41. Kernaghan, K. (2005). Moving toward the virtual state: Integrating services and service channels for citizen-centred service. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71, 119–131. Langford, J., & Roy, J. (2008). Integrating service delivery across levels of government: Case studies of Canada and other countries. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Langford, J., & Roy, J. (2009). Building shared accountability into service transformation partnerships. International Journal of Public Policy, 4(3/4), 232–250. McIntosh, T. (2004). Intergovernmental relations, social policy and federal transfers after Romanow. Canadian Public Administration, 47(1). Moule, L. (2007). Rescuing the lost citizen. CIO government review (June). Toronto: IT World Canada. OECD. (2002). Territorial review of Canada. Paris: Territorial Reviews and Governance Division. Paquet, G., & Roy, J. (2004). Smarter cities in Canada. Optimum Online, 33(1), 2–20. Public Sector Service Delivery Council. (2006). Opportunities for inter-jurisdictional service delivery collaboration (prepared for Deputy Minister’s meeting, October 10–11th, Montebello, Quebec). Robben, F. (2007). The crossroads bank for social security: Succeeding on interoperability within the social sector (ppt). Brussels, Belgium: Crossroads Bank for Social Security. Roy, J. (2004). The four challenges of e-government. Optimum Online, 34(4), 13–17. Roy, J. (2006a). E-service delivery and new governance capacities: ‘Service Canada’ as a case study. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 7(3), 253–272. Roy, J. (2006b). E-government in Canada: Transformation for the digital age. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Roy, J. (2008). Beyond Westminster governance: Bringing politics and public service into the networked era. Canadian Public Administration, 5(4), 541–568. Sabetti, F. (2004). Alla Ricerca del Buon Governo in Italia. In Updated version of the search for good government. Manduria-Bari-Rome: Piero Lacaita Editore. Treadwell, J. (2007). Shared governance and collaboration. Prepared for EDUCAUSE Australasia 2007 – advancing knowledge pushing boundaries. Melbourne, Australia. Wong, D. (2002). Cities at the crossroads: Addressing intergovernmental structures for Western Canada’s cities. Calgary: Canada West Foundation.

Chapter 10

Adoption of E-government by Disadvantaged Groups in the United States and the United Kingdom Doria Pilling

This chapter concerns groups in the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) who are disadvantaged in some way and for whom there is evidence that they also make less use of the Internet and e-government than others in these countries. It first looks at the state of e-government in these countries, the direction in which this is going, and how important it is for their populations to use e-government. It examines the evidence that particular groups—older people, those on low incomes and those with disabilities—make less use of the Internet and e-government than others in society. It reviews the barriers to Internet and e-government use by these groups. In particular it looks at the Web accessibility barrier that affects many people with disabilities, including many older people. What legal and other requirements are there in the two countries to promote accessibility and how effective are these in terms of the actual accessibility of government Web sites? It describes the main government policies to increase Internet and e-government use by disadvantaged groups in the US and the UK, and examines briefly some initiatives for which there is some evidence of effectiveness. It concludes with lessons that can be drawn from these initiatives. The chapter is based on policy documents and research studies relevant to the issue of increasing the participation of disadvantaged groups in e-government.

1 Introduction The US and UK are among the countries foremost in promoting e-government. In 2002, US President George W. Bush signed the E-government Act.1 This was designed to enhance access to government information and services through the D. Pilling (B) School of Community and Health Sciences, City University London, London EC1A 7QN, UK e-mail: [email protected] 1 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f: publ347.107.pdf


201

202

D. Pilling

Internet and other emerging technologies, and to increase citizen participation in government. It aimed to increase inter-agency collaboration both in the provision of e-government services and in internal e-government processes. It was meant to increase effectiveness and reduce costs. It aimed to provide effective federal government-wide leadership through establishing an Administrator of a new Office of Electronic Government within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), appointed by the President. The Act was reauthorized in 2007. In the UK e-government was one of the key features of the Modernising Government white paper (Prime Minister and Minister for the Cabinet Office, 1999). The aims were similar to those of the US E-government Act, including making it easier for individuals to deal with the government, using the Internet, and other new technologies; improving communication between different parts of government. Subsequently an Office of the e-envoy was set up in the Cabinet Office. In March 2000, the Prime Minister announced a target for all government services to be online by 2005. The main policy objectives of the Office of e-envoy were to lead on achieving this target and to ensure that anyone who wanted Internet access had it by 2005.2 In 2004, the Office of e-envoy was replaced by the E-government Unit. Its mission was more specifically on providing efficient government services.3 In 2007, the US was ranked 3rd and the UK 16th on the United Nations (UN) (2008) Web assessment measure, which ranked national Web sites, and those of selected ministries/departments of the 192 UN member states. The Web assessments were based on a questionnaire which investigated the presence/absence of specific electronic facilities/services. Five stages of service delivery were conceptualized: emerging, enhanced, interactive, transactional, and connected. Emerging sites consisted of mainly static information, transactional sites were those where transactions could be conducted wholly online, while connected sites included connections with other agencies both within and external to government and encouragement of citizen participation. The UN report suggested that the rankings under-rate the US and UK online presence. The USA.gov Web portal was ranked first among national portals and said to be one of the most comprehensive and effective government Web sites in existence. The main UK government portal, Directgov.uk was said to be doing an excellent job joining up services from both central and local government. These findings suggest that e-government in the US and UK is well on the way to achieving the aimed-for online presence. To what extent are people using these sites, and how satisfied are they with the experience? A Pew Internet and American Life survey found that 66% of Internet users had visited a federal, state, or local government Web site in the past year (Estabrook, Witt, & Rainie, 2007). On the American Consumer Satisfaction Index [ACSI] (Feed, 2009), which rates Web sites on 100-point scale, scores rose for federal government Web sites from 70.9 in

2 http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-envoy/index-content.htm 3 http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-government

10

Adoption of E-government by Disadvantaged Groups

203

2003 to 73.6 in 2009. Satisfaction with e-commerce (80.0) was ahead of that with e-government, but was greater for online than offline government (68.9). Use of e-government in the UK is behind that in the US, but increasing quite considerably. The 2009 Oxford Internet survey4 (Dutton, Helsper, & Gerber, 2009) found that 59% of Internet users had used a government Web site in the past year (up from 46% in 2007). Mostly this was to obtain information about government services but 18% made a payment to central government online. A survey by the Office for National Statistics [ONS] in 2005 in Great Britain5 (McKinnon, Armitage, & Pollard, 2007) found very high satisfaction among those who used e-government services, 90% rating them as very good. In its recent Digital Britain report the UK government (BIS/DCMS, 2009) proposes a “Digital Switchover of Public Services,” starting in 2012, meaning that the primary means of access to government services should be online, rather than this being one means of access among many. It states there should be “a safety net” in delivery for those unable to access services online. In the US some information or services are entirely or primarily online (Bertot, Jaeger, Langa, & McClure, 2006) Those who do not or cannot use the Internet are likely to be at increasing disadvantage. It is ironic that these include older people and those with disabilities for whom the convenience and availability of e-government could provide the greatest advantage.

2 Internet and E-government Usage by Disadvantaged Groups 2.1 UK There is strong evidence from major surveys in the UK, such as those of the communications regulator, Ofcom (2008) and the biannual Oxford Internet survey (Dutton et al., 2009) that older people are less likely to be Internet users than younger people and those from lower income households are less likely to be Internet users than those with higher incomes (Fig. 10.1). Figures for having Internet access at home are slightly lower than those for using the Internet anywhere, but follow the same pattern (Ofcom, 2008). Only 5% of UK adults had dial-up Internet access, rather than broadband, this being slightly higher for older people and lower income groups (Ofcom, 2008). There is also evidence of Internet usage being much lower for adults with disabilities (41%) than those without (75%) (Dutton et al., 2009). Similarly access to the Internet at home is lower for those with disabilities than those without (Ofcom, 2008) (Fig. 10.2).

4 The Oxford Internet surveys (Dutton & Helsper, 2007; Dutton et al., 2009) cover Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland), but not Northern Ireland, which is also part of the United Kingdom. 5 ONS surveys covered Great Britain only until 2006, when Northern Ireland was added.

204

D. Pilling 100

95

85

80

68

60

60 43

41

age

40 21

20

income (£K)

0 25–44 45–64 65–74 75+

.90 Churchill (1979), Segars & Grover (1993), Chau (1997), Kline (2005)

Recommended GFI

Table 19.3 Model fit indices of latent constructs

Added 1 error covariance between two items Added 3 error covariance between items Added 5 error covariance between items Saturated model. Perfect fit Added 5 error covariance between items Added 2 error covariance between items Added 3 error covariance items Added 2 error covariance between items

Comment

382 M.A. Shareef et al.

19

Critical Factors for Adoption of E-government

383

From our literature review, we observed that some studies used PSY and PPRI as a single construct under the name perceived security (Gummerus, Liljander, Pura, & van Riel, 2004; Janda, Trocchia, & Gwinner, 2002; Liljander, van Riel, & Pura, 2002; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003). So, we used a one factor model and found that all the items were loaded on that single factor and the model parameters are acceptable (shown in Table 19.3). In addition, the paradigm is that we always prefer a simple model, thus a single factor model is more acceptable (Klein, 2005, pp. 133–144). Two measuring items among eight of PSY and PRRI contained loading factors less than 0.50. Therefore, we dropped those two items and finally retained a single construct for the six items of PSY and PPRI. Since both the constructs are related to security of financial transactions, identity, and personal information, we provided the name of the construct as perceived security (PSY). Therefore, after CFA, we retained seven constructs with 48 measuring items (shown in Table 19.5). The CFA results indicate that the scale items are reflective indicators of their corresponding latent constructs, which indicates construct validity (Chau, 1997; Segars & Grover, 1993). In CFA, the average variances extracted (AVE) for each factor and its measures all exceeded 0.50; thus, convergent validity is achieved (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). We also examined the correlation matrix of all the items of seven factors. The items under each factor have moderate to strong correlation among them. This result also justified convergent validity. Discrimination is also indicated in this analysis as the largest shared variance between these factors that is lower than the least AVE value for each factor and its measures (Espinoza, 1999).

4.4 Reliability and Multicollinearity Assessment The reliability scores (measured by coefficient alpha) for PU, PEOU, RA, CT, PREL, EMP, PSY, and ADOP are presented in Table 19.4, which suggests an acceptable internal consistency among the items in each dimension and also exceeded the conventional minimum of 0.70 (Nunally & Bernstein, 1994). In regression analysis, we attempt to maximize the correlation between independent and dependent variables. On the other hand, we always prefer that explanatory variables and also measuring items are not highly correlated; they can completely measure different constructs and contribute different variances on the dependent variable (Stevens, 1996, pp. 91–93). When there are high inter-correlations among the explanatory Table 19.4 Construct reliability and variance explained Construct

Mean

Cronbach’s alpha

% Variance explained

Perceived usefulness (PU) Perceived ease of use (PEOU) Relative advantage (RA) Compatibility (CT) Perceived reliability (PREL) Perceived empathy (EMP) Perceived security (PSY) Adoption (ADOP)

2.1228 4.6556 3.8630 2.1222 4.2534 2.8442 4.6420 4.5142

0.750 0.778 0.932 0.722 0.945 0.713 0.798 0.823

71.3 77.6 79.2 69.8 81.2 59.7 86.3 76.7

384

M.A. Shareef et al.

variables, it severely limits the size of variance of a dependent variable explained by explanatory variables. Therefore, multicollinearity should be verified (Allison, 1999; Netter et al., 1996). We examined the multicollinearity problem by investigating Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values that range from 1.156 to 2.94 (much less than 10). These values imply that there is no severe multicollinearity (Allison, 1999; Netter et al., 1996). The mean scores of independent variables for importance for e-government adoption rank as follows (Table 19.4): PEOU (1), PSY (2), PREL (3), RA (4), EMP (5), PU (6), and CT (7) on the 5-point “very important” to “not at all important” scale. This result reveals that PEOU, PSY, PREL, and RA play the most important role for adoption of e-government by the citizens of India; this is slightly different from Bangladesh. For Bangladesh, PSY was more important than PEOU, and RA was more important than PREL (Shareef et al., 2009).

4.5 Regression Analysis To find out the causal relations between the dependent variable ADOP, and independent variables PU, PEOU, RA, CT, PREL, EMY, and PSY, we conducted a multiple linear regression analysis. The results of regression analyses of the model are shown in Table 19.5 Table 19.5 Regression results Model

R

R square

Adjusted R square

Std. error of the estimate

1

0.712(a)

0.507

0.512

0.462301

Unstandardized coefficients

T

Sig.

Coefficients Model

1

(Constant) PU PEOU RA CT PREL EMP PSY

B

Std. Error

−4.497 0.004 1.012 0.245 0.006 1.125 0.001 0.112

0.541 0.042 0.142 0.086 0.016 0.069 0.023 0.017

Std. Error −16.675 0.054 6.223 3.561 0.007 17.152 0.888 15.120

0.000 0.856 0.001 0.006 0.956 0.000 0.734 0.000

From the regression analyses in Table 19.5, we find very expected results. We see that CT, PU, and EMP are not significant variables for e-government adoption by the citizens of India, which is similar to Bangladesh (Shareef et al., 2009). PEOU, PSY, RA, and PREL are significant predictors for adoption of e-government by citizens of India, which also replicate the Bangladeshi results (Shareef et al., 2009). However, the major difference is the composition of PRRI and PSY. We used the same measuring items (50 items) with eight explanatory variables retained from EFA by Shareef et al. (2009) and used in Bangladesh. However, in Bangladesh,

19


385

the same constructs with measuring items were retained (Shareef et al., 2009). But, in the Indian sample, we have seen that CFA confirms seven constructs with 48 measuring items. In the Indian context, PSY and PPRI are no longer two different constructs for adoption of e-government. Rather, measuring the items of PSY and PPRI indicate a single construct that denotes security of financial and personal information. Therefore, combining these two constructs, we provided the name of the retained construct by CFA with six measuring items as perceived security (PSY). This is consistent with the findings of Carter and Belanger (2005), who labeled the construct as perceived trustworthiness. This result is interesting, and it might explain the attitude of citizens of an advanced developing country, particularly in the ICT sector, which is to some extent different from the attitude of citizens of other developing countries.

5 Results and Discussion Regression results (Table 19.5) show that PREL, PEOU, RA, and PSY have a significant impact on e-government adoption in India. The results are consistent with the findings in the Bangladeshi context (Shareef et al., 2009). This corroborates our view that a majority of the citizens in developing countries have less experience in using ICT. They are highly concerned about reliability, security, ease of use, and cost (Shareef et al., 2009). These results are also consistent with the findings of Carter and Belanger (2005), whose study was conducted in the United States, a developed country. While they did not test the association between PREL and intentions to use, they labeled PSY as perceived trustworthiness. Their findings revealed that PEOU, RA, and perceived trustworthiness significantly impact citizens’ intentions to adopt e-government in a developed country. The consistency of results between these studies suggests that the behavioral intentions to adopt e-government are similar in developing and developed countries. It is important for it to be easy, secure, and reliable to use e-government, and for using e-government to provide benefits to citizens over using traditional government. The results also suggest that the better organization of information and services, and the intuitive design of e-government portals and Websites are universally appreciated by citizens. Our results, however, reveal that CT, PU, and EMP are not significant indicators of e-government adoption by citizens of India. These results are somewhat in sync with the results in Bangladesh. Consistent with the results found in Bangladesh (Shareef et al., 2009), CT and PU do not influence citizens’ intentions to adopt e-government in India. Results from the United States (Carter & Belanger, 2005) also suggest that PU does not impact citizens’ intentions to adopt e-government. Theoretically, the meaning of PU and RA are quite similar. EFA (Table 19.5) also suggests that the meaning of PU is mostly captured by RA. As a result, RA has explained the most variance of PU on ADOP in the regression model (Table 19.5). Therefore, PU is not significant when both PU and RA are present in the regression model. The role of CT in influencing citizens’ intentions to adopt e-government differs significantly between developing countries (Shareef et al., 2005) and developed

386

M.A. Shareef et al.

countries (Carter and Belanger, 2005). In developed countries, CT is found to be the most significant indicator of citizens’ intentions to use e-government. This suggests that the citizens of developed countries will adopt e-government if they perceive it to suit their lifestyle. However, CT is not found to influence citizens’ intentions to adopt e-government at all in developing countries. Since the citizens of developing countries do not have access to quality e-government service, they are not concerned whether e-government suits their lifestyle. This explains the difference in attitudes of citizens belonging to developed and to developing countries in adopting e-government. This also explains why EMP does not impact the intentions of citizens in developing countries to adopt e-government. Compared to the citizens of developed countries, the citizens of developing countries are less familiar with ICT, especially e-government. There are still many people in India that cannot access or use the Internet (Faisal & Rahman, 2008). Hence, it is still considered a luxury or a premium service that belongs to people in urban cities. Furthermore, e-government is new in India (Gupta & Jana, 2003). The citizens of India have little experience in using it; they perceive it as technologically governed. Therefore, EMP, which explains the customer service and hence the emotional quotient, is not important for citizens in adopting e-government. Also, statistically the essence of EMP is explained by RA and PREL in the regression model (Table 19.5). According to Sharifi and Zarei (2004), social and cultural factors impact the intention to use e-government services. Certain segments of the society in India have a negative stance against electronic services and would use only traditional services (Faisal & Rahman, 2008). Furthermore, the middle class constitutes a majority of the population in urban cities in India, which is relatively poor compared to the middle class in developed countries. Hence, the citizens in India are less concerned about the quality of service compared to cost-effectiveness and hassle-free service (TCA). Not surprisingly, they intend to use e-government if they perceive it to be useful, secure, reliable, and beneficial. In summary, our findings show that PEOU, PSY, PREL, and RA have a significant positive impact on the intention to use and adopt e-government in India. This means that Indian citizens intend to use e-services that they believe are easy to use, secure, reliable, and will benefit them. Therefore, we propose the revised E-government Adoption-Citizen Intention model for a developing country (Fig. 19.2). Perceived Ease of Use

Perceived Security

EG System Adoption by Citizens

Perceived Reliability

Relative Advantage

Fig. 19.2 Revised E-government Adoption-Citizen Intention Model

19


387

6 Conclusions and Future Research Directions This study explores the critical factors for e-government adoption in India. The model proposed in this chapter incorporates the concepts, constructs, and measuring items from theories such as TAM, TPB, TCA, DOI, and SERVQUAL of e-commerce. The results in this study are consistent with the results of the study conducted in Bangladesh by Shareef et al. (2009). This proves that the E-government Adoption-Citizen Intention Model is a valid model to understand e-government adoption in developing countries. It explains 51.2% of variance (adjusted R2 ) in the adoption of e-government by citizens of India. This study has implications for both academics and practitioners. The results of this empirical research reveal that the critical factors that influence e-government adoption in developing countries differ from those of developed countries, as found by Carter and Belanger (2005). It can, therefore, be concluded that the criteria for e-government adoption is different in developing countries from that of developed countries; this difference is large due to differences in social attitudes, cultural behavior, e-readiness, and the digital divide. Policy-makers and e-government managers in developing countries will benefit from this research by becoming aware of the most critical factors of e-government adoption. This understanding will enable them to focus on the back-office processes in their respective jurisdictions. However, this study is also subject to some limitations. First of all, the research sample is not representative of the Indian population as a whole; the research was conducted in Mumbai, an urban area that consists mostly of middle-class and upper-class individuals. Second, the cultural and social factors that impact citizen acceptance of e-government were not explored in detail. This could be an interesting avenue for future research. Furthermore, future studies could examine the degree to which PSY, PEOU, PREL, and RA impact e-government adoption in a developing country.

References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–221. Allison, P. D. (1999). Logistic regression using the SAS system. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. Bélanger, F., Hiller, J., & Smith, W. (2002). Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: The role of privacy, security, and site attributes. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 245–270. Branscum, D. (2000). Guarding online Privacy, Newsweek, 135(23), 77–78. Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit, testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of E-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15, 5–25. Chau, P. Y. K. (1997). Reexamining a model for evaluating information center success: using a structural equation modeling approach. Decision Sciences, 28(2), 309–334. Chen, Y.-C., & Thurmaier, K. (2005). Government-to-citizen electronic services: Understanding and driving adoption of online transactions. The Association for Public Policy & Management (APPAM) Conference, Washington, D.C., November 3–6.

388

M.A. Shareef et al.

Dada, D. (2006). The failure of E-government in developing countries. Retrieved June 10, 2009 http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/informationSystems/iSChannel/Dada_2006b.pdf. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Sd., 35(8), 982–1003. Espinoza, M. M. (1999). Assessing the cross-cultural applicability of a service quality measure: A comparative study between Quebec and Peru. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10(5), 449–468. Elmagarmid, A. K., & McIver, W. J. (2001). Guest editors’ introduction: The ongoing march toward digital government. Computer, 34(2), 32–38. Faisal, M. N., & Rahman, Z. (2008). E-government in India: Modeling the barriers to its adoption and diffusion. Electronic Government, An International Journal, 5(2), 181–202. Fang, Z. (2002). E-government in digital era: concept, practice, and development. International Journal of The Computer, The Internet and Management, 10(2), 1–22. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. Godse, S. (2006). E-Government adoption and diffusion in India: Lessons from the outsourcing industry. In G. P. Sahu (Ed.), Adopting E-governance (pp. 28–32). Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management. Graham, S. (2002). Bridging urban digital divides? Urban Polarisation and information and communications technologies (ICTs). Urban Studies, 39(1), 33–56. Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Pura, M, & van Riel, A. (2004). Customer loyalty to content-based Websites: The case of an online health-care service. Journal of Services Marketing, 18(3), 175–186. Gupta, M. P., & Jana, D. (2003). E-government evaluation: A framework and case study. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 365–387. Heeks, R. (2003). Most eGovernment-for-development projects fail: How can risks be reduced? iGovernment Working Paper Series, Paper no. 14. Heeks, R. (2002). Information systems and developing countries: Failure, success, and local improvisations. The Information Society, 18, 101–112. Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government information quarterly, 24(2), 243–265. IMF Report (2007). Global financial stability report. Market Developments and Issues. IMRB International and IAMAI. (2006), Internet in India-2006 Report. Janda, S., Trocchia, P. J., & Gwinner, K. P. (2002). Consumer perceptions of internet retail service quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13(5), 412–431. Jhunjhunwala, A., Ramchandran, A., & Bandhopadhyaa, A. (2004). n-Logue: The Story of a Rural Service Provider in India. The Journal of Community Informatics, 1(1), 30–38. Kim, S., Kim, H. J., & Lee, H. (2009). An institutional analysis of an e-government system for anti-corruption: The case of open. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 42–50. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. NY: The Guilford Press. Kumar, V., Kumar, U., & Shareef, M. A. (2006). Implementation of quality management practice in EC. Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Conference, Banff, Calgary, Canada, 27, 146–163. Liljander, V., van Riel, A. C. R., & Pura, M. (2002). Customer satisfaction with e-Services: The case of an on-line recruitment portal. In M. Bruhn & B. Stauss (Eds.), Jahrbuch Dienstleistungsmanagement 2002 – Electronic services. (pp. 407–432). Wiesbaden: Gabler. Löfgren, K. (2007). The Governance of E-government: A Governance perspective on the Swedish E-government Strategy. Public Policy and Administration, 22(3), 335–352. Loiacono, E. T., Watson, R. T., & Goodhue, D. L. (2002). WEBQUAL: A measure of Website quality. In K. Evans & L. Scheer (Eds.), Marketing educators’ conference: Marketing theory and applications (Vol. 13, pp. 432–437).

19


389

Maheshwari, B., Kumar, V., Kumar, U., & Sharan, V. (2008). E-Government portal effectiveness: Managerial considerations for design and development. In A. Agarawal & V. V. Ramana (Eds.), Foundations of E-government (pp. 258–269). Delhi: Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management. Moon, J. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending TAM for world wide web context. Information Management, 38(4), 217–230. Netter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear regression models (3rd edn). Chicago: Irwin. Nikam, K., Ganesh, A. C., & Tamizhchelvam, M. (2004). The changing face of India. Part I: bridging the digital divide. Library Review, 53(4), 213–219. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. OECD. (2003). Conclusion from the results of the survey of knowledge management practice for ministries/departments/agencies of central government in OECD member countries. Paris. Retrieved July 17, 2009, from http://www.oecd.org. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Malhotra, A. (2005). E-S-QUAL, A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Service Research, 7(3), 213–233. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41–50. Reddick, C. G. (2006). Information resource managers and E-government effectiveness: A survey of texas state agencies. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 249–266. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. NY: The Free Press. Segars, A., & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 17(4), 517–527. Shareef, M. A., Kumar, U., & Kumar, V. (2007). Developing fundamental capabilities for successful E-Government implementation. Proceedings of Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Conference, Ottawa, Canada, 159–177. Shareef, M. A., Kumar, U., Kumar, V., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2009). Identifying critical factors for adoption of E-Government. Electronic Government: An International Journal, 6(1), 70–96. Shareef, M. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Williams, M. D., & Singh, N. (2009). Proliferation of the Internet Economy: E-Commerce for the Global Adoption, Resistance and Cultural Evolution. Information Science Reference, IGI Global Publications, USA. Sharifi, H., & Zarei, M. (2004). An adaptive approach for implementing e-government in I.R. Iran. Journal of Government Information, 30, 600–619. Steyaert, J. C. (2004). Measuring the performance of electronic government services. Information & Management, 41(3), 369–375. Tung, L. L., & Rieck, O. (2005). Adoption of electronic government services among business organizations in Singapore. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14, 417–440. UNPAN (United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public Administration). (2008). UN E-Government Survey: From E-Government to Connected Governance. Retrieved January 29, 2010 from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan028607.pdf. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365. West, D. M. (2006). Global e-government 2006. Retrieved July 31, 2009 from http://www.inside politics.org/egovt06int.pdf. Wimmer, M., & Traunmuller, R. (2000). Trends in electronic government: managing distributed knowledge. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, pp. 340–345. Wolfinbarger, M. F., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). eTailQ: Dimensionalizing, measuring, and predicting etail quality. Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 183–198. Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an internet shopping site (Sitequal) Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, 2(1), 31–46.

Chapter 20

Conceptualizing and Implementation of E-government in India Subhajyoti Ray

In the past decade there has been a significant surge in e-government-related activity in India. This is most noticeable the way e-government has been conceptualized in India in terms of its expected outcomes and delivery model; and also the way the government has gone about implementing e-government at national and subnational levels. New initiatives with regard to national policies, programmes and agencies involved in the implementation have been undertaken and many are in the pipeline. Also a significant place for the private sector has been carved out with increasing number of e-government projects being implemented under public– private partnership modes. All these developments make the e-government scenario in India dynamic with progressively more number of stakeholders. At the same time and notwithstanding these developments, there are also many unique and formidable challenges that India faces with regard to e-government implementation. The chapter discusses the aforesaid issues with the objective of presenting a concise yet comprehensive summary of the state of art in e-government in India.

1 Introduction The emergence of India as a global player in software development, IT, and call centre operations is one side of an information revolution that has also begun to impact fields like e-governance, e-commerce and e-health (Thomas, 2009). Information Technology is one of the most important industries in the Indian economy. The IT industry of India has registered huge growth in recent years. India’s IT industry grew from US $150 million in 1990–1991 to over a whopping US $50 billion in 2008–2009. According to the findings of NASSCOM Annual Survey on performance of Indian IT-BPO industry, the sector reached US $58.8 billion in

S. Ray (B) Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar, Orissa 751013, India e-mail: [email protected]


391

392

S. Ray

FY2008–20091 up from US $52 billion in FY2007–2008. The phenomenal success of the private sector IT industry has had many positive influences. The governments at the national and sub-national levels started to see the benefit of information technology in various aspects of day-to-day life. At the same time, large pool of skilled labour became available and the equally abundant was the supplier of technology and consulting services in IT. All these positive changes created an environment where the government could seriously consider using information technology for its own purposes. While the use of information technology in the public sector is not new even in India (Indian Railways began computerization of its operations in the mid-1980s), the phenomenon of Electronic Government has become a buzzword in the current decade due to its envisaged role in transforming public services. The period prior to 2003 can best be described as experiencing sporadic initiatives of using ICT in government. The period was marked with some showcase examples of ICT use by government, which included the computerization of land records in Karnataka (BHOOMI project) in 2002 and information kiosks for addressing economic and information needs of rural people in the tribal district of Dhar in Madhya Pradesh (GYANDOOT project) in the year 2000 among others. Driven largely by individual initiatives of bureaucrats, these similar projects kept alive the momentum of e-government by demonstrating the value and innovative use of ICT by the government. However, today e-government in India is a more organized and purposeful phenomenon and has become an integral part of the governments’ agenda. Policy frameworks, budgetary allocations, political will and implementation efforts for e-government are easily visible in government circles. The World Resources Institute’s digital divide project clearinghouse statistics include data on the global distribution of ICTs in development projects that they have tracked. These projects are by no means exhaustive and do not reflect the total number of ICTs projects in existence in the world. Nevertheless, what they do provide is a revealing picture of the enormous investments that have been made in by a variety of actors—governmental, inter-governmental, the private sector, civil society in ICTs for development. India accounts for 60% of the ICTs projects in Asia tracked by this organization. It is important at this juncture to gain an overall understanding of the e-government scenario in the country at conceptual and implementation levels and take forward the lessons learned thus far. Admittedly, the popular literature on e-government in India is vast and growing. However, a concise understanding of the e-government scenario is missing that necessitates a fresh look at the e-government programme in the country. This chapter is an effort to fill this gap. The next section describes the method adopted in this research. Section 3 presents the discussion on conceptualization of e-government in India which is followed by the implementation approach in section 4. Section 5 presents a discussion on barriers to e-government

R 1 Source: NASSCOM is the premier trade body and the chamber of commerce of the IT-BPO industries in India. http://blog.nasscom.in/nasscomnewsline/2009/07/nasscomannounces-industry-performance-and-rankings/

20

Conceptualizing and Implementation of E-government in India

393

India and reports the findings of a survey of practitioners. Evaluation is an important aspect of e-government programme. Section 6 presents a summary of the evaluation framework for e-government and also presents a snapshot view of the findings from a large impact assessment study of projects in India.

2 Method The objective of this chapter is to understand the conceptualization and implementation of e-government from an overall perspective in India. The data for such a study were obtained from a variety of sources. The primary source of data was publicly available documentation of policy and initiatives of the government of India, and also information on official Websites of implementing agencies of the government of India. Similar sources of data were also employed in other studies with a macro orientation (Tan & Teo, 1999). A survey of practitioners of the National Informatics Centre of India, who are closely associated with implementing e-government, was undertaken as a part of another study by the author. The initial findings of the study are also presented here.

3 Conceptualization of E-government in India Means and Schneider (2000) define e-government as the relationships between governments, their customers (businesses, other governments and citizens) and their suppliers (again, businesses, other governments and citizens) by the use of electronic means. Naturally, e-government is being driven by a number of stakeholders—the politician who would like to offer something new to the people, the civil servants who at the senior levels perceive it as a promising field where they can make some meaningful contribution and the technology vendors who see the prospects of earning profit from e-government projects (Mishra, 2006). However, many authors have recognized that the vagueness of the e-government concept remains even though using e-government as a popular catch word for ICT interventions by government is pervasive (Hwang, Choi, & Myeong, 1999). At the same time, several studies have identified the services and benefits that e-government should deliver (Ryan, Prybutok, & Zhang, 2008; Steyaert, 2004). Expectation form e-government or more generally from the use of ICT is quite diverse. For example, ICTs could help improve service delivery (Bekkers & Zoridis, 1999), efficiency and effectiveness (Heeks, 2001), interactivity (Dicaterino & Pardo, 1996), decentralization, transparency (La Porte, De Jong, & Demchak, 1999) and accountability (Ghere & Young, 1998; McGregor, 2001). The question that arises is: how does then one conceptualize e-government in a country like India? Yildiz points out that understanding of the political nature of the e-government development processes and complex political and institutional environments is imperative to conceptualization e-government (Yildiz, 2007).

394

S. Ray

Experience from India suggests that it is indeed the case, that much of the conceptualization of e-government is underpinned not only by the expectations from e-government but also by the unique realities of the country especially in the political sphere and other aspects. Besides political influences, infrastructural factors seemed to have influenced the way e-government has been conceptualized in the country. The last influence is the past experience or familiarity with ICT use in Government that has significantly influenced the current shaping of e-government in India. Thus the emergent conceptualization of e-government is based on three main factors: the political factor, the infrastructural factor and the familiarity factor. We discuss the factors that influence the conceptualization of e-government in India in the following subsections.

3.1 Political Factors India is a democracy. General elections are held every 5 years to elect members of parliament who occupy the lower house. Most of the parliamentary activities like, passing laws, no-confidence votes, budget bills, take place in the Lower House. Depending on which political party or parties in coalition come to power the policies are framed for the next 5 years. After the 2004 general elections a coalition government involving many parties (including the largest party, Congress, and the left parties) came to power. As the coalition government involved many parties with ideological differences, the coalition government agreed on a common minimum programme (CMP) that would guide the policies and interventions for the next 5 years of the government. Public administration reform was one of the important points of the common minimum programme that triggered the pursuit of e-government in a systematic way. It was imperative to have political ownership at the highest level and a national vision for e-governance. In coalition politics reforms are often delayed by one party or the other until the next election resulting into what is known as blame-game politics (Dellis, 2007). The CMP preempted this possibility and it was hoped that the necessary political ownership for e-governance initiatives would now be available. For example, a very relevant factor was that the government was concerned with improving citizen services and had clear focus on the poor and rural areas. The latter was a major concern of the e-government strategy, since to reach those areas, there was a need to create infrastructure and access to that infrastructure.

3.2 Infrastructural Factors Even though India has a booming IT industry the internet and telecom infrastructure of the county has been significant in influencing the conceptualization of e-government in the country. Researchers have commented on the differing ground

20


395

realities between developed and developing countries. Differences exist in terms of the infrastructure, culture, staff capabilities and also the citizens. These differences play a significant part in shaping the e-government strategy of a country (Chen, Chen, Ching, & Huang, 2006). So has been the case for India. Recent estimates suggest 18.23% tele-density with a subscriber base of nearly 40 million internet users (TRAI, 2007). Though in terms of total number of users India ranks 4th after the Unites States, China and Russia, but these figures do not seem that good when compared to the total population of the country which is over 1,100 million. India has been ranked near 50th in the previous few e-readiness rankings, thereby suggesting that there is a long way to go before readiness levels are comparable to some of the more developed countries. Consequently, the plan for e-government has not relied only on the existing connectivity network but had to focus on alternative means of providing access to services to the people.

3.3 Familiarity Factors The other influences to the conceptualization of e-government in India have largely come from the past experiences of using ICT in government. The department of information technology under the ministry of communications and information technology, Government of India identified key lessons from past experiences of e-government initiative in the country as follows (DIT, 2009a). • The need for a dedicated team with a stable tenure from within the government organization or department to conceptualize and implement the programme down the line; the importance of leadership and champions was realized by analysing e-governance applications like Bhoomi (land records computerization) project; • New areas of public–private partnership in making e-governance possible should be continuously explored; • Defined architecture, standards and policies addressing issues of security, privacy, etc.; • An urgent need to develop the basic core and support infrastructure for e-governance such as Data Centres, Wide Area Networks and the physical access points for delivery of government services, which would be common to all departments and where services could be delivered at the doorstep of the citizen in an integrated manner; • Need to start with small pilots before scaling-up, as IT projects take a long time to implement and often there are modifications to be incorporated along the way; and • Issues of reengineering and management of change are of paramount importance in comparison to technical issues associated with e-governance. These lessons were extremely valuable in formulating the basic core of the e-governance programme in the country.

396

S. Ray

4 The E-government Plan Prior experience with e-government, the emerging political will to reform government and ground realities pertaining to infrastructure triggered the government into taking a holistic view towards the entire e-governance initiative across the country. The plan acknowledged that though e-government was widely known concept the customization of its approach and development was necessary for the India. In discussing the experience with e-government in Iran, researchers suggest that though various models have been developed to implement e-government, these may not be applicable in developing countries since their technical and non-technical infrastructures are not as mature as those of developed countries (Zarei, Ghapanchi, & Sattary, 2008). Increasingly, it was also perceived that if e-governance was to be speeded up across the various arms of government at the national, state and local government level, a programme approach would need to be adopted, which must be guided by a common vision, strategy and approach to objectives. The government hoped that taking a holistic approach would have the added advantage of enabling huge savings in cost, in terms of sharing the core and support infrastructure, enable interoperability through standards, etc., which would eventually result in the citizen having a seamless view of Government. With this background the National E-governance Plan (NeGP) was formulate and subsequently approved on 18 May 2006 by office of the prime minister. This event was about to drastically change the way e-government would be ushered into the country. The vision of the National E-governance Plan is Make all Government services accessible to the common man in his locality, through common service delivery outlets and ensure efficiency, transparency & reliability of such services at affordable costs to realize the basic needs of the common man.

This plan laid the foundation and was envisaged to provide the impetus for long-term growth of e-governance within the country. The plan seeks to create the appropriate governance and institutional mechanisms, set up the core infrastructure and policies and implement a number of Mission Mode Projects at the centre, state and integrated service levels to create a citizen-centric and business-centric environment for governance. In the following sections we discuss the various aspects of the e-governance plan.

4.1 Key Components The plan outlines seven main components that will serve as the pillars to the e-governance initiatives by providing a set of common infrastructure and support services and building the basic institutional and organization capacity. As many authors have pointed out that the pace and the pathway to e-government cannot be the same for developing countries as is for developed countries is becomes necessary to be cautious of the ground realities (Maumbe, Owei, & Alexander, 2008). The existing models of e-government evolution suggest a natural linear progression from

20


397

basic web publishing through to fully integrated, seamless e-government (Heeks, 2002). While it is important to realize the benefits of e-government, it is equally important to know the costs and risks associated with it. The key components of the NeGP try to address these issues by designing and creating infrastructure and policies so that large sections of the society actually benefit from e-government. These components are discussed below: • Common service centres (CSC). As already mentioned, India has low telephone density and also insignificant internet penetration. This has create a need to chose a service delivery model that is based on making services available at common service centres. The plan has proposed to have 100,000 such common service centres by the middle of 2010. The Common Services Centres (CSC) are proposed to be the delivery points for Government, private and social sector services to rural citizens of India. Public Private Partnership (PPP) model has been envisaged for undertaking this challenging task of setting up delivery points especially in rural areas across the country. It is hoped that rapid socio-economic change in rural India can be ushered through a combination of Information Technology (IT) and non-IT services offered at the CSC. • State Wide Area Networks (SWAN). The SWAN component has been conceived to create a secure government network for the purpose of delivering G2G and G2C services. The network is envisaged to interconnecting the head quarters of each state, union territory, district and block with minimum 2 Mbps leased line. • State Data Centres (SDC). State Data Centre (SDC) has been identified as one of the important element of the core infrastructure for supporting e-governance initiatives of National E-governance Plan. It is envisaged that the SDC would act as the Central Repository of the State, provide Secure Data Storage, enable Online Delivery of Services, act as the Citizen Information/Services Portal and State Intranet Portal and facilitate Disaster Recovery. • Capacity-Building. The government realized from that in view of the enormous task of driving NeGP most states are inadequately equipped in terms of personnel and the skill-sets needed to handle the host of issues involved. Consequently, a key component of the plan is to focus on capacity-building by providing guidelines that would allow engaging outside experts, developing skills and imparting training at various levels that would help create State E-governance Mission Teams (SeMT), and Project E-governance Mission Teams (PeMT). • Standards. India is diverse country with multiple official languages (Hindi at the centre and 15 other languages that are used by various states), and also diversity in rules and processes across states. Consequently, the plan evolved detailed standards for e-government architecture, Network and Information Security, Localization and Language Technology Standards, and Quality and Documentation to ensure seamless interoperability and sharing of knowledge across applications. • Awareness and Communication. In a study of adoption of e-government Reick and Tung (2005) conclude that increasing public awareness of direct and indirect benefits of government e-services, and portraying e-services as up-to-date,

398

S. Ray

effective and secure can improve adoption of e-government. In a similar vein the planners believed that awareness regarding the Programme, effective branding of NeGP and, finally, a communication strategy that addresses the awareness and branding building was paramount for the success of the plan. Special emphasis has been given to building awareness among citizens about the initiatives and benefits and communicate within departments of the government that e-governance is about making dealing with government easier and not about computerization per se. • Assessment. The need to assess intangible and tangible costs and benefits of e-government and the difficulty of applying the return-on-investment method is well known (Gupta & Jana, 2003). The government as a part of its overall assessment strategy proposes to list, identify and assess e-government and ICT for Development (ICT4D) projects that provide any measure of e-government services, across India, to understand the impact, utility, sustainability, scalability and replicability of these projects. The assessment is planned to be carried out using the help of renowned market research agencies with assessment and evaluation frameworks developed by premier academic institutions of the country. Besides these seven major components that provide support to overall strategy of e-government, a clear prioritization of services has been done which would allow the government to keep a focused approach. These services and functions of the government where e-government would be ushered in first will be approached under the Mission Mode Project scheme which is an integral part of the NeGP. Mission Mode Projects (MMPs) are department conceived and initiated. These projects require spelling out all important aspects like services, target beneficiaries, service levels, project implementation team, proposed project reengineering, project implementation and management plan with specific time lines.

4.2 Mission Mode Projects Services that have high number of transaction with citizen, businesses or between government agencies have been identified as MMP. As of now the NeGP outlines 27 key services as Mission Mode Projects (MMPs). MMPs are owned and spearheaded by various line Ministries which can be categorized as Central Government, State Government and Integrated projects. The criteria used for identifying MMPs have been high citizen or business transactions with the government. The following table presents the areas selected as MMP. The MMPs cater to needs of business, citizens and also inter governmental transactions. The NeGP clearly lays the road map for e-governance in India. It is, an extremely ambitious programme of the Government of India, aiming at improving the quality, accessibility and effectiveness of government services to citizens and business with the help of ICT. It is estimated that the total expenses will be around INR 300 billion

20


399

(or $ 6 billion). The NeGP thus aims at the substantially increasing the pace of e-governance activities in the Centre as well as in the States.

5 Implementing the E-government Plan At the project level four stages of the implementation are earmarked. These are Conceptualization, Design and Development, Implementation, Post Implementation. The Conceptualization stage is the first stage where the mission of the project is set, i.e. clear specification of the service and desired outcomes are identified. In Design and Development stage the services are firmed up after pilot run of the project in few geographic areas or departments as the case maybe. The Implementation stage is when a project is rolled out. The Post-Implementation stage involves taking feedback of all stakeholders, documenting the learning from the project and changes that may be required are made within the project. At a macro level implementation requires action of several fronts like raising finances, having the institution set up to oversee progress and project-level implementation plan among other things. We discuss the main aspects of the implementation strategy adopted by India to make reality what is envisaged in the NeGP.

5.1 Funding the Plan Primarily three sources of funds have been identified for implementing the NeGP. The broad principle followed in funding is that the bulk of initial/ capital cost, for the implementation of the projects, would be made available as a grant by the Central Government and the recurring cost would have to be met by the states. The plan would be financed through augmented budgetary allocation of the Department of Information Technology with the support from the Line Ministries at Government of India, Planning Commission and the World Bank. The objectives of NeGP are in line with the Country Assistance Strategy of the World Bank. Initially, the World Bank funding would be US $500 million over a 4-year period with scope for additional funding provided the need, absorptive capacity and rapid disbursement of initial financing are demonstrated. The Planning Commission, under NeGP, has been releasing annually the Additional Central Assistance to the states for capacitybuilding and undertaking preliminary activities for implementing projects under NeGP.

5.2 Institutional Setup for Implementation It would be necessary to have appropriate e-governance structure to accomplish the objectives of the NeGP in mission mode implementation. At the Central level,

400

S. Ray

the “Cabinet Committee on E-governance” under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister is in place for taking programme-level policy decision. There is “National E-governance Advisory Board”, which is headed by the Minister, Ministry of Communication & IT, Government of India. It advises the Cabinet on policy issues and strategy for speedy implementation of NeGP. Then there is “Apex Committee” headed by the Cabinet Secretary to oversee the implementation of the NeGP and for providing the strategic direction and management. Besides these overseeing committees the implementation of e-government is also facilitated and supported by two other institutions, namely, the National Informatics Centre (NIC) and National Institute of Smart Government (NISG). National Informatics Centre (NIC) of the Department of Information Technology provides network backbone support to Central Government, State Governments, UT Administrations, Districts and other Government bodies. It also assists in implementing Information Technology Projects, in close collaboration with Central and State Governments, in the areas of (a) Centrally sponsored schemes and Central sector schemes, (b) State sector and State-sponsored projects and (c) District Administration sponsored projects. On the other hand NISG came into existence in 2002 on the recommendation of the national IT task force. The NISG incorporated under the companies act became fully operational in 2004. NISG works towards implementation of the NeGP by providing Strategic Planning, Capacity Building, Project Development and Research & Innovation in the area of e-government. Over 5-year period the NISG has made significant progress. It has implemented 22 completed projects, with equal number of ongoing projects.2

5.3 Role of the Private Sector Successful scaling-up of e-government initiatives is one of the critical factors in the overall e-government plan of the country. The need to build up connectivity infrastructure, the service delivery points and also provide overall knowledge support to e-government programme, requires resources and capabilities that not readily available with the government in-house. Consequently, the role of the private sector has been integral to the overall implementation plan. In general researcher do find substantial potential role of the private sector in the provision of e-government services. For example, authors have identified various methods of private sector involvement in e-government projects that include; Advertising and sponsorship, Fee-based funding, Shared cost savings, Shared revenue and Full service delivery (Lalor & Brooke, 2002). In a study of best practices in the private public partnership (PPP) in e-government, Sharma (2007) concludes that PPP has emerged as a viable business model for e-government implementation, to impart economic sustainability and provide necessary soft-skills. This model is especially recommended for

2 NISG—Enabling Governments to Empower People-http://www.nisg.org/docs/122_Corporate%20 Profile%20and%20Achievements.pdf

20


401

developing countries, where there is a lack of critical resources such as finances and technical skills. Some of the key areas where the private partner can provide assistance to e-government implementation are information architectures, data centres, gateways, common service centres, network of Kiosks and portals (Satyanarayana, 2008). A showcase example of e-government intervention under PPP in India is the e-seva case. E-seva is a one-stop-shop for over 100 government and business services in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India. There are over 46 e-seva centers with over 400 counters where citizens can avail any service between 8 am and 8 pm. The partnership with the private sector for this project is under the Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) model. The Government’s role includes Site preparation, Cost of counter operators (outsourced), Coordination and the Partner’s role include Software development & maintenance, Hardware, networking, security, consumables, power. The partner source of revenue is INR 3.95 per transaction. Currently over 1 million transactions are recorded per month in these centers.

6 Analysis and Status The e-government plan is a comprehensive document for e-government action that based on the ground realities and pressing needs of the country. There are very obvious strong points of the plan, namely, the emphasis of building awareness both within and outside the government, the prioritization of projects to be taken up and the recognition of evaluation as a constant need for such a large-scale exercise. The plan also identifies the levels of infrastructure requirements and the appropriate delivery model for providing services to the citizens. However, some issues and challenges remain for the plan to fructify. Even though the projects under the MMPs require specification of objectives and benefits but mostly they are stated in outcomes and ICT terms. There is very little if any focus on deliverables in terms of government processes. Another aspect that is not strongly addressed in the plan is the localization issue. In India vast majority would like to use the local language in interacting with government and hence ICT solutions must be planned to accommodate this need. Project funding will remain a pressing issue as there is no clear centralized mechanism of funding projects under the NeGP. Multiple departments are likely to be involved in project funding as a result of which the pace of implementation is likely to suffer. There is consequently a high likelihood of witnessing great variation in implementation progress across the states. As expected the status of implementation of the NeGP varies greatly from state to state. For example of the 100,000 + CSCs that have been planned for the country overall, a little of over 50,000 have been established by August 2009. However, there are some states where the achievement is nearly complete and at the same time some states have yet to have their first CSC.3 However, it is notable that some CSC are 3 NISG E-Gov Knowledge exchange—CSC implementation status as on 31 August 2009 available at: http://www.nisg.org/knowledgecenter_docs/A07010014.pdf

402

S. Ray

already becoming dormant and risk becoming defunct due to want of service to be provided. Clearly, the pace of implementation of the various components under the NeGP has not been in sync. For example, the slow implementation of SWAN has affected the utilization of the CSCs. Only 7 of the 28 states have so far installed a wide area network and most are in the process of implementing it. It is expected that by June 2010 the SWAN would be fully installed. As far as the state-level data centres are concerned none of the data centres are in place as yet though it expected that all the data centres would be implemented by the end of 2010. Overall, there is a long way to go before the NeGP implementation is complete and its impact felt by the citizens. In the next section we discuss some of the barriers faced by e-government implementation in India.

7 Barriers to E-government in India A complete picture of the e-government scenario in India cannot be gained fully without understanding some of the barriers to e-government. Like most information technology based projects, e-government projects too have been known to exhibit high failure rates (Heeks, 2003), indicating the need to understand and identify causes of failure. Heeks and Bhatnagar (1999) identified the main reason for failure of e-government projects as the concept-reality. The concept-reality gaps pertain to the mismatch or gap between conception of a change brought about by IS and the current reality. These gaps can occur on Information, Technology, Processes, Objectives, Staff, Management and Other (ITPOSMO) dimensions. The information systems in the public sector require more and significant changes across too many dimension of the ITPOSMO framework. The concept-reality gaps are higher in the public sector for a variety of reasons (ibid.). In the case of e-government projects, the information dimension gap can arise because of incomplete understanding of citizens’ needs, technology gaps can arise out of the use of untested technology and low awareness of technology by end-users. Likewise, current processes may not be amenable for ICT use and the changes needed could be quite significant. Gaps between dimensions of people, staff and management can occur because in the public sector, formal objectives are the responsibility of a group rather than an individual and are therefore less likely to be aligned with personal objectives. Job insecurities are fewer, hence less motivation exists to be efficient and effective, and thus there is no conforming to the rational model. Few other studies have looked at very specific reasons of failure of e-government projects. For example, Jaeger and Thompson (2003) assert that an e-government system would fail if the government did not take an active role in educating citizens about the value of e-government. Other authors find that developing countries have severe limitations in terms of connectivity and user access to online government (Odedra-Straub, 2003). This often leads to a low user base, as the system would not be equally accessible by all citizens. Linked to this is the lack of skills and training which are required to effectively use an e-government system that is available to government officials and citizens (Ho,

20


403

2002; Moon, 2002; Ndou, 2004). A survey of 59 officers at NIC, India revealed the perceived threat to e-government implementation in the country. Respondents were asked to rate each item on a scale of 1–5 with 1 being low barrier and 5 being highest barrier.4 The national informatics centre (NIC) is the main organization that has been implementing e-government projects in country and providing support to the government agencies at all levels. The staff of NIC have ground-level knowledge of individual projects that are being implemented as they are the ones who face day-today challenges in implementing and maintaining e-government projects throughout the country. The following table reports the top 10 barriers to e-government as perceived by officers of NIC.

8 Impact Assessment In order to understand the nature and quantum of impact created by e-government projects that had already been implemented by state and national agencies, the Department of Information Technology (DIT), Government of India, the nodal coordinating agency for the NeGP, was directed to carry out an impact assessment study of mature state and national projects that have been implemented in India. Three state-level e-government projects—vehicle registration, property registration and land records were selected for assessment in 12 states across India in the first phase. Additionally, three national-level projects implemented by the Income Tax department, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and the issue of passport by Regional Passport Offices were also selected for. The assessment was to focus on the nature and quantum of impact on service users (citizens and businesses) only. Impact assessments on other stakeholders, like the departments that implement the project, were not taken up in the first phase. The assessment reported that two of the national projects have had marginal improvement overall compared to manual system whereas one of the national projects (MCA) has shown significant benefit being realized to the users (DIT, 2009b). For state-level projects, citizens indicated an overwhelming preference for computerized service delivery. Their preference was supported by specific areas where concrete benefits have accrued to them. For instance, in all three services (issue of copies of land record, registration of property and issue of driver’s license) the number of trips to offices reduced by 1–2 trips after computerization whereas waiting time has been reduced by 20–40%. Direct cost savings to citizens averaged rupees 60–110 across all states. There exist differences in the impact both across projects and across states. For example, bribes have either been eliminated or reduced significantly in five out of the ten states after land record computerization. On the other hand, in property registration and transport, the study reports insignificant impact on bribery (DIT, 2009b). 4 The survey was carried out while doing a study on risk factors for e-government in India by the author. The complete survey had 32 items generated from existing literature and case studies of projects.

404

S. Ray

However, these are early days for evaluating the impact of the National E-governance Plan though one can envisage its potential impact to be dramatic. The mission mode projects at state and central levels have been carefully chosen to impact large number of people. For example, the e-district project proposes integrated, seamless and online delivery of citizen services at the district level through automation of workflow, backend digitization, integration and process redesign. A very large of number of citizens would be benefited from over 50 services that are expected to be provided. The services include issuing of various certificates, filing public grievances and filing right to information applications.

9 Conclusion The e-government story in India is a mixed bag of great policies but poor infrastructure and great successes with great failures. In one examines the e-government strategy in India, it is very apparent that the existing ground realities in terms of citizens awareness, citizen e-literacy and infrastructure services have been instrumental in the strategizing the e-government plan for India. The plan also prioritizes services under the mission mode projects to enable a focused approach towards e-government. At the same time, the implementation mechanism creates an opportunity for significant private sector role in terms of providing infrastructure and skills. The implementation mechanism also ensures that a sound programme management system is in place so that the implementation is overseen adequately at the highest level. The impact assessment study undertaken by the department of information technology reveals that there has not been any significant transformation in the working of government organizations and processes which should be the key objective of an e-government project. It is therefore the need of the hour to focus more on process reengineering so that benefits to users and government agencies are significantly high to justify the large amounts of investments being made in e-governance in India. Table 20.1 Potential of e-government in improving servicesa S. No. Country 1 2 3 a Annual

Brazil

Type of government service

Registration of 29 documents India, Andhra Pradesh (AP) Valuation of property India (AP) Land registration

Time to process before project implementation Several days Few days 7–15 days

World Bank Conference on Development Economics 2003 (South Asia Component), Sadiq Ahmed and Suman Bery (Eds.), The World Bank and National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi, 2004, pp. 11–20.

20


405

Table 20.2 Priority projects under the National E-governance Plan of India Central government MMP

State government MMP

Integrated/joint MMP

Banking Central excise and customs Income tax (IT) Insurance MCA21

Agriculture Commercial taxes E-district Employment exchange Land records

National citizen database (NCD/MNIC)/ UNIQUE ID (UID) Passport, immigration and visa Pension E-OFFICE

Municipalities

CSC (common services centre) E-BIZ E-courts E-procurement Electronic data interchange (EDI) for trade (e-trade) National E-governance service delivery gateway

Panchayats (local government)

India portal (www.india.gov.in)

Police Property registration Road transport Treasuries

Table 20.3 Significant perceived barriers to e-government in India No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Impediments to e-government in India

Mean score

Artificial/unrealistic deadlines for project completion Lack of effective project management Lack of information technology infrastructure needed to support the project, e.g. networking, email, computers, etc. Lack of funding Inadequately identified requirements Inexperienced project manager Citizens not having adequate access to the service centres/kiosks Stale or inadequate data for sustaining the project Lack of attention to access of e-services by poor/women/underprivileged Senior management not being aware of the true potential of information technology

3.66 3.53 3.42 3.41 3.31 3.29 3.17 3.12 3.07 3.07

References Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Zouridis, S. (1999). Electronic service delivery in public administration: Some trends and issues. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 65(2), 183–196. Chen, Y., Chen, H. M., Ching, R. K. H., & Huang, W. W. (2006). Electronic government implementation: A comparison between developed and developing countries. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 3(2), 45–61. Dellis, A. (2007). Blame-game politics in a coalition government. Journal of Public Economics, 91(1–2), 77–96. DiCaterino, A., & Pardo, T. A. (1996). The world wide web as a universal interface to government services [internet]. Retrieved September 5, 2009, from http://www.ctg.albany.edu/resources/ abstract/itt96-2.html

406

S. Ray

DIT. (2009a). e-Governance initiatives across the country, Department of Information Technology (DIT) under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India [internet]. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from http://www.mit.gov.in/ default.aspx?id=839 DIT. (2009b). Impact assessment of e-Government Projects, Department of Information Technology (DIT), Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Government of India [Internet]. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from http://mit.gov.in/download/Impact AssessmentReportDraft.pdf [accessed 23 September 2009] Ghere, R. K., & Young, B. A. (1998). The cyber-management environment: Where technology and ingenuity meet public purpose and accountability. Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, 3(1). Gupta, M. P., & Jana, D. (2003). E-government evaluation: A framework and case study. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 366–387. Heeks, R. (2001). Understanding e-governance for development. The University of Manchester, Institute for Development, Policy and Management Information, Systems, Technology and Government: Working Papers Series, Number 11/2001. Available at: http://idpm.man.ac.uk/idpm/igov11abs.htm Heeks, R. (2002). Information systems and developing countries: Failure, success, and local improvisations. The Information Society, 18, 101–112. Heeks, R. (2003). e-Government in Africa: Promise and practice. Information Polity, 7(2–3), 97–114. Heeks, R., & Bhatnagar S. (1999). Understanding success and failure in information age reform. In R. Heeks (Ed.), Reinventing government in information age. London: Roultedge. Ho, A. (2002). Reinventing local government and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 434–444. Hwang, S. D., Choi, Y., & Myeong, S. H. (1999). Electronic government in South Korea: Conceptual problems. Government Information Quarterly, 16(3), 277–285. Jaeger, P. T., & Thompson, K. M. (2003). e-Government around the world, lessons, challenges and future directions. Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 389–394. Lalor, J., & Brooke, G. (2002). Public private partnership opportunities in e-government. KPMG. Retrieved February 10, 2007, from /http://www.agimo.gov.au/__data/assets/file/19014/PPP.pdf La Porte, T. M., De Jong, M., & Demchak, C. C. (1999). Public organizations on the world wide web: Empirical correlates of administrative openness. Available at: http://www.cyprg.arizona.edu/publications/correlat.rtf Maumbe, B. M., Owei, V., & Alexander, H. (2008). Questioning the pace and pathway of egovernment development in Africa: A case study of South Africa’s Cape Gateway project. Government Information Quarterly, 25(4), 757–777. Means, G., & Schneider, D. (2000). Meta-capitalism: The e-business revolution and the design of 21st century companies and markets. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Mishra, D. C. (2006). Ten emerging e-government challenges today: The future may be sober and not hype. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on E-governance, December 15–17, 2006, New Delhi. McGregor, E. B., Jr. (2001). Web page accountability: The case of public schools. Paper Presented at the National Public Management Research Conference, Bloomington, IN. Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-Government among municipalities rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433. Ndou, V. D. (2004). E-government for developing countries: Opportunities and challenges. EJISDC, 18(1), 1–24. Odedra-Straub, M. (2003). E-commerce and development: Whose development? EJISDC, 20(5), 1–5. Rieck, O., & Tung, L. L. (2005). Adoption of electronic government services among business organizations in Singapore. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14, 417–440.

20


407

Ryan, S., Prybutok, V. R., & Zhang, X. (2008). Evaluating leadership, IT quality, and net benefits in e-government environment. Information & Management, 45, 143–152. Satyanarayana, J. (2008). Public Good through Private Partnership http://unpan1.un.org/ intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN023011.pdf Sharma, S. (2007). Exploring best practices in public–private partnership (PPP) in e-Government through select Asian case studies. The International Information & Library Review, 39(3–4), 203–210. Steyaert, J. C. (2004). Measuring the performance of electronic g government services. Information & Management, 41, 369–375. Tan, M., & Teo, T. S. H. (1999). The diffusion of the internet in a pro-it cultural environment: A content analysis of the Singapore experience. Communications of the AIS, 2(21). Thomas, P. (2009). Gyan Ganga, e-governance and the right to information: ICTs and development in India. Telematics and Informatics, 26(1), 20–31. TRAI. (2007). Ten Year Achievement Report 2007. Telecom Regulation Authority of India, Available at http://www.trai.gov.in/achievment.pdf Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government: Initiatives, developments, and issues. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 646–665. Zarei, B., Ghapanchi, A., & Sattary, B. (2008). Toward national e-government development models for developing countries: A nine-stage model. The International information & Library Review, 40(3).

Chapter 21

E-government in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Mustafa Sa˘gsan and Mete Yıldız

This chapter describes the process of e-government application and defines the barriers to and outcomes of e-government adoption in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Archival document analysis, analyses of Northern Cyprus government Websites, analyses of governmental statistics and e-government-related laws and regulations are utilized for this study. The main findings of the study are that (i) e-government applications are still in their infancy, i.e. in the cataloguing, and to a lesser extent in transaction level; (ii) there is a lack of an adequate IT infrastructure, qualified IT personnel and meaningful and useful content on government Websites; (iii) digital divide is a serious problem that hinders e-government development; and (iv) a new organizational structure that can plan and coordinate the implementation of e-government applications has to be established. The lessons derived from this case study may benefit efforts to understand the adoption of e-government, especially in small countries in the Mediterranean region and elsewhere.

1 Introduction This chapter describes the process of e-government application and defines the barriers to and outcomes of e-government adoption in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This introductory section first explains the concept of e-government and its importance, as it is the central notion of this chapter. Second, the national context

M. Saˇgsan (B) Ba¸skent University, Ankara, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] M. Yıldız Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] This book chapter is a revised and improved version of a conference paper, which was presented in a conference and published in the conference proceedings (Sagsan and Yildiz, 2009) under the title of “The state of e-government and its application in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”.


409

410

M. Saˇgsan and M. Yıldız

of the case under study (the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) is presented to the readers in some detail. In the third and final part of the section, the reasons for considering the case of North Cyprus as an e-government example that deserves attention are explained.

1.1 Importance of the E-government Concept The concept of electronic government (e-government) has been a major subject of scientific interest in the public administration literature at least for the last decade (Fountain, 2001; Garson, 2003; Heeks, 2006; West, 2005). Defined as “utilizing the Internet and the World Wide Web for delivering government information and services to citizens” (UN and ASPA, 2002, p. 1) and other stakeholders of government, such as businesses and government agencies themselves, the concept and its applications have become so popular that, Bannister, cynically, argues that it is the “flavour of the month” in academic circles (2007, p. 228). A “stages approach” for understanding e-government development is widely used in the literature: E-government development is studied by building models of its stages. A widely accepted model, presented by Layne and Lee (2001, p. 124), argues that e-government projects evolve through four stages of development as their integration and technological and organizational complexity increase. The first stage is cataloguing, providing government information by creating government agency Websites. At this stage, only one-way communication between the government and the governed is possible. The second stage is transaction. Agencies at this stage can provide online transactions with government agencies. This makes two-way communications possible. The cataloguing and transaction stages focus on creating an electronic interface for government information and services. The third stage is the integration of government operations within functional areas in government. Agencies working in the same functional area integrate their online operations. For example, database sharing by the FBI, CIA and NSA. The final stage is horizontal integration. Different functional areas are integrated within the same electronic system and put to use through a central portal. The last two stages focus on the integration of the provision of e-government activities within the existing governmental structure (Yildiz, 2009, p. 19).

It has to be emphasized that Layne and Lee’s model is an oversimplification. The stages of this model do not necessarily follow each other in a neat, step-bystep fashion. In addition, since countries like the TRNC has the opportunity to observe the development of e-government in other countries, their learning curve is lessened. Consequently, several stages can be observed simultaneously in countries like the TRNC. For example, as government agencies create a basic web presence via their Websites (stage 1), they may simultaneously provide online transactions (stage 2). In addition, they may attempt to integrate with similar online agencies

21

E-government in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

411

(stage 3) and connect to a central portal that links all projects to each other (stage 4). This difference in e-government development between the developed and the developing countries largely stems from the time lag regarding e-government implementation. Thus, Layne and Lee’s model has partial applicability on the evolution of e-government in developing countries (Yildiz, 2009, pp. 185–186).

1.2 Country Background Information In order to examine and explain the development and applications of e-government in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, it is essential to present some background information about the history, geography and demography of the country under examination, and the island that hosts it: Cyprus is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea, after Sicily and Sardinia; it is the biggest island in the Eastern Mediterranean. It lies 65 km to the south of Turkey and 112 km to the west of Syria, its closest neighbours. There have been settlers in this island for almost 4,000 years. Throughout this time period, it has been controlled successively by Mycenaeans, Phoenicians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, FrancoEnglish, Franks, Venetians, Ottoman Turks, British, and since 1960, by Turkish and Greek Cypriots. After an unsuccessful and violent cohabitation experience under an unworkable constitution (Mallinson, 2005, p. 5, 9), the Turkish Cypriot Community established its own state in 1983 under the name of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC, or North Cyprus), which is recognized only by Turkey. International diplomatic efforts are underway in order to find a peaceful solution to the Cyprus problem. The TRNC covers an area of 3,355 km2 , which is approximately one-third of the island of Cyprus. To the south and west of TRNC is the Republic of Cyprus (South Cyprus), a member of the European Union (EU), with its predominantly Greek Cypriot population and its close political and economic ties to Greece. The population of the TRNC is 265,000 according to the 2006 Census. Many other Turkish Cypriots also live in foreign countries such as Turkey and the United Kingdom. The official language of North Cyprus is Turkish. Because of the British military and administrative presence in Cyprus during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, English is also widely spoken. The political system of the TRNC is parliamentary democracy. The system of government is as follows: The president and the council of ministers form the executive. A prime minister directs and coordinates the council of ministers. The Assembly of the Republic with its elected members is the legislature. The judiciary is made up of the Assize Courts, District Courts and Family Courts, with the Supreme/Constitutional Court at the top of the judicial system. The TRNC is a unitary state. Its capital city is Lefko¸sa (Nicosia). The population of the capital city is approximately 85,000. It is the main administrative and business centre of the country. Other big cities in the TRNC are Güzelyurt in the west (the

412


major citrus production centre of the country), the resort towns of Girne (Kyrenia) is on the northern coast, and Gazimagusa (Famagusta) in the east. The country is divided into five administrative districts (Lefko¸sa, Gazimagusa, Girne, Güzelyurt and ˙Iskele) for efficient administration of the Republic. Districts are governed by a “district officer” (Kaymakam), who is the local representative of the central government. There are two types of local governments: Municipalities in urban areas (28 in total) and villages in rural areas (187 in total) (TRNC Prime Ministry, 2009). The country hosts 40% of its population in rural areas. This urban– rural ratio is quite different from most EU countries (UNDP, 2007, p. 13), which are highly urbanized. The economy of the TRNC is based on the services sector. Agriculture and trade have traditionally been significant sources of income. Tourism is currently the most important economic activity. The provision of higher education through public and private universities is also becoming an increasingly important economic sector. New private universities established in TRNC gradually add more value to the North Cyprus economy both through their students’ economic activities and with the outcomes of the research and development (R&D) facilities that they host. As mentioned below in detail, a strategic planning effort is underway, which aims to stimulate the country’s economy even more through the use of technology. Within this historical, political and administrative context presented concisely above, this chapter introduces the adoption of e-government only in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), as opposed to the Republic of Cyprus (South Cyprus).

1.3 Reasons for Considering the Case of Northern Cyprus Many governments are trying to harness e-government for higher levels of sustainable social and economic development; however, these efforts are limited by two main shortcomings in the application of e-government at the international/global level. First, digital divide, different levels of access to and use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) at individual, organizational and nation-state levels limits e-government use (Kaufman, 2005, p. 293). Second, an important portion of the e-government literature still focuses on the developments in developed countries of the North, especially the United States (Stowers, 2003) and Europe, while much can be learned from relatively less-developed parts of the world as well. This chapter aims to contribute to the solution of both these problems, by examining the e-government development process of a less-researched country, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. More specifically, this study is important as it adds value to the e-government literature in three different ways: First, there are only few studies that examine and evaluate e-government adoption in Southern Cyprus, either by Southern Cyprus itself or as a part of the e-government efforts in the European Union. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no scientific study that systematically describes and evaluates e-government adoption in TRNC. This study is a first in this regard.

21


413

Second, the example of e-government adoption in TRNC is useful as it provides practitioners with useful information about the advantages and disadvantages of adopting e-government in small countries. Specifically, researchers may examine the possibilities of profiting from the small size of the population for rapid technology diffusion in e-government service provision, and the imperatives towards administrative centralization in small countries while implementing e-government projects. Third, there are many Turkish Cypriots living in other countries such as the United Kingdom and Turkey. Therefore, e-government adoption in the TRNC partially has to be geared towards the needs and expectations of these expatriates, who need to take care of their businesses with TRNC government without ever coming to the island, or doing so as less often as possible. E-government thus becomes the tool of this long-distance relationship between the TRNC government and its citizens. This chapter first provides the background of e-government adoption in the TRNC, by presenting facts and figures about the history and geography of the country, its demographic and economic profile, style of government, within a very brief overview. Then, the chapter proceeds to provide information about the process of e-government adoption, beginning with the examination of the organizational legal and technological infrastructure, levels of technology use and contents of the government Websites at the central and local level (in municipalities). Finally, the chapter closes with the general evaluation of the TRNC’s e-government efforts, barriers to e-government adoption and their potential solutions and, finally, the conclusions that could be drawn from this example.

2 E-government in Cyprus Analyses of e-government adoption in the island of Cyprus so far has been limited to its southern part, that is, the Republic of Cyprus. For example, Kokkinaki, Mylanos and Mina (2005) examined the e-government initiatives in Southern Cyprus and found them to be at the elementary level of providing information and thus, in need of improvement. Similarly, an EU Report (2005) on Southern Cyprus’s ICT performance and prospects evaluates the country’s performance within Europe as one of the laggards, and recommends the increasing of electronic services provision in addition to information provision in a way to catch up with the other EU member countries. At the local level, Zevedos (2006) paints a dark picture of the provision of electronic government services and the state of electronic democracy efforts at the local government level in South Cyprus. In his study, he compares and contrasts the implementation of electronic government and electronic democracy efforts of a local government unit in South Cyprus (Limassol Municipality) with those of nine other municipalities from five different countries (four British, two Scottish, one Irish, one Welsh and one Greek). He concludes that the municipalities in South Cyprus lack a clear e-government strategy, suffer from inadequate organizational

414


capacity (Limassol municipality, for example, does not have an Information Technology Department), lack of qualified human resources and top management support (Zevedos, 2006, p. 116–117). Zevedos (2006, p. 139) also argues that municipalities in South Cyprus have to realize that e-government and e-democracy are not ends in themselves, they are rather means to a bigger end, namely, the transformation of the political and administrative systems according to new public management principles. He also emphasizes the need to plan the e-government adoption process carefully and to involve all the stakeholders of this major transformation in the process. In contrast to the above-mentioned studies on electronic government in South Cyprus, analyses of e-government adoption in the Northern part of the island, that is, the TRNC, are almost non-existent. One such rare document in which the e-government efforts in the TRNC have been measured and evaluated is the e-readiness Survey prepared by the United Nations Development Program’s (UNDP, 2007) “Partnership for the Future” (PFF) branch. Based on a survey carried out by UNDP-PFF in 2005 in the Turkish Cypriot community, the study’s main findings are as follows: First, in the TRNC, citizen Internet usage rate in 2005, despite relatively high prices and slow connection speeds, was close to the EU average. Of the surveyed persons, 51% have a computer and 39% have Internet access (UNDP, 2007, p. 5). Table 21.1, presented below, provides information about technology ownership in the TRNC at both individual and household level, as of 2006. Table 21.1 Technology ownership in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Technology Personal computer Mobile phone Internet Telephone line Television Satellite dish

Number of owners (individuals) 33,691 138,405 16,018 56,157 102,842 59,717

Number of owners (households)

Percentage of owners (households)

29,218 64,200 15,700 51,525 70,960 51,201

40.23 88.4 21.62 70.95 97.71 70.5

Source: TRNC State Planning Organization (2006).

Second, the problem of digital divide is present in the TRNC. There is a digital divide in geographical terms (urban vs. rural), and in terms of age, gender, education and economic means (income). For example, in North Cyprus, being young is not sometimes an advantage in using technology. Due to the high unemployment rate, many people under the age of 25 cannot afford to buy a computer and obtain Internet access (UNDP, 2007, p. 5, 13, 15, 17). This point about barriers for young people to use technology is very interesting, since most of the digital divide literature discusses barriers for older people. Third, there is not enough demand for and awareness about e-government among the population of the TRNC. Of the surveyed people, 60% indicate that they see no

21


415

need to use computers or connect to the Internet. The cost of computer ownership is a minor factor (8%) here, as opposed to the lack of need (59%) and lack of knowledge regarding Internet access (11%). This problem is also closely related to the lack of meaningful content and the small number of online services present (UNDP, 2007, pp. 6, 13–14, 17, 38). Fourth, citizens use the Internet mainly from their houses (59%), workplaces (18%) and Internet cafes (12%). The participants of the survey declared that they use the Internet an average of 10 h per week (UNDP, 2007, pp. 18–19). Fifth, although the survey reports that access to broadband Internet was not available in the TRNC as of 2005 (UNDP, 2007, p. 20), as of 2009, it is available. ADSL is provided by the Telecommunications Department of the TRNC Government. Third generation (3G) mobile technology is also available through the mobile phone service provider companies, KKTCell (an affiliate of Turkcell) and Vodafone (formerly Telsim). The judicial system and the Ministries of Finance and Interior use a high-speed connection, which is called “gigabit ethernet” (Personal Communication, 2009). Sixth, although there is a monopoly regarding fixed line telephones, the mobile phone market, which functions as a duopoly, is partly liberalized. Mobile phone penetration was 68% as of 2005 (UNDP, 2007, p. 37). The figure in Table 21.1 (88%) shows that household mobile phone ownership percentage has been increasing rapidly. Finally, it is reported that government Websites are static. They are not updated regularly. Most Websites are focusing on one-way information dissemination to a great extent. Therefore, the government plans to provide more interactive services, such as online applications, online payments of invoices/taxes, and online training. The constraints that the TRNC government face are the current tender regulations, the lack of adequate telecommunications infrastructure, lack of qualified IT personnel, and shortage of government funds (UNDP, 2007, p. 7). In conclusion, in order to speed up e-government development and adoption, coordinated government and business action is required. Of utmost importance is the need to provide high-speed Internet access with lower prices. This process has to be accompanied by an awareness campaign regarding what can be achieved by the widespread use of e-government services in the TRNC.

3 Reasons for E-government Adoption E-government adoption in the TRNC is not an isolated development. Instead, e-government efforts are an inseparable part of the greater transformation process of government reform. The high-level political decision makers are well aware of this critical connection, as can be seen below in a public statement by the TRNC President, Mehmet Ali Talat (2006), who strongly emphasized the important part played by e-government efforts in TRNC’s greater plans for government reform, and the goal of becoming a member of the EU as

416


We need transparency, democracy, rule of law, social justice, modern technological structuring and functional administrative arrangements to better institutionalize the administrative mechanism of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This is why we place importance on the E-government concept. And again, this is why we are trying to establish the superiority of law and a network between different institutions of the State as envisaged by the Constitution. These are painstaking efforts and can only be realized with the participation of all our people. The State should not be compatible only with certain people, political groups or mentality, but with all Turkish Cypriots, and should be able to meet the needs of the people. We should never forget that the higher institution we call “the State” exists to serve its people. This service cannot be limited to meeting minimal demands, bureaucratic procedures, providing security or paying salaries. A social order, which offers modern and democratic facilities, social services, educational and cultural openings based on equal opportunity, economic wealth, and rights and freedoms, should be created. It is one of our priorities to comply with the norms of the European Union.

This motivation for e-government adoption is demonstrated clearly in a recent decision of the council of ministers, numbered E-149-2009, in which e-government is defined as a means to an end. The underlying objective is to “reform the government in a way to minimize complaints and do away with the factors that inhibit productivity in the public sector”. The institutional outcomes for the setting of these objectives are the establishment of the two new units in the Prime Ministry of the TRNC for (i) minimizing red tape and (ii) protecting the rights of citizens. In an effort to create parallel systems for citizen complaints and satisfaction, a call centre (0392-2283141, internal 163) is established and an institutional address for written complaints in the Public Personnel Department are provided in addition to the online system (TRNC E-Government Portal, 2009). Such political will and determination to reform government, however, is not always sufficient for the successful adoption of e-government. The presence of a well-thought-out national information policy/strategy for the TRNC is also of greatest importance. Such a strategy should include the introduction of a more rigorous education system that would produce more able information users, better integration of the basic parameters of the national information policy in major legal documents such as the Constitution and the laws, creation of a national information infrastructure and the establishment of a government agency/authority that would be in charge of organizing, coordinating and overseeing the national information policy/strategy, equipped with adequate powers and funds (Sagsan, 2000).

4 Organization of E-government in Northern Cyprus This section explains the organization of e-government in TRNC. To this end, first, the organizational structures that plan, govern and oversee e-government efforts are explained. Then, the legal developments that enable e-government implementation are listed and explained in detail. Finally, organization of the physical outcomes of e-government efforts, which materialize in central and local government Websites, is examined.

21


417

4.1 Organizational Structure The organizational structure that plans, coordinates and oversees e-government development in the TRNC is a system called “KamuNet” (Public Network). This network is made up of the representatives of government agencies organized in four different boards: E-transformation Execution Board (Minister and undersecretary level), KamuNet Senior Board (Experts), Agency Representatives Board (representatives from government agencies) and Advisory Board (members of the civil society representatives). The main duty of all these boards is to determine the projects to be implemented and then to oversee the successful implementation and coordination of these e-government projects (TRNC KamuNet, 2009). In addition to the public network system with its multiple board-based structure that aims to maximize participation in e-government policy planning and decision making, there is a strategic planning effort underway, as explained in detail in the following sections. Here it suffices to mention that this strategy foresees the establishment of a new and autonomous government agency in order to plan, implement and evaluate e-government efforts.

4.2 Legal Infrastructure for E-government This section examines and explains in detail the legal infrastructure of e-government adoption in the TRNC. To this end, ICT-related articles in the TRNC Constitution and several laws about the adoption and use of various technologies are examined. The TRNC Constitution includes several articles that relate to the successful adoption and use of technology in the country. First, Article 21 of the TRNC Constitution, protects the freedom of communication and the privacy of personal communication. Second, Article 30 guarantees the freedom of the TRNC citizens to use various means of communication without any kind of restriction. Finally, Article 59 gives the state of TRNC the duty of providing the adequate technologies for the education of its citizenry. There are also a few specific laws that form the legal infrastructure for the adoption of e-government in the TRNC. Specifically, there are four laws, which deserve mention. Two of these laws are related to the organizational planning of e-government in the TRNC. These are the “Technology Development Regions Act” and “Telecommunications Department Foundation Act”. The other two laws are about the legal infrastructure of e-government, namely, the “Right to Information Act” and the “Electronic Signature Act”. Concise summaries of these laws1 are presented below in chronological order. First, the Technology Development Regions Act of 2005 (Law Number: 02/2005) provides the legal infrastructure for the establishment of these special regions as

1 Full texts of these laws in Turkish can be downloaded from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus National Assembly (Republic Assembly) Website, at http://www.cm.gov.nc.tr/.

418


centres of technology research and development. These centres are located within the boundaries of the universities in order to use the highly trained university researchers in their endeavours. Second, the Right to Information Law of 2006 (Law Number: 12/2006) organizes the processes with which TRNC citizens use their right to information regarding the activities of the government agencies in their countries. Enactment of this law is closely linked with the objective of creating a responsive, transparent and accountable public administration system. The law explains the processes of application to and the answering of these applications. It also defines the limits of the right to information in TRNC, such as the protection of government and trade secrets. Third, the Telecommunications Department Law of 2007 (Law Number: 21/2007) does not establish this department, but reorganizes it according to the technological and legal requirements of the day. As such, the law lists the qualifications of the technical staff, who are to be recruited for the department. The objective is to set the parameters for the recruitment of qualified technical and administrative personnel, who can ably oversee the development of a technological infrastructure in the country. Finally, the Electronic Signature Act of 2007 (Law Number: 93/2007) organizes the legal and technical framework for the use of secure electronic signatures for real persons and legal entities in the TRNC. To this end, this law aims to regulate the activities of the electronic signature providers and the authentication mechanisms of electronic signatures. It is explicitly written in this law that electronic signatures create the same legal results with regular paper-based signatures. The presence of the above-mentioned articles of the Constitution and the laws are all positive developments towards the establishment of a legal infrastructure for e-government adoption in the TRNC. A recent law on the protection of personal data was enacted in 2007 (Law Number: 89/2007). However, there is still a need for adapting the current intellectual property and taxation laws to the conditions of the days in general and to the e-government adoption process in particular. There is also a need for legislation that targets the punishment of cyber crimes (UNDP, 2007, p. 12).

4.3 Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Government Websites This section provides information about the current development level and content of TRNC government portals at both central and local government level. Before such a detailed analysis, two points are worth mentioning: First, the TRNC aims to be an EU member in the future. Since the country has not been officially recognized as a sovereign state by the international community, government Website addresses are not “.gov”, but “.com”, “.org” or “.eu”. Proper “.gov” addresses are expected to be produced after the completion of the membership process. Second, the history and the ethnic makeup of the island of Cyprus necessitate the use of multiple languages (Turkish, Greek and English) on TRNC Websites.

21


419

The existence of multilingual content may enable Greek Cypriots to utilize TRNC government Websites as well. 4.3.1 Central Government Websites The government portals examined in this section are those of central government ministries, together with other related government agencies such as the Central Bank and the State Planning Organization. Most of these Websites provide government information and a limited number of government services. The most impressive of the central government Websites are those of the judiciary. This system includes interactive services for lawyers, such as modules for legal correspondence and tracing debt proceedings or bankruptcy cases. Overall, the central government Websites are mostly at cataloguing and, to a lesser extent, interactive levels of Layne and Lee’s e-government development levels model. A list of these Websites is presented below in Table 21.2. Table 21.2 URLs of TRNC Central Government Ministries and Agencies Agency

URL

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Presidency TRNC Prime Ministry TRNC Ministry of Foreign Affairs TRNC Ministry of Finance TRNC Ministry of National Education, Youth & Sport TRNC Ministry of Health TRNC Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources TRNC Ministry of Public Works and Transportation TRNC Ministry of Labour and Social Security TRNC Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture TRNC State Planning Organization TRNC Court Authorities TRNC Kamunet TRNC E-government The Central Bank of TRNC TRNC Court Ombudsman TRNC Development Bank European Union Coordination Centre North Cyprus Tourism Centre Turkish Trade Promotion Office, TRNC External Representations

http://www.kktcb.eu/ http://www.kktcbasbakanlik.org/ http://www.trncinfo.com/ http://www.kktcmaliye.com/ http://www.mebnet.net/ http://www.saglikbakanligi.com/ www.kktob.org http://www.kktculastirma.com/ http://www.csgb.eu/ http://www.turizmcevrekultur.org http://www.devplan.org/ http://www.mahkemeler.net/ http://www.kamunet.net/ http://www.edevlet.eu/ http://www.kktcmerkezbankasi.org/ http://www.kktcombudsman.org http://www.kktckb.org/ http://www.eucoordination.org/ http://northcyprus.cc/ http://www.igemekktc.org/ http://www.trncinfo.com/

Source: http://www.investinnorthcyprus.org/links.html.

4.3.2 Local Government Websites This section provides information about the Websites of major local government units in the TRNC. It should be noted that, due to limited web presence, only the major municipality Websites are examined in this section and presented below in

420


Table 21.3. No systematic study could be found on the other local government level, that is, village Websites in the TRNC. Table 21.3 URLs of Main TRNC Local Government Units and their unions Local government unit

URL

Union of Cyprus Turkish Municipalities Nicosia Turkish Municipality Kyrenia Municipality Famagusta Municipality Morphou Municipality Gönyeli Municipality

http://www.ktbb.org/ http://www.lefkosabelediyesi.org/ http://www.girnebelediyesi.com/ http://www.magusa.org/ http://www.guzelyurtbelediyesi.com/ http://www.onlinegonyeli.com/

Source: http://www.investinnorthcyprus.org/links.html.

There are a total of 28 municipalities in the country. These TRNC municipalities provide government information and services such as preparing and updating online maps (Lefko¸sa Municipality); enabling citizens to learn the amounts of their utility bills and property taxes from the municipality Website; and providing interactive city guides by utilizing geographical information systems (Gazimagusa Municipality). Gönyeli Municipality also stands out as its Website enables its visitors to pay their local taxes online, to browse the three-dimensional city information system and to apply for services for the elderly. These municipalities plan to develop their Websites in more interactive ways, parallel to the “informatics island” strategy of the country, which is explained in detail below (Aybar, 2010).

5 Evaluation and Conclusion This section first presents and evaluates the challenges that e-government applications in the TRNC face in the present and in the future. Then, some recommendations are provided for the solution of these problems.

5.1 Challenges and Future Issues E-government adoption efforts in the TRNC are still in their initial stages. Government agencies form their own Websites separately, and only recently a central e-government portal (the citizens’ portal, available at http://www.vatandas.edevlet.eu) connected them into a single entry/access centre. Introduction of a smart card system as a means to the establishment of a central e-government portal is underway. The enactment of several additional laws may pave the way to the integration of all the e-government information and services in a portal. There are factors that encourage or discourage e-government development in the TRNC. A significant inhibiting factor for the adoption of e-government in Northern

21


421

Cyprus is the lack of perceived need to use e-government services. The creation of useful and meaningful content on government Websites seems to be a big challenge for government agencies. Providing online services for the Turkish Cypriots who live outside Cyprus and eliminate their need to come to Northern Cyprus for conducting transactions with their government, for example, will be a huge step towards creating useful local content. Another inhibiting factor is the presence of digital divide in the TRNC. North Cyprus government and businesses have to collaborate in order to combat this serious problem by providing additional channels of connectivity for disadvantaged persons and groups in the North Cyprus society. Regarding encouraging factors, top-level political support and awareness is extremely important at this stage. A very critical factor is that the President, Mehmet Ali Talat, seems very well aware of the importance of e-government for the overall economic, political and democratic development of the country. Such a political awareness and support is a strong signal to all the bureaucrats about the importance of e-government. E-government adoption process in the TRNC is not an isolated process from other administrative and political developments in and around the country. First, it is closely linked with the reorganization of the Northern Cyprus public administration system according to the principles of new public management, such as transparency, accountability, productivity and responsiveness. Since the TRNC is a small country, it may become a test bed for bigger countries to try the effectiveness and efficiency of new e-government services and the implementation of public management ideas during the execution of e-government projects. Second, an important development that would shape the trajectory of the egovernment adoption process in the TRNC is the possibility of TRNC’s entry to the EU as a member. Therefore, one way to evaluate the case of e-government in TRNC becomes one of adaptation to the EU standards on e-government adoption and implementation. The EU pledges its financial support, among other things, for the “development and restructuring of infrastructure. . .in the areas of. . .telecommunications” (European Council Regulation, EC No 389/2006) as a means of encouraging the economic development of the TRNC. The country, in return, demonstrated its willingness to join the EU in a 2004 Referendum in which the southern part of the island opposed a reunion of the island under the EU.

5.2 Recommendations and Conclusions The state of e-government and its applications in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are in their infancy. According to the e-government development stages of Layne and Lee, most applications are in the cataloguing stage. Government Websites mostly provide government-related information. There are few examples of the transaction stage, such as online payment of local taxes. The objectives of establishment of a portal, and the use of smart cards, together with the “informatics

422


island” strategy, which is currently underway, all aim to pave the way to the integration stage. Within this context, the future of e-government in the TRNC will be determined by the solution of several problems, such as the lack of IT infrastructure, qualified IT personnel, meaningful and useful content, digital divide and the creation of an organizational structure that can steer e-government development. A main recommendation of this chapter is the preparation of a strategy for egovernment planning and implementation. Such a study is currently underway. The TRNC government is in the process of preparing a detailed plan for the solution of these problems. The plan is referred to as transforming (Northern) Cyprus to an “informatics island” (the “informatics island strategy”). To this end, a conference was convened in TRNC during October 23–24, 2009, which included technology experts from government, private IT firms and non-profit organizations in TRNC, as well as those from Turkey. The most significant outcome of this conference is the preparation of a draft strategy for TRNC to begin its journey towards becoming an “informatics island”. Among the aims of this strategy, the ones that deserve special attention are as follows: An independent agency, which will be responsible from the transformation of the country into an informatics island, determination of the target technologies and potential markets and the elimination of technological and legal barriers, will be established. An institute, that would coordinate the training and placement of the necessary human resources, together with universities, will be set up. Technology parks in TRNC universities and the public–private partnership arrangements that surround them will be reoriented so as to provide maximum support for the objectives of the strategy. Another aim is to maximize the contribution of the Turkish Cypriot IT professionals, who live in other countries, and to reverse the brain drain in TRNC, especially in the IT sector. Finally, EU initiatives on ICTs will be closely monitored and if possible, integrated into this strategy preparation and implementation process (Informatics Island, 2009). This strategic planning effort will be the main thrust through the solution of organizational, technical and legal problems of e-government development in TRNC in the next 10 years. It is believed that, in the long run, ICT-based growth will accompany other strategic sectors in the Northern Cyprus economy, namely tourism and higher education.

References Aybar, T. (2010, 29 January). E-mail correspondence with Mr. Ta¸ser Aybar, Secretary General of the Union of Municipalities, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Bannister, F. (2007). The perspective of Janus: Reflecting on EGPA past and future. Information Polity, 12, 227–231. European Council (2006). European Council Regulation, EC No 389/2006. Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington: Brookings Institution Press. Garson, G. D. (Ed.). (2003). Public information technology: Policy and management issues. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

21


423

Heeks, R. (2006). Implementing and managing eGovernment: An international text. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Informatics Island (2009). Bilisim adası. Retrieved 2 December, 2009, from http://www.bilisimadasi.com Kaufman, R. J. (2005). Interdisciplinary perspectives on the “digital divide” Part 1: Economic perspectives. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(12), 293–297. Kokkinaki, A. I., Mylonas S., & Mina S. (2005). E-government initiatives in Cyprus. Paper presented at the eGovernment workshop ’05 (eGOV05), Brunel University, London, UK, 13 September 2005. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 122–136. Mallinson, W. (2005). Cyprus: A modern history. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd. Personal Communication (2009, 29 September). E-mail correspondence with the Prime Minister’s Office, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Sagsan, M. (2000). Ulusal bilgi politikası ve Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti uygulaması (National information strategy implementation in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus). Dissertation. Ankara Üniversitesi. Sagsan, M., & Yildiz, M. (2009). The state of e-Government and its application in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. In T. K. Bensghir (Ed.), eTransformation in Public Administration: From eGovernment to eGovernance. Proceedings of International Conference on eGovernment Sharing Experiences, Antalya, Turkey, December 8–11, 2009, Ankara: Türkiye ve Ortado˘gu Amme ˙Idaresi Enstitüsü, pp. 519–534 Stowers, G. (2003). Information technology and its social dimensions. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 243–246. Talat, M. A. (2006). Official speech at the celebration of the 23rd anniversary of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. ABHaber. Retrieved 21 August, 2009, from http://www.abhaber.com/haber.php?id=14561 The European Union (2005). Policy brief: Cyprus. European Union. Retrieved 15 September, 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/gothenburg_conference/doc/pdf/ brief_cyprus.pdf The United Nations Development Program-Partnership for the Future (2007). The e-readiness survey for the Northern part of Cyprus. UNDP. Retrieved 12 September, 2007, from http://www.undp-pff.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=24 Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus E-Government Portal (2009). Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Retrieved 1 September, 2009, from http://www.edevlet.eu TRNC Investment Agency (2009). TRNC. Retrieved 21 August, 2009, from http://www.inves tinnorthcyprus.org/links.html TRNC KamuNet (2009). TRNC. Retrieved 21 September, 2009, from http://www.edevlet.eu /goster.aspx?Uc=tr-TR&grp=0&subid=1 TRNC National Assembly (Legislature) (2009). TRNC. Retrieved 23 September, 2009, from http://www.cm.gov.nc.tr TRNC Prime Ministry (2009). TRNC. Retrieved 27 September, 2009, from http://www.kktcbas bakanlik.org TRNC State Planning Organization (2009). TRNC. Retrieved 28 September, 2009, from http://www.devplan.org United Nations and American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) (2002). Benchmarking e-government: A global perspective. New York: U.N. Publications. West, D. M. (2005). Digital government: Technology and public sector performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Yildiz, M. (2009). E-Government policy processes from a grounded theory perspective: The case of Turkey. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing. Zevedos, R. (2006). Local e-Government: Reconstructing Limassol’s municipality (Cyprus) web site to provide functional and effective e-services. Dissertation. The University of Sheffield.

Chapter 22

SCRAN’s Development of a Trans-national Comparator for the Standardisation of E-government Services Mark Deakin

This chapter focuses on the SmartCities inter-Regional Academic Network set up to support the development of e-gov(ernment) services across the North Sea. It pays particular attention to SCRAN’s configuration of the triple helix and the webservices assembled to support the development of a trans-national comparator for the standardisation of eGov services as transformative business-to-citizen developments. It suggests these trans-national developments are significant for the reason they reveal university involvement in such ventures need not be a top-down exercise in the generation of intellectual capital, or creation of wealth, but can be a bottomup action in building the social capital required for eGov services to regulate the production of knowledge.

1 Introduction The following is drawn from the capacity-building outcomes of the North Sea Interreg 4B project (2007–2013) known as SmartCities.1 It begins by outlining the inter-regional academic network set up to serve the project and goes on to set out how SCRAN builds the capacity for three-way partnerships between universities, industry and government to be smart. Smart in the sense three-way partnerships of this kind make it possible for cities to meet their eGov service development commitments as part of a regional innovation system. The first part of the chapter examines SCRAN’s reconstruction of the triple helix as a socially embedded model of university–industry–government relations. The second part of the chapter focuses on what is smart about this reinvention of cities and draws attention to the “trans-national comparator” developed for standardising their eGov service developments. This index is then deployed as a means to M. Deakin (B) Centre for Learning Communities, Academic Development, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK e-mail: [email protected] 1 http://www.northsearegion.eu/ivb/projects/details/&tid=84


425

426

M. Deakin

benchmark how far this reinvention of cities is smart. The third part of the chapter draws attention to the social basis of this reinvention and online service developments needed for such an electronic enhancement of cities to be smart in meeting the democratic requirements of their regional innovation systems.

2 The Academic Networking of Smartcities Figure 22.1 draws attention to the academic network underpinning the SmartCities venture. In this respect it identifies the network of academic institutions, their city partners and the specific role they in turn take in supporting SCRAN. As can be seen, for Edinburgh Napier University the main object of attention is methodology and for Mechelen (MEMORI), the object of the exercise is to help the communities of Kortrijk (citizens and business) customise the development of their eGov services provision. In this respect, each academic institution (university) within SCRAN is expected to work alongside industry and government, contributing specific expertise towards the development of their eGov service programmes.

2.1 SCRAN as a Three-Way Partnership The tripartite nature of the SmartCities partnership also goes some way to capture SCRAN’s particular take on the triple helix and draws attention to the scientific and technological basis of the work embarked upon. This shall be explored in terms of the partnership’s ability to assemble a methodology that is capable of not only customising the development of the eGov services, but co-designing them in a way which allows the user-profiles of this constituency to be mainstreamed across the North Sea region.

2.2 Brief Overview of the Triple Helix As the main exponents of the triple helix, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000, 2002) offer a particularly insightful critique of so-called “mode 2” accounts of innovation, but limit their representation of the model to those institutional relations surrounding “University, Industry and Government” involvement in the knowledge economy of regional systems. Here attention focuses on the production of knowledge by universities and industry as an index of intellectual capital. That tied up in the artefacts of innovations which are patented by industry and licensed in line with the standards laid down by Government to regulate such developments. While offering many critical insights into the political economy of the triple helix, it is also noticeable these studies reveal little about either the social basis

22

SCRAN’s Development of a Trans-national Comparator

427

The SmartCities partners • The map identifies each academic institution in the SmartCities project, their City partners and the specific role they take on within SCRAN.

Academic

• Here each academic organisation and City partner contributes to the knowledge-base needed for them to learn about eGov service developments and support their customisation, multichannelling and userprofiling.

Edinburgh Napier

• It is the three-way partnership between the University, Industry and Government that captures the science and technology underlying the ‘triplehelix’of SmartCities and regional innovation system they support

organisation of the SmartCities venture Methodology: University Karlstad Univ. Karlstad Kommunl Agder Univ.

Customisation: Mechelin/MEMORI Kortrijk

Kristiansand and Lillesand

Agder University Kristiansand-Lillesand

Napier Univ. City of Edinburgh

Karlstad University

Council

Karlstad Kommuni Multi-channel access: Oldenburg Univ. Groningen Univ.

Bremerhaven

Gemeente Groningen

Osterholz-Scharmbeck

Groningen University Oldenburg University Gemeente Groningen

IDeA UK

Bremerhaven

Norfolk

Osterholz-Scharmbeck Mechelen Univ. (Memori) Kortrijk

User Profiling: Porism/ESD Norfolk Council

Fig. 22.1 Academic organisation of SmartCity partner(s) Notes: (1) With this three-way partnership, the universities are represented by Edinburgh Napier, Agder, Mechelin/MEMORI and Groingen. The industrial contribution is secured through Porism/ESD and governments are represented by way of Kortrijk, Geemeente Groingen, Bremerharven, Osterholz-Shammbeck and Norfolk. (2) While this suggests the industrial contribution is somewhat limited in relation to the other institutional representations, such input is procured through the “academies” set up to support the industry’s contribution to the eGov service developments. This has resulted in CISCO, Microsoft and BT, all making a contribution to the SmartCities venture. These contributions shall also be further augmented through the SCRAN’s commissioning of “white papers” from leading ICT consultancies

of university, industry and government involvement, or the technical infrastructures of their regional innovation systems. Studies of the triple helix that are socially grounded and built on the technical infrastructures of university, industry and government relations are particularly difficult to find and as a consequence, little is currently known about the way in which they support the development of regional innovation systems. The tendency which such studies display to focus on the university and industry of regional innovation systems and ignore the technical infrastructures of government, has in turn led some to question the usefulness

428

M. Deakin

of the triple helix as a well grounded and secure model of knowledge production. Jensen and Tragardh (2004), Jauhiainen and Suorsa (2008) and Smith (2007), have all recently begun to raise such concerns about the triple helix and question the usefulness of the model. In particular, the value of the triple helix as a model of regional innovation systems geared towards knowledge production.

2.3 SCRAN’s Take on the Triple Helix To overcome these concerns, it is clear SCRAN’s take on the triple helix needs to develop practical guidelines on how to use the triple helix and these require to take account of not only the social basis, or technical infrastructures of the model, but all three strands of the helix, i.e. university, industry and government alike. In methodological terms, the challenge this poses means SCRAN has to account for how the triple helix of SmartCities can be modelled to institutionalise the production of knowledge: • internally (i.e. as a smart city); • externally as part of a regional innovation system; • systematically as part of a “step-wise logic” able to invert the normal representation of the triple helix and; • achieve such an inversion of the model by representing the • triple helix of smart cities; • the social capital of such knowledge production; • the collaboration that is needed for the intellectual capital of universities and wealth creation of industry to be smart in constructing the advantage that information and communication technologies (ICTs) offer cities to learn about how their communities can meet the informational challenges which the technical infrastructures associated with such online service development commitments pose; • the consensus building needed for the “inversion” underlying such an electronically enhanced reinvention of cities to be smart in supporting the “trans-national” standards regulating this development; • the practical application of such standards in building the capacity required for this reinvention of cities to be post-transactional. That is to say, posttransactional in the sense which business and citizen communities are able to participate in the development of such electronically enhanced services and align them with user-profiles capable of being mainstreamed by way of smart cities and through the North Sea’s regional innovation system. The unique nature of this academic network rests with understanding that triplehelix models are not limited to concerns which revolve around the theoretically informed research of technical development opportunities, but methodology. In particular the construction of a methodology capable of accounting for the social capital

22


429

available to learn about how cities can be (come) smart. This is because for SCRAN, research and technical development is not the network’s raison d’être. This lies elsewhere and with the advantage the academic network manages to construct as the social capital (Halpern, 2005) underpinning the technologies of this particular community (Deakin & Allwinkle, 2007). In particular those assembled to support what industry can learn about the government of knowledge production (Riemer & Klien, 2008). Set within such a terms of reference, SCRAN’s particular task is to search out the potential advantage which the intellectual capital of the knowledge-base underlying this learning community is able to construct as a platform for wealth creation. That is to say, as a platform supporting the creation of wealth by industry and which government in turn regulates the development of.

2.4 Configuring the SmartCities Triple Helix Figure 22.2 sets out SCRAN’s attempt to overcome the methodological challenges such a process of knowledge production raises and offers an initial representation of the triple helix this network advances to meet them. In semantic terms the three institutional dimensions of universities, industry and government are represented as the intellectual capital, wealth creation and regulative standards of knowledge production within the North Sea’s regional innovation system. Set out as an actor-network matrix of such institutional relations, it is universities, industry and government which make up the columns of the matrix and their respective contributions to the generation of intellectual capital, wealth creation and regulative standards of the developments that make up the knowledge production of the left hand row. While the specific guidance available from Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000, 2002) is particularly limited here, Fig. 22.2 does take a lead from Leydesdorff (2006) and Etzkowitz’s (2008) configurations of the triple helix and so-called “geometries” of the model’s reflexive qualities. Here these reflexive qualities are configured as a three-by-three matrix of university–industry–government relations. That is as the building blocks of a social network with a knowledge-base which in turn generates the intellectual capital needed for the wealth created by industry to be smart.

2.5 The Step-Wise Logic This first institutional step into a formal representation of SCRAN’s triple helix is then given content by means of the analytical spaces the matrix opens up for the SmartCities venture and opportunity this in turn provides for the threeway partnership to integrate them as part of the North Sea’s regional innovation system. This networking of SmartCities as a regional innovation system in turn relates the universities engaged in the generation of intellectual capital, industry involved in the creation of wealth and government regulating the standards of the online service

430

M. Deakin

Triple-helix model for SmartCities University

Industry

Regulative Standards

Government

regions

Line of Understanding

User-profiling of business-tocitizen eGov service developments

cities

Wealth Creation

Multichannelling

Learning Curve

Intellectual Capital

Knowledge Arch

networks

Social

Customisation

Communal

Environmental

Fig. 22.2 The triple helix of SmartCities 1 Notes: (1) Unlike most triple-helix studies that rest upon the knowledge economy of information society, this representation is not set in the fundamental, or strategic research (“blue-sky”, or “applied”) domain of either a pre-dominantly science and technology, or entrepreneurial-led University, but the intellectual capital which is generated from their “third mission” outreach into social networks as the knowledge-base of wealth creation. (2) The intellectual capital embedded in these social networks offers the technological basis to begin understanding how industry organise communities so it becomes possible for them to learn about how they can manage the knowledge invested in this process of wealth creation. (3) The intellectual capital of this wealth creation in turn calls for government involvement in setting the standards for eGov service developments to regulate this process. (4) This wealth of intellect in turn offers the depth of academic understanding, social learning and communal knowledge needed for the development of eGov services to regulate all of this a part of a regional innovation system. (5) This is why the focus of this triple helix is on the knowledge-base of those learning platforms supporting cities, rather than understanding the standards of regulation governing regional innovation systems. That knowledge and learning which takes place here by way of cities and through the industry of their wealth creation. The industry of their wealth creation which is seen to be smart for the reason it is these communities that offer the means (intellectual capital of socially embedded networks and industry of wealth creation) to understand the nature of the developments in question. That is as the network’s customisation, cities’ multi-channelling and user-profiling of those businesses-to-citizen application which make up this regional innovation system. (6) In many respects this (re)modelling of the triple helix as a process of knowledge production, generated by way of networked cities and through the wealth created from their industry, i.e. communities out with, but as a set of standards integral to the governance of their regional innovation system, does what Jensen and Tragardh (2004), Jauhiainen and Suorsa (2008) and Smith (2007) ask of it

22


431

developments (i.e. the generation of wealth from the development of electronically enhanced services), back to those actors associating with one another as members of a community. Step 2 of the representation captures this in terms of the wealth created and what the community contributes to this. This process of knowledge production is represented as a platform of wealth creation regulated by government. All of this is then captured as step 3 and represented in the far right hand column. This is shown in terms of what the wealth created contributes to the development of eGov services as part of a regional innovation system. That is, not only by way of any customisation generated from this process of knowledge production, but through the wealth which this creates from the co-design of their online service developments. Online service developments with electronic enhancements that are in turn regulated in line with the (environment of) user-profiles which make up the North Sea’s regional innovation system.

2.6 Inverting the Normal Representation and “Turning Things Upside Down” Revealing how the triple helix of the SmartCities venture can be organised to be so systematic, however, is not so simple. This is because proving the model needs to be socially inclusive, equitable and justly participative requires the academic network to first “invert” the normal representation of their institutional relations. For without “turning things upside down”, it is not possible for the intellectual capital of universities to be deployed in bottoming-out the social networks that make up the knowledge-base of such “third mission” learning communities. Those which industry in turn organises as the “intellectual wealth” of smart cities and standards the development of online services by government is in turn based on. Online services can be in turn used as a measure of all that is socially inclusive, equitable and justly participative. Socially inclusive, equitable and justly participative in generating the intellectual capital upon which wealth is not only created by industry, but regulated by the electronically enhanced service developments government also promotes for such purposes. Figure 22.3 offers SCRAN’s attempt to do just this by presenting a second-order configuration of the triple helix. For this configuration shows the university as being responsible for building the capacity of the enterprise architecture and business models of their third mission ventures to act as a platform for cities to be smart in co-designing the development of eGov services with customised, multi-channelled access, also capable of targeting specific user-profiles as part of the North Sea’s regional innovation system. Represented in this way, it is possible to specific about the institutional duties and responsibilities of SCRAN’s triple helix. For, as Fig. 22.3 shows, while the work packaged together under the titles of: methodology, customisation, co-design and user-profiling, provides the backdrop for SCRAN’s terms of reference, it is

432

M. Deakin

Userprofiling

Triple-helix of knowledgebased learning and generation of intellectual capital

Wealth Creation Curve

Monitoring& evaluation

Codesign

Built on Edinburgh Conference: towards Smarter Cities

Capacity building

Arch

March 2009

Intellectual Capital

Underpinned by

Multichannelling

Enterprise architecture Business modelling and Capacity building for the customisation, co-design of multichannelled access and both monitoring and evaluation of eGov services by userprofiles

omisation

http://smartcities.info/wiki/

Fig. 22.3 The triple helix of SmartCities 2

not proposed the SmartCities venture should cover all of them as components of the North Sea’s regional innovation system. Rather it suggests SCRAN should use the triple-helix model as a means to cut across them, concentrating the social capital of the network’s knowledge-base on learning about building the capacity needed for cities to be smart in supporting the co-design, monitoring and evaluation requirements of eGov service development programmes. Organised in this way, it is possible to see the geometry of both the knowledgearch and learning curve SCRAN lays down for understanding this venture. What this also serves to illustrate is the academic network’s particular take on the institutionalisation of the model. In particular the fact this configuration of knowledge production is grounded in and built off • the social network of a given knowledge-base that allows universities to take the lead in generating the wealth of industry and underpin this by way of their enterprise architecture and through the business model which supports the SmartCities venture; • those enterprise architectures and business models that are particularly important for the venture because they offer a platform for the associated capital of the communities which the network serves to learn about what this process of customisation, co-design and multi-channelling means and for the reason

22


433

such instruments also provide a way to not only monitor, but evaluate the implementation of eGov service developments as part of a regional innovation system.

3 Reaching Above the Baseline Of course, for universities to be part of something more than an informal social network means the academic content of the intellectual capital associated with any such learning community demands a pedagogy. In particular a pedagogy capable of generating a knowledge of what is needed for the wealth created by industry to be advantageous in meeting the requirement for cities to be smart. The content of this learning community in turn serves to provide a platform for what might be best termed: the critical “building-blocks” of smart cities and eGov service developments such programmes rest on. As critical components of smart cities they all need to be linked together and connected with one another. It is the networking of the social capital that underlies this process of knowledge production and which might best be referred to as the SmartCities learning community.

3.1 The Question of Measurement It goes without saying that any claim made about networks being innovative has to extend beyond the name by which they are known as. That is to say beyond the notion of an “inter-regional academic network” and into the means by which it is deployed by the SmartCities “partnership” to develop eGov services. To do this the networks in question need to baseline the said developments and use the outcomes of this assessment as a means to measure how far the partnership reaches above such benchmarks. Fortunately, a series of such benchmarking type studies are available to baseline eGov service developments and use this as a means to measure what this particular inter-regional academic network is doing when compared against others situated elsewhere. As benchmarking exercises these surveys of eGov developments are both technical and social. The former offer frameworks by which to analyse how well the technical challenges that such development pose have been met, the latter the type of services available to citizens as members of civil society. What unites them is the four-stage model of such developments they all adopt for the benchmarking and use of the same as a baseline comparator. While their technical assessment is merely of the platform for eGov service developments, the social evaluation offers a measure of the same by nation-state, region and city. Cutting across the member-states making up the North Sea, their regions and cities, these indices provide what might best be referred to as a “transnational comparator” of eGov service developments and approximate measure of them as “transformative business-to-citizen applications” across the North Sea.

434

M. Deakin

These measures are valuable for the reason they provide an index of what the ongoing transformation of eGov services in western liberal democracies add up to and because they indicate how their integration (technologically) into the backoffice functions (of the business sector) relates to citizens (as members of civil society) situated as a user-community at the front-end. For now these comparators of eGov service developments, i.e. as both technical and social infrastructures need not take the three-way partnership of the triple helix into account. Those particularly innovative qualities that mark this system of provision out as an exception to the rule shall be drawn out later, not as part of the baseline, but as a measure of how such infrastructures “reach above” this as a standard bearer of their own. Once it has been possible to account for this, the outcome of the assessment shall be compared against this baseline to evaluate how the development of eGov services measure up in relation to other modes of provision. The baseline surveys used for this trans-national comparator are drawn from technical and social reviews of “e-readiness” and “e-inclusion”. In particular the reviews advanced by Torres, Pina and Royo (2005) and Lee, Tan, and Trimmi (2006) on the technical challenges and those offered by Torres, Vicente and Basilio (2005) and Paskaleva (2008, 2009) on the social.

3.2 The Trans-national Comparator Reviewing the legal systems associated with the administration of nation-states, Torres, Pina et al. (2005, p. 219) state: In Western-style democracies there are three broad styles of public management: AngloAmerican, Nordic, and European continental, the second of which is considered by some to be a mix of Anglo-American and European continental types. Anglo-American countries emphasise efficiency, effectiveness, and value for money. They are more likely to introduce market mechanisms and notions of competitiveness and envisage the citizen primarily as a consumer of services, as a client. This group includes Ireland and the UK. The Nordic countries also belong to a public administration style concerned with meeting citizens’ needs. Local governments have moved away from the Weberian form of bureaucracy and have a tradition of negotiation and consultation. The search for efficiency and effectiveness involves satisfying citizens’ wishes. This group includes Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and the Netherlands.

Using the typology of administrative systems put forward by Torres, Pina et al. (2005), it is evident those democracies in the North Sea roughly approximate to the Nordic (Norse, Danish, Swedish and Finish) nation-states and are a mix of AngloAmerican (United Kingdom) and European Continental administrations (those of Netherlands, Germany and Belgium). As such they are said to have the following characteristics: be consumer-centred, client orientated, citizen-based, consultative and increasingly deliberative in their search for efficiency and effectiveness from the development of eGov services. Torres, Pina et al. (2005) have gone on to use these characteristics as a means to review the e-readiness of each European member-state and assess levels of provision

22


435

in terms of both the depth and breadth of the service available on city Websites over a threshold population of 500,000. The outcomes of this exercise have in turn been used to construct a “maturity index” of such developments. Using this index of eGov service development, the exercise uncovers three “city groupings”. These are the • Innovative group: with a strong position in delivering services online (up to 60% of total) and good situation with respect to the stages of development, i.e. informational, interactive and transactional. • Steady achiever: offering great potential for the development of the Internet, but with a limited range of online services (between 45 and 30%). • Platform builders: Websites offering the lowest level of services online and benefits to citizens (less than 30%, with little more than the power to offer information). Within this classification of city Websites, all those within the North Sea fall into the “steady achiever” category with modest online presence, either at the informational, interactive or transactional level of provision.

3.3 The Standardisation of eGov Services Using this index, it is evident those cities which are classed “innovative” are such because they have overcome many of the technical challenges online service provision raises for the back-office and have made it possible for business to get over 50% of their electronic enhancements to the front-line, where they can be accessed by citizens. The technical challenges are those which Lee et al. (2006) draw particular attention to and that go under the broad category of customisation—that category which includes customer-related management (CRM), value-chain management, interoperability, enterprise architecture and business models. They are, of course, those challenges thrown up by the shift from level 1 and 2 and towards stage 3 as online transactions to citizens as members of civil society (Fig. 22.4). What Torres, Pina et al. (2006) and Paskaleva (2008, 2009) are also keen to draw attention to is something perhaps even more obvious, but all too easy to overlook. That is to say, what they also indicate about the next stage of development. For as their reviews go on to emphasise, what is perhaps most noticeable about these benchmarks is the absence of any notable stage 4 online service developments and implications which this has for the democratisation of provision. Reviewing these trends and surveying the attitudes of cities towards the possibilities of e-democracy, Torres, Pina et al. (2005, p. 11–12) find little commitment towards the development of electronic consultations and deliberation services as forms of direct participation. For as they state, few Websites show clear signs of e-democracy and costumer case handling services. While some benefits may be visible in terms of increasing citizens’ choice and facilities of access

436

M. Deakin

interoperability interoperability

Technical Technical

Integration Integration of of services services

3 online online service service provision provision

2 product product catalogue catalogue

1

interaction interaction

information information

4

democratise democratise

transaction transaction

Social Social Adapted from: Torres, Pina et al. (2005) Lee et al. (2006) Deakin (2009)

Fig. 22.4 Stages of eGov online service developments

to services, it is not clear whether local e-government is increasing citizen participation or having impact in terms of e-democracy. . . . . .Although ICTs could effectively develop all three roles there is a systematic bias which favours service delivery applications and do not pay sufficient attention to others.

Torres, Pina et al. (2005) indicate there are two possible explanations for this and together they go some way to capture the challenge the steady achievers in the North Sea currently confront. The first is the continuation of online services developments so as to cover all of those currently delivered by traditional means. The second is perhaps best defined as the “extensification” of such developments as new services that cities have not previously offered and when online have functional boundaries which reach beyond their own territories and into those shared with regional authorities.2 The usefulness of this classification cannot be underestimated because while the continuation of online service development is driven by an internal agenda (i.e. between the administration and their constituents), their intensification is the product of an external agenda set for the development. For these online service developments are seen to be the outcome of agenda setting exercises driven by the EU and their member-states and administered by cities in conjunction with their regions under the heading of “local strategic partnerships”. Those types of 2 Paskaleva-Shapira (2008, 2009) also makes the same point about the relative under-development of e-democratic services.

22


437

partnerships for which it is important to note, no online services currently exist, so in that sense are new and as such, developments incorporating a mix of state and independent contributions from a varied range of so-called “third sector” stakeholders. In strategic partnerships of this kind, such developments are no longer seen as one of simply “copy, replace and supersede”, but “innovate” and do so for the reason such a “step-change” in the provision of online services is “creative” in defining, assembling, introducing and adopting the electronic enhancement in question. Not—it ought to be stressed—on the basis of their underlying technical, but overriding social value. That is not on the technical, but social value which this adds to the user-communities lying at the centre of the exercise. It is here with the multi-channelled provision of access to such developments and user-profiling of their communities, that we begin to witness the emergence of not just customer-focussed, but user-centric notions of online services. Notions of customer-focussed and user-centric online services whose electronic enhancements are said to be co-designed through—what is for all intents and purposes—a participative process of consultations and deliberation. For it is here and perhaps more so than anywhere else, we begin to see the transition from level 3 to stage 4 as a less bureaucratic and more democratic development. Less bureaucratic and more democratic in the sense the development perhaps best represents the shared enterprise and joint venture of a community attempting to put theory into practice. That is to say the product of a community attempting to “modernise” online services as electronically enhanced business-to-citizen applications. In particular, as business-to-citizen applications developed in line with the accountability, openness and transparency, vis-à-vis governance standards which are associated with such a mode of provision.

3.4 Transformative Business-to-Citizen Applications Across the North Sea The aforesaid also serves to map out both the functional and territorial boundaries of the online service development city administrations face in meeting their aspirations to be smart. That is for them to be innovative in their deployment of ICTs as a way of underpinning eGov service developments and creative means by which to support the democratisation of their provision. This also goes some way to make sense of why the triple helix lies at the centre of such an innovative system and those online services being developed under the three-way partnership. For it is here universities, industry and government partner with one another in producing a knowledge of how this community of practice can learn to exploit the intelligence this generates. In particular the intelligence it generates and industry can in turn exploit to create wealth from the business sector’s (user-centric and customer-focussed) customisation of online service developments for citizens and application of such electronic enhancements as the means for government to regulate the democratisation of service provision.

438

M. Deakin

Underlying such business-to-citizen applications is the task each of these institutions performs in the transformation. For here it is the task of the university to consolidate the means (intellectual capital) by which it is possible for cities to be smart in making it possible for industry to reach beyond the baseline, that is, build the capacity by which the “steady achievers” can become an “innovative group” in moving beyond level 1, 2 and 3 and towards stage 4. This in turn provides an opportunity for industry to exploit the wealth of knowledge this creates as an infrastructure for communities to learn about the co-design possibilities of this transformation in business-to-citizen applications. Those possibilities that in turn relate to the democratisation of online service development by cities and electronic enhancements which government is tasked with the responsibility of regulating the use of across the regional innovation system. It is the triple helix that underlies these environments which the three-way partnership supports. What it supports is a network capable of not only institutionalising such workspaces, but using the social technologies of Web 2.0 communications as the infrastructure, supporting cities in their bid to become smart.3

4 The Network Triple-helix models of this kind have very particular network demands. They place specific (inter)organisational demands on the intellectual capital, wealth creation and the regulation of service development programmes. It is therefore, perhaps fortunate the IntelCities CoP provides a reference point for the SmartCities partnership to draw upon and use as the basis to organise SCRAN as a network of social capital supporting their knowledge production.4 The key factors distinguishing SCRAN from the other aforementioned networks are as follows: • here the university engagement is not a top-down exercise in the generation of intellectual capital or creation of wealth, but in the “third mission” building up of social capital as a platform for the production of knowledge by communities for learning about how cities can exploit the developments eGov services offer to regulate this process. • as such their involvement can be said to be bottomed-out on the networking of social capital. That grounded within the third mission logic of social inclusion and community participation, normally out with the domain of the triple helix. • undercutting previous representations of the helix, the object of this exercise might be said to be that of networking social capital as a knowledge-base for

3 All of this is in accord with the line of understanding, knowledge arch and learning curve of the triple helix for SmartCities set out in Figures 1 and 2 and assessment of the baseline as a standard measure of SCRAN’s capacity building exercises. 4 This community of practice is reported on in Deakin and Allwinkle (2005, 2006), Deakin, Allwinkle, and Campbell (2006a, 2006b) and Deakin (2009).

22


439

communities to learn about how industry can be smart in organising cities to become smart(er) creators of wealth. • networked as the associated capital of Web 2.0 technologies, the object of such learning communities can be said as being to work smarter not harder! Smarter not harder, gauged in terms of the underlying social, not technical value of the intellectual capital they generate as the basis to support wealth creation. That intellectual capital which is of particular value for the reason this generates the means for the knowledge produced by these learning communities to be codified. Not left as tacit every-day knowledge to be exploited as the regular events of routine practices, but made explicit as codes with sufficient critical insight to be exceptional in the sense they build the capacity needed to override embedded economic interests and grant civil society the democratic power required to govern such developments as part of a regional innovation system. Using these critical insights this section of the chapter aims to underline the value of SCRAN’s particular take on the triple helix by outlining the practicalities of the socially grounded model generated to secure the intellectual capital of the SmartCities venture. This is done by way of reference to the old adage, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and by providing evidence of this through a demonstration of how this is done, not so much in theoretical as practical terms. As such what follows under this sub-heading seeks to offer an account of the practical realities needing to be given full consideration when using the social networking opportunities Web 2.0 technologies offer as a basis to build the knowledge infrastructures, enterprise architectures and business models required for such purposes. In particular those communities can draw upon to learn about what cities need to be smart in meeting the requirements eGov service developments set for them.

4.1 The Shared Enterprise and Joint Venture While this vision maybe the enterprise shared across the partnership, the collaboration underpinning such a joint venture needs to be constructed through consensus building. This is because building consensus is pivotal in making it possible for the members of networked communities to learn about what works in the development of eGov services. Such learning in turn hinges on them being able to relay what they know about both the wealth creation and governance opportunities underlying all of this onto others as part of the “democratic body” supporting any such mainstreaming exercise.5

5 The democratic qualities attending the social body of these spaces are something which tend to be overlooked by those prioritising the community and environmental components of such developments. We argue the ‘demos’ of such ventures is something that should not be ignored because their body of knowledge includes practices which are both representative and directly participative.

440

M. Deakin

4.2 The Workspaces The domains around which the network collaborates can be represented as a set of nested workspaces and communications between the core and periphery. At the centre there is the research and technical development carried out by SCRAN to support the work packages undertaken by members of the community to learn about what customisation, multi-channelling and user-profiling exercises tell us about such developments. These are what SCRAN refers to as the core workspaces. In particular, those spaces that account for the social capital which is packaged together and put to work by this particular learning community. This space is also extended further outwards so as to incorporate the North Sea’s regional innovation system. The final space is that which includes communications with all other agents outside the trans-national spaces of the North Sea, but within those margins of international exchange having a bearing on the production of such knowledge and what can be learnt from this process.

4.3 Web-Services Figure 22.5 shows the types of web-services SCRAN offers its members. As can be seen, it is proposed the services SCRAN makes available to partners within the Smart City venture should assist developing the social infrastructures for • setting up and running the partnership’s research and technical development activities; • management of the task groups set up to support such developments; • overseeing the work packages set up for such purposes; • the provision of expertise in areas of eGov service development agreed to be a priority for the project. Under the heading of capacity building it is proposed SCRAN should focus attention on the technical infrastructures and in particular those supporting the partnership’s enterprise architecture and business modelling. From here it is proposed SCRAN’s attention should turn to the co-design questions which currently surround the process of customisation and that offer multi-channelled access to the eGov services under development. In terms of the monitoring and evaluation, questions of particular relevance here relate to the degree these platforms • improve the quality of service provision through an enhanced customer experience; • better match customer needs with the required services;

441 Monitoring and evaluation

Co-design


Capacitybuilding

22

Information: -Website -html pages -news and events Collaboration: -e-mail -blog -activity planning Consensus building: -discussion boards -online voting Learning: -good practice -case studies -use cases Knowledge management: -glossary -digital library -search engine

Fig. 22.5 The web-services

• tackle the digital divide by using Web 2.0 social technologies as the media for widening access to online developments (via multi-channel access) and by being socially inclusive (democratic and participative) in co-designing such services; • employ these technologies as a way of being more efficient (cost-effective) in profiling the users of the services Fortunately, it is now possible to offer the intranet of academic organisations and local SmartCity partners a dedicated set of web-services. This software allows the users of these knowledge-based web-services to freely create and edit page content using any browser. They also support hyperlinks and have a simple syntax for creating new pages and cross-links between internal pages. Wikis are unusual communication systems in the sense they allow contributions to be edited. This should be seen as being creative in the way it allows civil society to democratise the use of the web- and eGov-service developments this in turn provides access to.

442

M. Deakin

Fig. 22.6 The SmartCities Wiki

4.4 Main Areas of the Site The research briefs take the wiki’s questioning framework further by providing a brief report on matters of key concern to SmartCities. So far five research briefs have been produced and they include the triple helix, co-design, customisation, multi-channelling and user-profiling, standards of communication and the enterprise architecture of those business models underlying eGov service developments.

22


443

The competency mapping breaks down into four distinct areas: building knowledge infrastructures, communications, best practice, communication and dissemination of research results. These are adopted as the collective competencies of SCRAN and knowledge-base this learning community contributes to the SmartCities venture. These competencies have also been cross-referenced to the eGov service developments listed on the epractice.eu cases database. This has been done to extract the state-of-the-art on such applications. Figure 22.7 shows the eGov domains these applications have sought to develop. Looking towards the lower left hand side of the illustration, it is evident the common denominators with the SmartCities venture rest with this online community’s focus on policy, e-services, multi-channelled access, the user-centric profiling of services and exchange of interoperable infrastructure technologies. Perhaps more significant is the noticeable absence of any reference to the enterprise architecture, or business model of such an open system, along with any notion of what it means to customise eGov services.6 For while the case studies go some way to highlight the need for core infrastructure developments (i.e. secure access and safety of personal data), it is evident they offer little by the way of critical insight into the underlying methodology of the socially inclusive agenda they highlight.

Fig. 22.7 Survey of epractice.eu

This lack of critical insight is significant insofar as it raises particular questions about civil society’s trust in the security of eGov services. In that sense they question

6 Only one case provides evidence of a service-orientated enterprise architecture for eGov developments and there are no references to any underlying business model.

444

M. Deakin

• whether they are safe enough to secure the services which SmartCities propose to customise; • if the multi-channel access this builds provides a platform strong enough to support the consultations and deliberation SmartCities seek to develop; • whether or not and if this provides the means to learn about the type of posttransactional services expected of such developments.

5 Conclusions This chapter has focussed on the inter-regional academic network supporting the development of the SmartCity project. Reflecting on the infrastructure of this particular innovation system, it has sought to configure SCRAN’s triple helix and set out the “step-wise” logic of their knowledge production. In meeting this aim, particular attention has also been drawn towards the networking of the triple helix and the web-services assembled to support the development of a trans-national comparator for the standardisation of eGov services as transformative business-to-citizen developments across the North Sea. The chapter has gone on to suggest these developments are significant for the reason they reveal university involvement in the SmartCities venture need not be a top-down exercise in the generation of intellectual capital or creation of wealth, but one in building the social capital required for the development of eGov services to regulate knowledge production as part of a regional innovation system. This is because here such involvement can be said to be bottomed-out on the networking of social capital. That is, bottomed-out, grounded and secured in the third mission logic of social inclusion and community participation which has tended to lie outside the confines of the triple helix. The chapter has also used this line of bottom-up reasoning to undercut the more conventional representations of the triple helix and switch attention to the networking possibilities of social capital. In particular the networking possibilities of social capital as a knowledge-base that is inclusive in the sense which it allows communities to participate in learning about how cities can become smart in exploiting the opportunities online service developments offer government to regulate such electronic enhancements as part of a regional innovation system. As the chapter has gone on to highlight, a series of eGov studies have been undertaken to baseline the development of such online services and these benchmarks have been used as a means to compare what is going on in the North Sea with those underway elsewhere. As the chapter has also uncovered, these surveys of eGov service development are both technical and social. The former revealing the frameworks to analyse the technical challenges online services pose, the latter the type of electronic enhancements such developments offer. This also highlights what unites them and importantly, exposes this to be a four-stage model advanced to benchmark the added value of e-democracy. That benchmark which manages to raise eGov service developments above the baseline and set a new standard.

22


445

While the technical assessment of this is merely of the platforms available for eGov service development, the social offers a measure of such applications by nation-state, region and city. Cutting across these developments within the member-states of the North Sea Region, such measures provide cities with a “transnational comparator” of the “smart” eGov services currently being developed as “transformative business-to-citizen” applications. The possibility there is for all these developments becoming real and in that sense capable of realising the democratisation which they are themselves the harbinger of, has itself been shown to rest on the networks of social capital embedded in Web 2.0 technologies. Web 2.0 technologies whose socially inclusive and participatory qualities provide a basis for communities to learn about how to work smarter not harder. Work smarter, not harder in terms of the intellectual capital which learning communities generate as the basis for wealth creation and that is of particular social value for the reason the “wealth of intellect” produced makes it possible for this knowledge to be codified. That is not left as the tacit every-day knowledge to be exploited as the regular events of routine practices, but which is made explicit as codes with sufficient critical insight to be exceptional. To be exceptional • for the reason their codification reveals how communities can work with industry in building the capacity that is needed for cities to be smart; • because the exploitation of such opportunities is itself key in unlocking the potential which online services have to develop as electronic enhancements with the capacity to transform civil society. In that sense transform civil society by providing the democratic power which is required for the electronic enhancements of business-to-citizen applications to govern over this transformation as part of a regional innovation system. Using these critical insights, the chapter has gone on to underline the value of SCRAN’s particular take on the triple helix by outlining the practicalities of the model. This has been done in the interest of proving the old adage, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and to evidence this by offering a demonstration of the way this is done, not in so much theoretical as in practical terms. As such this provides a useful account of the practical realities needing to be given full consideration when using Web 2.0 technologies as the underlying knowledge-base. That knowledgebase which in this instance, not only supports the enterprise architectures of the business models, but the communities who want to use them as a means to learn about how cities can become smart. In particular how they can become smart in meeting the democratic requirements of their eGov service developments.

References Amin, A., & Cohendet, P. (2004). Architectures of knowledge. Oxon: Oxford University Press. Deakin, M. (2009). The IntelCities community of practice: the eGov services model for sociallyinclusive and participatory urban regeneration programmes. In C. Riddeck (Ed.), Research strategies for eGovernment service adoption. Hershey: Idea Group Publishing.

446

M. Deakin

Deakin, M., & Allwinkle, S. (2005). The IntelCities eLearning platform, knowledge management system and digital library for semantically interoperable e-Governance Services. In P. Cunningham (Ed.), Innovation and the knowledge economy: Issues, applications and case studies. Washington: ISO Press. Deakin, M., & Allwinkle, S. (2006). The IntelCities community of practice: the e-learning platform, knowledge management system and digital library for semantically-interoperable e-governance services. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 6(3), 155–162. Deakin, M. & Allwinkle, S. (2007). Urban regeneration and sustainable communities: The role of networks, innovation and creativity in building successful partnerships. Journal of Urban Technology, 14(1), 77–91. Deakin, M., Allwinkle, S., & Campbell, F. (2006a). The IntelCities e-Learning platform, knowledge management system and digital library for semantically rich e-governance services. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 2(8), 31–38. Deakin, M., Allwinkle, S., & Campbell, F. (2006b). The IntelCities community of practice: the eGov services for socially-inclusive and participatory urban regeneration programmes. In P. Cunningham (Ed.), Innovation and the knowledge economy: Issues, applications and case studies. Washington: ISO Press. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government Innovation in Action. Oxon: Routledge. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123 Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (Ed.). (2002). Universities and the global knowledge economy NIP: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations continuum. London: International Publishing Group Ltd. Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Bristol: Polity Press. Jauhiainen, J., & Suorsa, K. (2008). Triple helix in the periphery: the case of Multipolis in Northern Finland. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1(2), 285–301. Jensen, C. & Tragardh, B. (2004) Narrating the triple helix concept in weak regions: Lessons from Sweden. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(5), 513–530. Lee, L., Tan. X., & Trimmi, S. (2006). Current practices of leading e-government countries. Communications of the ACM, 48(10), 100–104. Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The knowledge-based economy: Modelled, measured, simulated. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers. Paskaleva-Shapira, K. (2008). Assessing local e-governance in Europe. International Journal of Electronic Governance Research, 4(4), 17–36. Paskaleva-Shapira, K. (2009). Enabling the smart city: The progress of city e-governance in Europe. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(4), 405–422. Riemer, K., & Klein, S. (2008). Is the V-form the next generation organisation? An analysis of challenges, pitfalls and remedies of ICT-enabled virtual organisations based on social capital theory. Journal of Information Technology, 23(2), 147–162. Smith, H. (2007). Universities, innovation, and territorial development: A review of the evidence. Environment and Planning C, 23(1), 98–1414. Torres, L., Pina, V., & Royo, S. (2005). E-government and the transformation of public administration, in EU countries. Online Information Review, 29, 1–34. Torres, L., Vicente, P., & Basilio, A. (2005). E-government developments on delivering public services among EU cities. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 217–238.

Part III

Innovations and Emerging Technologies

Chapter 23

Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Survey Sukumar Ganapati

Although Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) efforts have grown worldwide, there is a gap in the literature on implications of PPGIS for public administration. This chapter aims to narrow this gap through a literature survey of the PPGIS implications for government agencies. GIS technology has progressively advanced from traditional desktop-based GIS to Web GIS and Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms. The advancements have broadened GIS accessibility from the domain of expert users to the domain of lay citizens. Four major aspects are identified with respect to PPGIS implications for local e-government: the significance of context; technical GIS concerns; the institutional structure of participatory decision-making processes; and empowerment. The chapter highlights how these four aspects influence differential PPGIS efforts at the local level internationally, despite the greater technological accessibility. Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) broadly refers to the participatory mechanisms involving the general public facilitated by GIS. It evolved mainly during the early 1990s when researchers broadened their focus from the technical to the social uses of GIS (Obermeyer, 1998; Pickles, 1995). The researchers argued that the technical focus on software and hardware enhancements of GIS sidelined the social and cultural implications of GIS use. Many geographers, planners, and community organizations familiar with GIS began to adopt the technology for local decisionmaking processes. In particular, community organizations were quick to adopt GIS to substantiate their advocacy efforts. Despite the international growth of PPGIS literature, public administration scholars and practitioners have not paid much attention to the implications of PPGIS implementation in local e-government. This chapter aims to narrow this gap through a literature survey of PPGIS implementation across different countries. It

S. Ganapati (B) Public Administration Department, PCA 363B School of International and Public Affairs, College of Arts and Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA e-mail: [email protected]


449

450

S. Ganapati

is important to fill this gap in literature since public participation is a central concern for e-government scholars (Garson, 2006) and e-democracy is posited as an advanced stage of most e-government models (Siau & Long, 2005). Enhancing public participation has also been a standing theme in public administration literature (Cunningham, 1972; Walters, Aydelotte, & Miller, 2000). Technologically, there are three broad waves in the evolution of PPGIS: the desktop-based GIS; Web-based GIS; and Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms. The technological advancements have progressively eased the accessibility of GIS from the domain of expert users to that of ordinary citizens. With the technological evolution of GIS, the prospects for PPGIS have indeed expanded over the last decade. Based on the literature survey, I highlight four major aspects of PPGIS that have emerged internationally, all of which are relevant for the evolution of PPGIS in local e-government functions in different countries. The four aspects are: the significance of context; technical GIS concerns; the institutional structure of participatory decision-making processes; and empowerment. Political, legal, cultural, and other contextual differences between countries provide the broader environmental condition in which PPGIS is adopted. Technical GIS differences (e.g., the spatial data infrastructure) and digital divide also influence PPGIS adoption. Institutional structures for enabling participatory decision-making processes are still in their infancy. Lastly, empowerment is the major objective of many PPGIS efforts, but there is much scope for using PPGIS to achieve such higher levels of participation. The rest of the chapter is organized as follows. The subsequent section outlines an overview of PPGIS. Then, the technological evolution of PPGIS is described. After this, the four major aspects of PPGIS are examined based on a literature survey. The last section concludes with a summary of the major implications for PPGIS use in local e-government.

1 PPGIS—An Overview The use of GIS by government agencies has grown exponentially since the 1980s across the world. In the United States, GIS became a commonly accepted tool in the 1990s as the share of local governments adopting GIS rose steadily from 20% in 1990 to nearly 88% in 1997 (Drummond & French, 2008). With the growth of the Internet, over 60% of the municipal Web sites provide “data-rich, highly interactive GIS features” over the Web (Kaylor, 2005, p. 21). Community-based organizations have also increasingly adopted GIS to strengthen their informational base and to enhance their advocacy stance with public agencies (Ramasubramanian, 2009; Sawicki & Peterman, 2002). Although there are variations among European countries, GIS adoption among local and provincial agencies grew substantially during the 1990s, some of which was driven by funding from the European Commission (Masser & Craglia, 1996). Masser and Craglia’s (1997) survey showed that GIS diffusion was over 80% among local and provincial governments in Denmark, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom; the diffusion was less pronounced in Greece, Portugal, and Poland. Local government agencies in Canada, Australia, and New

23

Public Participation Geographic Information Systems

451

Zealand have also increasingly adopted GIS in their routine e-government operations. Many developing countries, including China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and others have also implemented GIS. Although the market for GIS has grown worldwide, there is a literature gap with respect to international studies on GIS adoption and its relation to e-government. For example, the latest United Nation’s e-government Survey (2008) does not even mention GIS in its consideration of e-government models; much of its focus is on Web-based services for e-government. In particular, there is little examination of the social uses of GIS with respect to public participation. This chapter aims to fill this gap in literature by examining PPGIS internationally. The aim is not as much to compare through specific case studies of PPGIS adoption in a select few countries, but to identify the major thematic aspects of PPGIS that have emerged internationally and their implications for local e-government. A brief overview of the origins of PPGIS follows to provide a background context for the chapter. Geographers, planners, and other social science scholars began to focus on the social uses of GIS during the early 1990s. They criticized the traditional GIS research focus on software and hardware enhancements as being too narrow. They were wary that the blind transfer of GIS from the military to civilian uses would result in a surveillance society (Pickles, 1991). Furthermore, they argued that GIS is an “elitist” technology that is accessible only to the technical experts (Pickles, 1995). As a result, GIS could result in marginalizing others, become an instrument for corporate interests, and ignore underlying social factors. Lastly, critics raised ethical concerns about the use of GIS in government. Schuurman (2000) and Sieber (2006) provide a good overview of the evolution of these debates between GIS enthusiasts and the technology’s critics. While raising legitimate criticisms of GIS use, the critics have also recognized the disruptive nature of GIS, in which citizens and community groups could utilize GIS to question the decisions by public agencies (Pickles, 1995). Two key books were instrumental in raising the potential of GIS for public participation (i.e., PPGIS): Ground Truth edited by Pickles (1995) and Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems edited by Craig, Harris, and Weiner (2002). Planners and geographers who were keenly interested in public participation, as well as GIS, were among the first to adopt PPGIS (Obermeyer, 1998). Communitybased organizations have also increasingly used PPGIS for advocacy as well as to challenge decisions by public agencies in various fields. The uses of PPGIS are not limited to developed countries; there are numerous instances of PPGIS use in developing countries (Gessa, 2008; Harris, Weiner, Warner, & Levin, 1995; Wang, Yu, Cinderby, & Forester, 2008). PPGIS has been used in a number of local government functions, including land use planning, transportation, forestry management, environmental management (Craig & Elwood, 1998; Elwood & Leitner, 1998; Hodgson & Schroeder, 2002). The study of PPGIS is significant for public administration scholars in general, and e-government scholars and practitioners in particular. Citizen participation and active engagement of the civil society is internationally recognized as one of the important pillars of good governance (World Bank, 2000). While traditional tools of participation such as face-to-face public meetings are important, the recent

452

S. Ganapati

developments in information and communication technologies provide additional scope for people to participate. GIS has a particularly important role to play in this context since it adds the geographic dimension to participation.

2 Evolution of PPGIS Technology Although GIS has been criticized as an “elitist” technology, the technology has considerably evolved over the last two decades to become more user-friendly and accessible to lay users. The progressive technological ease expanded the scope of PPGIS. Broadly, three waves of GIS evolution could be identified as follows: desktop-based GIS, Web GIS, and Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms. It should be noted that the three waves do not imply that the earlier technologies have been phased out; rather the earlier technologies have continued in parallel with the newer technologies. The last two waves are especially significant for local e-government processes since these applications can be accessed over the Internet.

2.1 Traditional Desktop-Based GIS This is the stand-alone GIS running on personal computers, marking a transition from paper-based and static image (raster) maps to computer-based vector maps. They integrate spatial and attribute data to produce thematic maps (e.g., population distribution). Since the maps are vector based, they are also amenable to conducting advanced spatial statistical analysis. The downside of the traditional GIS is that it requires installation of proprietary software that could be expensive. Since it is installed on a stand-alone computer, the traditional GIS is accessible to only one person at a time. The traditional GIS also requires sufficient technical skills to manipulate the maps. Thus, the traditional GIS is prone to the criticism of being elitist.

2.2 Web GIS Also referred to as “Online GIS,” or “Internet GIS,” Web GIS takes advantage of the Internet to deploy GIS maps. In this, a public agency typically hosts the GIS software and data on its servers; the GIS maps are then deployed to clients over the Internet. The advantage of Web GIS over traditional GIS is that anyone connected to the Internet can access the GIS maps; citizens do not have to install expensive software on their computers. Maps are more accessible to the general public in real time. Web GIS thus expanded the use of GIS for citizen participation (Kingston, 2007; Tang & Waters, 2005). Although Web GIS expands the public accessibility to maps in real time, one disadvantage is that a public agency needs to have adequate in-house expertise and financial resources to implement it.

23


453

2.3 Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms refer to the adaptation of Web GIS to the Web 2.0 environment (Scharl, 2007). Whereas the Web 1.0 environment is associated with static Web pages (e.g., using Hyper Text Markup Language, HTML) and is oneway, Web 2.0 is associated with serving two-way dynamic content using Extensible Markup Language (XML) for sharing structured data (O’Reilly, 2005). Geographic Markup Language (GML) is an XML-based coding that allows the exchange of geospatial data. With Web 2.0, independent third-party programs (i.e., mashups) can be used to overlay information from multiple Internet sources into one Web service using an Application Programming Interface (API). Hence, in Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms, GIS applications need not be hosted by one agency; rather GIS data could be overlaid on other existing map servers through mashups. Examples of Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms include Google Earth, Google Maps, Microsoft’s Bing Maps, and Yahoo Maps. Public agencies can add their customary information on top of these platforms. The Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms enhance the scope for PPGIS even further since it can be intuitively used by lay citizens (Rouse, Bergeron, & Harris, 2007; Rinner, Keßler, & Andrulis, 2008) and users can add information to the online maps. For example, citizens can use Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms to report locations of potholes, water leaks, accidents, and other events that municipalities should potentially take care of. With the growth of 3G mobile smartphones that are integrated with GPS and Internet, Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms offers further prospects of citizen participation in real time. Sui (2008) refers to this as the “wikification of GIS” which is driven by large-scale, voluntary collaboration among both amateurs and experts using Web 2.0 technology; however, such ubiquitous access also raises concerns with respect to geographical privacy. Proprietary as well as open source GIS software have been available across all three waves of GIS (Table 23.1). Proprietary GIS is typically commercial-off-theshelf software (COTS), the source code of which is not available to the users. The commercial vendor generally provides customer support for the proprietary GIS software; software bugs and other issues are taken care of by the vendor. Open source software refers to the computer applications for which the source code (i.e., the program) is available for modification and redistribution under the General Public License (GPL). The software is often free, which enables broader access of the software to programmers as well as users. Typically, the software is developed or enhanced through a community of programmers and end users with a shared interest. Several open source GIS software have become available, which are both stand-alone (e.g., GRASS, which was developed by the Army Corps of Engineers) and Web GIS (e.g., Mapguide, which was originally a proprietary software developed by Autodesk). The open source GIS holds further prospects for PPGIS since it is generally available for free; the user community does not have to invest in the software. However, open source software requires an active community of interested and experienced programmers in order to develop specialized applications and to address software bugs. As Ramsey (2007) observes, open source GIS

454

S. Ganapati Table 23.1 Evolutionary waves of GIS

Waves

Main features

Illustrative software

Desktop GIS

• Software installed on desktop • Agency’s GIS professionals are map developers and users • Maps not accessible to the general public users

Web GIS

Proprietary software: ArcGIS; GeoMedia; IDRISI Taiga; Manifold; MapInfo; Maptitude Open source software: GRASS; MapWindow; Open Source Software Image Map; Quantum GIS Proprietary software: ArcIMS; ArcGIS Server; Manifold IMS; Maptitude for the Web Open source software: CartoWeb; GeoServer; MapGuide; MapServer

• Software installed on public agency’s servers • Agency’s GIS professionals are map developers • Maps accessible to general public users via Internet • Maps cannot be edited by public • Web 2.0 platforms Proprietary platforms: • Agency and non-agency GIS Bing Maps; Google Earth; Google professionals are map developers Maps; MapQuest • Maps accessible to general Open source platforms: public users via Internet OpenLayers; OpenStreetMap; • Maps editable by public World Wind; (mashups using Application Programming Interface)

Geospatial Web 2.0 Platforms

requires a high degree of openness and transparency, modular development, and good documentation.

3 PPGIS Themes With the technological evolution of GIS, the prospects for PPGIS have indeed expanded over the last decade. Several major PPGIS thematic strands have evolved internationally, which are relevant for how e-government functions will evolve in different countries. Sieber (2006) identified four major PPGIS thematic aspects: place and people, technology and data, process, and outcome and evaluation. The last aspect of evaluating outcomes is indeed important; but, as Sieber herself recognizes, it is one of the less understood aspects of PPGIS. Moreover, although the evaluation objectives vary across international contexts, a major standing theme has been that of empowerment of marginalized communities using PPGIS. Hence, in this section, I adapt Sieber’s scheme to examine four thematic aspects that have implications for local e-government internationally. They are contextual significance, technical GIS concerns, the institutional structure of participatory decision-making processes, and empowerment.

23


455

3.1 Significance of Context The first thematic aspect deals with the contextual characteristics of the place that influence PPGIS. Countries differ in terms of their legal, cultural, political, and historical contexts, which determine not only the environmental context in which participation occurs, but also the extent to which GIS solutions are applicable. Copyright and freedom of information access laws, for example, differ between the United States and Canada. Whereas the laws enable broader public access to federal information and data in the United States, such access is limited in Canada (Sieber, 2003). Consequently, there has been greater diffusion of PPGIS based on data from federal sources, such as census data, which is freely available over the Internet. Accessibility to public data has also been a hurdle in many European countries (Masser, 2005). Participation in developing countries is additionally fettered due to unavailability of timely and reliable data; in this context, Rambaldi, Kyem, McCall, and Weiner (2006) argue for participatory GIS mechanisms, wherein local community groups themselves are engaged in participatory mapping, enabling the less favored groups to enhance their geographical information. The Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms offer opportunities for such participatory GIS through Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI), which refers to “the explosion of interest in using the Web to create, assemble, and disseminate geographic information provided voluntarily by individuals” (Goodchild, 2007a, p. 211). In effect, citizens become sensors who can create maps and report incidents (Goodchild, 2007b). Prime examples of the user-generated geographical content are Wikimapia and Openstreetmap. Similar to Wikipedia, Wikimapia is an “online editable map allowing everyone to add information to any location on the globe” (http://wikimapia.org). OpenStreetMap is a free map of the world that can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection. While such VGI has been helpful in developed countries, it has been especially useful in mapping areas in developing countries where specific geographic details have not been covered by professional cartographers. Cultural differences influence the use of PPGIS (de Man & van den Toorn, 2002). Countries differ in their cultural attitudes such as people’s attitudes toward uncertainty, role of men and women, and relationship between individuals and group (i.e., individualism versus collectivism). There are also differences resulting from inequality in power and wealth. The differences affect who has access to information and if participatory modes through PPGIS would be effective. In his analysis of a community forest management project in Ghana using PPGIS, Kyem (2002), for example, shows how women from matriarchical lineage participated voluntarily; however, women from patriarchical families were reluctant. He also shows how cultural and organizational issues (such as differences in power and perception between the forest managers and local farmers) affected the use of PPGIS. Yet, overall, the adoption of PPGIS led to a more informed discussion based on factual information (rather than emotional outbursts) and resulted in a more democratic decision-making process, with relatively equal participation occurring among participants.

456

S. Ganapati

Dwelling on the significance of local political context, Ghose and Elwood (2003) highlight how political relationships among multiple government and nongovernmental agencies at different geographical scales play an interconnected role in PPGIS. Local governments, in general, could be more powerful than the community organizations; such agencies may be unwilling to share their information and data, so that it results in asymmetric geographic information. At the same time, community organizations have also been able to overcome such limitation by developing a dense network of community actors (e.g., university research centers) for accessing alternative GIS support. A persistent debate in participation in general and PPGIS in particular is “who should participate?” The inclusion and exclusion of people goes to the core of the definition of the public (Elwood, 2006; McCall, 2003; Schlossberg & Shuford, 2005; Talen, 2000). Such delineation of the boundaries at the local governments is typically defined by the jurisdictional boundary. Alternatively, participation is issue based. However, in practice, the participation is also broadly based on interest groups (e.g., geographical or issue based). On one hand, full public participation may not ensue if the public is conceived too narrowly (Ganapati & Ganapati, 2009). On the other hand, GIS does not also lend itself to full participation since it typically requires some level of technological intervention, an aspect that is important for the next theme too.

3.2 Technical GIS Concerns The second theme is centrally concerned with the technical aspects of PPGIS, including, data access, data ownership, and geographical knowledge representation. Public agencies are vast repositories of GIS data. U.S. Census Bureau is a principal resource for attribute data, such as population, housing, and other socio-economic data; it also serves spatial data in the form of Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing system (TIGER) files. Healthwise, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) uses GIS to better portray geographic relationships that affect public health outcomes and risks, disease transmission, access to health care, and so on. These data are available publicly, so that the access enhances the use of such data in PPGIS. In Europe, Geographic Information on Network in Europe (GINIE) (2004) highlighted that there are several gaps in spatial data (often missing or incomplete), lacking documentation, incompatible spatial data sets, and interoperability problems in the region. There are also differences between countries in terms of GIS policies and standards. A key aspect of such national (and regional or local) policies is the Spatial Data Infrastructure, which denotes the relevant base collection of technologies, metadata organization, policies and institutional arrangements that facilitate the availability of and access to spatial data (Nebert, 2004). A SDI is not only a data repository, but it is a mechanism to describe the geographic data and attributes, with adequate metadata information, and technological means to discover, access,

23


457

and visualize the geographic data. In the United States, the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) was established in 1990 as an inter-agency committee to promote the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) for the coordinated development, use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data (National Research Council, 1993). Consequently, the Geospatial One Stop arose as a one-stop site for federal, state, and local spatial data; many states also have geospatial data clearinghouses (Goodchild, Fu, & Rich, 2007). In Europe, the European Commission’s INSPIRE Directive in 2007 established a transboundary SDI covering the member states, adopting common rules in five specific areas (metadata; data specifications; network services; data and service sharing; monitoring and reporting). Many other countries have also established national SDIs, such as Sistema Nacional de Informação Geográfica (SNIG) in Portugal, Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure (ASDI), Malaysia’s National Infrastructure for Land Information System (NaLIS), and South Africa’s National Spatial Information Framework (NSIF). Besides these, subnational SDIs deal with regional and local spatial data needs. Geographic Information Science (GIScience) experts have been broadly dealing with the advanced scientific aspects of spatial knowledge representation, such as terrain modeling, three-dimensional visualization, aerial imaging, metadata standards, and geospatial analysis (Al-Kodmany, 1999; Elwood, 2008; Schuurman, 2006a). Schuurman (2006b) argues for extending existing metadata standards (e.g., ISO 19115) to include context-based and tacit information about semantic attributes of spatial data for PPGIS. Haklay and Tobón (2003) highlight the synergy between PPGIS and Human Computer Interaction (HCI) to argue that HCI and related usability evaluation techniques can be used to make GIS more accessible for public participation. In developed countries, the access to computers and other technological devices is much higher than in developing countries. There is a global digital divide in terms of computer skills, communications infrastructure, and Internet (James, 2003), which influence access to Web GIS and Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms. Chinn and Fairlie (2007) argue that the global digital divide is mainly due to income differentials; however, public investment in human capital, telecommunications infrastructure, and the regulatory infrastructure could mitigate the gap in PC and Internet use. Mobile phone ownership has grown exponentially worldwide, crossing 50% penetration rate in 2007. However, the ownership is at or over 100% in developed countries, where there is significant growth in 3G smart phones that have multiple capabilities (e.g., camera, GPS). The global digital divide partly explains the differences in the evolution of PPGIS in developed and developing countries. In the United States, Japan, and Europe, for example, where the 3G phones are more widely available, the devices can be used in concert with Web GIS or Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms to report incidents on the fly. Such access is quite limited in developing countries, so that a GIS expert’s intervention is required to carry out PPGIS projects. Rambaldi et al. (2006) also illustrate the differences between North and South in terms of PPGIS evolution. According to them, PPGIS evolved in the North (developed countries) at the intersection of planning and modern communication technologies to facilitate dialog and data usage.

458

S. Ganapati

PPGIS practitioners often deal with geographical equity issues of environmental justice. In the South, PPGIS emerged as participatory element for development, with low and high tech communications; PPGIS practitioners are predominantly in rural areas, and use it to leverage their dealings with the state bureaucracy. Despite the lower technological accessibility, McCall (2003) argues that the newer developments with respect to “mobile-GIS” (and growth of mobile phones) have the potential to strengthen participatory spatial planning. According to him, “if used with an adequate regard and sensitivity for issues of ownership, legitimacy and local knowledge, it [Participatory GIS] can contribute to the empowerment of communities in solving spatial planning problems” (McCall, 2003, p. 549).

3.3 Institutional Structure of Participatory Decision-Making Processes The third theme deals with the institutional structures supporting the PPGIS processes in decision making. Rational decision-making models involve several dimensions. The typical rational planning model involves four steps: problem identification, analysis, evaluation, choice of strategy, and implementation and review. Renn, Webler, Rakel, Dienel, and Johnson (1993) use a three-step process that combines technical expertise and rational decision making with public values and preferences: criteria development (with stakeholder involvement), options generation (with experts), and options evaluation (with citizens). Jankowski and Nyerges (2008) synthesized a macro–micro framework for GIS use in participatory decision making. The macro phases include Intelligence on Criteria, Design of Options, and Choice of Options. Each macro phase has four micro activities (Gather, Organize, Select, and Review). GIS could play a significant role in analysis and generating options that are part of the second macro phase. GIS is useful in simulating different alternatives and presenting them to citizens for their choice among the options. Drew (2003) argues that GIS enabled transparency in the decision-making process of cleaning up Hanford (a polluted site of radioactive waste chemical contaminants), wherein GIS and Internet were used to promote two-way information exchange among decision makers, active stakeholders, and the general public. Simão, Densham, and Haklay (2009) similarly describe a Web GIS-based Multi-Criteria Spatial Decision Support System (MC-SDSS) that supports public participation and collaboration with planners and stakeholders in planning wind farm sites. As elaborated above, the broader political and cultural environment and data access influence how PPGIS projects are carried out (de Man, 2003). Institutional support structures for PPGIS evolve differently within such a broader context. In the United States, the federal government (especially Census Bureau) is the main resource for access to both spatial and attributes data. However there are also many other intermediary agencies that are instrumental in providing GIS data:

23


459

government agencies; the quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations; university research centers; and nonprofit community-based organizations (Sawicki & Peterman, 2002). Community learning centers (e.g., public libraries with computers and Internet access) could also provide such data. Elwood and Ghose (2004) argue that four institutional factors affect the capacity of CBOs to undertake PPGIS projects: organizational knowledge and experience, networks of collaborative relationships, organizational stability, and organizational priorities, strategies, and status. The organizational structure of the local government agencies influences how PPGIS is adapted. In the United States, 311 call centers are centralized municipal systems to handle non-emergency municipal service requests. In general, they use traditional GIS or Web GIS developed in house as a part of their customer relationship management to track the status of the service requests. In the United Kingdom, however, municipalities are yet to build similar centralized call centers. A nonprofit group called mysociety developed FixMyStreet (http://www.fixmystreet.com/), a Geospatial Web 2.0 platform-based online service for citizens to report local physical problems; the service requests are forwarded to respective municipal governments and tracked. Several scholars have emphasized the need for supportive institutional structures to enable collaborative decision making. Balram and Dragićević (2006) maintain that supportive workspace environments are required for map-based analysis and visualization, multi-modal interfaces for participant interactions, and digital databases. However, Ramsey (2009) argues that premature orientation toward problem-solving activities could undermine the exploration and reconciliation of diverse problem understandings in a collaborative decision-making process. Hwang and Hoffman (2009) highlight the human capital aspect for effective Neighborhood Information Systems; they should be user-friendly, but should also be tailored to specific user needs and training support should be integrated. Institutional structures supporting PPGIS are not quite advanced in developing countries (Ramasubramanian, 1999a). Public participation is often included as a condition of foreign funding for development projects, so that PPGIS projects are undertaken as a part of the external funding requirements. Such an approach limits the systematization of PPGIS in broader decision-making processes. Yet, the institutional structures are better developed for government agencies to implement GIS for intra-agency purposes. Indeed, many government agencies use GIS internally for decision making. Community organizations act as intermediaries for accessing such data from government agencies for broader public participation and to include indigenous local knowledge in the planning process. Wang et al. (2008) illustrate how participation was attained for land use planning using GIS in the Shanxi province, where public participation is not intrinsic to the Chinese system of centralized government. They argue that the participatory GIS became a useful tool and communication medium to facilitate participatory planning for natural resource management.

460

S. Ganapati

3.4 Empowerment The last, but not the least, theme in PPGIS is its role in empowering the marginalized and the less powerful. Empowerment is arguably one of the highest objectives in public participation. Indeed, in the conceptualization of the ladder of participation proposed by Arnstein (1969) in her seminal article and the subsequent variations proposed by others (Connor, 1988; Tritter & McCallum, 2006), involvement, collaboration, and empowerment occupy the higher rungs of participation. Information provision and feedback are at the lower levels of “token” participation in these schemes. Informing and consultation may use informational tools such as maps, aerial photographs, and interactive Web sites for public comments. However, empowerment would imply “designing processes where citizens know that their participation has the potential to have an impact” (King, Feltey, & Susel, 1998, p. 323). In empowerment through PPGIS, there is an emphasis on strengthening GIS skills, data collection methods, enhancing (as well as incorporating) local knowledge, and establishing networks (Cinderby & Forrester, 2005; Talen, 2000). Empirical studies indicate that GIS could empower the marginalized groups by facilitating participatory mapping exercises that develop an inventory of customary land divisions and parcel maps (Elwood, 2002; Gessa, 2008; Ghose, 2001; Jankowski, 2009). Participatory GIS has also been a key component of empowering people living in slum communities to influence formal decision-making processes (Abbott, 2003; Sen, Hobson, & Joshi, 2003; Sliuzas, 2003). Scholars, however, recognize the asymmetric access to GIS skills and data among various groups, so that GIS could be empowering for some groups, while disempowering others (Elwood, 2008; Harris & Weiner, 1998). Kyem (2001) argues that empowerment requires shifts in power relations, in which PPGIS proponents face deeply entrenched political structures. Empowerment may be limited due to opposition from local leaders and lack of funding, infrastructure, and skilled GIS personnel. As Kyem (2002) shows, GIS personnel themselves need to be committed to the grassroots organizations for empowering them. In the traditional GIS systems, the technology has been used as a support tool that could enhance face-to-face public meetings. Al-Khodmany (1999), for example, showed that GIS and freehand sketching are effective for problem identification and brainstorming. Indeed, much research has focused on how GIS could empower local communities for such participatory decision-making processes in land use (Ventura, Niemann, Sutphin, & Chenoweth, 2002), public housing (Barton, Plume, & Parolin, 2005), environmental management (Jankowski, 2009; Tulloch, 2002), spatial mitigation planning (Hassan, 2005), and other local government functions (Ramasubramanian, 1999b). With the Internet, Web GIS and Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms play a supportive decision-making tool for online deliberative mechanisms in such areas (Higgs, Berry, Kidner, & Langford, 2008). Despite the instances of empowerment using PPGIS, systematic use of PPGIS in e-government or decision-making processes is not widespread. In their international survey of PPGIS use in environmental impact use in 21 developed and 5 developing countries, González, Gilmer, Foley, Sweeney, and Fry (2008) found that

23


461

participative processes hardly went beyond consultation. Lack of political will is the main barrier in having public participation in decision making; lack of clear guidelines is another barrier. Few public agencies have implemented Web GIS or Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms as a part of such decision making. An exemplary use of Geospatial Web 2.0 platform in decision making is the regional planning process undertaken by Metro in the Portland metropolitan area (Bosworth, Donovan, & Couey, 2002). The Metro adopted the Geospatial Web 2.0 platform of Google Maps in 2008 for eliciting public participation to plan the region’s High Capacity Transit System (Metro, 2009). It implemented a “Build-a-system” tool on top of the Google Maps platform for residents to interactively select the corridors for choosing the best metropolitan system. Each corridor’s capital cost, operating cost, ridership, and environmental benefits were also highlighted for residents to make informed decisions. The “Build-a-system” tool was used as a supplementary aid for participants to decide on the routes. Over 4,250 residents visited the Web site and over 650 responded to the online questionnaire during the nearly 1-month period when public participation was sought (March–April, 2009).

4 Conclusion There are crossovers between PPGIS and e-government since many of the PPGIS themes are relevant for e-government. GIS technologies have progressively become more accessible and user-friendly, thus increasing their potential for inclusion in e-government processes for enhancing public participation. There are three waves in the evolution of GIS technology for public participation: desktop GIS; Web GIS; and Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms. The waves represent progression of the GIS technology from being an elite field of expert professionals to that of easy accessibility to lay users. With the technological evolution of GIS, the prospects for PPGIS have indeed expanded over the last decade. I have highlighted four major aspects of PPGIS that have emerged internationally, all of which are relevant for the evolution of PPGIS in local e-government functions in different countries. First, political, legal, cultural, and other contextual differences between countries provide the broader environmental condition in which PPGIS is adopted. For example, laws assuring access to data broaden the use of PPGIS. Second, technical GIS differences and digital divide influence PPGIS adoption. In this respect, policies with respect to the spatial data infrastructure are crucial to provide the basic standards and metadata information. With the growth of Geospatial Web 2.0 platforms, there is more likely to be usergenerated content through VGI. Third, institutional structures for enabling PPGIS processes are still in their infancy. In this context, government organizations have not adopted PPGIS methods extensively. Fourth, empowerment is the major objective of many PPGIS efforts, but there is much scope for using PPGIS to achieve such higher levels of participation. Systematic use of PPGIS for decision-making processes in local e-government has yet to take a strong foothold. Table 23.2 provides a summary of the implications of the four themes for local e-government processes.

462

S. Ganapati Table 23.2 Implications of PPGIS themes for local e-government

Theme

Implication

Significance of context

Significance of: • Legal environment (e.g., laws surrounding public access to data) • Cultural attitudes (e.g., role of men and women) • Political relationships (e.g., differences in power) Significance of: • Data access, data ownership, and geographical knowledge representation • Spatial Data Infrastructure • Digital divide (access to computers, GIS skills) • Role of GIS in simulating different alternatives • Significance of supportive institutional structures for PPGIS • Empower the less powerful, marginalized communities through participatory GIS methods • Need for strengthening GIS skills, data collection methods

Technical GIS concerns

Institutional structure Empowerment

Acknowledgement The chapter is partly based on a project funded by the IBM Center for the Business of Government.

References Abbott, J. (2003). The use of GIS in informal settlement upgrading: Its role and impact on the community and on local government. Habitat International, 27(4), 575–593. Al-Kodmany, K. (1999). Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: Process, implementation, and evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 45(1), 37–45. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. Balram, S., & Dragićević, S. (Eds.). (2006). Collaborative geographic information systems. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc (IGI). Barton, J., Plume, J., & Parolin, B. (2005). Public participation in a spatial decision support system for public housing. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(6), 630–652. Bosworth, M., Donovan, J., & Couey, P. (2002). Portland Metro’s dream for public involvement. In W. Craig, T. M. Harris, & D. Weiner (Eds.), Community participation and geographic information systems (pp. 125–136). London: Taylor & Francis. Chinn, D. M., & Fairlie, R. W. (2007). The determinants of the global digital divide: A crosscountry analysis of computer and internet penetration. Oxford Economic Papers, 59(1), 16–44. Cinderby, S., & Forrester, J. (2005). Facilitating the local governance of air pollution using GIS for participation. Applied Geography, 25(2), 143–158. Connor, D. M. (1988). A new ladder of citizen participation. National Civic Review, 77(3), 249–257. Craig, W. J., & Elwood, S. (1998). How and why community groups use maps and geographic information. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 25(2), 95–104.

23


463

Craig, W. J., Harris, T. M., & Weiner, D. (Eds.). (2002). Community participation and geographic information systems. London: Taylor & Francis. Cunningham, J. V. (1972). Citizen participation in public affairs. Public Administration Review, 32(Special Issue), 589–602. de Man, W. H. E., & van den Toorn, W. H. (2002). Culture and the adoption and use of GIS within organisations. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 4(1), 51–63. de Man, W. H. E. (2003). Cultural and institutional conditions for using geographic information; Access and participation. URISA Journal, 15(1), 29–33. Drew, C. H. (2003). Transparency—Considerations for PPGIS research and development. URISA Journal, 15(APA I), 73–78. Retrieved January 15, 2010, from htttp://www.urisa.org/ Journal/protect/APANo1/drew.pdf Drummond, W. J., & French, S. P. (2008). The Future of GIS in planning: Converging technologies and diverging interests. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(2), 161–174. Elwood, S., & Ghose, R. (2004). PPGIS in community development planning: Framing the organizational context. Cartographica, 38(3/4), 19–33. Elwood, S., & Leitner, H. (1998). GIS and community-based planning: Exploring the diversity of neighborhood perspectives and needs. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 25(2), 77–88. Elwood, S. (2002). GIS use in community planning: A multidimensional analysis of empowerment. Environment and Planning A, 34(5), 905–922. Elwood, S. (2006). Critical issues in participatory GIS: Deconstructions, reconstructions, and new research directions. Transactions in GIS, 10(5), 693–708. Elwood, S. (2008). Grassroots groups as stakeholders in spatial data infrastructures: Challenges and opportunities for local data development and sharing. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22(1), 71–90. Ganapati, N.E., & Ganapati, S. (2009). Enabling participatory planning in post-disaster contexts: A case study of World Bank’s Housing Reconstruction in Turkey. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(1), 41–59. Garson, D. (2006). Public information technology and e-governance: Managing the virtual state. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Gessa, S. (2008). Participatory mapping as a tool for empowerment: Experiences and lessons learned from the ILC network. Rome: International Land Coalition. (Perhaps this is a duplicate entry – see following reference entry.) Gessa, S. D. (2008). Participatory mapping as a tool for empowerment: Experiences and lessons learned from the ILC Network. Rome, Italy: International Land Coalition. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.landcoalition.org/pdf/08_ILC_Participatory_Mapping_Low.pdf. Ghose, R. (2001). Use of information technology for community empowerment: Transforming geographic information systems into community information systems. Transactions in GIS, 5(2), 141–163. Ghose, R., & Elwood, S. (2003). Public participation GIS and local political context: Propositions and research directions. URISA Journal, 15(APA II), 17–24 GINIE: Geographic Information Network in Europe. (2004). Towards a European GI strategy: Lessons learnt from GINIE. Report D 2.11.1(a). Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.ec-gis.org/ginie/doc/D2111A_LL_ES_ENG_VF.pdf. González, A., Gilmer, A., Foley, R., Sweeney, J., & Fry, J. (2008). Technology-aided participative methods in environmental assessment: An international perspective. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32(4), 303–316. Goodchild, M. F. (2007a). Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211–221. Goodchild, M. F. (2007b). Citizens as voluntary sensors: Spatial data infrastructure in the world of Web 2.0. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2, 24–32. Goodchild, M. F., Fu, P., & Rich, P. (2007). Sharing geographic information: An assessment of the geospatial one-stop. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(2), 250–266.

464

S. Ganapati

Haklay, M., & Tobón, C. (2003). Usability evaluation and PPGIS: Towards a user-centred design approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 17(6), 577–592. Harris, T. M., & Weiner, D. (1998). Empowerment, Marginalization and Community-Integrated GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 25(2), 67–76. Harris, T. M., Weiner, D., Warner, T., & Levin, R. (1995). Pursuing social goals though participatory GIS: Redressing South Africa’s historical political ecology. In J. Pickles (Ed.), Ground truth: The social implications of geographic information systems (pp. 196–222). New York: Guilford. Hassan, M. M. (2005). Arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh: Spatial mitigation planning with GIS and public participation. Health Policy, 74(3), 247–260. Higgs, G., Berry, R., Kidner, D., & Langford, M. (2008). Using IT approaches to promote public participation in renewable energy planning: Prospects and challenges. Land Use Policy, 25(4), 596–607. Hodgson, D. L., & Schroeder, R. A. (2002). Dilemmas of counter-mapping community resources in Tanzania. Development and Change, 33(1), 79–100. Hwang, S., & Hoffman, M. C. (2009). In pursuit of the effective neighborhood information system: User-friendliness and training. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 166–173. James, J. (2003). Bridging the global digital divide. Cheltenham: Edward Edgar. Jankowski, P. (2009). Towards participatory geographic information systems for community-based environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 1966–1971. Jankowski, P., & Nyerges, T. (2008). GIS and Participatory Decision Making. In J. D. Wilson and A. S. Fotheringham (Eds.), The Handbook of Geographical Information Science (pp.481–493). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Kaylor, C. H. (2005). The next wave of e-government: The challenges of data architecture. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 31(2), 18–22. King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317–326. Kingston, R. (2007). Public participation in local policy decision-making: The role of web-based mapping. The Cartographic Journal, 44(2), 138–144. Kyem, P. A. K. (2001). Power, participation, and inflexible institutions: An examination of the challenges to community empowerment in participatory GIS applications. Cartographica, 38(3–4): 5–17. Kyem, P. A. K. (2002). Promoting local community participation in forest management through the application of a geographic information system: A PPGIS experience from Southern Ghana. In W. J. Craig, T. M. Harris, & D. Weiner (Eds.), Community participation and geographic information systems. London: Taylor & Francis. Masser, I. (2005). GIS worlds: Creating spatial data infrastructures. Redlands: ESRI Press. Masser, I., & Craglia, M. (1996). A comparative evaluation of GIS diffusion in nine European countries. In I. Masser, H. J. Campbell, & M. Craglia (Eds.), GIS diffusion: The adoption and use of geographical information systems in local government in Europe. London: Taylor and Francis. Masser, I., & Craglia, M. (1997). The diffusion of GIS in local government in Europe. In M. Craglia, & H. Couclelis (Eds.), Geographic information research: Bridging the Atlantic. London: Taylor and Francis. McCall, M. K. (2003). Seeking good governance in participatory-GIS: A review of processes and governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning. Habitat International, 27(4), 549–573. Metro. (2009). Build your high capacity system. Metro Regional Government. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=29903. National Research Council. (1993). Toward a coordinated spatial data infrastructure for the nation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Nebert, D. D. (2004). Developing spatial data infrastructures: The SDI cookbook. Global Spatial Data Infrastructure. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.gsdi.org/ docs2004/Cookbook/cookbookV2.0.pdf.

23


465

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved July 30, 2009, from http://www.oreilly.com/pub/ a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html Obermeyer, N. J. (1998). The evolution of public participation GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 25(2), 65–66. Pickles, J. (1991). Geography, GIS, and the surveillant society. Papers and Proceedings of Applied Geography Conferences, 14, 80–91. Pickles, J. (Ed.). (1995). Ground truth: The social implications of geographic information systems. New York: Guilford. Ramasubramanian, L. (1999a). GIS implementation in developing countries: Learning from organisational theory and reflective practice. Transactions in GIS, 3(4), 359–380. Ramasubramanian, L. (1999b). Nurturing community empowerment: Participatory decision making and community based problem solving using GIS. In M. Craglia & H. Onsrud (Eds.), Geographic information research: Trans-Atlantic perspectives. New York: Taylor & Francis. Ramasubramanian, L. (2009). Geographic information science and public participation. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Rambaldi, G., Kyem, P. A. K., McCall, M., & Weiner, D. (2006). Participatory spatial information management and communication in developing countries. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25(1), 1–9. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc/article/viewFile/237/158 Ramsey, K. (2009). GIS, modeling, and politics: On the tensions of collaborative decision support. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 1972–1980. Ramsey, P. (2007). The state of open source GIS. Victoria, BC: Refractions Research. Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 189–214. Rinner, C., Keßler, C., & Andrulis, S. (2008). The use of Web 2.0 concepts to support deliberation in spatial decision-making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32(5), 386–395. Rouse, J. L., Bergeron, S. J., & Harris, T. M. (2007). Participating in the geospatial web: Collaborative mapping, social networks and participatory GIS. In A. Scharl (Ed.), The geospatial web: How geobrowsers, social software and the Web 2.0 are shaping the network society (pp.153–158). London: Springer-Verlag. Sawicki, D. S., & Peterman, D. R. (2002). Surveying the extent of PPGIS practice in the United States. In W. J. Craig, T. M. Harris, & D. Weiner (Eds.), Community participation and geographic information systems (pp. 17–36). London: Taylor & Francis. Scharl, A. (Ed.). (2007). The geospatial web: How geobrowsers, social software and the Web 2.0 are shaping the network society. London: Springer-Verlag. Schlossberg, M., & Shuford, E. (2005). Delineating “public” and “participation” in PPGIS. URISA Journal, 16(2), 15–26. Schuurman, N. (2000). Trouble in the heartland: GIS and its critics in the 1990s. Progress in Human Geography, 24(4), 569–590. Schuurman, N. (2006a). Formalization matters: Critical GIS and ontology Research. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(4), 726–739. Schuurman, N. (2006b). Ontology-based metadata. Transactions in GIS, 10(5), 709–726. Sen, S., Hobson, J., & Joshi, P. (2003). The Pune Slum Census: Creating a socio-economic and spatial information base on a GIS for integrated and inclusive city development. Habitat International, 27(4), 595–611. Siau, K., & Long, Y. (2005). Synthesizing e-government stage models—A meta-synthesis based on meta-ethnography approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(4), 443–458. Sieber, R. E. (2003). Public participation GIS across borders. The Canadian Geographer, 47(1), 50–61. Sieber, R. E. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491–507.

466

S. Ganapati

Simão, A., Densham, P. J., & Haklay, M. (2009). Web-based GIS for collaborative planning and public participation: An application to the strategic planning of Wind Farm Sites. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 2027–2040. Sliuzas, R. (2003). Opportunities for enhancing communication in settlement upgrading with geographic information technology-based support tools. Habitat International, 27(4), 613–628. Sui, D. Z. (2008). The wikification of GIS and its consequences: Or Angelina Jolie’s new tattoo and the future of GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32(1), 1–5. Talen, E. (2000). Bottom-up GIS. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(3), 279–294. Tang, K. X., & Waters, N. M. (2005). The internet, GIS and public participation in transportation planning. Progress in Planning, 64(1), 7–62. Tritter, J. Q., & McCallum, A. (2006). The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy, 76(2), 156–168. Tulloch, D. L. (2002). Environmental NGOs and community access to technology as a force for change. In W. Craig, T. M. Harris, & D. Weiner (Eds.), Community participation and geographic information systems (pp. 192–204). London: Taylor & Francis. Tulloch, D. L. (2008). Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games. Geojournal, 72 (3–4), 161–171. United Nations (Division for Public Administration and Development Management). (2008). UN E-Government Survey, 2008. ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/112. New York: United Nations. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/ un/unpan028607.pdf. Ventura, S. J., Niemann, B. J., Sutphin, T. L., & Chenoweth, R. E. (2002). GIS-enhanced landuse planning. In W. Craig, T. M. Harris, & D. Weiner (Eds.), Community participation and geographic information systems (pp. 113–124). London: Taylor & Francis. Walters, L. C., Aydelotte, J., & Miller, J. (2000). Putting more public in policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 60(4), 349–359. Wang, X., Yu, Z., Cinderby, S., & Forrester, J. (2008). Enhancing participation: Experiences of participatory geographic information systems in Shanxi province, China. Applied Geography, 28(2), 96–109. World Bank. (2000). Reforming public institutions and strengthening governance: A World Bank Strategy. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Chapter 24

Learning with GIS-Based Monitors in the Netherlands Dennis de Kool

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) are becoming an increasingly important tool for governments in policy processes. GIS are computerized systems for the purpose of saving, analysing and demonstrating data on the basis of a geographical component. GIS can support policy-making, policy implementation and policy-monitoring. An important strength of GIS is the possibility to visualize policy problems and effects. This potential of GIS is important in the digital society that puts an increasing value on transparency by governments about policy results. Despite the high potential of GIS, the utilization of GIS-based monitors in practice is rather limited. This chapter describes and analyses the impact of GIS-based monitors on learning processes within the Dutch government. Four different casestudies have been investigated, namely, PolStat, the Spatial Monitor, the Monitor Region Amsterdam and the Water Monitor. These GIS-based monitors have been analysed by using three different theoretical perspectives. Important learning barriers are the ambiguity of many policy goals, the relatively short history of most GIS-based monitors, a defensive approach from governments towards transparency about policy results and the lack of demonstrable problem-owners. The conclusions and recommendations at the end of the chapter aim to stimulate e-governments in becoming location-oriented learning governments as well.

1 Introduction Geographical Information Systems (GIS) are becoming an increasingly important tool for governments in policy processes. GIS are computerized systems for the purpose of saving, analysing and demonstrating data on the basis of a geographical component. GIS can support policy-making, policy implementation and

D. de Kool (B) Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]


467

468

D. de Kool

policy-monitoring (Greene, 2003). Nevertheless, the impact of GIS-based monitors on learning processes is still unexplored in the Netherlands. An important strength of GIS is the possibility to visualize policy problems and effects. This potential of GIS is important in the digital society that puts an increasing value on transparency by governments about policy results. At the same time, we can observe that monitoring of policy processes has become quite common in the public sector in many countries (Bouckaert, De Peuter, & Van Dooren, 2003; de Kool, 2007, 2008a; Vedung, 1997). Governments recognize the value of GIS for monitoring policies more and more (Greene, 2003). Examples are GIS-based instruments to monitor air pollution, water quality and environmental developments (Tsou, 2004). Despite the high potential of GIS, the utilization of GIS-based monitors for learning processes is rather limited in reality. The goal of this chapter is to analyse the impact of GIS-based monitors on learning processes within governmental organizations. The research questions to be answered in this chapter are: • What are the main functions of GIS-based monitors? • Which critical factors, i.e. learning conditions and learning barriers, do have impact on learning processes based on GIS-based monitors? • What is the current impact of GIS-based monitors on learning processes in and between governmental organizations? • How can the impact of GIS-based monitors on learning processes being increased? In section 2 we will deal with the reason why GIS-based monitors are becoming an increasingly important tool for governments. In section 3 the theory used to analyse the case-studies will be the central point of focus. Four different Dutch case-studies have been investigated, namely, PolStat, the Spatial Monitor, the Monitor Region Amsterdam and the Water Monitor. These GIS-based monitors have been analysed by using three different theoretical perspectives, namely, a rational, political and cultural approach. Both aspects that stimulate and limit learning processes will be discussed. The conclusions and recommendations at the end of the chapter aim to stimulate e-governments in becoming location-oriented learning governments as well.

2 GIS-Based Monitoring An increasing stream of monitoring activities has entered the public sector (Bouckaert, De Peuter, & Van Dooren, 2003; de Kool, 2007; Engbersen, Eggermont, Gabriëls, & Sprinkhuizen, 1997; Vedung, 1997). Monitoring is a complicated and wide notion that is interpreted in different ways (Mayne & Zapico-Goni, 1997; Poister, 1983; Power, 1997). There are five important features that characterize monitors (Engbersen et al., 1997; Verweij, Goezinne, & Dijkstra, 1995):

24

Learning with GIS-Based Monitors

469

• monitoring is a systematic activity. That means that monitoring activities are not ad hoc or incidental, but repeated activities which more or less standards research methods and indicators to measure developments; • monitoring is, thus, a periodic activity with a repetitive character; • monitoring is focused upon developments. The assumption is that there are at least two measurement moments, t(0) and t(1) that can be compared; • these developments are policy relevant, so there is a connection between monitoring and the policy process; • the result of monitoring is a description. In most of the cases, this description has the form of a report. Sometimes, the findings of monitoring are presented in a database. In this chapter monitoring is defined as the systematic and periodic scanning and description of policy relevant developments (de Kool, 2007). Governments recognize the value of GIS for monitoring policies more and more (Greene, 2003). Geographical Information Systems (GIS) are computerized systems for the purpose of saving, analysing and demonstrating data on the basis of a geographical component (Grothe, 1999). GIS are said to have several qualities and effects (Bekkers & Moody, 2006; Bregt, 1999; Carver, 2001; Greene, 2003; Heywood, Cornelius, & Carver, 2002; Pollard, 2000). First, one of the qualities of GIS is the possibility to calculate large data sets. On the basis of these calculations cost-benefit analysis and predictions can be made easily. An example is the use of GIS for monitoring and predicting urban growth in several Canadian cities (Hathout, 2002). A second quality is the possibility to link different data sets to one another. This can make sure that new information and new insights become visible. One example is linking crimes with specific locations, so that police offers can observe these locations and policy-makers can try to make these locations safer by social interventions. By integrating and visualizing different data sets, it becomes possible to form an integral policy. Additionally, GIS can strengthen the problem-solving capabilities of the government, by, for example, linking information on social benefits with water use or type of car owned, in this way detecting fraud. Third, GIS can visualize problems and effects. Supported by multimedia applications and 3D techniques policy plans and results can be visualized for a large public. Social participation can be stimulated by using this quality, which can result in an increase in the quality of decision-making (Heywood et al., 2002). This quality makes GIS different than other forms of ICT, where the mentioned qualities count for most forms of ICT, the visualizing function makes GIS different. GIS hold the function to visualize large sets of data making them accessible to non-experts. When looking at these qualities, GIS can function in several ways. First of all GIS can support policy-making and decision-making processes, for example, by visualizing possible policy options and effects (Thomas & HumenikSappington, 2009). Second, GIS can be used to communicate with citizens, both on the national and on the local level (Turner & Higgs, 2003). When communicating on policy

470

D. de Kool

results GIS can help in accounting for this policy, this can be done in the form of legitimizing policy. Examples are crime maps (Compstat) on the Websites of the New York Police Department and the Los Angeles Police Department. The Dutch example PolStat will be discussed in more detail in this chapter. A third potential function of GIS is learning. Because GIS can visualize large data sets and is able to link data sets to one another, actors can learn new insights and can be able to fathom reality. Fourth, GIS can be used to monitor policy. By being on top of relevant developments, it becomes possible to predict future developments. This is done, for example, for spatial developments (de Kool, 2008a). Finally, GIS can be used to increase transparency in policy-making, this both in making a policy problem itself transparent and in terms of making effects of a decision transparent. In recent years the Dutch government has heavily invested in collecting geographical information. Nevertheless, the strong impression exists that the potential of GIS for (monitoring) policy processes has not fully exploited yet (Ministerie van VROM, 2008). This observation raises the question in how far GIS-based monitors are used for policy-learning. In order to answer this question, a theoretical framework has been developed that will be used to analyse the case-studies. This theoretical framework will be discussed in the next section.

3 Theoretical Framework The case-studies will be analysed by using three different theoretical perspectives, namely, a rational, political and cultural approach to GIS-based monitoring and learning (Bekkers & Moody, 2006; Benz & Fürst, 2002; Cohen & Sproull, 1996; de Kool, 2008a).

3.1 Rational Approach The rational approach to monitoring highlights the goals of governmental policies. The policy process is conceptualized as a series of subsequent stages, starting with policy plans and ending with monitoring activities that can result in reformulating policy plans or interventions and so on. The policy is seen as a rational plan and the collection of information by monitoring activities is seen as fact finding in order to improve the effectiveness of policy programmes and/or processes. Utilization means that “facts” generated by policy-monitors improve policy-making and implementation. The information needs of the (potentials) users are expected to be clear and unambiguous. An important assumption is that data from monitors are used immediately to improve policy programmes (Beyer & Trice, 1982; Dahler-Larsen, 1998; Weiss, 1977).

24


471

To summarize: from a rational perspective a GIS-based monitor is a neutral source of information and an instrument to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and integrality of policies. Within the rational approach learning is a linear process. The assumption is that corrective interventions are undertaken when the monitor shows that signalized developments in society are not consistent with the policy goals. Rational learning has a strong cognitive dimension (Benz & Fürst, 2002). Three levels of rational learning can be distinguished. First-level learning is undertaking intervention in the policy field. Second-level learning is revising of policy goals. Third-level learning is revising of policy assumptions.

3.2 Political Approach The political approach highlights the (often conflicting) stakes of the involved actors. The policy process is approached as an arena in which actors fight for power. The policy plans are seen as “negotiated outcomes” in political struggles. Within the political approach information generated by monitoring activities is seen as a powerful resource which can be strategically (mis)used to protect specific positions and interests of the various stakeholders (Feldman & March, 1981). Monitors are potential sources of power and used to defend the interests of the involved actors. Actors use information selectively to favour their positions and ignore or manipulate information that can damage their position or reputation (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Stone, 2002). To summarize: from a political perspective a GIS-based monitor is a strategic instrument aimed at maintaining or strengthening the positions of actors in the field or to legitimize policy choices. Within the political approach learning is a strategic process in which power and influence play an important role (Benz & Fürst, 2002). Learning is aimed at maintaining or strengthening the positions of actors. Three levels of political learning can be distinguished. First-level learning is defending individual interests. Secondlevel learning is defending shared own interests. Third-level learning is defending common interests.

3.3 Cultural Approach The cultural approach highlights the ritual dimension of policy-making. The policy process is approached as a theatre, in which different actors play their roles. Within this approach monitors are seen as sources of meaning that give both sense to the activities of the involved actors and a way to express common language and direction (Beyer & Trice, 1982; Dahler-Larsen, 1998). Monitoring activities are sources of meaning and express common grammar and direction. Utilization of these data takes place within institutionalized patterns, shaped by organizational

472

D. de Kool

norms and routines. In some cases utilization could be a mere symbolic expression, for example, to legitimize decisions already made (Vedung, 1997), to display good management and control or to show conformity to shared norms of rationality and progress (Feldman & March, 1981). To summarize: from a cultural approach GIS-based monitors contribute to the creation of common policy frames. Within the cultural approach learning is a process in which grown routines and practices play an important role (Cohen & Sproull, 1996). Learning is aimed at communicating and creating a shared policy language. Three levels of cultural learning can be distinguished. First-level learning is creating shared policy concepts. Secondlevel learning is creating shared policy norms and values. Third-level learning is creating shared policy orientations.

3.4 Research Strategy This research is a multiple case-study. Four different case-studies have been investigated, namely, PolStat, the Spatial Monitor, the Monitor Region Amsterdam and the Water Monitor. In every case-study both the monitor and relevant policy documents have been analysed. Besides this semi-structured interviews have taken place among relevant stakeholders who are implementing and/or using these four policymonitors. The presented theoretical framework with the three perspectives has been used to analyse these case-studies and to trace both learning conditions and barriers.

4 Empirical Findings First, we will discuss the four case-studies. Second, the current functions of GISbased monitors will be described. Then we will discuss the learning conditions and the learning barriers. Finally, the learning levels will be analysed.

4.1 The Case-Studies Four case-studies have been investigated. The choice of case-studies is based on the following assumptions. First, GIS-based monitors on different policy fields have been selected. Second, the selected monitors cover different levels of government, namely, local, regional or national. Third, both monitors with an internal focus and external focus have been chosen. Finally, the selected monitors have been released at least some years ago, because with new monitors it is almost impossible to make statements about learning processes. Only Dutch cases have been selected. A practical reason is the tight time schedule to finish the research. A scientific reason is that the adoption speed of GIS-based instruments is different in every country.

24


473

The same goes for learning processes. So an analysis about learning requires a uniform learning context. Nevertheless, the empirical results form this research can be an interesting starting point for making cross-country comparisons together with researchers from other countries. The first selected case is PolStat. PolStat is an internal geographical information system developed by the Dutch police corps Rotterdam-Rijnmond. This system provides an actual and detailed overview of crimes that have been committed within this police region. PolStat was introduced at the end of 2004. The current data in PolStat can be compared with previous data till 12 weeks ago, so that insights can be generated about positive or negative trends. The locations with high concentrations of crimes are the so-called “hotspots”. These data can support the police corps by developing an effective strategy to reduce crime. Inspiration for PolStat has been found in the United Staes, namely, Compstat by the New York Police Department. The second case is the Monitor Nota Ruimte. The Monitor Nota Ruimte describes periodically the progress of the policy that has been written down in the Dutch policy document “Nota Ruimte: ruimte voor ontwikkeling”. The first report was published in 2006. The second report appeared in 2008. The monitor is published under the responsibility of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving in Dutch). The goal behind the Monitor Nota Ruimte is to generate insights in the progress and effects of the Dutch spatial policy. The third case is the Region Monitor Amsterdam. The Region Monitor Amsterdam was developed by the University of Amsterdam and several municipalities in 2000. This GIS-based internet application presents social and demographical developments in the region of Amsterdam, for example, age, ethnicity and unemployability. Because of privacy consideration the system is not accessible for others. Researchers can apply for a login code to analyse the data in the system. The fourth case is the Water Monitor. The Water Monitor is an internal web application developed by the Water Board Aa and Maas that reports annually about the realization of the policy goals. The first edition of the Water Monitor was launched on intranet in 2005. The Water Monitor is aimed to generate insights about relevant developments in the field of water and connect these insights with the policy goals and ambitions of the Water Board Aa and Maas.

4.2 Current Functions of GIS-Based Monitors The next step is to trace the current functions of GIS-based monitors. 4.2.1 Rational Function: Location-Based Signals The cases show that GIS-based monitors are used as instruments to signalize relevant developments in society. The added value of GIS is to generate location-based signals, so it is clear in one view where policy interventions are necessary. An example is PolStat that visualizes areas with problems (so-called “hotspots”) so that policy officers exactly know on which specific locations interventions are needed.

474

D. de Kool

4.2.2 Political Function: Making Policy Implementation Transparent The cases show that GIS-based monitors can make policy implementation very transparent. This transparency can be a risk for organizations too, because not only successes, but also problems can be made visible as well. When things are going well, organizations can use GIS-based monitors to ground the good news. However, when problems arise and when reality is not in line with policy goals, then the transparency of GIS-based monitors can damage reputations of organizations. An example is the Water Monitor showing that many signalized developments were far behind the policy ambitions. 4.2.3 Cultural Function: Sharing the Same Images The cases show that communication is an important function of GIS-based monitors. Because of GIS technology the communication message can be presented in a visual and attractive way. Especially digital monitors that are easily accessible to all organization members (PolStat, Water Monitor) can stimulate common views on reality, because everybody sees the same geographical maps. Internal monitors like the Regiomonitor Amsterdam can stimulate communication within organizations.

4.3 Learning Conditions The next step is to identify the learning conditions. 4.3.1 Rational Learning Conditions “To measure is to know” is an important rational assumption behind monitoring. The primary function of monitors is to signalize relevant developments. The added value of GIS in this activity is to visualize location-based problems or challenges. In practice, GIS-based monitors stimulate an effective implementation of policies, because they facilitate location-based interventions. The best example is PolStat because this system enables policy offers to patrol on “hotspots”, namely, specific areas with a high level of registered incidents. GIS-based monitors can also enlarge the effectiveness of policies by combining different data and locations. This can result in new policy insights. An example is the Region Monitor Amsterdam that shows that the assumed development of ethnic ghetto’s in Amsterdam is a myth (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2006). These locationbased facts prevent that policy-makers undertake wrong interventions. GIS-based monitors also stimulate a rational reflection on the policy goals. The best example is the Monitor Nota Ruimte. The data from this monitor are input for the Implementation Agenda Nota Ruimte. This monitor has also stimulated a discussion about the “doelenboom”. A “doelenboom” is a scheme that contains all the policy goals, relevant indicators and conditions within a certain policy area. However, no indications have been found in this study that policy goals were changed as a direct result of data from GIS-based monitors.

24


475

4.3.2 Political Learning Conditions From a political point of view GIS-based monitors are used for promoting activities and to ground the successes that have been achieved. So data from GIS-based monitors can be (selectively) used to underpin good news. However, GIS-based monitors can also reveal “facts” about developments that are not in line with organizational ambitions and expectations. Bad news can harm the reputation of organizations. The Water Monitor revealed that the implementation of the water policy was too moderate to reach the ambitions of the Water Board. This was probably the most important reason not to make this monitor public accessible. It is not unthinkable that GIS-based monitors will be used for internal or external accounting activities. The Monitor Nota Ruimte serves partly as accounting instrument towards the members of the Dutch parliament. Maps from GIS-based monitors can be used to inform citizens about safety, social developments and water quality in their neighbourhoods.

4.3.3 Cultural Learning Conditions GIS-based monitoring can play a stimulating role in realizing shared policy orientations in a certain policy domain. Digital information systems require importing data in a uniform way and after data-processing each viewer will see the same maps. For that reason the connective potential of monitors should not be underestimated (de Kool, 2007). Monitors can serve as a compass that guide people, not only between, but also within organizations. Common interpretations of the achieved successes and failures are important conditions to learn. An important condition for creating shared views on reality is a broad access to monitors, at least within the organizations that are responsible for making and implementing the policy that is monitored by the monitor. PolStat and the Water Monitor are accessible for all civil servants who are working for these involved organizations. The respondents are more enthusiastic about these monitors, then the Region Monitor Amsterdam and the Monitor Nota Ruimte. The Region Monitor has a strong regional orientation, while the participating municipalities have a local focus. The Monitor Nota Ruimte is seen as national monitor by regional governments and as a VROM-monitor by the national policy departments. These monitors are not seen as a common (learning) instrument yet.

4.4 Learning Barriers In this research (potential) learning barriers have been traced as well. 4.4.1 Rational Learning Barriers The most important factor that hinders the learning capacity of GIS-based monitors is the abstract character of many policy goals. Abstract policy goals reduce effective monitoring activities and learning processes as well. Learning is only

476

D. de Kool

effective when it is clear which concrete policy goals organizations wants to achieve. The policy goals of the Nota Ruimte are not concrete (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, 2008). The official explanation is that the national government chose for decentralized implementation, which explains the global national framework. A rational explanation is the complexity of many policies, which makes it difficult to write down concrete goals. A political explanation that is rarely mentioned by the respondents is the fear of concrete ambitions, because there is always a risk of sanctions or reputation damage when ambitions are not realized (de Kool, 2008b). The history of monitors influences learning too. The case-study’s show that the longer the history of monitors is, the more useful the instrument will be. A long history means more historical data series. Many policy developments need time, so the detection of trends or changes is only possible with long data series. In other words: an interval of time exists between policy interventions and policy effects. The history of many GIS-based monitors is quite short, but the data series will become longer after certain time. Sometimes other factors influence the length of the available data series. In PolStat it is not possible to look for data series older then 13 weeks. The financial reason for this is that longer data series need more computer capacity and will cost more money. Many monitors have a static frequency, while the information needs of policy makers and politicians often change. However, it is difficult to make statements about the optimal frequency of monitors. Respondents of the Water Monitor expressed the wish to have a monitor that is more up-to-date. The case of PolStat shows that real-life monitoring is possible from a technological point of view. At the other hand the frequency of the Monitor Nota Ruimte seems to be too high, compared with the slow character of spatial developments. A risk of high frequencies is information overload that makes organizations less sensitive for new signals. This we can call the signalizing paradox. 4.4.2 Political Learning Barriers Not only the characteristics of monitors, but also the signalized developments can hinder learning. Monitors can signalize positive developments, but also problems that can be confronting for organizations or negative for their reputation. This brings the risk of selective transparency, namely, a focus on being transparent about positive results only, while negative results are neglected, hidden or even manipulated (de Kool, 2007). Incomplete or manipulated data can narrow the view on reality and hinder learning. The investigated GIS-based monitors are hardly used as a tool to be transparent to the outside world. Only the Monitor Nota Ruimte is a public report, although this monitor contains relatively few geographical maps. Nevertheless, there can be good reasons to keep geographical information inside organizations, for example, to protect the privacy of people. Most governments are reserved in sharing data with other organizations. Geographical information is a strategical source of power that can influence the position of organizations (Bekkers & Moody, 2006). From this perspective it is

24


477

understandable that the tuning of (geographical) information systems within and between organizations is complicated. Organizations prefer to arrange monitoring activities by themselves so that they will not loose control of “their” data. Some organizations or departments do even exists because of their unique information position. The case PolStat shows that many police departments work with their own systems. The case Monitor Nota Ruimte shows a competition between departments who prefer to spread data through their own channels. For that reason the tuning between monitors is often not optimal. 4.4.3 Cultural Learning Barriers A relevant cultural learning barrier is that sometimes no problem-owners can be traced who are responsible to solve signalized problems. A reason for this is that monitoring and policy interventions are often done by different organizations or departments within organizations. GIS-based monitors are often tasks of research departments or GIS-specialists, while policy-makers or implementation units are responsible to do something with relevant signals. The distance between GISspecialists and policy-makers is also known as the “two worlds” (Heywood et al., 2002). More coordination between these two worlds is necessary. Another cultural learning barrier is that different organizations can use different definitions and develop their own monitoring systems. For this reason standardization of geo-data and tuning between monitors are relevant points of attention. Finally, some case-specific aspects can be traced that hinder learning processes. In PolStat the respondents have expressed the wish to put digital maps on each other, so that new insights can be discovered more easily. In the current system it is not possible to put different maps on each other in the system. In the Region Monitor this is possible (Bouchier, Bosveld, & Pfeffer, 2005).

4.5 Learning Levels The final step is to analyse the learning levels that GIS-based monitors initiate. 4.5.1 Rational Learning Levels Most of the investigated GIS-based monitors stimulate location-based interventions. Most of these interventions seem to be ad hoc instead of structural. So we can speak about ad hoc first-level learning. GIS-based monitors stimulate a reflection about policy goals, but do not result in a revision of policy goals. So second-level learning is modest. GIS-based monitors stimulate a reflection about the assumptions behind the formulated policies, but no revision of policy theory. So third-level learning is modest too.

478

D. de Kool

4.5.2 Political Learning Levels GIS-based information is important for organizations, but not crucial. All organizations have their own sources of data. So first-level learning is limited. Most of the investigated organizations have a strategic approach to transparency, namely, to highlight good news and to neglect bad news. For this reason we can speak about selective second-level learning. GIS-based monitors stimulate the sense of urgency of cooperation between organizations. Nevertheless, competition is more common then cooperation. GIS-based monitors have not resulted in strategic reorientations of organizations. So there is no third-level learning. 4.5.3 Cultural Learning Levels Many GIS-based monitors require importing data in a uniform way and after dataprocessing each viewer will see the same maps. This can stimulate a shared focus on reality. Nevertheless, it is too early to speak about a common language. So first-level learning is modest. GIS-based monitors stimulate organizations to write down rules, agreements and responsibilities (formalization). So we can observe second-level learning. GIS-based monitors do not initiate fundamental discussions about shared values between organizations. So third-level learning is absent.

5 Conclusions and Recommendations The goal of this chapter was to analyse the impact of GIS-based monitors on learning processes within governmental organizations. The analysis is based on four case-studies, namely, PolStat, the Monitor Nota Ruimte, the Region Monitor and the Water Monitor. The added value of GIS for monitoring activities is undisputed. Despite the high potential of GIS, the utilization of GIS-based monitors for policy-learning is rather limited.

5.1 Functions of GIS-Based Monitors The cases show that GIS-based monitors are used as instruments to signalize relevant developments in society. The added value of GIS is to generate location-based signals, so it is clear in one view where policy interventions are necessary. The cases show that GIS-based monitors can make policy implementation very transparent. This transparency can be a risk for organizations too because not only successes, but also problems can be made visible as well. The cases show that communication is an important function of GIS-based monitors. Because of GIS technology the communication message can be presented in a visual and attractive way.

24


479

5.2 Learning Conditions From a rational point of view, GIS-based monitors stimulate effective implementations of policies because they facilitate location-based interventions. Another strength of GIS-based monitors is combining data and locations, which can result in new policy insights. GIS-based monitors also stimulate a rational reflection on the policy goals and advisable frequency. From a political point of view GIS-based monitors are selectively used for promoting activities and to ground the successes that have been achieved. From a cultural point of view GIS-based monitoring can play a stimulating role in realizing shared policy frameworks, especially within organizations.

5.3 Learning Barriers Against this background, certain learning barriers can be traced as well. An important rational learning barrier for GIS-based monitors is the ambiguity and abstract character of many policy goals. This has partly to do with the complexity of many policy domains, but can have strategic causes too, because transparency about ambitions can make organizations vulnerable when these ambitions can not be realized. Another barrier is the relatively short history of many GIS-based monitors, but this problem will be solved in the near future, when monitors have a longer history. A political learning barrier for GIS-based monitors is the selective manner in which organizations are dealing with transparency. They often show a defensive approach towards transparency about negative policy results, while especially these results are value information to improve and learn. A cultural learning barrier for GIS-based monitors is the lack of tuning activities of GIS within and between organizations. The responsibility for monitoring and GIS is often separated from the responsibility for policy development and implementation. These “separate worlds” have negative impacts on collective learning processes.

5.4 Levels of Learning The levels of learning that GIS-based monitors can result in are summarized in Table 24.1.

5.5 Recommendations The final question to be answered is: how can the impacts of GIS-based monitors on learning processes being increased? The next recommendations can help to improve the impact of GIS-based monitors.

480

D. de Kool Table 24.1 Learning with GIS-based monitors

First-level learning

Second-level learning

Third-level learning

Rational approach

Political approach

Yes, most of the investigated GIS-based monitors stimulate (ad hoc) location-based interventions

Limited, because GIS-based information is important for organizations, but not crucial

Cultural approach

Modest, GIS-based monitors can stimulate a shared focus on reality. Nevertheless it is too early to speak about a common language Modest, because Selective, because most of Yes, GIS-based monitors GIS-based monitors the investigated stimulate organizations stimulate a reflection organizations have a to write down rules, about policy goals, strategic approach to agreements and but don’t result in a transparency, namely to responsibilities revision of policy highlight good news (formalization) goals and to neglect bad news Modest, because No, GIS-based monitors No, GIS-based monitors GIS-based monitors stimulate the sense of do not initiate stimulate a reflection urgency of cooperation fundamental about the assumptions between organizations. discussions about behind the formulated Nevertheless, shared values between policies, but no GIS-based monitors organizations revision of policy have not resulted in theory strategic reorientations of organizations

First, to increase the utilization of GIS-based monitors the policy goals should be formulated more concrete and should have a more realistic connection with the available resources. Abstract policy goals reduce effective monitoring and learning processes as well. Learning is only effective when it is clear which concrete policy goals organizations wants to achieve. An important condition is that negative results are approached as useful lessons to improve policies, instead of failures that need to be punished. Otherwise negative effects can arise, like hiding or manipulating relevant data. Second, it is important that GIS-applications are not separate instruments, but an integral part of the information flow in organizations. The integration of information systems is not only a technical activity, but can have organizational consequences as well. For that reason all employees within organizations should actively being involved in change processes. Third, geographical information is from a visual point of view an attractive way to inform the outer world about the progress of policy. This transparency can enlarge the legitimacy of policy. Nevertheless, there can be good reasons to keep geographical information inside organizations, for example, to protect the privacy of people. Fourth, an active signalizing system within the GIS-application is recommended that automatically informs the users about striking developments. The “alerts” in

24


481

PolStat are a good example, although this specific applications should be more refined. Finally, a more fundamental reflection by organizations on the significance of GIS for developing, implementing and monitoring of policies and the course of the organization is needed. At this moment GIS-based monitors are mainly used for ad hoc activities on the short term instead of fundamental reflections on the longer term. Learning organizations should pay attention both to good and to bad news. GISbased monitors can help to detect relevant signals about reality, not as a distinct instrument, but as integral part of the information process. This can bring electronic governments on a higher level.

References Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Moody, R. (2006). Geographical information systems and the policy formulation process: The emergence of a reversed mixed scanning mode? In V. J. J. M. Bekkers, H. van Duivenboden, & M. Thaens (Eds.), Information and communication technology and public innovation: Assessing the ICT-driven modernization of public administration (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Benz, A., & Fürst, D. (2002). Policy learning in regional networks. European Urban and Regional Studies, 9(1), 21–35. Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. (1982). The utilization process: A conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(4), 591–622. Bouchier, T., Bosveld, W., & Pfeffer, K. (2005). Grenzeloze dynamiek in stad en regio. Rooilijn, 9, 436–443. Bouckaert, G., de Peuter, B., & van Dooren, W. (2003). Meten en vergelijken van lokale bestuurlijke ontwikkeling: Een monitoringsysteem voor het lokaal bestuur in Vlaanderen. Brugge: Die Keure. Bregt, A. K. (1999). Net werk in de Geo-informatiekunde. Wageningen: Universiteit Wageningen. Carver, S. (2001). Participation and geographical information: A position paper. Position paper ESF-NSF workshop Access to Geographic Information and participatory approaches using Geographic Information, Spoleto, December 6–8, 2001. Cohen, M. D., & Sproull, L. S. (Eds.). (1996). Organizational learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dahler-Larsen, P. (1998). Beyond non-utilization of evaluations: An institutional perspective. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy, 11(1/2), 64–90. de Kool, D. (2007). Monitoring in beeld: Een studie naar de doorwerking van monitors in interbestuurlijke relaties. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit. de Kool, D. (2008a). Monitoring in kaart: Een studie naar de doorwerking van op GIS gebaseerde beleidsinformatie in het leerproces van organisaties die een rol spelen bij de uitvoering van beleid. Rotterdam: Center for Public Innovation. de Kool, D. (2008b). Rational, political and cultural uses of performance monitors: The case of the Dutch Urban Policy. In W. van Dooren & S. van de Wall (Eds.), Performance information in the public sector: How it is used (pp. 174–191). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Engbersen, R., Eggermont, J., Gabriëls, R., & A. Sprinkhuizen (red.) (1997). Nederland aan de monitor: Het systematisch en periodiek volgen van maatschappelijke ontwikkelingen. Utrecht: NIZW. Feldman, M. S., & March, J. G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 171–186. Gemeente Amsterdam. (2006). Stads-en regiomonitor Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Dienst Onderzoek en Statistiek.

482

D. de Kool

Greene, R. W. (2003). GIS in public policy: Using geographic information for more effective government. Redlands: ESRI Press. Grothe, M. (1999). Keuze voor ruimte, ruimte voor keuze: De ontwikkeling van GIS-applicaties voor locatieplanning; een objectgeoriënteerde analyse. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Hathout, S. (2002). The use of GIS for monitoring and predicting urban growth in East and West St Paul, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Canada. Journal of Environmental Management, 66(3), 229–238. Heywood, I., Cornelius, S., & Carver, S. (2002). Geographical information systems. Londen: Pearson-Prentice. Mayne, J. M., & Zapico-Goni, E. (Eds.). (1997). Monitoring performance in the public sector: Future directions form international experience. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Ministerie van VROM. (2008). GIDEON – Basisvoorziening geo-informatie Nederland: Visie en implementatiestrategie 2008–2011. Den Haag: VROM. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving. (2008). Monitor nota ruimte: De eerste vervolgmeting. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers. Poister, Th. H. (1983). Performance monitoring. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Pollard, P. (2000). Geographical information services: A UK perspective on the development of interorganisational information services. Information Infrastructure and Policy, 6(4), 185–195. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company. Thomas, C., & Humenik-Sappington, N. (2009). GIS for decision support and public policy making. Redlands: ESRI Press. Tsou, M.-H. (2004). Integrating web-based GIS and image processing tools for environmental monitoring and natural resource management. Journal of Geographical Systems, 6(2), 155–174. Turner, P., & Higgs, G. (2003). The use and management of geographic information in local e-government in the UK. Information Polity, 8(3/4), 151–165. Vedung, E. (1997). Public policy and program evaluation. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers. Verweij, A. O., Goezinne, A., & Dijkstra, A. (1995). Opmaat tot signalering: Instrumentontwikkeling voor de monitor Grotestedenbeleid. Den Haag: Ministerie van BZK. Weiss, C. H. (Ed.). (1977). Using social research in public policy making. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Chapter 25

Bridging the Other Divide: An Assessment of the Usability of Trinidad and Tobago Government Ministry Websites Charlene M.L. Roach and N. Joseph Cayer

This study examines the e-government Website usability dimensions of Trinidad and Tobago (TT) government ministry Websites. It assesses the extent to which TT, as a developing country, succeeds in its efforts to bridge the “other divide” by examining ministry Website usability variables based on Stowers’ usability dimensions. Website usability focuses on the ease with which users can find what they want on a Website and accomplish the tasks they desire. Stowers (2002) identifies six usability dimensions: online services, user-help tools, navigation features, legitimacy, information architecture, and accessibility accommodations. The study found that the Ministry of Legal Affairs and the Ministry of Trade and Industry are the highest performing ministries overall. The findings suggest that there may be implications for understanding Website usability for the Caribbean region and for government ministries in general. Finally, the study aims at stimulating further research about Caribbean government Websites that can help to reduce or eliminate the digital divides.

1 Introduction This chapter examines the e-government Website usability dimensions of all 22 Trinidad and Tobago (TT) government ministries. The chapter assesses the extent to which TT succeeds in bridging the “other divide,” by examining government Website usability variables and related attributes. Website usability focuses on the ease with which users can find what they want on a Website and accomplish the tasks they desire, in other words, how user-friendly a Website is (Brinck, Gergle, & Wood, 2002). Most usability research focuses on e-commerce (Nielsen, 2000; C.M.L. Roach (B) The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus, Trinidad & Tobago, West Indies e-mail: [email protected] N.J. Cayer Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA e-mail: [email protected]


483

484

C.M.L. Roach and N.J. Cayer

Nielsen & Mack, 1994; van der Merwe & Bekker, 2003). As Stowers (2002) notes, “. . .lessons developed for private sector e-commerce sites might not work for public sector sites” (p. 11). She goes on to note that private- and public-sector sites differ in their basic organizing approaches. Therefore, she developed six dimensions of Website usability: online services, user-help tools, navigation features, accessibility accommodations, legitimacy characteristics, and information architecture (Stowers, 2002) which we use in this study. The six dimensions define the usability of the Website as explained later. The study poses three questions: 1. Are there differences in the Website usability variables across TT government Websites? 2. May some of these government ministry Websites serve as benchmarks for best practices for other ministries to model? 3. How do the best-ranked ministries’ Websites compare with the recently launched TT government portal site in bridging the usability divide? The study contributes to understanding of Website usability by replicating Baker’s 2004 study of the most populous US countries in a developing country, Trinidad and Tobago. His framework focuses on the analysis of Website content features applicable to services government agencies provide. Baker and others used content analysis which we applied to the examination of the TT ministry Websites (Baker, 2009; Gant, Gant, & Johnson, 2002; Holzer & Kim, 2004; Stowers, 2002; West, 2006, 2009). The digital revolution’s social impact on society is profound (Benchmann, Krings, & Rader, 2003; Compaine, 2001; Dawes, 2008; Day & Schuler, 2004; Gattiker, 2001; James, 2004; Kuttan & Peters, 2003; Mack, 2001; Marshall, Taylor, & Yu, 2003; Van Dijk, 2005; West, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007). Many countries and societies are moving toward total reliance upon digital technologies (Dai, 2000; Mossberger, Tolbert, & Stansbury, 2003). Within this context, the digital divide is a major policy issue for all governments. The digital divide also has implications for democracy in terms of citizens having equal access to information, the ability to participate, and for civic engagement (Cammaerts, Van Audenhove, & Nulens, 2003; Katz & Rice, 2002; Mack, 2001; Warscheur, 2003). The digital divide problem crosses geographic boundaries and, therefore, demands global and comparative research and solutions for addressing it and its consequences.

1.1 The Other Divide and Website Usability An examination of the other divide has potential benefits for governments of developing countries. It illustrates the reasons for its prevalence, the consequences of such a divide, and how governments can attempt to narrow the gap between the developing and the developed worlds in their use of e-government and other ICT.

25

Bridging the Other Divide

485

The other divide demonstrates “the lack of experience of many citizens in using computers or the Internet” (Stowers, 2002, p. 6). It may be regarded as a subset of the digital divide (DD) and the global digital divide (GDD). The DD and GDD refer to physical and other barriers that prevent users’ universal access to the Internet, while the other divide addresses ease of use of a Website (James, 2003). The transformative powers of the World Wide Web can take one to another country by one click of a mouse. These global factors add to the level of responsibility for TT government in their e-government initiative. By addressing the other divide, the government will be able to develop deliberate policies and programs to ensure high levels of usability for all. Evaluation of usability of Websites may be conducted in numerous ways (Nielsen & Mack, 1994). The methods range from heuristic evaluation which is relatively informal to formal usability inspection involving a multi-step process with very specific standards applied. Following Baker’s lead, this analysis uses heuristic evaluation in which Websites are examined to judge the extent to which features of the Websites demonstrate usability.

2 Methodology The 22 ministries serving the nation’s population of about 1.3 million people are the units of analysis (See Table 25.19 in Appendix). The literature identifies common usability elements considered important in studies of government Website usability (Abramson & Means, 2001; Charlton, Gittings, Leng, Little, & Neilson, 1999). This study uses the six dimensions of usability developed by Stowers (2002) because they were developed specifically for evaluating public-sector Websites. Content analysis of the TT government ministries’ Websites was used to understand their usability dimensions. The review began by accessing each TT ministry Website via the World Wide Web and connecting to their respective home pages. Content analysis of the ministries’ Websites was applied to see if they contained the 37 usability variables associated with Stowers’ six usability dimensions. Additionally, scales were constructed and applied to some variables to enrich the analysis. Patterned after Stowers’ work, dichotomous variables are examined from the ministry’s home page through their links, “down to the third click (considered by many to be the farthest that users will go in their search for information)” (p. 34). Through Baker’s (2006) scale and additive index, these scale variables extend beyond the third click standard to demonstrate variations in usability dimensions. Given the need for a tiebreaker, the least number of clicks required to execute the highly ranked tasks were determined using Baker’s method. Baker’s additive scale index provides a robust examination of scales to supplement the dichotomous treatment of measures thus paving the way for a vigorous qualitative analysis that helps to establish benchmarks or best practice Websites in the six dimensions. As noted in the previous section, each dimension consists of several variables that are defined operationally and represent an overall understanding of the

486


characteristics that encompass each dimension. For each of the variables subsumed by a dimension (such as online services), the research identifies the extensiveness or investment made by the web designer in the particular variable. Methodologically, such measures reflect manifest coding (Goldenberg, 1992), and are defined by the researcher as the frequency of options available for a given variable. These are a type of summated rating scale (Edwards, 1957) constructed when the researcher defines and assigns numbers representing extensiveness and selects the option number that best represents the content being coded. For example, if we are measuring extensiveness of download opportunities for the online services dimension, a scale might be formed that assigns a score of zero if there are no available downloads, a score of 1 if there are 1–3 available downloads, a score of 2 if there are 4–6 downloads, and so on. As an example, the usability dichotomous and scale additive index (UI) components developed by Baker are displayed briefly in Table 25.1 (Baker, 2004, pp.127–128). Table 25.1 Website usability dichotomous and scale additive index components Usability dimension Online services Dichotomous Scale User-help Dichotomous Scale Navigation Dichotomous Scale Legitimacy Dichotomous Scale Information architecture Dichotomous Scale Access accommodations Dichotomous Scale Totals

Raw score subtotal

Raw score total

Weighted score

6 20

26

16.67

4 12

16

16.67

3 8

11

16.67

4 8

12

16.67

4 8

12

16.66

5 82

16.66 100

1 4

Further scrutiny is achieved through use of descriptive statistics to compute range, mean, mode, and standard deviation of scores. Source: Baker (2006, 2004, pp. 127–128).

2.1 Website Usability: Dimensions and Variables In order to evaluate the Website usability of TT government ministry Websites (see Table 25.19 in Appendix for TT Government Ministries), this study utilizes the Website usability dimensions and variables identified primarily from Stowers’

25


487

research (2002) which Baker later extended and modified with the development of scale construction in his usability study of “the most populous countries” (Baker, 2004, 2006). Stowers conceptualized features which she considers to bridge the divide (and by extension, the “other divide”) or Website usability, which Baker abbreviated by labeling as: (1) online services; (2) user-help; (3) navigation; (4) legitimacy; (5) information architecture; and (6) accessibility accommodations (Baker, 2004, 2006), explained below. Online Services. Users access government Websites for information and services. The online services dimension of usability focuses on the content and availability of information and tools to perform the tasks users want. Hence, online services may include a wide spectrum of online services (See Table 25.2). They include features such as: (1) basic information; (2) range of government or official documents; (3) communication with government officials or public servants; (4) downloadable forms; (5) interactive forms; (6) interactive databases; (7) multi media applications; (8) e-commerce or business applications; (9) tailored or customizable content; (10) mapping applications (such as Geographic Information Systems-GIS); (11) purchasing/outsourcing/contracting information; (12) quantitative data/statistics; (13) publications; (14) employment information; and (15) ordinance code (Stowers, 2002). Table 25.2 Operational definitions: variables for online services Variable

Operational definition

Basic information Documents/publications Communications with officials

Elementary data identifying Website and host agency Official printable material from host agency Contact information for elected and management individuals responsible for agency Printable on user demand for official business Individual commerce and citizen transactions Online form completion and submittal on demand Online access to public databases on demand Online access to videos or audio clips on demand User venue (s) for communication oriented/organized around a common interest Registration for e-mail update service for user interest items Online access to public job information on demand

Downloadable forms E-commerce applications Interactive forms Interactive databases Multimedia applications Chat areas/message boards E-mail updates/listserv Employment information Source: Baker (2006, 2004, p. 102).

User-Help. Government ministry Websites ideally should contain helpful information for all users and visitors alike to guide them step by step to resolve any issue while using the Website (Table 25.3). Good user-help tools empower users to browse, trouble shoot, and find ways to access and also to understand the content. Examples include: (1) helpful tips; (2) search tools; (3) site index; (4) site map; (5) site information; (6) e-mail us; frequently asked questions (FAQs); (7) site feedback; (8) help; and (9) other user-help features (Stowers, 2002).

488

C.M.L. Roach and N.J. Cayer Table 25.3 Operational definitions: variables for user-help

Variable


About the site

Basic data link about the site, targeted for new users or those with little knowledge of ICTs Customized e-mail template for site assistance Link for comments about how site works and impressions Translation site version (s) for nonnative users Tool to search content of the site Internet portable or wireless mechanism that allows access to any site Alphabetize information that permits new users to display site facts and other material

E-mail us Feedback Foreign language Search Personal digital assistance/wireless Index Source: Baker (2006, 2004, p. 103).

Table 25.4 Operational definitions: variables for navigation Variable


E-government services

E-government services enabled through direct links to execute online functions or transactions Ability to directly make contacts through links with other government agencies Direct links readily available to e-mail host agency Users’ forum for live discussions/communications and or messaging

Link to other agencies Link to contact information Chat areas or message or boards Source: Baker (2006, 2004, p. 104).

Navigation. Navigation features function as the copilot for the Website, allowing users to browse through the entire Website and find what they need. Users must be able to get to the services they want easily and know at any given time where they are, and if they desire they should know how to exit (Table 25.4). They include: (1) official welcome; (2) calendar; (3) answers to a–z; (4) e-services; (5) links; (6) government legislation/laws enacted; (7) current media coverage or releases; students/children links; (8) contact us; (9) most popular/visited site; and (10) what is new. Legitimacy. Legitimacy features authenticate any Website as belonging to a particular government agency (Table 25.5). In the case of TT ministry Websites, these features are critical in motivating users to use ministry Websites as credible e-replicas of government ministries. Users should easily recognize these features throughout the Websites and be certain that their privacy needs are protected. These features include: (1) visible security policy; (2) visible privacy policy; (3) disclaimer statements; (4) contact information; (5) Website information updates; and (6) external parties’ site endorsement (Stowers, 2002). Information Architecture. This dimension provides structure and organization for a Website providing “labels information” especially on the “front page” or

25


489

Table 25.5 Operational definitions: variables for legitimacy Variable


Contact information

Contact information for users to address questions and be assured that it is a credible and official government agency Disclosure data about the site informing users or visitors of what it is about or not about Statements about the extent to which privacy is honored or maintained Statements about the extent to which security is honored or maintained Visible mechanisms to determine site identity or affiliation

Disclaimer statements Privacy policy Security policy Authentication password/digital sign Webmaster contact

Recognizable Website manager communication

Source: Baker (2006, 2004, p. 105). Table 25.6 Operational definitions: variables for information architecture Variable


Audience-focused/centric

User-centric approach and outlook on the site especially targeted for new users and those with little knowledge about ICTs and government agencies Agency or government ministry listing Features customized to satisfy users’ preferences within reason Agency or government ministry’s functions noted for novice users Identification of type or kind of government represented—e.g., ministry Publicly recognizable identity or image or symbol communicated—e.g., national coat of arms, national flag, logo

Agencies/departments Personalized/customizable Services Branch of government Branding/structure/metaphor

Source: Baker (2006, 2004, p. 106).

“splash page.” It assists users in learning how a government ministry is organized (Table 25.6). These features are: (1) audience-centric or audience-focused; (2) organization by ministry/departments/divisions; (3) events; (4) metaphor; (5) agency/ministry officials; (6) services/tasks/functions/processes offered; (7) topics/issues; (8) newspaper listing appearance; (9) personalized/customizable features (Stowers, 2002). Accessibility Accommodations. These are “enabling access features” for users with any kind of disability (Table 25.7). The e-government paradigm supports providing all users equal access to government. Thus Website design should ensure access to users with special accommodation needs. Examples include (1) text browsers/text telephone for the hearing impaired; (2) reducing animation/more text offered for the visually impaired; (3) bobby analysis/tool (software that facilitates

490

C.M.L. Roach and N.J. Cayer Table 25.7 Operational definitions: variables for accessibility accommodations

Variable

Operational definitions

Bobby compliance

Accessibility test to ascertain if there are design errors that hinder disabled accessibility Host or government agency provides device to communicate via keyboard-equipped telephone message to guarantee disabled access

Text telephone

Source: Baker (2006, 2004, p. 106).

the evaluation of Websites for poor designs that inhibit disabled users from having full access to Website content; and (4) legal compliance (Baker, 2004, 2006; Stowers, 2002).

3 Findings The online Website usability evaluation was conducted from March through August of 2007. When the online evaluations were executed, only 17 of the 22 ministries had Websites and thus qualified for the online evaluation. Five ministries, Local Government, Public Administration and Information, Public Utilities, Sport and Youth Affairs, and Works and Transport, did not have Websites and could not be included in the study.

3.1 Overview Table 25.8 shows the results for the 17 ministries and the TT Government pilot portal site for each of the usability dimensions. The overall usability index (UI) ranges from a low score of 22.6 (Ministry of Social Development) to a high score of 82.0 (Ministry of Legal Affairs and the Attorney General) out of a total possible score of 100 points. Table 25.8 provides an overview of the overall UI scores for all the ministry and portal sites as well as the rankings for each of the dimensions. The mean UI score is 54.0, with a median score of 55.4, and standard deviation of 16.9. There are differences in the Website usability variables across TT government Websites. While the Legal Affairs Website is clearly far above the others, below it there are general groupings: those ministries with scores between 70 and 75 representing highly usable Websites, those with scores between 50 and 59, representing moderately usable Websites, and those with scores below 45, which are functional but could be significantly improved. It can be argued that some of the government ministries are making vigorous attempts or quality attempts to bridge the “usability divides” based on these results. The following section discusses results for each of the six

25


491

Table 25.8 Usability index for TT Government Ministry and Portal Websites Ranking and Website

OS

1. Legal Affairs 10.9 2. TT Pilot Portal Site 9.6 3. Trade & Industry 9.0 4. Tourism 6.4 5. Foreign Affairs 10.9 6. Health 7.7 7. National Security 8.3 8. Labor 8.3 9. Agriculture 9.0 10. Education 8.3 11. Housing 7.0 12. Energy 8.3 13. Office of P.M. 5.1 14. Finance 7.0 15. Planning & 3.8 Development. 16. Science & Tech. 4.5 17. Community 3.2 Development 18. Social Development 3.2

UH

N

L

IA

AA

Total

12.6 12.6 9.8 11.2 11.2 12.6 12.6 8.4 14.0 5.6 11.2 11.2 4.2 11.2 4.2

15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 13.7 15.2 13.7 7.6 12.1 7.6

16.7 11.2 16.7 12.6 2.8 4.2 5.6 2.8 4.2 2.8 2.8 7.0 8.4 2.8 2.8

16.7 16.7 16.7 15.4 16.7 16.7 7.0 12.6 1.4 16.7 12.6 8.4 9.8 8.4 5.6

9.9 9.9 6.6 9.9 13.2 3.3 9.9 9.9 13.2 6.7 3.3 3.3 9.9 3.3 9.9

82.0 75.2 74.1 70.7 70.0 59.7 58.6 57.2 57.0 53.8 52.1 51.9 45.0 44.8 33.9

5.6 2.8

15.2 9.1

2.8 9.8

4.2 5.6

0.0 0.0

32.3 30.5

0.0

9.1

2.8

4.2

3.3

22.6

OS, online services; UH, user help; N, navigation; L, legitimacy; IA, information architecture; AA, accessibility accommodations. Usability Indexes are rounded to the nearest tenth.

usability dimensions. Also, this table shows distinctions among the ministries within each dimension. Some of the Websites, by virtue of their high scores may serve as benchmarks for best practices for other government ministries.

3.1.1 Best Practice Sites The Ministry of Legal Affairs and the Attorney General (hereafter called Legal Affairs) emerges as the top ministry Website for usability and a benchmark for best practices. This ministry’s overall Usability Index (UI) score is 82.0. It has the best usability index score for four dimensions: online services, navigation, legitimacy, and information architecture. It and Foreign Affairs have the highest scores for the online services dimension. Legal Affairs and Trade and Industry report the highest legitimacy dimension scores. Legal Affairs also shares the high score for the navigation dimension with nine other ministries-Agriculture; Foreign Affairs; Health; Housing; Labor; National Security; Science, Technology & Tertiary Education; Tourism; and Trade and Industry as well as the Pilot Portal site. Similarly, it shares the top score for the information architecture dimension with four other ministriesEducation, Foreign Affairs, Health, and Trade and Industry as well as the Portal Pilot Website. It also has the second highest scores for the two remaining dimensions of user-help and accessibility accommodations.

492


The Ministry of Trade and Industry follows in second place among the ministry Websites for best practices with an overall UI score of 74.1. This ministry also leads with Legal Affairs in three dimensions: Navigation, Legitimacy, and Information Architecture. In addition to their ranking on the six usability dimensions (representing a total of 37 usability variables, 22 dichotomous and 15 scale) as best practice, these two ministry sites have outperformed the other ministries in their overall number of these variables. Table 25.9 shows the best sites, Legal Affairs and Trade and Industry, tied in having 16 of a total of 22 dichotomous variables present on their Websites, representing 73% of the study’s usability dimensions. Four out of the six variables that are absent from Trade and Industry’s Website for dichotomous variables are also absent for most of the ministry sites and point to an area for future investment by TT government ministries. These variables are chat/areas message boards (counted once under online services and navigation—100% absent), personal digital assistant (15 sites, 83%, do not have this feature), index (100% absent from the sites), and text telephone (100% absent from the sites). Also absent from its site is multimedia applications (Legal Affairs is among 12 sites, 61%, without this feature). Legal Affairs also leads as a best practice site since it is the only site to have an e-mail updates/listserve feature. Table 25.9 Overall number of usability variables for best practice sites TT Gov Website Legal affairs Trade and industry

Number of dichotomous variables

% of Number dichotomous of scale variables variables

% of scale variables

Total usability variables

% usability variables

16/22 16/22

73 73

80 73

28/37 27/37

76 73

12/15 11/15

Regarding the scale variables, Legal Affairs also leads among the ministry sites with 12 out of the 15 scale variables present on its site, 80% (Table 25.9). Trade and Industry has 11 out of 15, about 73%. Legal Affairs may be considered a best practice site with 28 out of the possible 37 usability variables (76%). Trade follows closely with 27 out of the 37 possible variables at 73%. 3.1.2 Usability Feature Assessments Online Services. Table 25.10 shows the overall scores, for the general features for the online services dimension for all the sites, demonstrating how this dimension varies across the sites. The overall scores range from 3.2 to 10.9 of a total possible of 16.7. The mean score for this dimension is 7.3 with a median of 8.0, a mode of 8.3, and a standard deviation of 2.4. These scores correspond with the overall Website usability index table (UI) for online services. In Table 25.10, a usability score of 3.2, 7.0, 9.0, and 10.9, respectively, have a frequency of 2 (about 11%) representing two sites for each score.

25


493

Table 25.10 Online services usability scores for Websites (16.7 total possible) Total usability scores

Frequency of score

Number of Websites

3.2 3.8 4.5 5.1 6.4 7.0 7.7 8.3 9.0 9.6 10.9

2 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 1 2

2 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 1 2

These scores are similar to the results for the usability index table for this dimension for all the sites Overall scores for online services vary from 3.2 to 10.9 of 16.7 possible (Table 25.10). The Ministry of Legal Affairs and Foreign Affairs are the two leading sites for this dimension, with an overall score of 10.9 (representing about 11% of overall scores for online services). They performed the best among the sites, but there is room for improvement for these two sites and all the other sites for the online services features. Most of the sites performed in a range of 3.2 to about 9.6. Overall, these sites have differences in the presence and quality of usability features for the online services dimension (that is, for the dichotomous and scale variables). The scale variables illustrate these variations with a score of 1 showing very little usability to 4 showing very high usability features. The mean score for User Help is 8.9 with a median of 11.2, a mode of 11.2 (5 ministries which represent about 28% of all the Websites), and a standard deviation of 4.1 (Table 25.11). The median is a frequency of 5 representing the five ministries that also serve as the mode based on the overall user-help scores.

Table 25.11 User-help usability scores for Websites (16.7 total possible) Total usability scores

Frequency of score

Number of Websites

0 2.8 4.2 5.6 8.4 9.8 11.2 12.6 14.0

1 1 2 2 1 1 5 4 1

1 1 2 2 1 1 5 4 1

494


Further, Table 25.11 shows overall scores for user-help general features with a range of 0.0–14.0 of a total possible score of 16.7. This spread shows the variation among the sites and how they perform generally in these features. Multiple sites attain similar scores such as 11.2 (5 sites), 5.6 (2 sites), and 4.2 (2 sites). The Ministry of Agriculture achieved a score of 14 and serves as a model for the user-help features. There is room for improvement in Agriculture in other areas. For the dichotomous variables, Agriculture lacks a personal digital assistant (83% of the sites do not have) which allows users to access Websites through a wireless mechanism. It also lacks an index (100% of the sites lack) which permits new users to view site facts and other material. For the scale variables, Agriculture can improve by including a foreign language translation capability thus reducing digital divide barriers for people who are not fluent in English, increasing accessibility, and shifting from the Anglo-Phone tendency that dominates many Websites (95% of the sites lack this feature). Agriculture achieves the highest scores for 2 of the 3 scale variables (feedback and search). This puts its scale variables score at 8 points of 12 possible. For feedback, this ministry responds within 24 h (about 19 h to be exact) to a responsive test in the form of a question about whether the Website has a personal digital assistant (PDA). The site also gives users a routine acknowledgment of their questions through their interactive feedback form before a specific response is given. Thus, its score is 4 out of 4 possible points for the feedback mechanism. Its Website also has high-quality search usability designs such as frequently asked questions, a site map, a search help feature, and a sort search relevance feature. The presence and high usability for these features put Agriculture at the highest score possible for this scale variable (4 points).

3.2 Navigation The navigation usability feature scores vary from 7.6 (in Table 25.12 the frequency of this score represents two sites) to 15.2 out of a total of 16.7. The mean score for this dimension is 13.3 with a median of 15.2, a mode of 15.2 (11 sites about 61%), and a standard deviation of 2.9.

Table 25.12 Navigation usability scores for Websites (16.7 total possible) Total usability scores

Frequency of score

Number of Websites

7.6 9.1 12.1 13.7 15.2

2 2 1 2 11

2 2 1 2 11

25


495

Overall, the navigation dimension is one of the strongest features for Website usability based on multiple high-performing sites with 11 sites with a mode of 15.2. Two sites receive scores of 13.7, 9.1, and 7.6, respectively. One site achieves a score of 12.1. For e-government services 13 of the sites provide at least one service to users (about 72%) and 5 sites lack this feature (about 28%). For the link to the other contact information feature, 16 sites (about 89%) have direct links readily available to e-mail the respective government agency/ministry. Only two sites do not have this contact link available, Planning & Development and Social Development. None of the sites have chat areas/message boards features available. This is indicative of the developmental stage of TT government Websites. E-government capacities such as online discussions or chat areas may not be the kind of usability feature that these ministries are ready to take on through their Websites. The finding implies that it is certainly a deficiency and an area for growth as e-governance evolves.

3.3 Legitimacy Overall scores for legitimacy range from 2.8 which is also the mode, to 16.7, the total possible for this dimension. Two sites achieve this very high usability performance (Table 25.13). The remainder range from a score of 5.6–12.6. The other sites are just slightly over the lowest score, that is, 4.2. Thus, the mean score for this dimension is 6.6 with a median of 4.2, a mode of 2.8 (represents 8 ministries or 44% of all the sites), and a standard deviation of 4.9. Generally, the usability performance for legitimacy shows that more than half of the sites have a low quality of usability. Table 25.13 Legitimacy usability scores for Websites (16.7 total possible) Total usability scores

Frequency of score

Number of Websites

2.8 4.2 5.6 7.0 8.4 9.8 11.2 12.6 16.7

8 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

8 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

Two sites, Legal Affairs and Trade and Industry, achieve notable distinction for the legitimacy dimension with the total possible score of 16.7. They serve as models for how legitimacy features may be designed to improve Website usability for the government ministries.

496


3.4 Information Architecture The usability evaluation scores for information architecture for all the sites range from 1.4 to 16.7 out of a possible score of 16.7 (Table 25.14). The mean score for this dimension is 10.9 with a median of 11.2, a mode of 16.7 (6 ministries or 33%), and a standard deviation of 5.4. There are six sites having maximum usability scores (16.7), three sites with high usability scores (scores ranging between 12 and 15.4), three sites with moderate usability (8.4–9.8), and six sites with low usability (1.4–7.0).

Table 25.14 Information architecture usability scores for Websites (16.7 total possible) Total usability scores

Frequency of score

Number of Websites

1.4 4.2 5.6 7.0 8.4 9.8 12.6 15.4 16.7

1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 6

1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 6

The high-performing sites for information architecture general features are: Education, Foreign Affairs, Health, Legal Affairs, Trade and Industry, and the TT Pilot Portal site. They all achieve full points for this dimension (16.7).

3.5 Accessibility Accommodations The usability scores for accessibility accommodations general features range from 0.0 to 13.20 of a possible 16.7 (Table 25.15). The mean score for this dimension is 7.0 with a median of 8.3, a mode of 9.9 (represents the highest score in Table 25.15, Table 25.15 Accessibility accommodation usability scores for Websites (16.7 total possible) Total usability scores

Frequency of score

Number of Websites

0 3.3 6.6 6.7 9.9 13.2

2 5 1 1 7 2

2 5 1 1 7 2

25


497

for seven ministries or about 40% of the sites), and a standard deviation of 4.2. Overall there are two sites with very high usability scores, 13.2. Most of the sites achieve functionality with the exception that two sites do not qualify for this usability feature. However, the remaining differences in the overall scores for accessibility accommodations (7 with 9.9, 1 each for 6.7 and 6.6, and 5 with 3.3) underscore the degree of investment by ministry officials to reduce hindrances for users with disabilities and the need for sites with lower scores to invest more effort on this dimension. Agriculture and Foreign Affairs lead in performance in accessibility accommodations. They represent about 11% of the sites and can serve as models for creating usability.

4 Usability Distributions of the Pilot Portal Site Relative to the Two Best Practice Ministry Sites This section provides a comparison of the overall results of the best practice ministry sites with the pilot portal site in their efforts to bridge the usability divide (Research Question Three). This comparison is useful to inform future public policy for the ministry sites in their e-government-related initiatives. Since the pilot portal site is recently launched, it is expected that it may employ high usability features. The pilot portal site, while it is not a ministry, serves the TT ministry sites by representing their services (and e-services) to the public and provides a gateway to TT government online with a look and feel that provides users with a “one-stop shop” approach. Overall usability distributions of the TT Pilot Portal site (UI score 75) put it second to Legal Affairs (UI score, 82). Trade and Industry follows in third place (UI score, 74.1). The pilot portal site also leads in two dimensions: navigation and information architecture. A comparison of all usability variables for the Pilot Portal site and the two best practice sites shows that all three sites achieve 16 out of a possible 22 dichotomous variables (73% of dichotomous scores), the highest overall score in the study (Table 25.16). The three sites also share deficiencies in their usability features that are common to all the sites in the study: chat areas/message boards, index, and text telephone devices, pointing to an area for ministry officials to strengthen their usability performance. For the multimedia applications feature, the three sites are deficient. Only Legal Affairs has the E-mail updates/listserve usability feature but, Legal Affairs lacks the personal digital assistant feature that the other two sites have. In the total number of scale variables among the three sites (Table 25.16) the Pilot Portal site leads with 13 out of the 15 possible scale features (87%). Legal Affairs, Tourism, and National Security follow with 12 out of 15 (80%), and then there are four ministries each at 11 out of 15 and 10 of 15. Generally, the scale features consistently absent from these sites are e-commerce applications (100%

498

C.M.L. Roach and N.J. Cayer Table 25.16 Overall number of usability variables for ministry and pilot portal sites

TT Gov Website 1. Pilot Portal 2. Legal Affairs 3. Trade & Industry 4. Tourism 5. National Security 6. Finance 7. Foreign Affairs 8. Health 9. Agriculture 10. Housing 11. Energy 12. Labor 13. Education 14. STTE 15. Community Development 12/22 16. Office of PM 11/22 17. Planning & Development 11/22 18. Social Development

Number of dichotomous variables

% of Number Total dichotomous of scale % of scale usability % usability variables variables variables variables variables

16/22 16/22 16/22

73 73 73

13/15 12/15 11/15

87 80 73

29/37 28/37 27/37

78 76 73

15/22 14/22

68 64

12/15 12/15

80 80

27/37 26/37

73 70

14/22 14/22

64 64

10/15 11/15

67 73

25/37 25/37

68 68

14/22 13/22 14/22 13/22 13/22 12/22 14/22 55

64 59 64 59 59 55 64 6/15

11/15 11/15 10/15 10/15 10/15 10/15 7/15 40

73 73 67 67 67 67 47 18/37

25/37 24/37 24/37 23/37 23/37 22/37 21/37 49

68 65 65 62 62 60 57

50

7/15

47

18/37

49

50

6/15

40

17/37

46

7/22

32

5/15

33

12/37

33

STTE, Science, Technology and Tertiary Education.

for all the sites) and foreign language (95%). The first feature requires legal reform for e-commerce transactions to be legalized. While the Pilot Portal site and Legal Affairs have e-mail addresses and access to addresses or phone numbers for the scale feature for communication with officials, Trade has these plus responds to questions within 24 h. This is impressive and hints to an area for other officials to improve upon in their response rates. Comparing the total number of usability variables in the study, as seen in Table 25.16, the pilot portal site leads with 29 out of 37 possible variables (78%), followed by Legal Affairs with 28 out of 37 (76%), and Trade and Industry and Tourism with 27 out of 37 (73%). The differences are slight. Table 25.17 shows that the Pilot Portal site achieves very high usability performance on 7 of 15 scale features (about 47%), 4 out of 15 for high usability performance (about 27%), moderate usability performance in 1 out of 15 (about

25


499

Table 25.17 TT portal scale variables raw scores and usability performance Scale variable

Raw score

Usability performance

Communication with Officials Documents/publications Downloadable forms E-commerce applications Employment information Feedback Foreign language Search Link to other agencies Volume aids Privacy policy Webmaster contact Audience/market Personalized/customizable Bobby compliance

2

Moderate usability

4 4 0 3 3 0 3 4 4 3 1 4 4 4

Very high usability Very high usability Lacking usability High usability High usability Lacking usability High usability Very high usability Very high usability High usability Poor usability Very high usability Very high usability Very high usability

7%), poor usability performance of 1 out of 15 (about 7%), and lacking (or no) usability 2 out of 15 features (about 13%). Legal Affairs leads on the quality of usability features. It has the highest number of very high usability points (10 out of 15), Trade follows (9 out 15), and then the Pilot Portal site (7 out of 15). In terms of high usability performance among the scale features, the pilot portal leads with 4, then Legal Affairs with 2, and then Trade with 1 out of 15 possible points. For the moderate usability performance, they all tie with only 1 each out of 15 points. For poor usability, only the portal site has 1 out of 15 points. Finally, for usability features that are lacking, Legal Affairs and the Pilot Portal sites tie with 2 and Trade follows with 3 out of 15 points. Therefore, when the sites are compared on these three levels, Legal Affairs maintains the lead as the number one TT government site, followed by the Pilot Portal Site, and then Trade in third place.

5 Conclusion and Future Implications The results illustrate that there are differences in the usability variables (features) across the ministry and pilot portal sites in the component features under each dimension of usability. Ministry attempts to bridge the usability divide are identified through the distinctions highlighted in their Website usability features and their varying performances. Thus, some ministries achieve more success in their attempts than others. However, there are some not showing much success. Legal Affairs is clearly the number one site for its usability features with an overall score of 82. The other ministries fall under the following categories: scores of 70 and 75 represent

500


highly usable Websites, 50 and 59 represent moderately usable Websites, and below 45 represents functional but could be significantly improved Websites. Some of these government ministry Websites can serve as benchmarks for best practices for other ministries. The Ministry of Legal Affairs emerges as the overall benchmark ministry followed closely by the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Thus, these two sites can serve as models among the ministry sites for best practices in their usability performance generally as well as in multiple dimensions (illustrated in Table 25.18). Further, results also highlight superior performing sites in each of the six usability dimensions. They are labeled as local benchmarks for each of the dimensions (Table 25.18). Table 25.18 TT government benchmark Websites for usability dimensions Dimension

TT government Websites

Online Services User-help Navigation

Legal affairs and foreign affairs Agriculture Agriculture, foreign affairs, health, housing, labor, legal affairs, national security, science, technology & tertiary education, tourism, trade and industry, and pilot portal Legal affairs and trade and industry Education, foreign affairs, health, legal affairs, trade and industry, and pilot portal Agriculture and foreign affairs

Legitimacy Information architecture Accessibility accommodations

Moreover, the research results also indicate that although the sites noted in Table 25.18 are the best among TT government sites and can serve as models in superior performance in many or some of the usability features, there is room for overall improvement. Ministry-to-ministry collaborations, and national policy advancement to meet e-government initiatives are investments that could improve usability features and performance in all the dimensions. However, the data demonstrate that some ministries achieve high, and in some cases superior, usability performance in some dimensions but not all. Additionally, there are deficiencies common to all the sites and there are consistently low performers in the six usability dimensions (e.g., Ministry of Social Development, Planning and Development, Community Development, and Office of the Prime Minister). Low-performing ministries can cooperate locally with high-performing ministries to enhance specific usability features. In so doing, more ministries can increase their usability performance in the component features of each dimension and enhance their overall performance. For instance, since Legal Affairs and Trade and Industry gain full possible points for legitimacy, they can collaborate with others and help improve practices for this dimension locally among the ministry sites. Similarly, those ministry sites with superior usability performance can be used to develop an “ideal type” or a local benchmark for best practices for TT government

25


501

Websites. This approach may encourage more local collaborations and a strategy for producing highly usable Websites. It may reduce government expenditure since more efforts can be carefully invested by key public officials representing ministries in an effort to bridge the usability divide by sharing their resources and IT skills. It can also eliminate duplication and shorten the process of evolution from one stage of e-government development to the next, based on proven methods that are working and strategies that are most effectively applied and implemented. Finally, the study compared the best ranked ministries’ Websites (Legal Affairs and Trade and Industry) with the recently launched Pilot Portal site in bridging the usability divide. The results indicate when the sites are compared on three levels (UI index scores, total number of usability variables—37 is the total possible for the study, and a comparison of the scale variables for usability performance), Legal Affairs maintains the lead as the number one TT government site. The Pilot Portal site follows in second place with Trade and Industry in third place.

5.1 Future Implications The study has implications for understanding Website usability for the Caribbean region and for government ministries in general. We hope this study stimulates additional research about Caribbean government Websites that can help to reduce or eliminate all aspects of the digital divide. In so doing, regional benchmarks can be established that can help to inform best practices as well as initiate collaborations regionally among governments. Further, the strategic role of ministries in parliamentary systems, such as TT and other Caribbean islands, can affect national policies as they relate to government ministry Websites. These studies can also be extended to ministry divisions and departments, statutory bodies and authorities, and affiliated public organizations to determine and also measure their efforts to bridge the usability divide. It may be useful for the TT government to explore alternative models of how governments internationally as well as regionally within the Caribbean are able to implement their e-government initiatives and apply successful usability designs to their e-government Websites in order to transition to a new type of governance through ICT. Several countries can be targeted on many levels of analysis based on similar usability features according to Stowers’ six dimensions or based on similar component features within each dimension. On this note, Darrell West’s annual global e-government report provides a rich comparative global analysis of e-government services among 198 countries (2009). It can be used each year by policy-makers and government ministry officials at the Ministry of Public Administration and Information as well as key public administrators engaged in TT’s e-government initiatives to improve policies to reach developed nation status, Vision 2020 (2006) and Fastforward, the ICT national agenda (Ministry of Public Administration and Information, 2003).

502


Appendix

Table 25.19 Trinidad and Tobago Government Ministries Agriculture, Land, and Marine Resources Community Development, Culture, and Gender Affairs Education Energy and Energy Industries Finance Foreign Affairs Health Housing Labor and Small and Micro-enterprises Development Legal Affairs and the Office of the Attorney General Local Government National Security Planning and Development Public Administration and Information Public Utilities and the Environment Science, Technology and Tertiary Education Social Development Sport and Youth Affairs Tourism Trade and Industry Works and Transport Office of the Prime Minister Source: Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Government Online (2007), Retrieved February 22, 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.gov.tt/Egov/Portal/directory/govministires.aspx

References Abramson, M. A., & Means, G. E. (Eds.). (2001). E-Government 2001. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Baker, D. L. (2004). E-government: Website usability of the most populous countries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University. Baker, D. L. (2006). Website usability of the most populous countries in the United States. Journal of E-Government, 3(3), 65–89. Baker, D. L. (2009). Advancing e-government performance in the United Sates through enhanced usability benchmarks. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 82–88. Benchmann, G., Krings, B-J., & Rader, M. (2003). Across the divide: Work, organization and social exclusion in the European society. Berlin: Sigma. Brinck, T., Gergle, D., & Wood, S. D. (2002). Designing web sites that work: Usability for the web. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Cammaerts, B., Van Audenhove, L., & Nulens, G. (2003). Beyond the digital divide: Reducing exclusion, fostering inclusion. Brussels: VUB University Press. Charlton, C., Gittings, C., Leng, P., Little, J., & Neilson, I. (1999). Bringing the Internet to the community. Interacting with Computers, 12(1), 51–61.

25


503

Compaine, B. M. (Ed.). (2001). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dai, X. (2000). The digital revolution and governance. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. Dawes, S. S. (2008). The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance. Public Administration Review, Special Issue: 586–602. Day, P., & Schuler, D. (2004). Community practice in the network society. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Edwards, A. (1957). Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts. Gant, D. B., Gant, J. P., & Johnson, C. L. (2002). State web portals: Developing and financing e-service. Arlington, VA: The Pricewaterhouse Coopers Endowment for the Business of Government. Gattiker, U. E. (2001). The internet as a diverse community: Cultural, organizational, and political issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Goldenberg, S. (1992). Thinking methodologically. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers. James, J. (2003). Bridging the global digital divide. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Company. Holzer, M., & Kim, S. T. (2004). Digital governance in municipalities worldwide: An assessment of municipal web sites throughout the world. Newark, NJ: National Center for Public Productivity. James, J. (2004). Information technology and development: A new paradigm for delivering the internet to rural areas in developing countries. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of internet use: Access, involvement, and interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kuttan, A., & Peters, L. (2003). From digital divide to digital opportunity. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press Inc. Mack, R. L. (2001). The digital divide: Standing at the intersection of race & technology. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Marshall, S., Taylor, W., & Yu, X. (2003). Closing the digital divide: Transforming regional economies and communities with information technology. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability. Indianapolis, IN: New Rides Publishing. Nielsen, J., & Mack, R. L. (Eds.). (1994). Usability inspection methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Stowers, G. N. L. (2002). The state of federal Websites: The pursuit of excellence. Arlington, VA: The Pricewaterhouse Coopers Endowment for the Business of Government. The Ministry of Planning & Development, Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (2006). Vision 2020. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://wwwvision2020.info.tt The Ministry of Public Administration and Information (2003). Fastforward: Trinidad and Tobago accelerating into the digital future, Trinidad and Tobago. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://www.fastforward.tt/ICT_agenda Van der Merwe, R., & Bekker, J. (2003). A framework and methodology for evaluating e-commerce Web sites. Internet Research, 13(5), 330–341. Van Dijk, J. A. G. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. Warscheur, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. West, D. M. (2003). Global e-government. Providence, RI: Center for Public Policy. West, D. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27. West, D. M. (2005). Digital government: Technology and public sector performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

504


West, D. M. (2006). State and federal e-government in the United States, 2006. Providence. RI: Center for Public Policy, Brown University. Retrieved January 27, 2010, from http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06us.pdf West, D. M. (2007). Global e-government. Providence, RI: Center for Public Policy. Retrieved September 29, 2007, from http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt07int.pdf West, D. M. (2009). Global perspectives on e-government. Retrieved September 28, 2009, from http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/0/1/3/pages210132/ p210132-1.php

Chapter 26

E-government in New Zealand: Local Governments, Digital Divides and the National Digital Strategy Kay Fielden and Pam Malcolm

Research carried out in 2009 on New Zealand’s local government e-readiness with respect to the national digital strategy has discovered that there is a wide maturity range. In the first part of this chapter, an e-readiness maturity model is presented that indicates to what extent local governments, both urban and rural have met the national strategy guidelines. These results are contextualised within the international literature on local e-government maturity. In the second part of this chapter, challenges for four diverse and marginalised user groups are considered. Factors that affect end-users in New Zealand include: inequitable infrastructure provision, a shift in emphasis and ownership of technical knowledge and skills required to gain access to government services, and the differences in benefits and challenges for both majority and minority end-user groups. This analysis has been embedded in a theoretical framework informed by social informatics (Sawyer, 2005), digital inclusion/exclusion models (Cushman & McLean, 2008), boundary conditioning modelling (Cordoba & Midgley, 2008) and an e-government to e-governance model proposed by Dawes (2008).

1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is (i) to examine how New Zealand’s local governments are meeting national digital strategy goals (State Services Commission, 2008b); and (ii) to explore diverse views of the benefits and challenges of e-government adoption in New Zealand. New Zealand is governed at two levels: national and local. Local governments operate according to the Local Government Act 2002 with two main purposes. First, K. Fielden (B) Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] P. Malcolm Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected]


505

506

K. Fielden and P. Malcolm

local government enables democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities and second promotes social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of communities, in the present and the future. Local Government Authorities therefore provide community governance at the local level for planning, decision-making, consultation and accountability. Local Government Authorities operate at city, district and regional levels. City councils have a larger population base (>180,000) and are categorised as urban. Districts have a smaller population base (≤180,000) and are usually rural. City and district councils are responsible for health, safety and environment issues such as control of traffic, garbage collection, dogs, nuisances, and food premises as well as signage and trading in public places. Regional councils manage air and water quality, growth and development, regional parks, public transport, coastal and marine environment, and natural and cultural heritage sites. Less than 15% of New Zealand’s population live in rural areas and more than one-third of the population in the greater Auckland area that includes four large cities (Auckland, Waitakere, North Shore and Manukau). The link between national and local government has traditionally been legislation. National government has set the digital strategy for e-government. Local governments are reliant on national government for their existence and powers. New Zealand’s national government also recognises the need to work closely with local governments to implement digital strategy at the local level. In the literature review, the history of e-government is explored from 1997 to 2009. Recent research on New Zealand’s local government e-readiness with respect to the national digital strategy (Parkin & Cullinan, 2008) has discovered that there is a wide maturity range. An e-readiness maturity model is presented that shows how local governments in New Zealand have met national strategy guidelines. These results are contextualised within an international literature base. Diverse marginalised user groups are often hidden when e-government uptake is considered, as demographic data gathering tends to mask these groups. The second part of this chapter is devoted to considering the benefits and challenges for four diverse user groups—mentally disabled, intellectually disabled, the homeless and the elderly. Digital divide factors include shifting the need for technical skills onto end-users, and the differences in benefits and challenges for both majority and minority end-user groups. This analysis has been embedded in a theoretical framework informed by social informatics (Sawyer, 2005), digital inclusion/exclusion models (Cushman & McLean, 2008), and boundary conditioning modelling (Cordoba & Midgley, 2008).

2 New Zealand’s National Digital Strategy In 1997, the first Website in New Zealand (www.localgovt.co.nz) went online (Higgins, 1997) to provide information about local government. The labour market policy group first discussed what the digital divide meant for New Zealand in 2000

26

E-government in New Zealand

507

(Labour Market Policy Group, 2000). This group stated that all New Zealanders should have the opportunity to access and have effective use of current and emerging information communication technologies (ICTs). Politically, the 2000 vision was that closing the infrastructure digital divide would enable individuals and communities to participate in economic, social educational, cultural and democratic opportunities available in an information society. Peacey (2002) in considering local e-government sociological implications found that there was great disparity between e-government services provided. The State Services Commission launched an e-local government strategy in 2003. Cullen, O’Connor, and Verrit (2003) provided the first evaluation of e-government Websites and stated that over 90% of their participants had used local government Websites and less than 50% were satisfied with the service provided. In 2004, New Zealand’s national government set digital strategy targets to 2010 (Table 26.1). Recently, these digital strategy targets have been pushed out to 2020 Table 26.1 New Zealand government digital strategy targets (State Services Commission, 2004) Targets Strategy

June 2004 Internet main channel for government information

Outcome: 24/7 Effective service provision

Goal: A1 Information on government services available on Internet

Outcome: Integrated, customer-centred efficient services

Goal: B1 Start of integrated e-government— policy, standards, technology Goal: B2 Agencies more citizen-centric and results oriented in service design

June 2007 Internet main deliver channel for information, services and processes Goal: AA1 Services delivered (in part) over Internet Goal: AA2 Traditional service delivery (counter, post, telephone, etc.) enhanced by use of Internet

Goal: BB1 Bundled services and frontline integration Goal: BB2 Back-office integration advanced through use and implementation of e-government interoperability framework

2010 Internet means of transforming operation of government

Goal: AAA1 More proactive service delivery Push services to citizens (reminders, entitlements) Goal: AAA2 Internet main service deliverer Goal: AAA3 Range of service providers over Internet Goal: BBB1 Cross agency service integration Stand alone services the exception Goal: BBB2 Targeted individual services More flexible service delivery Goal: BBB3 Back office widely shared Less investment in agency-specific technology

508

K. Fielden and P. Malcolm Table 26.1 (continued) Targets

Outcome: Participation in government

Goal: C1 Internet as information provider on government processes and citizen involvement Goal: C2 Internet as consultation tool for policy development and service design

Goal: CC1 Increasing online participation for policy development and service delivery Goal: CC2 Electronic delivery of democratic processes

Goal: CCC1 Online participation the norm Goal: CCC2 Open and consultative policy processes Customised service delivery Goal: CCC3 Significant change in democratic and political processes

Table 26.2 E-readiness maturity Local governments

Cities (N = 6) >180,000

Cities (N = 10) ≤180,000

Districts (N = 57)

Regions (N = 12)

0.8

0.3

0.83

0.5 0

0.12 0.42

0 0.17

1.67 1

1.8 1

1.63 0.67

1.5 0.08

2.17

1.6

1.25

0

0

0

0

0

0 0.83

0 0.1

0 0.21

0 0.17

0

0.2

0.11

0

2004 transaction online (a) Service 1.3 information (b) Integration 0.67 (c) Participation 1 consultation 2007 service online (a1) Service (a2) Traditional enhanced (b) Frontline integration (c) Participation

2010 transformation online (a) Service (b) Flexible integration (c) Participation

(State Services Commission, 2009b). With online demographic changes in social networking, national e-government strategists are eager to incorporate democratic possibilities afforded by these technical changes. The 2020 vision is to provide “seamless joined-up” services. The e-readiness model proposed (Table 26.2) is based on the national digital strategy targets shown in Table 26.1.

26


509

Cullen and Hernon (2004) conducted a telephone survey of 5000 New Zealanders in which they discovered that people were unaware of which government agencies had made resources available on the Internet. Problems with local government Websites included: Website information out of date, too much information being presented, government “speak” being used instead of plain language to improve citizen understanding, site navigation problems and individual agency rather than collective government information via a central portal. Cullen and Hernon found that the 2004 strategy goals had not been met and there was little integration of services and citizens needed to access a range of Websites to complete related transactions. In user studies published in 2004 (Becker, 2004; Curtis, Vowles, & Curtis, 2004; Fox, 2004; Selwyn, 2004) it was found that citizens chose to telephone government agencies. Integration of government agencies for service delivery from a single digital access point was first implemented in 2005 (Digital Strategy Advisory Group, 2005). User issues still highlighted in the literature included design problems for older users (Bailey, Barrett, & Guilford, 2005; Kurniawan & Zaphiris, 2005; Chisnell & Redish, 2005) and inequitable access to digital services (Sanjeev & Riggins, 2005). Internationally, the United Nations were setting up goals for e-government (Hafeez & Waheed-Sher, 2005). In 2006 it appeared to Griffin (2006) that it was unlikely that the local governments in New Zealand would meet the 2010 aim of total transformation (Table 26.1). Griffin suggested that a greater awareness by New Zealand citizens of e-government was required and there was a need for users to be more willing to use e-services. It was also noted in 2006 (Bulger, 2006) that different skills were needed by citizens for online literacy. Much has been written about the urban/rural digital divide (Willis & Tranter, 2006; Statistics New Zealand, 2006a), however, Crang, Crosbie, and Graham (2006) suggested that ICT unevenly affects the pace of life for urban dwellers, with the more affluent and professional having ubiquitous and continuous digital access and the underprivileged accessing ICT episodically. There were also a number of papers published discussing useability issues for marginalised users (Bulger, 2006; Fidgeon, 2006; Newell, Dickinson, Smith, & Gregor, 2006). Politically, in 2006 (Haas, 2006) information technology was provided as an additional tool for citizens to participate in government processes and for citizen education about political processes. By 2007, e-government infrastructure for the future was being discussed (Dutton & Peltu, 2007), e-government Web standards had been published (State Services Commission, 2007a) and the differentiation between user services and back-office e-government had been made (State Services Commission, 2007b). A shared government network and logon service was established (now disestablished) (Ryall, 2009). 2007 also saw more user-centred services such as e-newsletters, email alerts and subscription services. In the digital divide literature, citizen’s views of digital government were aired (Asgarkhani, 2007). Dahlberg (2007) explored power differentials in e-society and authors continued to explore issues faced by older users going online for e-government services (Dickinson, Smith, Arnott, Newell, & Hill, 2007). By 2007 two-thirds of New Zealand homes were online (Statistics New Zealand, 2007).

510


In 2008, an e-government interoperability framework (State Services Commission, 2008a, 2008b) was discussed. Reports were produced to track e-government progress in the local government sector (State Services Commission, 2008b; Dawes, 2008; Local Government New Zealand, 2008a; Local Government New Zealand, 2008b). There was widespread agreement that digital government was important, however, few local governments had formal strategies to build e-government services. Parkin and Cullinan (2008) ranked local government Websites from a user perspective. Lips (2008) developed a four-stage e-government model based on: Information, Communication, Transaction and Transformation. User issues explored internationally included accessibility for older users (Arch, 2008; Rubaii-Barrett & Wise, 2008; Sloan, 2008; Hill, Beynon-Davies, & Williams, 2008) and citizen access to e-government services (Bell et al., 2008). Economic issues for users in the push to e-government in the United Kingdom were explored by Cushman and Mclean (2008) who found that digital engagement brings both a cost and a responsibility shift to citizens. Letch and Carroll (2008) discussed social exclusion for marginalised people in accessing local government online in West Australia. Mansourian (2008) introduced the concept of Web search efficacy for e-government sites in Iran. Doesburg (2008) looked into the future to an online identification system for citizens in participating in e-democracy in New Zealand. By March 2009, there were four New Zealand government portals one of which was designed as a back-office service for government agency employees. Local government Websites are currently being upgraded to include links to other government agencies and to provide better-designed and more accessible online services.

3 Marginalised New Zealanders Marginalised New Zealanders considered in this study were: intellectually disabled; mentally disabled people, the homeless and the elderly. It was estimated that in 2001 (Statistics New Zealand, 2003) that approximately 1% of New Zealand’s total population have an intellectual disability. In the same report, approximately 4% (104,500) of the adult population had a psychiatric or psychological disability. The results from the 2001 Statistics New Zealand survey on disability show that: one in five New Zealanders had such a disability; disability increases with age; the majority of disabled people have more than one disability; and the number of people living in intellectual disability units and mental health facilities has decreased. Legatt-Clark (2007) suggests that it is very difficult to estimate how many people are homeless in New Zealand. He also suggests that government policies do not address the complete picture of the homeless in New Zealand. In 2004 it was estimated that there were about 1000 homeless people in the city of Auckland (population 420,700 in 2004). Leggatt-Clark has developed a framework that considers three classes of homeless people. These are: primary (rough sleepers), secondary (temporary or emergency accommodation) and tertiary (boarding house residents). In 2004, (Statistics New Zealand, 2004) New Zealand Census figures suggested that 12% of New Zealand’s total population was 65 years of age or older.

26


511

It is difficult to estimate the total number of marginalised people in New Zealand, as many of these people have multiple disabilities, and may belong to more than one category. Whilst only four categories of marginalised New Zealanders are considered in this study, it can be seen that this marginalised minority is a significant number.

3.1 Digital Divide In 2006, 98% of New Zealand residents (Statistics New Zealand, 2006b) lived in households with telephones. Therefore, about 80,000 people did not have the basic requirement for an Internet connection at home. Crang et al. (2006) believe that ICT unevenly affects the pace of life for urban dwellers and that there is an urban digital divide: the affluent, professional where ICT is ubiquitous; and uneven patterns of access for the underprivileged where electronic access is episodic. In the four cases considered in this chapter (intellectual disability, mental disability, the homeless and the elderly), there is a further class of digital divide: those who never use the Internet, which could be for lack of money, preference, skill-level or life priority. In exploring social inclusion and digital government (Asgarkhani, 2007) considered citizens’ views when public access to local government information is enhanced. Asgarkhani did not differentiate marginalised groups in her study. Dahlberg (2007) suggests that there are power differentials in e-society that further exclude marginalised people, both Askraghani and Dahlberg assume that their samples represent the majority of Internet-connected people.

3.2 E-government and User Issues for Marginalised New Zealanders In a New Zealand Internet study (Bell et al., 2008) (1120 participants) it was reported that 47% of users accessed information about government (national and local); 33% obtain information on government policy online; 15% looked for information about politics; 21% paid local government rates and charges online and 13% knew about the government digital strategy. In this majority sample of New Zealand residents or ratepayers older respondents were less likely to be broadband users and tended to rate their ability to use the Internet far lower than other respondents. Bell et al. did not consider the other marginalised groups (intellectual disability, mental disability and the homeless). Cushman and McLean (2008) suggest that e-government initiatives ignore the costs placed on users in moving to the Internet as the main government service delivery platform. Cushman and McLean also suggest that marginalised users have not been considered and that digital engagement brings both cost and responsibility shift to citizens of e-society who may not have the resources or technical skills

512


necessary to engage with e-government. Letch and Carroll (2008) maintain that online government service provision will increase social exclusion for marginalised people. Much of the research on e-government and older users has focussed on accessibility issues (Arch, 2008; Rubaii-Barrett & Wise, 2008; Hill et al., 2008).

4 Theoretical Framework A theoretical framework informed by social informatics (Sawyer, 2005), digital inclusion/exclusion models (Cushman & McLean, 2008), boundary conditioning modelling (Cordoba & Midgley, 2008) and an e-government to e-governance model proposed by Dawes (2008) is proposed.

4.1 Social Informatics Sawyer (2005) suggests that there are five core findings for social informatics that have been noted in many social informatics publications. These are as follows: 1. Uses of ICT lead to multiple and sometimes paradoxical effects. In considering the tensions between major stakeholders of national government where targets are set, to local governments where implementation takes place and the differing agendas of commercial infrastructure providers and different user groups including those who are marginalised, it can be seen that there are paradoxical effects. Size, location, digital expertise within local governments, and technical knowledge levels of different user groups all contribute to multiple and paradoxical effects; 2. Uses of ICT shape thought and action in ways that benefit some groups more than others. People live and work together in powered relationships. Thus, the political, economic and technical structures they construct include large-scale social structures of capital exchange, as well as the microstructures that shape human interaction. An examination of power often shows that a system’s implementations can both reinforce the status quo and motivate resistance. That is, the design, development and uses of ICTs reshape access in unequal ways; 3. The differential effects of the design implementation and uses of ICT often have moral and ethical consequences; 4. The design implementation and uses of ICT have reciprocal relationships within a larger social context; 5. The phenomenon of interest will vary with the level of interest.

4.2 Boundary Conditions and Marginalisation Cordoba and Midgley (2008) suggest that there is an over-concentration on the use of ICTs for organisational purposes, with traditional information systems planning

26


513

approaches ignoring the needs and concerns that people express outside formal organisations. Cordoba and Midgley believe there is a need to enhance the critical review of the boundaries of information systems planning processes enabling people to consider family, community and other concerns. Their main concern is that by excluding marginalised people or groups from information systems planning phases, their needs are not considered. There is an emphasis on three main issues in dealing with marginalisation at the planning stage and these are: 1. Dealing with marginalisation. All stakeholder views, needs and uses of the planned system should be considered at the planning stage rather than planning just from within organisational boundaries. Whilst national government targets are for full citizen participation by 2010, there is little evidence of this on local government Websites. 2. Developing critically informed information systems planning. Cordoba and Midgley suggest that questions about how certain concerns come to be privileged at the expense of others be considered from the perspective of constraints (institutional, technical, economic, ideological, environmental, social and legal). They also suggest that those involved in the planning process question their own perspective to consider whether they are indeed inclusive in their views on all stakeholders. 3. Including opposing views in debate. Cordoba and Midgley state that consideration of opposing views is important because planners cannot see from all stakeholders’ views. They also suggest that points of conflict should be considered seriously rather than dismissed in an attempt to find “win-win” solutions.

4.3 Uncertainty Dawes (2008) suggests that we should consider a wider six-part dynamic e-government framework moving into the future comprised of societal trends, human elements, changing technologies, information management, interaction and complexity, and the purpose and role of government.

4.4 An E-readiness Maturity Model for Local Governments in New Zealand Maturity models are one way of providing a comparison benchmark between organisations, institutions or processes. In this chapter, the authors have used an e-readiness maturity model for local governments in New Zealand based on the national government’s digital strategy targets for 2004, 2007 and 2010 as shown in Table 26.1. These targets have been identified as information provision (2004), service provision (2007) and transformation (2010). For each target by year, there are also two distinct classes of goals—one on service provision and the other about

514


democratic processes. Because of the diversity between urban and rural local governments and the uneven economic, population and ICT infrastructure distribution throughout the country, this model provides an appropriate benchmarking tool.

5 Research Method Part 1 In this two-stage project, two different research methods have been adopted. In part one, an analysis of all local government Websites has been evaluated using the e-maturity model described above. In the second stage, an analysis of four hypothetical cases has been conducted and embedded in the theoretical frameworks of social informatics, digital divides, boundary conditions and marginalisation and uncertainty.

5.1 Data Analysis: Part 1 All local government Websites in New Zealand were assessed against the digital strategy (Table 26.1) to gain insights into how local governments were meeting these targets. New Zealand local government Websites are changed on a frequent basis therefore this research should be regarded as a “snapshot in time”. The e-readiness indicator (Table 26.2) has been calculated by dividing the total sum of the number of online services provided in each category (large and small cities, district and region) by the number of areas in each category. All local governments have partially met the 2004 online transaction targets, with large cities scoring highest (1.3), followed by regional councils (0.83), with the smaller district councils having the lowest score (0.3). Larger cities included more transactional services online such as service information and online PDF. A similar pattern is shown for integration of frontline services and online participation by local government size. For the 2007 targets, city and district councils out-performed regional councils with the regional councils scoring lowest in all categories of service, integrated services and online participation. Little has been achieved towards meeting the 2010 targets with scores only in the flexible integration of online services category. Of interest is that regional councils had less online features available than even small district councils. Table 26.2 shows that no councils have reached the national 2010 targets (Table 26.1). Whilst there are moves to include e-participation on some Websites all local governments regardless of size had not met minimum service standards set for 2007 targets. It is not clear, however, from our analysis of New Zealand’s local government Websites that the goal of integrated customer-centred efficient services had been met. The first goal of bundled services and frontline integration appeared to have been interpreted as providing online access to local public services by the majority of district and city councils (64 out of 73 councils). Only 15 out of 73 local governments provided links to other services.

26


515

It was not possible to tell from this Website analysis whether back-office integration with the use of e-government interoperability had been achieved as public Website displays show only front office services. The final 2007 targets for participation in government are more problematic. The first of these goals—increasing online participation for policy development and service delivery was presented in the form of a blog in only 9 out of 85 council Websites. Most local governments provided pdf forms that could be downloaded for submission to consultative projects via e-mail or online submission. These consultation channels are merely extensions to the existing consultative models rather than increasingly interactive citizen participation in local government. The only evidence of electronic delivery of democratic processes was from 9 out of 85 local government Websites in which citizens were surveyed about Website design. This hardly counts as democratic process. There was no online voting on any issues, and no online blogs providing open access to council processes. There were some councils (13 out of 85) providing RSS feeds—which are not interactive, rather, just another communication channel for council processes that are not open to citizen participation. It can be seen from Table 26.2 that New Zealand local governments have much to achieve with respect to 2010 targets for service provision, integrated customercentric services and e-participation. The only evidence of moves towards 2010 targets could be seen in the range of services provided available on some Websites (for instance see, http://www.palmerstonnorth.com).

6 Discussion—Local Government Websites In a sparsely populated mountainous country, New Zealand’s national government has long held the view that e-government service provision would benefit urban and rural citizens alike. The dilemma is that New Zealand has one main telecommunications organisation that provides broadband infrastructure. In New Zealand’s more remote and inaccessible areas infrastructure service delivery is expensive. This is a barrier to New Zealand local governments meeting the 2010 national government digital e-government targets. Infrastructure provision is patchy, sometimes unreliable and expensive compared to urban areas and there is not the same motivation for smaller local governments to provide online services. Population density (and therefore local government revenue) in these areas is low by international standards at 2.6 people per square kilometre. It was evident from the local government Website analysis that in the main, Website design has been implemented with little input from citizens. Language used, Website organisation, categorisation, site search and services provided reflected an internal organisational view. Whilst most local governments had achieved some of the national government 2007 digital targets for e-government (State Services Commission, 2004) it would seem highly unlikely that local governments would be able to meet the 2010 targets.

516


This digital target push from national government to local governments is further complicated by the changes taking place to local government structure in New Zealand in 2010. Instead of the greater Auckland area being served by seven local governments (Auckland City Council, North Shore City Council, Manukau City Council, Waitakere City Council, Papakura District Council, Rodney District Council and Franklin District Council) and one regional council (Auckland Regional Council) there will be one greater Auckland local government. This will have major and diverse implications for e-government service delivery, participation and information provision. Currently there are four city councils, three district councils and one regional council e-government with Websites, information systems planning and seven different views on citizen participation.

7 Research Method Part 2 The research questions that arose for the second part of this study were: what are the issues that arise for those people who live in the margins of society when considering New Zealand’s national digital strategy; and how does the New Zealand government’s national digital strategy address issues that arise for those people who live in the margins of society. These issues were explored by considering four hypothetical cases: 1. Subject A has multiple disabilities. Subject A has the intellectual capacity, knowledge and skills to access the Internet. However, subject A has bipolar disorder as well as a number of physical impairments. This particular psychological disorder placed A in a lower socioeconomic group as A can only work during the small personal windows of opportunities between mood swings and tolerable pain levels from the physical disorder. 2. Subject B is impaired intellectually. B lived at home and was supported by elderly parents. B had problems with learning disabilities, lacked life skills and had limited financial support. 3. Subject C was considered to belong to the group of homeless people who are considered invisible by Legatt-Clark (2007). These people move between temporary accommodation and live, but do not sleep, on the street. 4. Subject D was over 90 years old. D had never used an ATM, owned a cell phone or operated a computer. D lived in her own home on a pension.

8 Discussion—Hypothetical Cases 8.1 Case 1: Multiple Disabilities In this hypothetical case, subject A, with her multiple disabilities is the most likely of all the cases considered to be able to participate in local government processes

26


517

and is the most likely case to be motivated to use online local government services. This is only possible, however, when she is in a stable mental state and when she has the money to afford the charges for Internet connection. These times may only be small personal windows in her life when this access is possible. A major risk factor for subject A is attempting to communicate with government agencies during a mentally unstable phase of her disorder when she is likely to offend government employees. It is difficult for people who have never experienced mental illness to understand such emotional and psychological states. In many such cases of mental disorders, these people are most in need of government services and information. Subject A is also the most likely of all four of the marginalised cases considered to be aware of power differentials that exist between government agencies and those who exist in the margins of society. In this particular case subject A has the intelligence, small personal windows of opportunity, but not always, the money required to access the Internet, to address issues relating to power differentials. It is therefore most important for people in this marginalised group to be able to utilise personal windows of opportunity in mental stable states. During such times subject A is capable of providing valuable insights to government agencies via the Internet. Because her physical disability restricts her mobility, this is her preferred means of interaction with local government. Subject A is very aware of her role in society, and is frustrated in having an intellect trapped in a body that is both physically and mentally impaired. She can only access online services when appropriate economic and health conditions coincide—and government agencies have their own agendas and timetables that do not always align. It is evident in considering this case that local government 24/7 access for processes, services and information would mean that subject A would be able to gain access when she was able. This would allow subject A to capture these limited personal windows of opportunity.

8.2 Case 2: Intellectually Impaired Neither B nor his parents interact with government online. B’s father e-mails family and friends and uses online auction sites to trade in second hand sporing goods. In the family unit that revolves around caring for B, interacting with government is not a priority. Feedback between family and government agencies does not occur online. B’s father is aware of power differentials between the family unit and government agencies and the directions that the government’s digital strategy is taking, but he feels powerless to provide any input into the process. B’s father is frustrated by the government’s lack of hands-on assistance in caring for his son. B’s father would benefit from government assistance, training in the use of e-government and how to access the necessary information and services required in caring for someone with intellectual and learning disabilities. It is evident that this family has taken on the primary caring role for their intellectually impaired son, and that access, training and support flexibly delivered via the Internet would be beneficial.

518


8.3 Case 3: Homeless For subject C, accessing information about local government processes, relationships and structure is not a priority. If subject C was willing to contribute to government processes, the only way that would be possible online would be via free public access. For the homeless, many of them have diverse alternate views on government processes and structures. Subject C rarely accesses the Internet as he has other priorities if he has any money. With no free public access, nor a mindset in which such activities are a priority, this is not likely to happen. Subject C is aware of power differentials between government agencies and his homeless state, and in the main avoids any contact with officialdom. The only exception is the Auckland City Mission where he queues for night shelter when he can find nowhere else to sleep. The only way subject C would possibly interact with e-government would be if there was free Internet access at homeless night shelters in the central business district in Auckland. Subject C has opted out of main-stream society and at present does not feel the need to re-enter this dominant societal group. C does not pay rent or local government rates, and therefore does not have access to public library services and spends each day making the most of each opportunity that can be found on the street and whatever temporary accommodation appears. When government views the homeless as an integral part of society, and not just a housing problem, they are more likely to be included in a national digital strategy. At present, this group of marginalised people do not appear to be considered. While the homeless are focussed on obtaining the basic necessities for daily living, they are not likely to contribute to or have the need for e-government services.

8.4 Case 4: Elderly It would seem that the best way to move forward to include the elderly in the national digital strategy would be for government agencies to approach older people and to invite them to participate directly. The push to have the Internet as the main delivery platform for information processes and services is further marginalising the elderly. For subject D accessing information about government processes, relationships and structures is not a priority. If D wishes to contact a government agency, she has her own traditional ways of doing this. Subject D is aware of power differentials and has long accepted the case that this is the way things are. She is not likely to voice an opinion about this. For subject D, a social outing is a contribution to her wellbeing. For instance, the daily outing to the local shopping centre where she conducts her day-to-day activities—shopping, socialising, visiting the local bowls club and interacting with local government, banks and utility organisation counter staff is her daily social interaction with others. Online government services would mean that her social interaction with others would be diminished. Subject D lives in a world that is much smaller than most peoples. She has redefined her world so that she can live comfortably in the bounds that have been in place for many years.

26


519

She does not feel the need to go online, or receive local government services at home. The elderly often have their own well-developed means of interacting with government. With the collective wisdom of this marginalised societal group, it is important to keep as many communication channels open as possible.

8.5 Digital Divides, Local Governments and Marginalised People For all four cases considered, it is important for local governments to consult widely and to elicit explicitly the views of those who are both socially and digitally excluded. It is not sufficient to expect marginalised people to consult with government in traditional ways. The setting of flexible and marginal-group specific initial conditions for involvement in e-government is important. When New Zealand’s government digital strategy that affects end-users is considered for the 2010 targets (Table 26.1) it can be seen that stated goals are • The Internet as the main means of transforming the operation of government and the main service delivery mechanism • More proactive service delivery • Push services to citizens (via the Internet) • Have a range of service providers over the Internet It can be seen that only one out of the four hypothetical marginalised cases considered would be served—and then only some of the time (Subject A). Whilst these government digital strategy targets are admirable (because government costs will be lower in the long term and service will be accessible 24/7), it would seem that this push to 24/7 seamless Internet provision by 2020 will not advantage most marginalised people n New Zealand. The effect will be to broaden the digital divide for these people. As Sawyer (2005) suggests the use of ICT leads to multiple and paradoxical effects. As New Zealand’s government moves seamless Internet deliver of services, those most in need may be excluded. This use of ICT benefits the majority of New Zealanders and therefore is deemed by the policy makers and implementers as the “best fit” solution. If the human rights of marginalised people are considered then there are both moral and ethical consequences of 24/7 seamless Internet provision. The push for this 24/7 seamless Internet provision has been initiated by government as a means of cutting costs (but not necessarily taxes and rates charged to citizens and taxpayers). The analysis of local government Websites conducted in Part 1 of this research project showed little evidence of full citizen participation in the way in which local government services were provided. The implication therefore is that full consultation with all stakeholders did not take place, nor have opposing views been considered. Cordoba and Midgley (2008) have suggested that therefore this points to points of conflict and increased digital divides for marginalised people.

520


It is evident in considering these cases that there are diverse issues for marginalised people, and each type of marginalisation has its own set of issues. This is best viewed as a rich and complex problem space that is yet to be explored. Strategising and implementing a national digital strategy for e-government without considering marginalised people is likely to reinforce both social and digital exclusion. In a similar study, Letch and Carroll (2008) discovered that adoption of e-government processes and services resulted in less flexibility in the delivery of services to marginalised people who needed greater flexibility not less. Rather than exploring a limited number of solutions for marginalised people as the New Zealand government moves to Internet-based services, it is more appropriate to consider the rich and complex space that is yet to be investigated. Whilst there may be unintended consequences for marginalised people, inviting representatives from a variety of marginalised groups into the problem space and inclusive government initiatives taken out to these groups could provide valuable input into the move to 24/7 Internet delivered local government services, information, and processes. The major obstacle to such initiatives appears to be a government-focussed view of services pushed out to the general population with little consideration for those who are marginalised.

9 Recommendations Recommendations emerging from this study include: • Consultation on e-government with a wider cross-section of user groups in New Zealand • Affirmative action on behalf of the marginalised groups studied in this research project • Further research on equitable distribution of local e-government services, taking into account economic, geography and demographic factors • Further research on extending the e-government maturity index used in this study.

10 Conclusions The unique land topography, global location, and demographic mix place New Zealand in a place apart from other western nations, with a broadband penetration of 21.9 and a population density of 15.6 (OECD Broadband Portal, 2008). Population in New Zealand is concentrated in the large urban centres (Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin). These factors increase the challenges faced by government, both local and national and infrastructure providers. National government commentators (for instance, Lips, 2008) have noted that rural areas in New Zealand are not well-served with either infrastructure provision or government services. The smaller rural local governments have a much smaller rating

26


521

base, and a smaller resource of human resource with which to provide the same range of services as larger urban governments. In the first part of this chapter New Zealand’s local governments have been evaluated against an e-maturity model derived from the national government’s digital strategy goals for 2004, 2007 and 2010. In an extensive review of e-government in New Zealand, the history of e-government has been explored from 1997 to 2009. In the face of major changes ahead in the structure of local government, e-readiness faces major challenges. New Zealand’s hidden population—the elderly, the homeless, those with intellectual impairment and the mentally ill have been considered in the push to provide 24/7 local government services. Whilst there is diversity within each of the four groups considered, it can be seen that only providing digital services will not meet the needs of the majority of these people. The implication therefore is the need for a range of service provision.

References Arch, A. (2008). Web accessibility for older users: A literature review. Web Accessibility Initiative: Ageing Education and Harmonisation (WAI-AGE) European Commission Project, 6th Framework, IST 035015. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WDwai-age-literature-20080514/ Asgarkhani, M. (2007). The reality of social inclusion through digital government. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 25(1/2), 127–146. Bailey, S., Barrett, S., & Guilfordv, S. (2005). Older users’ interaction with Websites. Paper presented at the British HCI 2005 – HCI and the Older Population, Napier University, Edinburgh. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/ projects/kit/british_HCI_2005/bailey.doc Becker, S. -A. (2004). A study of web usability for older adults seeking online health resources. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 11(4), 387–406. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1040000/1035578/p387-a_becker.pdf?key1=1035578& key2=8708362121&coll=Portal&dl=GUIDE&CFID=71446627&CFTOKEN=21330789 doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1035575.1035578 Bell, A., Billot, J., Crothers, C., Goodwin, I., Kripalani, K., Sherman, K., et al. (2008). World Internet Project. International comparisons 2008: Highlights from a New Zealand perspective. Auckland: Institute of Culture, Discourse and Communication: AUT University. Retrieved June 5, 2009, from http://www.aut.ac.nz/resources/research/research_ institutes/ccr/summary_of_findings_-_nz_perspective_-_wip_intl_2008_-_final.pdf Bulger, M. (2006). Beyond search: A preliminary skill set for online literacy. Santa Barbara: University of California. http://transliteracies.english.ucsb.edu/research-papers/translit-bulgeronlinelit.pdf retrieved March 9, 2009. Chisnell, D., & Redish, J. (2005). Designing web sites for older adults: Expert review of usability for older adults at 50 web sites. Washington DC: aarp.org. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from http://assets.aarp.org/www.aarp.org_/articles/research/oww/AARP-50Sites.pdf Cordoba, J. -R., & Midgley, G. (2008). Beyond organisational agendas: using boundary critique to facilitate the inclusion of societal concerns in information systems planning. European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 125–142. Crang, M., Crosbie, T., & Graham, S. (2006). Variable geometries of connection: Urban digital divides and the uses of information technology. Urban Studies, 43(13), 2551–2570. Cullen, R., & Hernon, P. (2004). Wired for well-being: Citizens’ response to e-government. Retrieved October 3, 2008, from http://www.e.govt.nz/resources/research/vuw-report-200406/ vuw-report-200406.pdf.

522


Cullen, R., O’Connor, D., & Verrit, A. (2003). An evaluation of e-government sites in New Zealand. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from http://books.google.co.nz/books?lr=&pg=PA185& dq=%22Cullen%22+%22An+Evaluation+of+Local+Government+Websites+in+New+Zealand %22+&sig=MeZtcBcYVZqD0mn6ykQpDmvpXHs&id=tdqHLbfoUbgC&ots=PLhUGqC59b &output=html Curtis, C., Vowles, J., & Curtis, B. (2004). Channel-surfing: How New Zealanders access government. Wellington: State Services Commission. http://www.e.govt.nz/resources/ research/channel-surfing-200409/channel-surfing.pdf accessed 2 June 2008. Cushman, M., & McLean, R. (2008). Exclusion, inclusion and changing the face of information systems research. Information Technology & People, 21(3), 8. Retrieved September 30, 2008, from www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/09593840810895993 Dahlberg, L. (2007). “Do-it yourself” digital citizenship: A preliminary interrogation. New Zealand Sociology, 222(1), 104–222. Dawes, S. C. (2008). Governance in the information age: a research framework for an uncertain future. Paper presented at the 9th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference, Montreal. Dickinson, A., Smith, M. J., Arnott, J. L., Newell, A. F., & Hill, R. L. (2007). Approaches to web search and navigation for older computer novices. Paper presented at the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, San Jose, California, USA. Digital Strategy Advisory Group. (2005). Setting the scene: ICT and New Zealand. Retrieved May 22, 2008, from http://www.digitalstrategy.govt.nz/Media-Centre/Publications/2004-DraftDigital-Strategy/198/212/ Doesburg, A. (2008). Bringing government services to the iPod generation. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/ article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10503638 Dutton, W. H., & Peltu, M. (2007). Reconfiguring government–public engagements: Enhancing the communicative power of citizens. Oxford Internet Institute. http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/ publications.cfm accessed 26 March 2009 Fidgeon, T. (2006). Usability for older web users. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-usability/older-users.shtml Fox, S. (2004). Older Americans and the internet: Pew Internet. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Seniors_Online_2004.pdf Griffin, P. (2006, March 10). Online census shows e-government here to stay. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/census/news/article. cfm?c_id=1501043&objectid=10371864 Haas, A. (2006). Pieces of a whole. The big picture. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from http://www.decisionmaker.co.nz/guide2006/tbp_index_06.html Hafeez, S., & Waheed-Sher, S. (2005). UN global e-government readiness report 2005: From e-government to e-inclusion. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Public Administration and Development Management. Retrieved October 24, 2008, from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021888.pdf Higgins, J. (1997). New Zealand local government online. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from http://access.localgovt.co.nz/ Hill, R., Beynon-Davies, P., & Williams, M. D. (2008). Older people and internet engagement. Acknowledging social moderators of internet adoption, access and use. Information Technology & People, 21(3), 22. Retrieved September 30, 2008, from www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/09593840810896019 doi:10.1108/09593840810896019 Kurniawan, S., & Zaphiris, P. (2005). Research-derived web design guidelines for older people. Paper presented at the 7th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. Labour Market Policy Group. (2000). Closing the digital divide: What do we know about the digital divide in New Zealand? Retrieved July 2, 2008. from http://executive.govt.nz/ minister/maharey/divide/01-01.htm.

26


523

Legatt-Clark, C. (2007). Homelessness in New Zealand: A discussion and synthesis of research findings. Auckland, New Zealand: Methodist Mission Northern. Letch, N., & Carroll, J. (2008). Excluded again: implications of integrated e-government systems for those at the margins. Information Technology & People, 21(3), 16. Retrieved September 30, 2008, from www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/09593840810896037 Lips, A. M. B. (2008). Before, After or During the Reforms? Towards Information Age Government in New Zealand. Policy Quarterly, 4(2), 21–26. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://ips.ac.nz/publications/files/1c303b174be.pdf Local Government New Zealand. (2008a). Councils in the digital age – A progress report on local government initiatives relating to the digital strategy. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from http://library.lgnz.co.nz/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?bib=3873 Local Government New Zealand. (2008b). Benchmarking New Zealand local e-government initiatives 2007–2008. Retrieved October, 8 2008, from http://www.lgnz.co.nz/library/files/ store_020/BenchmarkingReport_e_government.pdf. Mansourian, Y. (2008). Web search efficacy: definition and implementation. Aslib Proceedings, 60(4), 14. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/2760600404.pdf Newell, A. F., Dickinson, A., Smith, M. J., & Gregor, P. (2006). Designing a portal for older users: A case study of an industrial/academic collaboration. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 13(3), 347–375. Parkin, P., & Cullinan, J. (2008). A comparison of the information and service content of New Zealand council Websites. Retrieved October 8, 2008, from http://www.algim.org.nz/ site/Seminars/2008Web_Symposium.aspx. Peacey, B. (2002). E-government@ the local level – A discussion paper. Christchurch, New Zealand: University of Canterbury. Rubaii-Barrett, N., & Wise, L. R. (2008). Disability access and e-government: An empirical analysis of state practices. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19(1), 52–64. Ryall, T. (2009). Government shared network to be discontinued. Retrieved September 14, 2009, from http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government+shared+network+be+discontinued. Sanjeev, D., & Riggins, F. (2005). The digital divide: Current and future research directions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(12), 298–336. Sawyer, S. (2005). Social informatics: Principles and opportunities. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, June 2–6. http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Jun05/sawyer.html Selwyn, N. (2004). The information aged: A qualitative study of older adults’ use of information and communications technology. Journal of Aging Studies, 18(4), 369–384. Sloan, L. (2008, 14 May 2008). Council small print impedes disabled. Central Leader. Retrieved May 21, 2008, from http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/4525295a22399.html State Services Commission. (2004). Achieving e-government 2004 – A report on the progress towards the New Zealand e-government strategy. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www.e.govt.nz/resources/research/ready-access-2004/ready-access-2004.pdf. State Services Commission. (2007a). New Zealand government web standards. Retrieved from http://www.e.govt.nz/standards/web-guidelines/ State Services Commission. (2007b). NZ government web standards and recommendations v1.0. Retrieved from. State Services Commission. (2008a). NZ e-government interoperability framework. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from http://www.e.govt.nz/standards/e-gif/e-gif-v-3-3/e-gif-v-3-3-standards.pdf. State Services Commission. (2008b). New Zealand e-government 2007: progress towards transformation. Retrieved March 6, 2009 from http://www.e.govt.nz/resources/research/progress. State Services Commission. (2009b). Beyond e-government – towards 2020. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from http://www.e.govt.nz/about-egovt/strategy/nov-2006/strat7.html. Statistics New Zealand. (2003). A portrait of health: Key results of the 2002/2003 health survey. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://www.stats.govt.nz/datasets/health/healthstatistics.htm.

524


Statistics New Zealand. (2004). Older New Zealanders – 65 and beyond. Retrieved May 29, 2008 from http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/CF82C033-BE57-49E4-8F43ECCDED9B30ED/0/OlderNZrs2004.pdf. Statistics New Zealand. (2006a). Household use of information and communication technology. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/hotoff-the-press/household-use-of-information-and-communication-technologies-survey2006/household-use-ict-2006-hotp.htm?page=para003Master. Statistics New Zealand. (2006b). Information and communication technology in New Zealand. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/A05FC4D4-016B4D84-97E7-048D70220A69/0/58072SNZICTWEB.pdf. Statistics New Zealand. (2007). Two-thirds of New Zealand homes online. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/4698FAB1-8395-4FE1-B84475BAA95E0A4B/0/householduseofict2006mr.pdf. Willis, S., & Tranter, B. (2006). Beyond the ’digital divide’: Internet diffusion and inequality in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 42(1), 43–59.

Chapter 27

A Study of E-government and Political Indicators in Developing Nations with and Without Access-to-Information Laws Jeannine E. Relly

This study examines a number of measurements of e-government, political openness, and level of development in developing nations with and without accessto-information laws (N = 150). With nearly every e-government measurement and both political openness measurements, developing nations with access-toinformation laws had, on average, the strongest scores. Nations considering the legislation followed with the second strongest scores. When level of development was factored in, the e-government measurement strength was still higher, on average, in the countries with access-to-information legislation, but the differences were not as great.

1 Introduction The advancement of the international norms of transparency and accountability1 have catapulted developing nations into a new era in which access to information is a global, and often, domestic expectation. As the number of pathways for disseminating and receiving information have risen and the number of electoral democracies have increased by 73% in just two decades from 1988 to 2008 (Freedom House, 1988–2008), the number of developing nations with access-to-information (ATI) laws has exceeded industrialized nations by more than two-to-one in nearly the same period (Relly, 2009).

J.E. Relly (B) University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected] 1 The chapter uses Florini’s (2007) definition of transparency: “the degree to which information is available to outsiders that enables them to have informed voice in decisions and/or to assess the decisions made by insiders” (p. 5). A broad definition of accountability is used from the United Nations Development Program (2008a): “holding individuals and organizations responsible for performance” (p. 37).


525

526

J.E. Relly

The two developing countries with the largest populations in the world have invested heavily in e-government and have an ATI law or regulation on the books that could enable the public to submit requests to the government for information (Relly & Sabharwal, 2009). India, which adopted its Right to Information law in 2005 (Banisar, 2006), is among the poorest nations in the world and has been cited as one of the leading developing countries for e-government projects (Haque, 2002). China, which adopted Open Government Information Regulations in 2007 (Horsely, 2007), has spent more than $100 billion (United States) on e-government initiatives, which is unprecedented in the developing world (Kluver, 2005, p. 75). Both ATI laws and e-government have been trumpeted as a way to advance the ideals of transparent governance that is more efficient and effective, which could spawn investment and discourage corrupt activities (Blanton, 2002; Moon, Welch, & Wong, 2005). With the diffusion of ATI laws and e-government, a few researchers have attempted to compare political or economic environments in which the legislation is adopted (Islam, 2006; Relly, 2009; Relly & Sabharwal, 2009; Roberts, 2006) or the enabling environment in which e-government programs are administered. However, little research has compared e-government and the political and economic context in developing nations with and without ATI laws (Relly & Sabharwal, 2009). This chapter examines these groups for the degree to which information is communicated and accessed through public processes, through adopting ATI legislation, through the ability to use government Web sites, and through interacting online with government agency employees. This is the first study to address the following research questions: (1) Are there differences in e-government in developing nations with and without ATI laws? and (2) Do developing nations with ATI laws have a higher level of democratic institutions, a higher level of income, and a higher level of e-government than developing nations without the legislation? Developing nations have been chosen as a group because some scholars have noted that the financial constraints of some developing countries make it a challenge to effectively administer e-government programs (Avgerou, 2008; Rose, 2005a) and implement access-to-information legislation (Roberts, 2004, 2006). In addition, given the high stakes involved, there is potential for developing nations to adopt e-government and information policies and programs that do not have substantive support. This research analyzes the capacity of these nations as a whole. Thus, the chapter will examine the literature on the global diffusion of the norms of transparency and accountability and how it relates to e-government and the growing interest among developing countries to adopt ATI legislation, which is defined here as a right under the law to obtain information from the government. The chapter also reviews the studies that have examined a host of methods for measuring e-government and the capacity to support access to information. The last section uses cross-national measurements to compare e-government, political openness, and level of per capita income in developing nations with and without ATI legislation.

27

E-government and Political Indicators in Developing Nations

527

2 Literature Review The global norms of governmental transparency and accountability have been linked to ATI laws, e-government, and new public management. From the new public management perspective, e-government programs and the adoption of ATI legislation could be viewed as potential instruments that advance governmental transparency and accountability, which the United Nations Development Program (2008a) considers “pillars of democratic governance.” In some quarters, the ideal of advancing instruments that foster governmental openness, or accountability, such as ATI legislation and e-government, is an attempt to provide tools to combat issues with corruption, which has been linked with hampering a nation’s development (p. 37). The model is this: By providing information about government activity through requests using the ATI law or through posts or interactions on the Web, governments are held more accountable than when these windows are not available. In some ways, an understanding of the work of non-state and state actors casts light on the genesis of some of these government information policies. As scholars have pointed out, the United Nations and its affiliate organizations, such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund, have been involved with promoting a “good governance” agenda (Ciborra, 2005, p. 269; Farazmand, 1999, p. 514), which has included the advancement of e-government and ATI legislation (Blanton, 2002; Relly & Sabharwal, 2009; Von Haldenwang, 2004). In some cases, the World Bank has supported conditions written into government agreements that include adopting an ATI law by a certain year (McIntosh, 2006); or, it has linked future financial assistance to bolstered governmental transparency (Otenyo & Lind, 2004). The United Nations Development Program, too, listed “right to official information” and e-government among its main projects in 2005 with more than seven dozen access-to-information programs in 57 developing nations around the world (n.d., pp. 1–2). Some aid programs specifically require the introduction of e-government in developing nations to improve transparency and accountability, which Ciborra (2005) suggests has become “the conditio sine qua non for the rich states and international agencies to supply aid to these economically less developed countries” (p. 261). Not surprisingly, it has been suggested that the best programs in e-government, or ATI legislation implementation, have been designed with the input of local groups or constituencies rather than using a framework from a global transfer that does not have a local fit (Heeks, 2005, p. 57; McIntosh, 2006, p. 2). Though the discussion thus far has focused on the instrumental perspective related to the economic incentives for governments to adopt ATI legislation or embark on the Web, it should be noted that the political component of these programs is critical. Ackerman and Sandovol-Ballesteros (2006) argue that adopting and implementing ATI legislation in itself involves political decision-making. It has been argued, as well, that barriers to information technology reform in developing countries often are less about financial stumbling blocks and more about political obstacles (Von Haldenwang, 2004, p. 417).

528

J.E. Relly

Scholars also note that political influence and governmental policies can be influential in telecommunication infrastructure development and the level of responsiveness on e-government sites (Tanner Hawkins & Hawkins, 2003). Moon et al. (2005) found that the democracy score significantly predicted openness on the Web. Also, in a factor-analysis study of Internet use in 90 countries, Rose (2005a) reported that income in a nation along with political openness contributed to nearly 79% of the variance in the proportion of people using the Internet (pp. 8–9). This chapter will address nation-level political openness indicators and their relationship to e-government in developing nations with and without ATI laws. Generally, access-to-information legislation and e-government have been studied separately as instruments of governmental reform. Research has shown that effective implementation of ATI legislation (Foerstel, 1999; Piotrowski, 2007; Roberts, 2002) and e-government (Rose, 2005a; Jaeger & Thompson, 2003) can be a challenge even in longtime democracies. The Cyberspace Policy Research Group produced groundbreaking work in their early annual cross-national surveys of government Web sites, beginning in the 1990s. La Porte, Demchak, and de Jong (2002) found in a study of both developing and industrialized nations that there was variation in the degree that a nation exhibited openness on the Web, even in nations with similar measurements for political and economic context indicators. Heeks (2005), who analyzed 40 e-government case study reports in transitional and developing nations, along with data from a survey, found that more than one-third (35%) of the e-government programs were failures and half had failing components. Less than one-sixth (15%) were deemed successful (p. 52). As Norris (2003) argues, “representative democracy requires two-way communication as well as information” (p. 130). It has been noted that some governments, which have adopted ATI legislation and have poured money into information technology programs, do not necessarily have democratic credentials (Norris, 2003; Roberts, 2006; Wong & Welch, 2004). Though a number of nations with robust e-government programs are not considered democratic, Rose (2005b) suggests it still is important to study the process of interaction between the public and government on the Web in these nations (p. 2). This chapter argues the same for studying e-government in developing nations with and without ATI laws, including those that are not electoral democracies. The literature has indicated there is great potential for bi-directional communication through e-government. For example, e-mail links offer the public the opportunity to receive feedback from government agencies in addition to providing mechanisms for citizens to offer public comments on governmental policies (Norris, 2003, p. 113; United Nations, 2008b). Nonetheless, it should be noted that even in industrialized nations, after voting, contacting government officials has largely been done offline (Bimber, 1999; Rose, 2005a). Some scholars also have found shortcomings in e-government responsiveness (Gauld, Gray, & McComb, 2009). Because the literature indicates that e-participation has a distance to go before it even is fully embraced in industrialized nations, this chapter will examine the data that is available to compare e-participation programs in developing nations with and without ATI laws.

27


529

Given that the study in this chapter will examine e-government in developing nations, it is important to examine the studies that focus on the relationship among income, e-government, and information access. Scholars have suggested that adequate telecommunication infrastructure in a nation is integral to effective e-government (Norris, 2003; Rose, 2005a). Relly and Sabharwal found that Gross Domestic Product per capita Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) and telecommunication infrastructure were highly positively correlated in a cross-national study of 122 developing and industrialized nations with and without ATI laws. Prattipati’s (2003) study of 29 countries found that heavy use of e-government was related to high per capita income of a nation. A US study found that citizens who use e-government for transactions, specifically, had incomes that exceed $75,000 (Reddick, 2005, p. 51). In addition, others have pointed out that providing online access that the public can afford has presented challenges for some nations (Hafeez, 2004, Norris, 2003). Norris (2003) notes, however, that although her data showed a strong and significant relationship between income per capita and Internet use, the outliers weaken an explanation that focuses solely on the economic status of a nation as the driving force behind Internet use. Based on this literature, this chapter will examine public access to information by comparing telecommunication infrastructure over time in developing nations with and without ATI legislation. Scholars and others suggest that in order to have the capacity to set up, maintain, and utilize e-government systems in a country, literacy is critical (Moon et al., 2005; United Nations, 2008b). Others have argued that a high literacy rate should be a precondition for a country to have an access-to-information law (Martin & Feldman, 1998). Bimber (1999) found that those with higher education would be more apt to contact government agencies. Haque suggests that the effectiveness of e-government could be questioned in nations where most of the citizens are not able to read (2002). Given this literature, this study will examine literacy and enrollment in school as benchmarks in the evaluation of e-government programs and access to information in developing nations. As Jaeger and Thompson (2003) point out, a number of languages and dialects are spoken in many nations. The scholars suggest that for effective e-government, the sites should use the most commonly spoken languages; and word use and spelling should be standardized (p. 391). Rose (2005a) notes that when another language is used, typically English, it is offered in a minimal and superficial way. This can present issues for those, including investors and donors, who want more information (p. 24). This chapter research examines access to government information by studying the diversity in language offered on government Web sites in developing nations.

3 Data and Findings Based on the literature that suggests adopting an ATI law is rarely the first act that a nation undertakes to increase the flow of government information to the public (Islam, 2006, p. 135), and the studies that suggest mixed findings for the relationship

530

J.E. Relly

between e-government and information access (Relly & Sabharwal, 2009; Rose, 2005b), the research in this chapter examines the differences in e-government in the political and economic context of three groups of nations: developing nations with an ATI law, developing nations considering an ATI law, and developing nations that are not in the process of considering an ATI law. The study uses data from Banisar’s (2004, 2006) documentation of nations and supplements with a number of other databases to ensure the inclusion of nations that more recently have taken steps to consider ATI legislation.2 The study uses the United Nations (2006) classification of member countries for the nations examined in this research and filters for developing nations, using the World Bank (2005) definition of developing countries with populations greater than 30,000. Developing nations are defined as countries with Gross National Income (GNI) per capita of less than $10,066. Of the 150 developing nations in this study, 40 developing nations had an ATI law, 48 nations were considering an ATI law, and 62 nations were without an ATI law and were not considering the legislation. The study later examines the relationship among level of development, access to information legislation, e-government, and two political indicators. Level of development was categorized using the World Bank’s classification system: Low-income developing nations have GNI per capita of less than $826, lower-middle-income developing nations have $826–$3,255 GNI per capita, and upper-income developing nations have $3,256–$10, 065 GNI per capita (p. 291). To provide a broad-spectrum measurement of e-government, this study used the United Nations’ (2008b) e-government survey data. The UN measure for E-government Readiness indicator largely focuses on the “government to citizen” and “government to government” components of e-government with a minor focus on “government to business” (p.14). The study in this chapter used the E-government Readiness Index measurement because of its focus on multiple dimensions that relate to access to information. The aggregate e-readiness measurement is a composite measurement: one-third Web measure, one-third human capital measure, and one-third telecommunication infrastructure measurement (United Nations, 2008b).

2 The study used Banisar’s (2006) list of nations that had adopted an ATI law through January 2006. For consistency and reliability, the study used the Banisar database period as the cutoff date for nations that have adopted the law and added the Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Freedom of Information Act, 2003. Retrieved on January 29, 2010, from http://www. oas.org/juridico/spanish/vct_res4.pdf. For the category of nations considering the ATI law, the study used Banisar’s 2004 and 2006 lists of countries considering ATI legislation, including those nations that have ATI regulations or rules because Banisar does not consider these regulations and rules on par with legislation (2006, p. 166). The list used was from the September 2006 survey of nations; given that this report notes that a draft access-to-information bill was pending in a government ministry in Kyrgyzstan (Banisar, 2006, p. 20) and that Mendel (2008, p. 74) suggests that earlier legislation “did not clearly delineate the exceptions,” the study groups this nation under countries considering a bill. To ensure that the study included the breadth of nations that were documented as considering the ATI legislation, several texts and databases were used (Article XIX, 2009; Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, n.d.; Right2info.org, 2009; Tromp, 2008).

27


531

The study also compares the groups of nations using the UN data for e-participation. To examine the research question that addresses whether a high level of democratic institutions and a high level of income in nations would be associated with higher e-government measurements in developing nations with ATI laws, the study also computed the mean measurement for political rights, civil liberties (Freedom House, 2007) and the frequency for level of gross national income (GNI) per capita (World Bank, 2005).3 The study also used a nation’s status as an electoral democracy (Freedom House, 1988–2008) as a way to further analyze any potential relationships between the political environment and e-government. The global data indicate that Europe leads the world in E-government Readiness, followed by nations in the Americas, then Asia, and Oceania, the latter two of which lag below the global average. Africa, which trailed behind these regions for E-government Readiness, had the fewest number of countries in the study with ATI laws (United Nations, 2008b, p. 19). Table 27.1 indicates developing nations with access-to-information laws scored higher for e-readiness, on average, than developing nations considering the ATI law and those nations not considering an ATI law. When nations were divided by income classification for development (World Bank, 2005), the differences between nations with ATI laws and those considering the law were less stark for e-readiness. The relationship among the indicators of openness, level of development, and e-government were not always linear. Some nations, such as India, have a mixed profile. For example, India is among the poorest nations and, it is the largest democracy in the world. The nation has placed a large amount of domestic attention on e-government and ATI legislation implementation (Haque, 2002; Roberts, 2006). Yet, India’s overall e-readiness score fell from 2005 to 2007 and was nearly flat when the latest score was compared with 2004. This, in large part, may be attributed to the nation’s low telecommunication infrastructure score, which is a component of e-readiness. Previous research has indicated that telecommunications infrastructure and income per capita are highly correlated (Relly & Sabharwal, 2009). The developing nations not in the process of considering an ATI law had the lowest scores of the three groups for e-readiness, even when groups were further divided by level of development. Table 27.1 shows there is a more than one and a half unit spread for stronger Political Rights and Civil Liberties in developing nations with ATI laws compared with developing nations that are not considering such laws. Similarly, e-readiness was higher in the nations with ATI laws or those considering them compared with the group that had not placed ATI legislation on the agenda. The literature suggests that democracy has significantly predicted government openness on the Web (Moon et al., 2005).

3 The political rights and civil liberties (Freedom House, 2007) data were reverse coded so that 1 is the lowest score and 7 represents the highest political rights and civil liberties on the 1-to-7 scale.

532

J.E. Relly

Table 27.1 Summary data for e-government readiness, political rights, and civil liberties in developing countries with and without an ATI law Indicator

E-readiness (2007) Total developing nations (N = 150)

Developing countries with ATI law

Developing countries considering an ATI law

Developing countries not considering an ATI law

M/SD

M/SD

M/SD

.50 (.10) n = 40

.40 (.12) n = 48

.27 (.14) n = 62

.56 (.10) n = 16

.53 (.07) n=9

.40 (.13) n = 12

.48 (.06) n = 18

.43 (.08) n = 19

.31 (.15) n = 17

.36 (.06) n=6 5.07 (1.79) n = 40 5.22 (1.46) n = 40

.30 (.09) n = 20 4.56 (1.71) n = 48 4.75 (1.26) n = 48

.21 (.08) n = 33 3.34 (2.13) n = 62 3.68 (1.83) n = 62

E-readiness (2007) by level of development Upper-middle-income nations GNI per capita = $3,256–$10,065 (N = 37) Lower-middle-income nations GNI per capita = $826–$3,255 (N = 54) Low-income nations GNI per capita < $826 (N = 59) Political rights (2007) (N = 150) Civil liberties (2007) (N = 150)

E-readiness is based on a 0–1 index with 1 being the top score and 0 the lowest. Political Rights and Civil Liberties are each on a 1–7 scale with the highest numbers representing the highest values for these rights.

Still, as others have noted, political rights are low in some countries that have pumped money into information technology programs and the supporting infrastructure (Kalathil, 2003; Relly & Sabharwal, 2009). This relationship between e-readiness and political development should be explored more fully in case studies and comparative research with smaller groups of nations. The study then grouped the nations with an ATI law and those considering the legislation. The positive relationship among e-readiness, income, and political status appeared to be pronounced in both groups. Among the bottom-third scores, only six countries (20%) were nations with the ATI legislation. All but one (India) of these nations with low E-government Readiness scores and ATI legislation were not electoral democracies, and all but one of them (Angola) were in the poorest income group among the developing nations. McMillan (2005) described Angola, a middle-income developing nation where the telecommunication infrastructure score depressed the e-readiness score, as “a case study in building institutions

27


533

from scratch” (p. 155). This appears to be the case for the nation that has been touted as one of Africa’s top oil producers, which adopted ATI legislation about the time that it ended 30 years of civil war, and now leads the Central African region for e-government. Even though the scores for E-government Readiness are low in Angola, the nation moved up nearly 30 positions in 2 years (United Nations, 2008b, p. 23). It is a case in point in the complicated environment in which ATI legislation and e-government programs are adopted. This research also examined components of the e-readiness dataset. The Web Measure Index portion of the e-readiness indicator measures the stage in which e-government has evolved, starting with the lowest level of Web measure development: emerging. It progresses from enhanced to interactive, then transactional to connected (United Nations, 2008b, p. 16). Figure 27.1 indicates that developing nations with ATI laws, on average, scored higher on the Web Measure Index than the other two groups in each year measured. However, nations in the process of considering an ATI law showed the greatest improvement from 2004 to 2007. Interestingly, this group had more than triple the number of the poorest nations when compared with developing nations with the ATI law. This potentially could be explained by the literature that notes millions of dollars in aid have been committed to a number of poor nations that have pledged to advance e-government programs (Ciborra, 2005; Kalathil, 2003). 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2004 Nations without ATI laws Nations with ATI laws

2005

2007 Nations considering ATI laws

Fig. 27.1 Summary mean value of Web measure in developing nations with and without ATI laws. The Web measure is based on a 0–1 index with 1 being the top score and 0 the lowest

To examine the level in which governments support interaction and participation with the public on the Web in developing nations with and without ATI laws, the study uses a subset of the United Nation’s Web index, which is the e-participation index. The measurement is limited to government-to-citizen interactions. Governmental Web sites were evaluated for “e-information” that is provided online for citizens. The measurement also includes an “e-consultation” component that measures how the site allows citizens to interact with the government by posting feedback through informal polling, chat rooms, bulletin boards, weblogs, and online consultation (United Nations, 2008b). The e-participation indicator also examines

534

J.E. Relly

0.09

Nations not considering ATI laws

0.16

Nations considering ATI laws

0.18 Nations with ATI laws

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

E-participation

Fig. 27.2 E-participation in developing nations with and without ATI laws. E-participation ranges from 0 to 1 with 1 representing the highest value and 0 the lowest

“e-decision-making,” which includes a measurement of the level of government commitment to using citizens’ feedback in e-decision-making (p. 63). Figure 27.2 indicates that developing nations with ATI laws, on average, have higher e-participation scores than developing nations without ATI laws. These nations also have the highest mean value for political rights and civil liberties. Similarly, the findings show that developing nations considering ATI laws have higher mean values for e-participation, political rights, and civil liberties than developing nations not considering the ATI law. Interestingly, among the leading nations in the world for e-participation, Mexico was the only developing nation in the top seven countries. It should be noted, that Mexico, an upper-income developing country that adopted an ATI law in 2002, provides mobile phone access to government Web sites, similar to the US offering (United Nations, 2008b). The developing nation also provides RSS updates, open Web forums for citizens, and public comment reports (p. 63). Given the positive association in the literature between e-government and national income (Avgerou, 2008; Rose, 2005a) and ATI legislation and level of development (Islam, 2006; Relly & Sabharwal, 2009), and, that e-participation is resource-intense (Gauld et al., 2009), the findings in this study indicate that there may be a positive relationship among e-participation, ATI legislation, political development, and level of income, which should be examined more closely in future studies. As the literature notes, human capital in a nation is seen as critical to governments setting up effective e-government systems; and, similarly, education and literacy4 4 Human Capital consists of a 0 to 1 index with 1 being the highest number. The index is a composite measurement in which two-thirds of its weight is from the adult literacy rate and one-third is

27


535

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 2004

2005

Nations with ATI laws



Fig. 27.3 Summary data for mean values over time for Human Capital in developing nations with and without ATI laws. Human Capital is measured in a 0-to-1 index in which 0 is the lowest number and 1 is the highest

are key to being able to utilize digital systems and read government information on the Web when video, audio, and pictorial formats are not available. According to Fig. 27.3, data indicate that the Human Capital Index (United Nations, 2008b), which measures the adult literacy rate and gross school enrollment at all levels, is the highest in developing nations with ATI laws, which could mean greater information access. These findings complement the work of Moon et al. (2005), who found that the human development index, which includes literacy, was a determinant of a nation’s capacity to implement e-government programs and for the citizenry to use them (p. 7). The literature has noted that telecommunication infrastructure is a critical component of public access to government information through the Web (United Nations, 2008b; Heeks, 2005; Rose, 2005a, b). Thus, telecommunication infrastructure (United Nations, 2008b)5 was examined in the three groups of countries. Interestingly, as Fig. 27.4 shows, developing nations with ATI laws had three times the mean value for telecommunication infrastructure compared with developing nations not presently in the process of considering an ATI law. The greatest improvement in the telecommunication infrastructure was in that of developing nations with ATI laws, the group of countries with the fewest very low-income nations. These results build on the findings of Relly and Sabharwal’s (2009) research, which found telecommunications infrastructure was highly correlated with a nation’s income per capita. This chapter also examined four of West’s (2008) sub-measurements of e-government in a comparison of the three groups of nations. The indicators are on a 100-point index and include online services, publications posted online, databases

from a gross enrollment ratio (primary, secondary, and tertiary enrollment in school ratio) (United Nations, 2008b, p. 17). 5 A weighted composite indicator, the Telecommunication Infrastructure Index is 1/5 (personal computer index) + 1/5 (index for Internet user) + 1/5 (index for telephone lines) + 1/5 (index for mobile users) + 1/5 (index for broadband) (United Nations, 2008b, p. 219).

536

J.E. Relly 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2004

2005




Fig. 27.4 Summary mean values for telecommunication infrastructure in developing nations with and without ATI laws. Telecommunication infrastructure was measured on an index of 0–1 with 0 representing the lowest number and 1 representing the highest 100.0%

93.6%

95.3%

84.1%

90.0% 80.0%

73.0% 63.3%

70.0%

60.1%

58.9%

60.0% 47.5%

50.0% 40.0%

42.9% 36.6%

35.3%

30.0% 19.9%

20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Online Services

Accessible Publications


Searchable Databases

Nations considering ATI laws

Foreign Languages


Fig. 27.5 Summary mean values for online services, accessible publications, searchable databases, and foreign languages on government Web sites in developing nations

posted online, and language translations offered. Figure 27.5 indicates the nations not considering ATI legislation scored markedly lower for posting online services than the other two groups. West (2008) reports that 96% of government Websites provide access to publications; and databases are provided on 75% of all government Web sites (p. 3). Interestingly, as Fig. 27.5 shows, developing nations considering ATI laws scored the highest of the three groups of countries on the accessible publications measurement. Only developing nations with ATI laws hovered close to the global average

27


537

for searchable databases. Though the option of obtaining more information would be consistent with the principles of an access-to-information law, this, in part, could be the result of the higher income per capita of these nations, which may allow for more investment in features such as searchable databases. The findings of foreign language information offered on government Web sites shows that developing nations not considering an ATI law had the highest mean score for information offered in more than one language on government Web sites. This could be an indicator that these nations, which have a larger proportion of poor nations than developing nations with the ATI law, are providing information in other languages to encourage outside investment (Rose, 2005a). It also could be a result of more countries in this group having languages other than English as the native tongue. Given that English is the most often used language in global business, it is possible that nations are adding this feature for investors.

4 Discussion Overall, the findings in the chapter show that, on average, there are distinct differences in e-government among developing nations with and without ATI laws. The e-government and the political and economic indicators are higher on average in developing nations with ATI laws than the other two groups studied. This could be an indicator that the countries with ATI laws, which were overall wealthier than the other developing nations, would be more apt to incorporate potential instruments of openness, such as an ATI law or enhanced e-government. There also may be cultural phenomena that were not measured in this study, which make the group with the ATI laws, on average, more apt to embark on using these instruments of openness. The remainder of the discussion addresses the question that examines whether developing nations with ATI laws have a higher level of democratic institutions, a higher level of income and a higher level of e-government than developing nations without the legislation. The findings support the research work of Haque (2002) and Rose (2005a) who found that in nations with low-income, the precondition of access for e-government capacity is a challenge. As the findings in this study show, developing countries not considering ATI laws have more than five times the number of countries in the lowest-income category (less than $826 GNI per capita) compared with developing nations with the ATI laws. Half of the nations from the group not considering the ATI law are from sub-Saharan Africa and lag below the mean for e-readiness for any of the groups of nations in the study. The relationship between income, political development, and e-government become blurrier when some of the outliers of this study are considered. Previous research has shown there are countries among the group of nations with an ATI law or policies that are among some of the most politically closed nations in the world (Relly, 2009, Relly & Sahbarwal, 2009; Roberts, 2006). A number of these nations have adopted an ATI law or regulation because of conditions that were written into

538

J.E. Relly

agreements with supranational financial institutions (McIntosh, 2006). For instance, China, which receives low scores for political openness, adopted Open Government Information Regulations in 2007, in part, because of international commitments to agreements for transparent rules related to trade (Horsely, 2007). Interestingly, China ranked No. 65 out of 182 nations in the world for E-government Readiness while India, the largest democracy in the world, ranked No. 113 (United Nations, 2008b, pp. 174–177). As noted, China has led the developing world on investing in information technology (Kluver, 2005). Still, all but two of the top ten nations for E-government Readiness in the study had ATI legislation; the other two nations were considering the legislation or had a national regulation. Seven were from Europe, two from Latin America, and one was from Asia. All were in the highest-income category for developing nations. Compared with the other nations in this group of top ten e-government Readiness countries, Malaysia was an outlier for its low score for political openness. Interestingly, it scored in the top 35 nations in the world, including industrialized countries, for e-readiness. It also is worthy to note that Malaysia scored higher for e-participation than industrialized nations such as Finland, Germany, Italy, Iceland, and several other industrialized nations. Generally, research has shown that the political context of a nation may be associated with the level of public responsiveness on government Web sites (Norris, 2003; Welch & Wong, 2001; Wong & Welch, 2004). However, Malaysia, similar to neighboring Singapore, is a politically opaque nation known for its fiscal transparency. It is worthy of note that the score for Malaysia was pushed up by three government agency Web sites that had attributes such as audio and video tools and a formal response time in which officials would be required to respond to citizens’ e-mail queries. In the future, as governments in non-electoral democracies, such as Malaysia and China, continue to invest in information technology and consider new information policies, such as ATI laws and e-government, for economic development reasons, there likely may be more nations with a large chasm between political and economic openness. Finally, the difference between nations with and without the ATI law in the study was quite stark for e-participation. As noted, political rights and civil liberties were, on average, more than a unit lower in nations not considering the law compared with the other two groups. The values were about double the strength for e-participation for countries with ATI laws or those considering the legislation compared with the other group. However, the outliers make it clear that just because a nation’s government interacts with citizens on the Web, it does not necessarily indicate that the nation is politically open. Services, such as those offered through e-participation, may be used for efficiency purposes and represent a particular instrumental management approach rather than meaningful interaction between the government and the public. It is important to note that e-participation is, in some ways, a more complex component of e-government to study. Future studies should examine input from both sides of the interface.

27


539

5 Conclusion Scholars have noted that the study of the global diffusion of e-government (Moon et al., 2005) and the adoption of ATI laws (Banisar, 2006; Relly & Sabharwal, 2009; Roberts, 2006; Rose, 2005a) is a relatively new phenomenon, particularly for developing nations (Relly, 2009). Both of these instruments of openness have the potential to impact the flow of information, but they have been studied minimally together (Relly & Sabharwal, 2009). The cross-national data that is available to examine e-government is limited, but considering the relative newness of these global measures and the cost and time-consuming nature of sifting through governmental Web sites, the secondary data available provides an important perspective about the egovernment status of these nations. Similar to other cross-national studies, depth is sometimes sacrificed for breadth when comparing countries at the nation level. The findings provide an interesting snapshot into the political and economic context for e-government in developing nations. Nations that have adopted ATI laws nearly always had stronger mean scores for e-government, political rights, civil liberties, and per capita income than developing nations in the process of considering an ATI law and developing nations not currently considering ATI legislation. When the nations were divided by level of development, however, the findings seem to indicate that there is an association between income and level of e-government. The differences in e-government measurements within each group of countries with and without the ATI law were practically as dramatic as the differences among the groups of nations when the nations were divided by level of development. This could indicate that development level, rather than the decision to consider or adopt an ATI law, could be a defining factor for e-government development as measured in this study. It is possible there is an interrelationship. However, it should be noted, no matter what the level of development, the nations with the ATI law scored higher for e-readiness than the other two groups at the same income levels. As the literature notes, in the push to create a coherent online image for investors or to qualify for donor aid, nations may advance e-government development (Ciborra, 2005) and, similarly, adopt or consider adopting ATI laws (McIntosh, 2006). This may be done when literacy in the nation is low or when adequate telecommunication infrastructure is not in place. Thus, further research would be necessary to establish whether these instruments of transparency— e-government and ATI legislation—actually do advance the flow of political and economic information. Their presence could be related to a nation’s pursuit of development. Research has linked political rights and civil liberties with access to information (Relly, 2009) and engagement on the Internet (Rose, 2005a). This study did find on average that developing nations with ATI laws had the highest e-participation as well as the highest political rights and civil liberties scores, followed by developing nations considering an ATI law. Developing nations not presently considering an ATI law rated the lowest, on average, for these political context indicators and for nearly all e-government indicators. It should be noted, however, that the mean

540

J.E. Relly

scores for political rights in all three groups was relatively low when compared with those of longtime stable democracies in industrialized nations with ATI laws (Relly, 2009). Finally, the time-series data for human capital and telecommunications infrastructure provide an important insight into what may be achievable for e-government in a nation. As Heeks (2005) pointed out, when outsiders set up an e-government system, it is important for government agency employees to have the capacity to maintain and update the systems. Similarly, for e-government to be truly accessible, it is important to have citizens who can access and use the Internet, which is a challenge for some developing nations (Norris, 2003). Future research should further examine the implementation dimension of egovernment and ATI legislation in developing nations. There also is a dearth of studies that examine the actual bi-directional flow of information related to government Web sites, which could be an important future area of research for case study analysis. In addition, a comparative study of e-government in developing nations with ATI laws, exclusively, may provide insight into the variation among these countries.

References Ackerman, J. M., & Sandoval-Ballesteros, I. E. (2006). The global explosion of freedom of information laws. Administrative Law Review, 58(85), 85–130. Article XIX. (2009). Index of/publications/global-issues/freedom-of-information. Retrieved July 4, 2009, from http://www.article19.org/publications/global-issues/freedom-of-information Avgerou, C. (2008). Information systems in developing countries: A critical research review. Journal of Information Technology, 23, 133–146. Banisar, D. (2004). Freedom of information and access to information laws around the world 2004. Retrieved November 15, 2004, from http://freedominfo.org/survey/global_survey2004.pdf Banisar, D. (2006, September). Freedom of information around the world 2006: A global survey of access to government information laws. London: Privacy International. Bimber, B. (1999). The Internet and citizen communication with government: Does the medium matter? Political Communication, 16(4), 409–428. Blanton, T. (2002). The world’s right to know. Foreign Policy, July/August, 50–58. Ciborra, C. (2005). Interpreting E-government and development: Efficiency, transparency or governance at a distance? Information Technology & People, 18(3), 260–279. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. (n.d.). Right to information – international. Retrieved January 29, 2010, from http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/international/ laws_&_papers.htm Farazmand, A. (1999). Globalization and public administration. Public Administration Review 59(6), 509–522. Florini, A. M. (2007). The battle over transparency. In A. M. Florini (Ed.), The right to know: Transparency for an open world (pp. 1–16). New York: Columbia University Press. Foerstel, H. N. (1999). Freedom of information and the right to know – The origins and application of the Freedom of Information Act. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Freedom House. (1988–2008). Electoral Democracy Data. Retrieved September 7, 2009, from http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw09/CompHistData/ElectoralDemocracyTable.xls. Freedom House. (2007). Freedom in the world comparative and historical data. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2007

27


541

Gauld, R., Gray, A., & McComb, S. (2009). How responsive is E-government? Evidence from Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 69–74. Hafeez, S. (2004). United Nations global E-government readiness report 2004. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Public Administration and Development Management. Haque, M. S. (2002). E-governance in India: its impact on relations among citizens, politicians and public servants. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68(2), 231–250. Heeks, R. (2005). E-government as a carrier of context. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 51–74. Horsely, J. P. (2007). China adopts first nationwide open government information regulations. Retrieved August 3, 2007, from www.freedominfo.org/features /20070509.htm Islam, R. (2006). Does more transparency go along with better governance? Economics & Politics, 18(2), 121–167. Jaeger, P. T., & Thompson, K. M. (2003). E-government around the world: Lessons, challenges, and future directions. Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 389–394. Kalathil, S. (2003). Dot com for dictators. Foreign Policy, March/April 2003, 42–49. Kluver, R. (2005). The architecture of control: A Chinese strategy for e-Governance. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 75–97. La Porte, T.M., Demchak, C.C., & de Jong, M. (2002). Democracy and bureaucracy in the age of the Web – Empirical findings and theoretical speculations. Administration and Society, 34(4), 411–446. Martin, R., & Feldman, E. (1998). Access to information in developing countries: Why is access important in developing countries? Berlin: Transparency International. McMillan, J. (2005). Promoting transparency in Angola. Journal of Democracy, 16(3), 155–169. McIntosh, T. (2006, March 22). Freedom of information laws added to the development agenda. Freedominfo.org. Retrieved June 29, 2009 from http://freedominfo.org/features/20060322.htm. Mendel, T. (2008). Freedom of information: A comparative legal survey. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved June 29, 2009, http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/26159/12054862803freedom_ information_en.pdf/freedom_information_en.pdf Moon, M.J., Welch, E.W., & Wong, W. (2005). What drives global governance? An exploratory study at a macro level. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences – 2005. Norris, P. (2003). Digital divide – Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Otenyo, E. E., & Lind, N. S. (2004). Faces and phases of transparency reform in local government. International Journal of Public Administration, 27(5), 287–307. Piotrowski, S. J. (2007). Governmental transparency in the path of administrative reform. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Prattipati, S. N. (2003). Adoption of e-Governance: Differences between countries in the use of online government services. Journal of American Academy of Business, 1(2), 386–391. Reddick, C. G. (2005). Citizen interaction with E-government: From the streets to servers? Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), 38–57. Relly, J. E. (2009). The diffusion of access-to-information legislation: A cross-national contextual analysis. Paper presented for the Communication Law and Policy Division at the International Communication Association conference in Chicago (2009). Relly, J. E., & Sabharwal, M. (2009). Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: A cross-national study. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 148–157. Right2info.org. (2008). Access to information laws: Overview and statutory goals. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://right2info.org/access-to-information-laws/access-to-informationlaws-overview-and-statutory Roberts, A. (2002). Administrative discretion and the Access to Information Act: An “internal law” on open government. Canadian Public Administration, 45(2), 175–194. Roberts, A. (2004). A partial revolution: The diplomatic ethos and transparency in intergovernmental organizations. Public Administration Review, 64(4), 410–424.

542

J.E. Relly

Roberts, A. (2006). Blacked out: Government secrecy in the information age. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rose, R. (2005a). A global diffusion model of e-Governance. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 5–27. Rose, R. (2005b). Introduction: The Internet and governance in a global context. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 1–3. Tanner Hawkins, E., & Hawkins, K. A. (2003). Bridging Latin America’s digital divide: government policies and Internet access. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(3), 646–665. Tromp, S. (2008, September). World FOI chart. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from www3.telus. net/index100/foi United Nations Development Program. (n.d.). UNDP and access to information. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://www.undp.org/governance/docs/A2I_Pub_FastFacts.pdf United Nations. (2006). United Nations Member States. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml United Nations Development Program. (2008a, December). Mainstreaming anti-corruption in development – Anti-corruption practice note. Retrieved September 7, 2009, from http://www.undp.org/governance/docs/Mainstreaming_Anti-Corruption_in_Development.pdf. United Nations. (2008b). U.N. E-government survey 2008. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Public Administration and Development Management. Vleugels, R. (2008, September 22). Overview of all 86 FOIA countries. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://right2info.org/laws/Vleugels-Overview-86-FOIA-Countries-9.08.pdf Von Haldenwang, C. (2004). Electronic government (E-Government) and Development. The European Journal of Development Research, 16(2), 417–432. Welch, E. W., & Fulla, S. (2005). Virtual interactivity between government and citizens: The Chicago Police Department’s citizen ICAM application demonstration case. Political Communication, 22(2), 215–236. Welch, E. W., & Wong, W. (2001). Global information technology pressure and government accountability: The mediating effect of domestic context on Website openness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4), 509–538. West, D. M. (2008). Governance studies at Brookings: Improving technology utilization in electronic government around the world. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Wong, W., & Welch, E. (2004). Does E-government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of Website openness and government accountability. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 17(2), 275–297. World Bank. (2005). World Development Report 2006: Equity and development. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

Chapter 28

Socializing E-governance: A Parallel Study of Participatory E-governance and Emerging Social Media Eleni -Revekka Staiou and Dimitris Gouscos

This chapter has a twofold objective: (a) to identify the factors that underlie an attempt to “socialize” (i.e., make more inclusive, collective, and peer-to-peer) citizen participation and governance in a Web 2.0-like fashion, and (b) to investigate the potential of social media as new and more inclusive forms of participatory egovernance. To this end, taxonomies, objectives, critical factors, and barriers of e-participation are discussed in Section 1, with a view to synthesizing some key recommendations for successful e-participation projects. Section 2, on the other hand, discusses the advent and potential of social media and provides an overview and examples of using them for e-participation and e-governance services. The chapter concludes (Section 3) with a short discussion about the potential, in light of current developments, of applying social media to the service of e-participation not only as enabling technologies but also, and most importantly, as a reference for new participatory process models.

1 The Landscape of E-participation 1.1 Defining Citizen Participation and E-participation In democratic regimes, governments and civil society actors have been trying to find ways that include citizens’ participation in political procedures with a view to more informed and publicly acceptable decisions. According to Smith and Dalakiouridou (2009, p. 5),

E.-R. Staiou (B) University of Athens, Athens 105 62, Greece e-mail: [email protected] D. Gouscos University of Athens, Athens 105 62, Greece e-mail: [email protected]


543

544

E.-R. Staiou and D. Gouscos

participation relates mainly to inputs to policy and decision making for political or public policy issues, both within formal systems but also through informal systems where these can have a real impact at any stage of the policy lifecycle.

Also, as Moyo (2009, p. 128) argues, participation ranges from the individual to the institutional level where people are organizing themselves into civic groups to defend certain interests.

E-participation, based on digital technologies and media, incorporates more than the electronic implementation of traditional political participation processes. Macintosh (2007), suggests a working definition for e-participation as describing efforts to broaden and deepen political participation by enabling citizens to connect with one another and with their elected representatives and governments using Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).

Based on this definition as well as recent literature (Kotsiopoulos, 2009; Meijer, Burger, & Ebbers, 2009; Zissis, Lekkas, & Papadopoulou, 2009), e-participation can be seen as: the use of ICTs to involve citizens and help them interact with one another and with their elected representatives in order to find solutions for social problems.

This view goes along with the emergence of a “participatory culture” (Flew, 2008, p. 32), promoted by new media with a view to inclusiveness and subsequent democratic legitimization of political procedures. The term “ICTs” in this statement mostly refers to web-based services and applications, ranging from traditional FAQ lists, email alerts, chat rooms, and discussion forums to Web 2.0 tools as well as online meeting places (Kotsiopoulos, 2009, pp. 13–14; Zissis et al., 2009, pp. 198–203).

1.2 Citizen Participation and E-participation Taxonomies As Meijer et al. (2009) discuss three types of participation can be distinguished, each comprising different forms of activity and interaction: • political participation, where citizens protest against a specific proposal or policy; use Websites to organize political action; hold pleas for broad political changes; discuss political issues in their own social networks; and provide assessment tools for voting decisions; • policy participation, where citizens exercise pressure on governments to implement agreed policies accurately and correctly; report and expose offenders of government regulation; support each other in front of government policies; protest against implementation of government policies with which they disagree; and

28

Socializing e-Governance

545

• social participation, where citizens set up mutual contacts based on locality, community of practice or other bonds; build new social networks; help each other and exchange information or even goods. Orthogonally to this taxonomy of citizen participation, researchers such as Komito (2005, p. 39) and Oates (2003, p.33) identify some discrete levels of citizen involvement: • the information level, where citizens consume information flows produced and/or delivered by governments; • the consultation level, where citizens provide feedback on issues identified by governments; and, finally, • the participation level, where citizens themselves define the content and process of policy-making. These levels of involvement, which also correspond to increasing transparency and citizen control of the participatory processes, can be combined with the participation types proposed by Meijer et al. to define participation cases for which good practices and appropriate media can be explored. Indeed, Phang and Kankanhalli (2008) identify four modes of citizen participation and propose techniques and tools best fitting to the requirements of each one: • information exchange, i.e., an avenue for citizens to participate and an opportunity for two-way communication; according to the authors, a drop-in center or a public hearing is the best way to establish information exchange; • education and support building, comprising selection and engagement of participants and maintenance of contacts with them; this can best be met with advisory committees and citizen panels; • decision-making supplement, for acquisition of information useful to decisionmaking and control of participation processes; consensus-building techniques such as nominal groups and value analysis can help to this; and, finally, • input probing, i.e., collection and analysis of citizens’ input; the basic tool for this are citizen surveys, although ICTs create capabilities for novel approaches such as opinion mining.

1.3 E-participation State of Play As reported in a recent review of the European e-participation landscape by Panopoulou, Tambouris, and Tarabanis (2009), a number of e-participation services are offered online in Europe including information provision, consultation, citizen deliberation and discourse, as well as community building, collaboration, campaigning, electioneering, polling, voting, and others. This review has identified some 250 e-participation initiatives of which 31% referred to local and 17% to regional settings, whereas 28% exhibited national and 19% European scope and the

546


remaining 5% had a international reference. Most of the sites were found in the UK and Germany, with considerable difference from the following countries down to Portugal and Iceland. The language most commonly preferred was English, whereas about 79% of the sites were unilingual. In a US setting, as well as worldwide, a period in which citizens are particularly tempted to face internet as a place to exercise participation is during political campaigns. As reported by the Pew Internet and American Life Project (Smith, 2009) 60% of the internet users in the US went online for news about the 2008 presidential campaign (versus 22% for the campaign of 1996), whereas approximately 4 out of 10 communicated with others in order to discuss what they learnt and 6 out of 10 used social media (twitter, email, chat) to share the information they got. What is more, internet users are observed to move away from neutral point of view sites to those that match their own views. As a result, voters are starting to have a more active role in the electoral agenda by contributing their own opinions and concerns, and the latter can now be linked with the use of social media platforms for information sharing such as social networking sites, blogs and micro-blogging. As Pew Project reports conclude, new online users want to access customized political news, post their own original content, and take part in political activities on social networking sites (Smith, 2009, p. 16).

1.4 Critical Factors for E-participation As mentioned by De Cindio and De Marko (2002), among the first to investigate good practices for e-participation, e-participation projects need to have a well-organized project structure. More specifically they need to: • define the actors to be involved; • frame the issue to be discussed; and • strive to produce a shared position that gathers consensus. Some time later, Acland (2003, p. 6) has brought up four key factors that determine the success of e-participation projects: • Numbers: Large numbers of representatives is not always a good thing. Sometimes it is far more useful to focus on small and more properly weighted groups. Quality of participants seems most important and this can be promoted with active invitations to named representatives who are knowledgeable about the agenda discussed, rather than a general invitation to anyone interested. Allowing time is also an important factor for the quality of the opinions contributed, and the larger the number of participants the more advisable it seems to favor asynchronous communication. • Accessibility: At the level of technical platforms, technologies that people have access to need to be used, in order to avoid turning the digital divide into a democratic one as well. This type of technical accessibility often necessitates public

28


547

access points as well as active encouragement and support of participants. At the level of background information, accessibility dictates the need to make this information available in a simple and well-organized way, as well as educate participants to consult it. What is more, accessibility of a discussion often has to do with transparency of the dialogue: participants need to see and understand what other people are saying, and maybe supported to do so, in order to be able to follow up and contribute. • Interactivity: The most important aspect of interactivity has to do with responsiveness. Apart from citizen participants being responsive to the questions and concerns of their peers, administration representatives and official participants need to be responsive to the citizens’ questions and available to explain, clarify, and justify. • Effect: An effect focus of e-participation projects requires that each such project needs to be carefully evaluated following its completion: issues like who actually participated and why, how easy it was to participate, how effective the users felt, and others are of tantamount importance for the success of the projects to come. In the same line of thought, and building on recent experience, Brasier (2009) identifies more detailed critical success factors for e-participation initiatives, in the form of ten principles that need to be followed in order to engage citizens to interact with decision-makers and the institutions: • Diversity: Participants must represent multiple points of view, ideas, resources, and social networks. • Inclusivity: Barriers to participation must be reduced. • Equality: Equal participation has to be ensured. • Transparency: Ongoing work should be openly communicated to all participants and stakeholders. • Legitimacy: All decisions need to be justified as appropriate. • Deliberation: Opportunities should be provided to share not only ideas, but also values. • Substance: Opportunities need to be created to learn and apply what is learnt. • Influence: The outcome’s influence needs to be ensured. • Ongoing process: Opportunities are needed for participation to all stages of the process and time should be allowed for feedback. • Accommodation: Opportunities must be provided to participate at multiple times and locations.

1.5 Barriers to E-participation On the side of barriers to the success of e-participation projects, recent work by Macintosh (2007) refers to five major barriers that need to be overcome in order for e-participation initiatives to include as many people as possible and deliver results as expected.

548


• Social complexity refers to the number and heterogeneity of stakeholders. Multiple stakeholders will typically have different backgrounds, needs, capabilities, and interests that are very difficult to be covered in an all-inclusive way. In addition, participating citizens will have a wide range of literacy and communication skills, as well as skills in using technology. Successful e-participation processes will have to accommodate skillful as well as low-skilled participants, being equally open to both. • Contemporary political culture often includes elements of mistrust to political institutions, which create a subsequent lack of trust that a participatory initiative will be taken seriously and contribute to policy-making. This is only getting worse by the frequently observed lack of commitment from politicians and people in public administration to interact with the citizens involved in participatory processes. • Inappropriate organizational structures. Organizations need to integrate e-participation into their normal structures and regular processes. People will not be able to interact and participate, even if have the will, if organizations do not respond to them. Structures and cultures are necessary within public organizations that will promote involvement and responsiveness to participatory processes. • Technological dependencies have to do with an exaggerated focus on technology, as being the solution rather than the tool. Technology on its own will not able to solve all the problems citizens and organizations are facing, neither to guarantee the success of participatory processes. Appropriate tools and methods are needed for e-participation initiatives, which will be able to facilitate, rather than themselves guarantee, overcoming the barriers. • E-participation literacy is maybe the most important barrier of all. Citizens need to become more informed on what e-participation is, what it can and cannot offer, why it is needed, how it works, and how it can eventually facilitate their everyday life. These more overall barriers can be considered along with practical problems. For instance, as identified in a recent article by Kobza (2009, p. 41), two of the many problems that need to be overcome in order to engage citizens in successful e-participation consist in • time restrictions (there is limited time to capture citizen’s attention), and • social fear (fear of public embarrassment). Some more barriers to the success of e-participation initiatives can also be identified from the literature on internet citizenship. Dickin, Martin, Mitchell, Pannekoek, and Bernard (2002) elaborate on a number of concerns that states need to take into account with respect to e-inclusion and e-literacy, which constitute prerequisites for e-participation:

28


549

• internal digital divides: Not all citizens of the same country have equal digital access and skills, yet all need to be offered equal access to public good and services. Online implementation of e-participation initiatives needs to ensure that the existing divides are not reproduced. • information validation: The validity of information found on the web, from statistical data to news stories, is always a subject of further authentication. Citizens will need to be supported toward validating information in simple and practical ways. • information and media literacy: Citizens need to become more literate not only about validating online information, but also about the ways that this can be exploited. This opens up an entire agenda of issues on information and media literacy, for which a minimum is necessary in order to engage in e-participation. • right to privacy: Web surfing, provision of personal data, expression of opinions, all leave on the internet our personal traits. A new deal of digital privacy needs to be formulated, with provisions for proper handling of sensitive data such as political views that citizens may contribute to e-participation interactions. It should be noted that this last requirement, in fact, needs to be reconciled with the necessary transparency of public dialogue to all participants, thus leading to what could be termed protected transparency of citizen opinions within an e-participation process.

1.6 A Synthesis of Key Recommendations for E-participation Projects Although a number of advanced technologies can be put at the service of e-participation, the basic functions of citizen communication and interaction within participatory processes can still be implemented with low-sophistication and lowcost technological solutions. What is more, most of the critical factors and barriers that success of e-participation projects is subject to, as mentioned above, are not directly related to the technology chosen. On the contrary, it is more determined by the context in which such projects are inscribed as well as the processes chosen. Table 28.1 below provides a synthesis of key recommendations for e-participation projects, based on the literature already discussed, along three groups: • contextual recommendations, that must be considered within broader policies to facilitate the grounds for citizen participation and engagement • process design recommendations, that need to be met during the design stage of participatory processes • process implementation recommendations, that need to be considered at the design level but can only be met through constant monitoring of participatory processes during implementation; these can be further subdivided to recommendations important during the first part of a participatory process, where

550

E.-R. Staiou and D. Gouscos Table 28.1 Key recommendations for e-participation initiatives

Contextual recommendations • Promote information and media literacy • Promote e-participation literacy • Establish responsive organizational structures and cultures • Overcome lack of political trust Process design recommendations • Focus on technology as a tool, to be enacted through appropriate processes • Define and invite rationally sized and properly weighted participant groups • Include participants representing multiple points of view, ideas, resources, and social networks, in equal terms • Frame the issues to be discussed • Make background information available in practical ways • Choose inclusive and accessible technical platforms that minimize skill divides • Provide opportunities to participate at multiple times and locations • Ensure the outcome’s influence

Dickin et al. (2002) Macintosh (2007) Acland (2003) and Macintosh (2007) Macintosh (2007) Macintosh (2007) De Cindio and De Marco (2002) and Acland (2003) Brasier (2009)

De Cindio and De Marco (2002) Acland (2003) Dickin et al. (2002), Acland (2003), Macintosh (2007), and Brasier (2009) Brasier (2009) Brasier (2009)

Process implementation recommendations (I) : discussion and deliberation • Provide simple and practical ways to present the Kobza (2009) issues and engage the participants within time restrictions • Provide simple and practical ways to validate Dickin et al. (2002) information • Create participation opportunities during all stages Acland (2003) and Brasier of the process and allow time for thought and (2009) contribution Brasier (2009) • Provide opportunities to share ideas and values • Create opportunities to learn and apply the Brasier (2009) knowledge • Help participants overcome fear of public Kobza (2009) embarrassment • Ensure protected transparency of citizen opinions, Dickin et al. (2002), Acland communicate ongoing work to the group, (2003), and Brasier (2009) internally and externally Process implementation recommendations (II) : synthesis and outcomes • Strive to produce a shared position that gathers De Cindio and De Marco consensus (2002) • Accommodate multiple standpoints and views Macintosh (2007) • Justify decisions Brasier (2009) • Run an ex-post evaluation of the e-participation Acland (2003) process and effects

28


551

the issues are discussed and deliberation takes place, and recommendations important during the next stage, where views are synthesized and the outcomes are produced. Many of the recommendations of Table 28.1 at the level of process design and implementation can be more easily met by choosing Web 2.0 and social media as enabling technologies for e-participation. This does not hold true for contextual recommendations though, as out of definition these cannot be met by solutions at the level of technology choices. Still, as also suggested in recent literature reviews (Freschi, Medaglia, & Nørbjerg, 2009): The emergence of the Web 2.0 philosophy, the diffusion of social networking services and of entirely new platforms based on user-created content cannot be overlooked anymore as far as e-participation research is concerned. . . . We need to shift our focus from the top-down, institution-initiated e-participation platforms, to the bottom-up, citizen-initiated ones, which are playing an increasingly relevant role in shaping the way citizens interact with decision-makers and the institutions.

2 Social Media for E-governance and E-participation: An Overview 2.1 The Advent and Potential of Social Media The rapid diffusion of applications such as wikis, blogs, and social networking sites has led to the emergence of new conceptualizations and terminology in order to describe them. It must be noted here that these applications do not represent radically new technologies; on the contrary they come as products of technologies that already existed prior to their appearance, whereas their innovative character lies more in their use for new purposes. Terms like Web 2.0, social software, social computing, participative web, and user-generated content are used to refer to applications such as the above (Lindmark, 2009, p. 3), and more generally to describe the extensive use of the internet and its capabilities to expand creativity and communication. As a report by OECD (2007, p.17) states, all these applications are enabling users “to collaborate and contribute to developing, extending, rating, commenting on and distributing digital content.” Our own discussion is based on the term social media. According to Blossom (2009, p.29), social media encompass: any highly scalable and accessible communications technology or technique that enables any individual to influence groups of other individuals easily.

In an attempt to delimit the realm of social media based on their properties, Spannerworks (2006, p.5) lists some defining characteristics that they exhibit: • Participation: Social media encourage contributions and feedback from everyone interested, blurring the line between media and audience.

552


• Openness: Most social media services are open to feedback and participation. They encourage voting, comments, and sharing of information. There are rarely any barriers to accessing and making use of content. • Conversation: Whereas traditional media is about broadcast, content transmitted or distributed to an audience, social media are better seen as conversational, twoway interaction channels. • Community: Social media allow communities to be formed quickly and communicate effectively around common interests. • Connectedness: Most kinds of social media thrive in their connectedness, exploiting hyperlinks and combining different kinds of media in one place. Lindmark (2009) summarizes some important figures about the diffusion of social media worldwide. In the US, 39% of internet users are reading blogs whereas over 70 million blogs have been tracked (fewer than that, however, are active). Wikipedia has been translated in 250 languages. Social networking sites host 250 million profiles of which 200 million are included in Facebook advertising, whereas half of social networking users worldwide are visiting their profiles daily (Gaines & Mondak, 2009). Every single day, 1 million new photos are estimated to be uploaded in Flickr and millions of photos are being tagged, whereas 65,000 videos are estimated to be daily uploaded in YouTube. A quarter of the world’s internet population is estimated to play games online. Figures 28.1 and 28.2 present the percentages of internet users worldwide that use, respectively, social networking sites (Fig. 28.1) and Web 2.0 services in general (Fig 28.2). Social media are offering a lot of new capabilities to internet users, making possible interactions and services that were not thought of or practically feasible prior to their advent. The freedom of internet speech empowers participation and political engagement as people overcome the fear to say what they believe (OECD, 2007). A new concept of social awareness is emerging, defined by authors such as Shirky (2008, p.163) as: the ability of many different people and groups to understand a situation, and to understand who else has the same understanding.

The potential of applying Web 2.0 technologies and social media to e-government, e-participation, and e-politics has not gone unnoticed. Osimo (2008) identifies a number of trends for applying Web 2.0 technologies to government, including regulation, cross-agency cooperation, public sector knowledge management, political participation and transparency, public service provision, law enforcement as well as internal government operations. Kes-Erkul & Erkul (2009), on the other hand, argue that Web 2.0 and social media tools are going to be very common in political and electoral campaigns as a major platform for enabling interactions and forging relations between politicians and citizens, taking stock of the Barack Obama campaign and administration in the United States. In the following, a number of applications of social media to e-government and e-participation services are presented.

28


553

Fig. 28.1 Users of social networks as percentage of internet users (Source: Random Thoughts blog, accessed: 13/10/09)

Fig. 28.2 Users of Web 2.0 services as percentage of internet users (Source: Lindmark, 2009)

554


2.2 Participatory Budgeting Participatory budgeting, defined as “the participation of citizens in the decisionmaking process of budget allocation and monitoring public spending” (Peixoto, 2008) has existed for some time now as a concept. One of the first and most popular real-world large-scale efforts on participatory budgeting as of today is that of Porto Alegre, Brazil (Wagle & Shah, 2003), which started in 1989 and occurs annually, including neighborhood, regional, and citywide assemblies where residents and elected budget delegates identify spending priorities and vote on which priorities to implement (http://www2.portoalegre.rs.gov.br/op/). As reported by a World Bank case study (Bhatnagar, Rathore, Torres, & Kanungo, 2003), participatory budgeting has actually led to improvements in Porto Alegre public infrastructures and facilities as, for example, the increase of households with running water connections from 75% in 1988 to 98% after 10 years, as well as the quadrupling of the number of schools. As Peixoto notes, the next step in the development and opening up of participatory budgeting is to implement this process electronically, allowing citizens to get information and express their views via internet and thus overcoming the barriers posed through the actual physical presence-based procedure. The advantages of this approach include: • an increased window of time; though internet participating citizens do not have the limitation of time and synchronous interaction, they can vote at any time of the day or night • widespread access to voting points; where there is internet connection, citizens can vote • an opportunity for enriched focus; participants can focus to the problems of their area but also form an opinion about other cities as well. It is the authors’ view that e-participatory budgeting can greatly benefit from the capabilities provided by social media. Posting, sharing, and commenting background information and facts, discussion agendas, and individual opinions on social media platforms can facilitate structuring and monitoring the dialogue and decisionmaking process, as well as create a persistent memory of the issues discussed and the actual outcomes of the decisions taken.

2.3 Problem Reporting and Follow-Up The Municipality of Venice has deployed IRIS (Internet Reporting Information System, http://iris.comune.venezia.it), an open source platform through which everyone interested (e.g., citizens, tourists) can report on problems regarding the city and see how quickly and efficiently these are solved. IRIS provides a map of the city where users can tag information about the type of the problem reported,

28


555

photographs, as well as personal information that they may choose to publish on the web or not. All residents in the area of Venice have free internet access and can use the IRIS platform which is part of “Amministrare 2.0,” a project based on Web 2.0 philosophy, with the objective to encourage citizens participate and enhance administrative transparency. The Hungarian government has recently opened up Anti-lop (http://www.antilop.gov.hu/), a Website aiming to help in the fight against corruption in the country, especially regarding EU funding. Citizens are invited to report any incidents they notice about irregular or abusing use of EU funding. There is no need for registration, a valid email address is sufficient for access to the service, and the cases submitted are usually investigated within 30 days. Hungary is making a great effort to improve transparency and, as public officials argue, this can best be achieved through publicity and easily understood regulations. A citizen-based problem reporting service in Greece is the so-called Pin Project (http://www.msfree.gr/pin/), which is run by the Greek Institute for Road Safety, a non-governmental, non-profit organization. The Pin Project Website provides maps of Athens on which anonymous visitors can place electronic pins to denote spots on roads where there are damage. Everybody can see the spots already reported and maybe avoid a future accident. Also the state can see the spots in order to fix the problems. The Pin Project team are currently preparing a database with contact details of lawyers, forums, and other road assistance services. Information is provided only in Greek and, although there are not official statistics about the site’s popularity, operators affirm that it would be little known without the help of traditional media. A tremendous increase in visitors, for instance, was observed following a television interview of one of the founder members of the project. As this case shows, in countries like Greece where traditional media still prevail the media landscape, new media and innovative services need traditional publicity in order to gain popularity.

2.4 Gathering Citizens’ Views and Concerns A really popular example of a site for citizen deliberation is the UK-based Patient Opinion Website (http://www.patientopinion.org.uk) that people in the United Kingdom can use to upload comments regarding doctors, staff, facilities, everything that they do or do not like about the country’s National Health Service (NHS). The site is structured in such a way that makes it very easy to upload a comment, whereas registered users are also allowed to edit or delete their posts and enjoy some additional services such as reminders for their medical appointments. Patient Opinion is also available in Arabic and Chinese, and even the state is using reports from that site as an overview picture of NHS problems. Comments are checked and edited by the service moderators, but this role is often undertaken by users who are more experienced with the site. In 9 months’ time, Patient Opinion was able to attract 3,000 comments as well as 38 health providers who subscribed to receive feedback, either in quantitative terms (ratings and statistics) or in qualitative

556


terms, based on blogs (Osimo, 2008, p. 36). Most of the contributions, according to an internal survey, were motivated by altruism and gratitude. The Patient Opinion Website aims to enable informed choices for the citizens, help the government to better understand user needs and improve healthcare services in the UK. Again in the United Kingdom, the E-Petitions || Number10.gov.uk service of the UK Prime Minister’s official Website (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/) allows citizens to submit petitions directly to the Prime Minister and to see and sign petitions made by others. Users can also see which petitions are rejected and why and also the most popular petitions. The challenge behind this service has been to build a stronger connection between citizens and the Prime Minister. The beta version of the service is now online, incorporating 15 major changes all of which have been based on users’ feedback. It is interesting to note that one of the petitions submitted managed to reach 1.8 million signatures (Osimo, 2008). The E-Petitions service is very popular in the UK and many times traditional media refer to it as a good initiative. It has connections to major social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, and offers, among others, an interactive tour to the office of the Prime Minister in a quite amusing and interesting way. At the time of writing (October 2009), the most popular petition was the one calling UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown to resign. The petition creator (Kalvis Jansons) notes: “There are many reasons why we might want Brown to resign, but rather than having lots of narrow petitions on this topic (most of which have been rejected), I wanted one for all of us,” succinctly summarizing some critical points that governments should bear in mind when opening up social media to gather citizen feedback: • the feedback gathered may be extremely unfavorable for the exact government agency that has invited it • the feedback gathered needs always to be publicized in a transparent way, to safeguard citizens’ confidence to the service and the government • an efficient way for citizens to exercise pressure through their feedback is to try to build consensus around a least common denominator of their individual opinions and views.

2.5 Uncovering Public Sector Information The subsidies paid to European Union farmers through the EU Common Agricultural Policy represent huge amounts of money (a 55 billion Euros estimate is quoted), which justifies the idea that every farmer has a right to know where these money go. The FarmSubsidy project (http://farmsubsidy.org/) was launched by EU Transparency, a UK-based non-profit organization in collaboration with DICAR, the Danish International Center for Analytical Reporting. The aim of the project is to obtain detailed data relating to payments and recipients of farm subsidies in every EU member state and make this data available on the web in a way that is useful to European citizens. Journalists, analysts, and campaigners are working for this project in more than ten EU countries. The template of the FarmSubsidy Website changed lately and became far more comfortable, providing interesting links on the

28


557

front page and including a blog and a Twitter connection. FarmSubsidy is an effort within the FollowTheMoney project, aiming to “make it easier for European citizens to understand the EU budget: how it gets decided, where the money comes from and how it is spent.” Recently (July 2009), FollowTheMoney in collaboration with the EU Pew Environment Group has also launched FishSubsidy, a twin project aimed at monitoring the budget decisions and flows of the EU Common Fisheries Policy.

3 Concluding Remarks Many examples can be found online of social media and Web 2.0 technologies being used for e-government and e-participation applications, in different countries and with different focus and contents. And as it often happens with social media, at one point in time everybody is talking about these applications as the new killer trends that everyone should see and use and, some time later, even their own creators seem to have abandoned them in the quest for new innovative projects. This is one of the main criticisms (and, in fact, actual disadvantages) of social media applications, that they are ephemeral. Many social media projects are not even known to the public in order to get used. On top of that, problems are rising in terms of privacy, with respect to who is using our personal data and how, and whether we, as users, have the power and the practical means to refuse giving them away in public. As with all technologies, the most important answers for the applications of social media will come out of the social constructions, rather than the institutional regulations, of their use. Still, social media and Web 2.0 technologies effectively meet critical success factors from the e-participation agenda. The skills demanded for using and developing social media are minimal, no programming is needed and simple ways to engage the participants are readily available. Information is also available to everyone in practical and easy ways. Blogs, wikis, and social networking sites are providing participants access to all stages of the processes and possibilities to post and share their own point of view, no matter what they have to say. Participants have the opportunity to find other people with the same ideas and values and create a community in order to share information and digital assets. In that way, people are empowered to overcome public fear and establish a transparent communication with their respondents. In the broader domain of e-governance, social media bring forward a sense of modernization through innovative interaction patterns, and thus indeed challenge existing ways of work. They are overcoming a number of barriers at the level of technology (no need for complex IT systems, software, hardware, or skills), organizations (offering the opportunity for rich connections and communication patterns that transverse organizational structures) as well as culture (people from different countries and with different cultures are able to communicate and organize themselves through simple and commonly acceptable norms). Finally, social media are not closed-ended black-box technologies. They are malleable, offer interfaces to interoperate with other systems, present themselves

558


in ways user-friendly and flexible enough to be used in different contexts. This observation, together with the shift that they bring about toward paradigms of peer-to-peer collaboration, based on premises such as the wealth of networks, the wisdom, and the willingness of crowds, enable social media to lend themselves to e-participation applications not only as yet another enabling technology but also, and most importantly, as a technology that facilitates new and more open-ended and organic process models, that traditional workflow-based participatory processes find difficult to implement. This, in the authors’ view, represents one of the most important contributions that social media can bring forward to the field of participatory e-governance. All in all, social media and Web 2.0 technologies cannot be considered to cover all the factors that are needed to ensure successful implementation of e-participation and e-governance initiatives, so much so as a number of these factors are not a matter of technology. Still, their current advancements and features justify the view that they provide some natural answers to important requirements for e-participation and e-governance, thus laying the grounds for further research on their development and use.

References Acland, A. (2003). E-Participation and the Future of Democracy. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.wiserearth.org/resource/view/8fabadc221b8d0e9eb73b379e5c5099e Bhatnagar, D., Rathore, A., Torres, M. M., & Kanungo, P. (2003). Participatory Budgeting in Brazil. Case study prepared for World Bank, September 2003. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEMPOWERMENT/Resources/14657_ Partic-Budg-Brazil-web.pdf Blossom, J. (2009). Content Nation. Surviving and thriving as social media changes our work, our lives and our future. Indianapolis, Indiana: Wiley Publishing Brasier, K. J. (2009). Planning for citizen engagement. US GSA, Engaging Citizens in Government. Fall 2009, Retrieved October 11, 2009, from http://www.usaservices.gov/pdf_ docs/EngagingCitizensII.pdf De Cindio, F., & De Marco, A. (2002). Deliberative Community Network: Enriching e-Participation by supporting e-deliberation. DEMOnet Workshop on eDeliberation Research, Leeds, UK, October 16th, 2006. Retrieved October 7, 2009, from http://www.lic.dico.unimi.it/ papers.php Dickin, J., Martin, Cl., Mitchell, D., Pannekoek, F., & Bernard, P. (2002). The internet as a Site of Citizenship. Canadian Journal of Communication, 27, 509–534. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.cjc-online.ca Flew, T. (2008). New media. An introduction. Australia: Oxford University Press. Freschi, A. C., Medaglia, R., & Nørbjerg, J. (2009). A tale of six countries: eParticipation research from an administration and political perspective. In A. Macintosh & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Electronic participation (pp. 36–45). Berlin: Springer. Gaines, B. J., & Mondak, J. J. (2009). Typing together? Clustering of Ideological Types in Online Social Networks. Journal on Information Technology and Politics, 6, 216–231. Kes-Erkul, A., & Erkul, R. E. (2009). Web 2.0 in the Process of e-participation: The case of organizing for America and the Obama Administration. Retrieved October 13, 2009, from http://www.epractice.eu/en/library/293916

28


559

Kobza, K. (2009). Emerging themes for effective online citizen engagement. US GSA, Engaging Citizens in Government. Fall 2009, Retrieved October 11, 2009, from http:// www.usaservices.gov/pdf_docs/EngagingCitizensII.pdf Komito, L. (2005). e-Participation and governance: Widening the net. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 3(1), 39–48. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.ejeg.com Kotsiopoulos, I. (2009). Bringing together and accelerating eGovernment Research in the EU. European Commission eGovernment TrendsWatch site. Retrieved October 7, 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/egovernment/studies/trendswatch/ Lindmark, S. (2009). Web 2.0: Where does Europe Stand? Report EUR 23969 EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2539 Macintosh, A. (2007). Challenges and barriers of eParticipation in Europe. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/08/49/42/9d411e53.pdf Meijer, A., Burger, N., & Ebbers, W. (2009). Citizens4Citizens: Mapping participatory practices on the internet. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 7(1), 99–112. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.ejeg.com Moyo, L. (2009). The digital divide: Scarcity, inequality and conflict. In G. Creeber & R. Martin (Eds.), Digital cultures. Understanding new media (pp. 122–130). England: Open University Press. Oates, B. J. (2003). The potential contribution of ICTs to the political process. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 1(1), 33–42. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.ejeg.com OECD (2007). Participative web and user-created content. Web2.0, wikis and social networking. Retrieved February 10, 2009, from http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/9307031E.PDF Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in Government: Why and how? Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.europa.eu Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2009, March). eParticipation initiatives: How is Europe progressing? European Journal of ePractice, 7, 15–26. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from www.epracticejournal.eu Peixoto, T. (2008). e-Participatory budgeting: e-Democracy from theory to success? Retrieved July 20, 2009, from http://www.epractice.eu/en/library/281825 Phang, W. C., & Kankanhalli, A. (2008, December). A framework of ICT Exploration for E-Participation initiatives. Communications of the ACM, 51(12), 128–132. Shirky, Cl. (2008). Here comes everybody. The power of organizing without organizations. New York: The Penguin Press Smith, A. (2009). The Internet’s Role in Campaign 2008. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/6--The-Internets-Role-in-Campaign-2008.aspx Smith, S., & Dalakiouridou, E. (2009). Contextualizing Public (e)Participation in the Governance of the European Union. European Journal of ePractice, 7, March 2009, 4–14. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from www.epracticejournal.eu Spannerworks (2006). What is social media? An e-book from Spannerworks. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from http://www.spannerworks.com/ebooks Wagle, S., & Shah, P. (2003). Porto Alegre, Brazil: Participatory approaches in budgeting and public expenditure management, Note No. 71 for the World Bank Action Learning Program on “Participatory approaches at the Macro Level”, March 2003. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/205481/Porto%20Alegre_English.pdf Zissis, D., Lekkas, D., & Papadopoulou, A. E. (2009). Competent electronic participation channels in electronic democracy. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 7(2), 195–208. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.ejeg.com

Chapter 29

E-government, Accountability, and Performance: Best-in-Class Governments in European Union Countries Rebecca L. Orelli, Emanuele Padovani, and Eric Scorsone

To what extent do e-government influence accountability and performance in the public sector? Given the growing importance of performance and accountability in government, discussion has not been as robust as it should be regarding the role of e-government in understanding these challenges. Much has been claimed and written about the influence of e-government on the modernization and growth of public sector initiatives in Europe. Little is known, however, about how e-government influences the accountability and performance of governments. The view of e-government proposed in the chapter suggests policy makers to a more careful consideration of performance and accountability pressures that different e-government strategies bring with them. Particularly, the chapter presents a view of both challenges and advantages of implementing e-government strategies, by examining how closely and critically intertwined e-government, performance and accountability are in ten European Union (EU) countries.

1 Introduction Over the past decades, there has been a significant evolution in the public sector egovernments. With reference to Europe, there has been an overwhelming evolution of information systems and information technology in the last 20 years inspired by different strategies of implementation issued by the European Union over time. R.L. Orelli (B) University of Bologna, Bologna 47126, Italy e-mail: [email protected] E. Padovani University of Bologna, Bologna 47126, Italy, e-mail: [email protected] E. Scorsone Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA e-mail: [email protected]


561

562

R.L. Orelli et al.

While the European Union has defined strategies and goals, which are valid for every member, each country has the freedom to adapt them to its particular social, administrative, and economic context. Therefore, differences arise in terms of span of services provided via e-government, quality of introduction of new information technology tools in governments, level of efficiency, etc. (EuropeanCommission, 2007a). While previous studies have focused on the description of the introduction of e-government in European countries under different perspectives (Dunleavy, Margetts, Bastow, & Tinkler, 2006; EIPA, 2003; Hood, 1983), there seems to be a missing link: to what extent and in which direction do e-government systems influence accountability and performance in the public sector? Research has delved into the factors (historical, institutional, legal, organizational, functional, policy, and theoretical background) that inhibit or promote the adoption of ITs systems and e-government in general in the public sector (Garson & Shea, 2010). However, there seems to be a lack of clarity in terms of the relationship between accountability and e-government. Also, there seems to be a gap in literature around which type of performance is affected by e-government. Accountability and performance still remain the scope of any public management reform through the western world (Bouckaert & Pollitt, 2005), thus this must also be the ultimate goal of any e-government initiative. With the aim to investigate the extent to which e-government systems influence accountability and performance in the public sector, we judge as particular instructive to consider best-in-class EU national cases, selected by considering their achieved results, according to the European Commission indexes (EuropeanCommission, 2007b) and analyzed considering official documents about intended strategies issued by the different governments. This comparison will constitute the basis for the discussion about the influence of e-government as intended by established national strategies on accountability and performance. The structure of this chapter consists of five sections. The next section combines the areas of information systems, accountability, and performance in the public sector and examines how closely and critically intertwined they are; it ends with the consideration of three dimensions, which are used to describe the cases under analysis. The third section presents a classification of e-government services and also explains how typical information systems develop in European administration. In section four experiences of the countries analyzed serve as case studies in which the framework described in section two is applied. In the last section some conclusions are presented.

2 Accountability, Performance, and E-government If we ask a taxpayer what he or she expects from his or her government, likely the answer would involve public resources being used in a responsible and transparent way to provide valuable services. These two concepts also represent two pillars

29

E-government, Accountability, and Performance

563

around which public management disciplines have concentrated their research in the last two decades. In the following sections, we briefly define the notions of accountability and performance in the public sector and then we discuss their linkages to the e-government.

2.1 Definition of Accountability Accountability can be defined as the relationship in which one party, the accountor, recognizes an obligation to explain and justify their conduct to another, the accountee (Pollitt, 2003, p. 89). Generally speaking, accountability is a requirement of each individual’s participation in any social world (Willmott, 1996). With reference to public administration, it is seen as a key mechanism in the nature of democratic governments. Decision makers are given the power to decide on the allocation of resources, regulatory rules, and other governmental tools of power while being held “to account” for their behavior. According to Romzek and Dubnick, “public administration accountability involves the means by which public agencies and their workers manage the diverse expectations generated within and outside the organization” (1987, p. 233). The concept of accountability represents the underlying logic of any New Public Management-style governments’ reform around the globe (Guthrie, Humphrey, Jones, & Olson, 2005; Hood, 1991; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992), and considers a wide array of key elements that have been accumulated through the various definitions given over time by different scholars. Among others, Hoek, van Montfort, & Vermeer (2005) consider the variety of stakeholders involved, with adversarial needs and perspectives highlighting that accountability in the public sector is a relationship that might happen between: (1) two governmental organizations, or intergovernmental relationship, that can be horizontal or vertical; (2) one governmental and one non-governmental organization or individual (or group of individuals) with the problem of actual “non-governmental” stakeholder identification (Achterkamp & Vos, 2007); (3) within one governmental organization, between different actors; this requires management control systems, acting through a number of tools based on performance measurement to hold managers responsible of their actions (Anthony & Young, 2003). The accountability literature has focused on classifying the different types of frameworks in place by governments to control and provide justification for government actions. Romzek and Dubnick (1991, 1987) have conceptualized four types of accountability mechanisms, depending on the source of agency control—internal or external—and the degree of control over agency actions—high or low. When the relationship between the accountor and the accountee is hierarchical within the

564

R.L. Orelli et al.

same organization and the degree of control—in terms both of range and depth of actions—is high, a bureaucratic accountability mechanism is in place. The bureaucratic accountability system is characterized by the top-down relationship which is between a superior and a subordinate, in an environment where supervision activities, operating procedures, and rules and regulations are in place to control a wide span of activities. Legal systems are used as an accountability mechanism, which is external but the level of control remains high. In this case a wide range of activities are controlled by actors outside the boundaries of the organization who can impose, through legal sanctions, or contracts their priorities and standards. This is the case, for example, of the impositions of standards and administrative procedures by state or regional governments to municipal communities for services which are funded by the former but are operated by the latter. The professional accountability approach is used for specific reasons, usually associated with the degree of complexity or difficulty of a specific activity, public officials can rely upon experts of a specific field only who are hired to study specific problems (i.e., internal source of control); these experts have therefore the power to impose their views over the organization, but the degree of control is less significant than in the bureaucratic accountability. Finally, political accountability refers to the relationship between constituents and representatives, the latter being responsive to constituents, given their policy priorities and programmatic needs. Thus, the source of control is external (constituents), but the level of control is lower than in the legal accountability setting (see Fig. 29.1).

Fig. 29.1 Types of accountability systems; adaptation from Romzek and Dubnick (1987, p. 229)

2.2 Definition of Performance in the Public Sector Despite the massive research on how to measure performance, to implement and use performance measurement systems, to compare performance, there remains a surprising lack of clarity on the core notion of “performance” itself. Performance measurement is set around the idea that each public organization formulates its own envisaged performance by defining specific performance

29


565

indicators, which are used to steer and control activities with the aim to get strategic goals (De Bruijn, 2002). Hatry defines performance measurement as the “measurement on a regular basis of the results (outcome) and efficiency of services or programs” (1999, p. 33). Bouckaert and Halligan (2008) consider performance as “not a unitary concept . . . [which] must be viewed as a set of information about achievements of varying significance to different stakeholders.” This brings to the question of what are defined as “achievements.” Achievements may be viewed as a synonym for results, which is the most typical view taken by many practitioners from the performance measurement movement. An alternative route for a definition of performance may be to use classification or typology systems to understand different types of performance. In fact, the notion of multidimensional performance is widely accepted. Typically, the classification of performance into different categories such as inputs, process, outputs, and outcomes is the most important distinction made in the field, but there are a considerable number of variants (Anthony & Young, 2003; Farneti, Mazzara, & Savioli, 1996; Hatry, 1999; Poister, 2003). From these elementary performance components, two main concepts are created: efficiency, as the ability to minimize inputs given a certain level of outputs or maximize outputs given a certain amount of inputs, and effectiveness, as the ability to achieve the goals or standards provided. Both the administrative and managerial sciences agree on the need to understand performance measurement, and thus the core notion of “performance” in the public sector in a dynamic or evolving context (De Bruijn, 2002; Pollitt, Van Thiel, & Homburg, 2007). Thus, the challenge is to move in handling this dynamism. Pollitt et al. (2007) posits that several factors may influence the change in a performance measurement system over time. In explaining how and why the performance concept is volatile in the public sector, we can use the “performance regime” concept by Talbot and co-authors (Talbot, 2006; Talbot, Wiggan, & Johnson, 2005). They suggest that a multitude of actors may be involved in defining the context within which a government may be engaged in developing and adopting a performance measurement system, thus in shaping the prevailing idea of performance that has to be accomplished. The authors define some of the important institutional actors to include government departments, line ministries, legislatures, audit, inspection and regulatory bodies, judicial bodies, professional institutes, and users. Each of these actors, who in a sense can be considered stakeholders, may have the power to shape the type and impose the use of performance measures within the entire, or only certain functional areas of, local government.

2.3 How E-government May Affect Accountability and Performance Programs of government do not work by themselves (Miller & Rose, 1990), they require “technologies” if they are to be made operable. Technologies are

566

R.L. Orelli et al.

devices for intervening (Hacking, 1983), and they include notation, computation and calculation, procedures of examination and assessment, etc. Today they can be identified with information technologies. Using the brief discussion above as a starting point, there is a strong case that can be made that IT systems should be viewed within the context of an accountability and performance framework in the public sector. First of all, it is evident that accountability relationships are multiple and, sometimes—especially for external actors—indefinite. Therefore, IT systems can help governments in being flexible and speeding up accountability relationships. Second, information systems may allow such sophistication as business intelligence tools, not only to make more rational decisions, but also to give the opportunity to present information about the way resources are used tailored to the different stakeholders involved. Third, an information system is the only possibility governments have to deal with the variability of performance definitions across different actors. Fourth, information system, especially when directed toward the external environment, can be seen as a new aspect of performance per se. In other words, it is not a substitute of other services, but it is a new, distinctive service. It can be affirmed that, under a performance regime approach, the (growing) Internet community has pushed toward the adoption of information systems and e-government in governments. Given the conceptual frameworks presented, it can be argued that three dimensions seem to be important when IT is studied with reference to accountability and performance. The first dimension to be analyzed is the nature of the accountability relationship in crafting and deploying a government IT system, and an e-government system as well. In other words, the source of the “account giving” in an IT system may be, according to Romzek and Dubnick (1991, 1987), political, legal, bureaucratic, or professional. Each of these sources will have different criteria and sets of data and information they expect from such a system and place different demands on the IT system. The second dimension to be analyzed is the level of government and types of external stakeholders involved. For example, a government Web site may be developed with the input of a citizens advisory committee. Or, different levels of government, for example, local and state governments, may interact with the federal or central government to shape IT system deployment and in particular Web site deployment. This dimension can be referred to what has been presented as “performance regime” earlier (Talbot, 2006), in other words, the actors that shape the concept of performance that has to be provided by IS. The types of performance for which e-government is intended to accomplish represents the third dimension. IS offers different services or information to citizens, other governments, contractors, or internal managers via the IT system. Each group will of course bring their own demands of output on the system. Web site or e-government information could include items such as how the government is structured, how laws are passed, and other basic government information. Overall, e-government implementation strategies may be focused more on: (1) efficiency gains, i.e., producing the same outputs at lower total cost, producing more outputs at

29


567

the same total cost, or producing the same outputs at the same total cost in less time; (2) effectiveness gains, i.e., producing the same outputs at the same total cost in the same time, but to a higher quality standard, or producing new outputs (Hammers Specht, 2000; Hammers Specht & Hoff, 2005; Heeks, 2001; Worral, Remenyi, & Money, 2000). All three of these dimensions described here will be used to categorize the strategies adopted in the cases analyzed.

3 E-government Development in the Public Sector To shed light on the evolution of information systems in European Union, an overview of the development of public information systems and e-government in the public sector is presented. Then, the current e-government strategies and actors will be described. With the aim to explain the process of adoption, adaptation, and the results achieved, and their logical correlation with strategies, type of accountability and level of performance, we consider as particular instructive to compare the different strategies adopted in the selected national cases. This comparison, we argue, will constitute the basis for the discussion about the influence of e-government on accountability and performance.

3.1 The Evolution of E-government in European Union The European Information Society project was set in motion in the early 1990s. It was a move by the European Union (EU) that was inspired by two factors. First, the U.S. National Information Infrastructure Initiative (NIII), introduced in the early 1990s, had a direct impact on many countries and international organizations. The guiding principles of the NIII provided a model for subsequent European initiatives expressed in such documents as the Bangemann Report and e-Europe (EuropeanCommission, 1994). Another factor was the assumed potential of new information and communication technologies. By 1993, the EU was ready to construct a new agenda and meet the challenge of the emerging information age. The idea of a European Information Society was introduced in a meeting of the European Council in Copenhagen in the summer of 1993. In the same year the Commission published a White Paper (EuropeanCommission, 1993) that emphasized the significance of the evolution toward the Information Society for the future of Europe. By the end of the decade, the Commission launched a new initiative entitled eEurope: An Information Society for All. The eEurope initiative focuses on ten priority actions covering such areas as cheaper Internet access, e-commerce, electronic services, intelligent transportation, and government online (EuropeanCommission, 1999). In 2000, the European Commission launched the eEurope initiative with the aim of accelerating Europe’s transition toward a knowledge-based economy and to realize the potential benefits better access for

568

R.L. Orelli et al.

all citizens to the new services of the information age (EuropeanCommission, 2000). The present phase of the e-Europe initiative is called i2010 initiative (EuropeanCommission, 2007a) and has the aims to create a single European information space; to strengthen investment and innovation in ICT research; and to support inclusion, better public services, and quality of life through the use of ICT.

3.2 EU’s Strategies and Actors for E-government At present, the EU’s main policy strategies in the e-government field are explained in the E-government Action Plan. It was designed to help governments meet demands concerning the services they provide to citizens and businesses. Today, citizens are demanding better services, better security, and better democracy, while businesses demand less bureaucracy and more efficiency. Moreover, as the European Union continues to enlarge and embrace greater diversity, new needs and demands are arising such as for seamless public services across borders, essential to increase citizens’ opportunities for mobility and for business in Europe. The Action Plan focuses efforts on five priorities, as shown in Table 29.1. Table 29.1 EU’s e-government main policy strategies; e-government factsheet European Union (Nov 2008 Ed. 1.0) Strategy

Description

1. Inclusive e-government

Governments, together with their agencies and other intermediaries, are increasingly integrating ICTs into their processes E-government significantly contributes to high user satisfaction, transparency and accountability, a lighter administrative burden, and efficiency gains To make high-impact services for citizens and businesses more widely available To put in place key enablers which provide the foundation for e-government systems to work together, and to build the connections between ICT systems To strengthen citizen participation and democratic decision-making by using new technologies

2. Efficiency and effectiveness

3. High-impact key services for citizens and businesses 4. Key enablers

5. E-participation

Each country adapts the European strategies to its particular context. To understand the correlation between e-government strategies, type of accountability and level of performance we now consider the case of ten EU countries, positioned between Austria (leader country) and the medium placed country, Italy, according to The User Challenge Benchmarking The Supply Of Online Public Services (2007b). In particular, for selecting the countries analyzed, the following criteria have been considered: (a) countries ranked in the upper half section of the report (from 1 to 16 over 31 countries considered) (see Fig. 29.2); (b) countries with a track record of at

29


569

Fig. 29.2 Comparison of sophistication and full online availability (EU countries) (European Commission, 2007b, p. 17)

least 5 years of European reports about e-government; (c) representative countries from Napoleonic state/burocratic tradition, common low tradition, and federal tradition. Consequently, the selected countries are ten, namely Austria, Portugal, the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Spain, The Netherlands, and Italy.

3.3 E-government European Outputs The provision of high-quality public services is one of the keystones of the i2010 program, and public services are playing an important role in the route to an inclusive European society. They also play an important role in the success of the European economy. The report User Challenge Benchmarking The Supply Of Online Public Services (EuropeanCommission, 2007b) is the EC’s benchmark study on electronic public services in Europe. With it the European Commission has measured the progress of the online public service delivery in Europe to monitor the availability of public services online and the number of public services fully available online. To get a better view on the evolution of services, the EU has combined different services into clusters. Such services are now a recognized and integral means to deliver the i2010 E-government Action Plan (EuropeanCommission, 2007a), across all the five priorities described above. The complete list of the 20 public services is displayed in Table 29.2. The benchmark is based in the first place on the “web-based” assessment of more than 5,000 public agencies and 14,000 web pages providing the 20 public services in the 31 participating countries. The participating countries are the 27 member states, plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey (noted as EU27+). In this 2007 benchmark the following indicators have been measured: an online sophistication indicator that provides an indication of the extent to which the online provision

570 Table 29.2 Electronic public services (EuropeanCommission, 2007b, pp. 12–13)

R.L. Orelli et al. for

citizens

and

businesses

in

Europe

Citizens

Businesses

1. Income taxes 2. Job search 3. Social security benefits 4. Personal documents 5. Car registration 6. Application for building permission 7. Declaration to the police 8. Public libraries 9. Birth and marriage certificates 10. Enrolment in higher education 11. Announcement of moving 12. Health-related services

13. Social contribution for employees 14. Corporate tax 15. VAT 16. Registration of a new company 17. Submission of data to the statistical office 18. Custom declaration 19. Environment-related permits 20. Public procurement

of the 20 common services is based on new models of front and back offices integration, the reuse of available data and to what degree the idea of pro-active service delivery is embedded, and an indicator on the number of public services fully available online. Sophistication and fully online availability have a high correlation, as illustrated in the Fig. 29.2. The scores on sophistication are therefore on average higher than the fully availability online, where a service will only be considered online.

4 The Influence of E-government on Accountability and Performance In order to understand to what extent do e-government influences accountability and performance in the public sector in the selected cases, it is helpful to categorize the strategies adopted in the different countries using the three dimensions described at the end of the second section, namely, nature of the accountability relationship, level of government and types of externals stakeholders involved, and type of performance. The documents provided by the European Union on its official web site is the primary source of data (http://epractice.eu). Each county provides a document called “E-government factsheet,” which is regularly updated. When the data presented in the factsheets was not adequate to understand strategies or actors, we have investigated specific documents (cited in the factsheet). It must be highlighted that we consider declared strategies. A summary is presented in Table 29.3, where: for each country (column 1) FOA (Fully On line Availability) and OOS (Overall On line Sophistication) indicators are reported in the second and third columns; the national core strategies are reported in

89

90

Portugal [4]

UK [5]

100

Austria [1]

90

90

99

OOS

Supportive strategies

Political

4. Coherent and joined up leadership and governance

Political Professional

2. Shared services to release efficiencies

3. Professionalism

Political

Bureaucratic Bureaucratic Legal Political Professional

Political

Professional

Professional

Political Political Legal Bureaucratic/Legal Political Bureaucratic/Legal Political Political Bureaucratic/Legal Professional Bureaucratic/Legal Professional Bureaucratic/Legal Bureaucratic/Legal

Nature of the accountability relationship

1. Services around citizens and businesses

4. Citizen participation

3. Transparency

2. Efficiency

1. Citizen satisfaction

10. Interoperability

9. Sustainability

8. Cooperation

7. Data security

6. Usability

5. Accessibility

4. Transparency

3. Trust and security

2. Convenience through efficiency

Core strategies 1. Proximity to citizens

11. Technological neutrality

FOA

Declared strategies for improvement of e-government

5. Development

Current Outputs (%)

Table 29.3 E-government, accountability, and performance

6. International recognition

Citizens Citizens Federal administrations State/Federal administrations Citizens State/Federal administrations Citizens Citizens State/Federal administrations IT professional Groups State/Federal administrations IT professional Groups State/Federal administrations All levels of government All levels of government IT professional groups IT professional groups All levels of government Customer/Citizens Al levels of government All levels of government Agencies, Municipalities All level of government/ Association of Municipalities All levels of government Customers/Citizens All levels of government All levels of government, IT Professional Groups All levels of government, Ministries and Councillors Heads of Department, Business leaders, CIOs, Industry leaders

Level of government and types of externals stakeholders involved

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness

Type of performance

29 E-government, Accountability, and Performance 571

70

75

76

75

France [6]

Sweden [7]

Norway [9]

Germany [10]

FOA

84

86

87

87

OOS

Political Legal Political Legal

2. P.A. from the needs of citizens and entrepreneurs

3. IT standardization

4. Communication

3. Identification

2. Process chains

1. Portfolio

6. Round-the clock electronic P.A.

5. Resources used more effectively

4. Open, accessible and coherent P.A.

3. Digital skills

1. Digital access 2. Universal design of ICT solutions

6. More efficient and secure information

Political

Legal Political Professional

Legal

Legal Legal Professional Professional Political Legal Professional Legal Political Bureaucratic (Ministres) Legal (Regions and Loc.Gov.s) Bureaucratic (Ministres) Legal (Regions and Loc.Gov.s) Bureaucratic Legal

4. Strengthening coordination

5. Improving legal, technical and economic conditions

Bureaucratic

Professional

Core strategies 1. Enabling to access all digital networks and services 2. Production and supply of digital contents 3. Increasing and diversifying the use of digital services 1. The world’s simplest administration Professional





4. Modernising the governance

Current Outputs (%)

Ministries Countries and municipalities Federal Government and Federal States All levels of government Business community IT Professional groups All levels fo governments, customers(businesses and citizens)

All levels of government


All levels of government, IT Professional groups Regions, Countries, Municipalities Professional IT groups All levels of government, IT Professional groups All levels of government States, local county councils and agencies Customer/Citizens States, local county councils and agencies States, local county councils and agencies State and States IT Professional groups IT professional groups Customers/Citizens Countries and municipalities IT professional groups Countries, municipalities Voluntary organizations


Effectiveness

Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Efficiency Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Effectiveness Effectiveness

Effectiveness


Effectiveness

Effectiveness


Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Type of performance

572 R.L. Orelli et al.

Italy [16]

The Netherlands [12]

Spain [11]

70

63

70

FOA

79

83

84

OOS

3. Efficiency and transparency of public expenditure 4. E-citizenship (e-democracy, overcoming digital divide) 6. Competitive environment

7. Fast connections 1. Efficiency of the Public Administration 2. Interoperability and full cooperation

6. Electronic information exchange

4. Key registers

3. Uniform numbers for companies and citizens

2. Electronic authentication

1. Electronic access to the government

5. Security and Accessibility

4. Infrastructure and Trust

3. Public e-services

2. ICT training

1. Development of the ICT sector

Core strategies



5. Quality and efficiency measurement approach

Current Outputs (%)

Efficiency

All level of government All level of government All level of government

Bureaucratic Bureaucratic (Central gov.) Legal (Municipalities) Bureaucratic Bureaucratic Legal

Legal (Local Governments)/ Bureaucratic (State/Regions) Professional

Legal

Efficiency


Effectiveness Efficiency, effectiveness

All levels of government together IT Professional Groups

Efficiency Effectiveness Effectiveness Efficiency Effectiveness Efficiency Efficiency, Effectiveness Efficiency All levels of government Auditors All levels of government

Central government All levels of government All levels of government together

Effectiveness Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

All levels of government Local governments Citizens and businesses Citizens and businesses All levels of government

Effectiveness

Effectiveness

Type of performance

IT professional groups All levels of government All levels of government


Professional Political Political Bureaucratic (Central gov.) Legal (Local gov.s) Legal Political Political Bureaucratic (Central gov.) Legal (Municipalities) Bureaucratic (Central gov.) Legal (Municipalities) Political



7. Active part

29 E-government, Accountability, and Performance 573

574

R.L. Orelli et al.

the fourth column, while the connection with the European strategies is presented in the fifth column; the nature of accountability relationship(s) which is(are) in place to support each national strategy implementation is within column sixth; the level of government and types of externals stakeholders involved to carry out each national strategy is in column seventh; the last column describes which level(s) of performance is (are) supported by each national strategy (for an extensive description of strategies and actors in the ten countries analyzed, see Appendix). First of all, the summary of the weight of strategy focus on either efficiency or effectiveness provided by Table 29.4 provides an interesting overall view. With the exception of Italy and The Netherlands, e-government strategies in the selected countries seems to be mostly focused on effectiveness. This can be explained by previous studies, which have demonstrated the existence of general trends in e-government where in each stage there is an emphasis on specific aspects of performance (Heeks, 2006). The countries analyzed in this study belongs to the upper half section of the European report about the levels of sophistication and full online availability, with the lowest rankings for Italy and The Netherlands. This may indicate that, even though they can be considered within the best performers, these two countries are living in different stages of introduction, which suggests to bring more attention on efficiency instead of effectiveness. Further research might be carried out to understand if this hypothesis is reasonable, for example, analyzing whether this

Table 29.4 Focus on efficiency or effectiveness by e-government strategies 100%

80%

75%

60% 100%

100%

95%

92%

50%

53%

50%

47%

Italy

The Netherlands

75%

83%

87%

40%

20%

0%

0%

0%

France

Spain

5%

8%

Austria

Norway

Germany

Efficiency

25%

25%

Portugal

The UK

17%

13%

Sweden

Effectiveness

Note: Efficiency and Effectiveness levels are represented by the weight, in percentage, of each strategy related to the specific level of efficiency and effectiveness. The weight of a strategy is obtained by dividing the total weight (100% for convention) of strategies of a country for the number of declared core strategies. The total amount of efficiency plus effectiveness equals 100% for each country.

29


575

trend of efficiency focus is also existing in the lower half section of countries, and the reasons behind the differences in strategy focus among the countries analyzed. Table 29.3 gives an outlook of the importance of each accountability mechanisms in the countries analyzed, discriminating by the type of focus (effectiveness and efficiency). Generally speaking, it emerges that the most frequent accountability method used to carry out e-government strategies is the political one. This may be explained by the consideration that this accountability mechanisms is more appropriate to manage programs where a lot of different actors play active roles, since e-government strategies usually refers to several levels of government and types of externals stakeholders involved (see Table 29.3). Nevertheless, important differences, which would need better explanation by further thorough research remain. For example, France counts on professional mechanisms, while Norway is more focused on legal mechanisms. Of course, it can be argued that this difference depend on the diverse administrative systems in place in different countries or, under a wider and more comprehensive perspective, on the context difference made not only by the administrative systems, but also by socio-economic forces, political systems, and elites decision-making (Bouckaert & Pollitt, 2005).

ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS for strategies

BUREAUCRATIC 0% 18% Austria 25%

13%

Portugal

LEGAL

8% 17% Norway

0% 23% Austria

0% 50% Norway

0%

0% Germany

0% 13% Portugal

13% 25% Germany

10% Spain

0% 0% United Kingdom

0%

0%

0% United Kingdom

0%

0%

0% France

42% 17% The Netherlands

0% 0% France

0%

0% Sweden

10% 20% Italy

17% 33% Sweden

PROFESSIONAL

20% Spain

8% 17% The Netherlands 30% 20% Italy

POLITICAL

0% 30% Austria

0%

17% Norway

0% 13% Portugal

0%


8% Norway

5% 25% Austria

0%

25% Germany

0% 38% Portugal

0%

0%

10% Spain


0% 60% Spain

0% 67% France

0%

0% The Netherlands

0% 17% Sweden

10% 10% Italy

0% 33% France 0%

33% Sweden

17% 0%

38%

Germany

0% The Netherlands 0% Italy

EFFICIENCY EFFECTIVENESS

Fig. 29.3 Accountability mechanisms for implementation of e-government strategies with efficiency or effectiveness focus. Note: Efficiency and Effectiveness levels are calculated in the same manner described in the note of the Table 29.4. The representation differs according with a more detailed composition among the four accountability mechanism. For each mechanism the first column represents the Efficiency level, while the second the Effectiveness one

576

R.L. Orelli et al.

5 Conclusion The present chapter tries to answer the question: To what extent does e-government influence accountability and performance in the public sector? To this aim, we combined the areas of e-government, accountability, and performance in the public sector to analyze how closely and critically intertwined they are in ten best-in-class European Union countries. After having explained how typical information systems look in the public administration among different EU countries, we can draw some conclusions. E-government needs to be reexamined in light of the accountability and performance pressures in the modern administrative state. Like other parts of government administration, e-government can be subject to a variety of performance definitions and accountability pressures which are defined by a variety of stakeholders. We examined in selected national contexts, which represent different stages of egovernment introduction/implementation. Unlike some other systems, there is a reciprocal nature to e-government systems with regards to accountability and performance. E-government systems, and the type of data they collect and distribute, contribute to the nature of performance regime debate and the type of accountability relationships that are constructed over time. This new view of e-government should bring policy makers to a more careful consideration of performance and accountability pressures that different e-government strategy options inevitably bring with them.

Appendix Austria [1] In 2005, the Austrian Federal Government introduced the actual federal ICT strategy, based on the following milestones.

Strategy

Description

1. Proximity to citizens 2. Convenience through efficiency 3. Trust and security

Services need to be easy to find and available at all times Online processes should make life simpler and more convenient A citizen must be able to verify that electronic versions of official documents they receive have not been altered New technical developments will only be accepted if all those affected by it are involved in the process Public authority services must be accessible to everyone without discrimination The range of electronic services offered must be structured in an easily comprehensible, clear, and straightforward manner

4. Transparency 5. Accessibility 6. Usability

29


577

(continued) Strategy 7. Data security 8. Cooperation 9. Sustainability

10. Interoperability 11. Technological neutrality

Description Citizens place a high degree of confidence in the Austrian administration with regard to data protection Existing applications and infrastructures will have to work together in order to reach the desired level of efficiency E-government has a modular structure which allows new components to be integrated immediately into the system to keep up with the latest technology Diverse types of systems will need to be able to communicate with each other The speed with which systems, solutions, and devices are developed in the information and communication branch is faster than any other area

Source: ABC Guide to e-government in Austria (Jan 2008) and e-government factsheet Ed. 11.0.

The responsibility for Austria’s e-government strategy lies with the State Secretary in the Federal Chancellery. “Digital Austria,” the strategic Platform that ensures the active participation of all levels of government. It is headed by the Chief Information Officer and supported by the ICT Strategy Unit based in the Federal Chancellery. Regional and local responsibilities for implementation lie with individual State and Municipal Governments. The open participation enables Federal administration, regions, the Austrian Association of Cities and Towns and the Austrian Association of Municipalities to develop joint solutions for legal, technical, and organizational issues. The Court of Audit is an organ of Parliament, and its jurisdiction extends to the Federal Government, regional and local governments.

Portugal [4] The Portuguese e-government strategy is exposed in the e-government Action Plan for the Information Society. This strategic vision is to be implemented through the following strategies. The responsibility for e-government strategy lies with the Secretary of State for Administrative Modernisation and the AMA—Agency for the Public Services Modernisation, which are placed under the authority of the Minister for the Presidency. The AMA is a public institute that took over the attributions of the Presidency of the Council of the Ministers in the area of e-government. Individual Government Ministries and Agencies carry out projects within the framework of their competences. Regions and municipalities are in charge of e-government strategies and implementations within the framework of their competences, with the support of The National Association of Portuguese Municipalities (ANMP). The Court of Auditors is in charge of auditing public funds, public revenue, and expenditure, as well as public assets.

578

R.L. Orelli et al.

Strategy

Description

1. Citizen satisfaction

Increase citizen satisfaction with public services (24/7 services) Increase efficiency while reducing costs for both government and taxpayers Increase the transparency of the bureaucratic structure Promote citizen participation in the democratic processes Promote the development of the information and knowledge society Achieve international recognition of the quality of Portuguese e-government

2. Efficiency 3. Transparency 4. Citizen participation 5. Development 6. International recognition

Source: E-government factsheet Ed. 11.0.

The United Kingdom [5] The UK’s e-government strategy is set in the document Transformational Government—Enabled by Technology. The four key points of the document are shown below. Strategy

Description

1. Services around citizens and businesses 2. Shared services approach

Services designed around citizens and businesses to ensure effectiveness of delivery to the customer A shared service approach is needed to release efficiencies across the system and support delivery more focused on customer needs Government’s ambition for technology is accompanied by a step-change in the professionalism with which it is delivered Coherent, joined-up leadership and governance across government to ensure the vision and programs set out in this strategy are achieved and that the opportunities to be identified, communicated, managed, and delivered effectively

3. A step-change in the professionalism 4. Coherent, joined-up leadership, and governance

Source: E-government factsheet Ed. 10.0.

In the UK the Cabinet Office holds political responsibility for e-government policy. Within the Cabinet Office, the Transformational Government Group is in charge of driving the e-government agenda forward and of formulating IT strategy and policy. The Chief Information Officer (CIO) Council brings together CIOs from across all parts of the public sector, and is in charge of working with the Transformational Government Group to produce a new IT strategy for government. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has a powerful remit to promote community cohesion and equality. The Audit Commission, an independent nondepartmental public body sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,

29


579

with the Department of Health and the National Assembly for Wales, is responsible for ensuring that public money is used economically, efficiently and effectively.

France [6] The French e-government strategy (see the following table) was laid down in the ADELE program (ADministration ELEctronique, namely “e-government”). Strategy

Description

1. Enabling all citizens to access all digital networks and services 2. Develop the production and supply of digital contents

The development and the availability of the infrastructure for everyone, over the entire territory

3. Increasing and diversifying the use of digital services by companies, public administrations, and citizens 4. Modernizing the governance of the digital economy

The transition to digital TV will allow for the sharing of quality frequencies through which new Internet services will be made available A continuous development of e-government applications and services, and the enhancement of digital trust stands

To establish an inter ministerial delegation bringing together the respective human and financial means

Source: E-government factsheet 12.0.

Political responsibility for e-government lies with the Minister for the Budget, Public Accounts and Civil Service. The State Secretary responsible for Forward Planning and the Development of the Digital Economy prepares the Government’s Digital Economy policy in cooperation with the concerned ministries. The Council for the Modernisation of Public Policies is intended to control and streamline the use of public funds while improving the quality of public policies. The DirectorateGeneral for State Modernisation (DGME), placed under the authority of the Minister for the Budget, Public Accounts and Civil Service provides support services for some regional projects of national interest. Regional and local government bodies devise and implement their respective e-government policy in compliance with the national e-government policy. The responsibilities of the French Court of Accounts cover mandatory and optional examinations of the use of public funds. The Regional Courts of Accounts are tasked with examining the use of public funds by public authorities.

Sweden [7] The Action Plan for e-government, with the subtitle of “New grounds for IT-based business in Public Administration,” highlights the prioritized policy areas until 2010 (see table below).

580

R.L. Orelli et al.

Strategy

Description

1. The world’s simplest administration 2. Public administration from the needs of citizens and entrepreneurs 3. IT standardization

It should be as simple as possible for as many as possible to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations Government intends to create a public administration that emanates from the needs of users, and to reduce administrative costs by at least 25% A public information systems communicating in a standardized way without needing to be connected To strengthen the coordination of the strategic e-government work carried out by public authorities To improve the legal, technical, and economic conditions for the public authorities’ interaction The information handling of the public authorities will be made more efficient

4. Strengthening coordination 5. Improving legal, technical, and economic conditions 6. More efficient and secure information Source: E-government factsheet 11.0.

The Ministry of Finance holds political responsibility for e-government. The e-government delegation will contribute to the implementation of the Action Plan by leading and coordinating the development of e-government in the country. In line with the local self-government principle, regional and local e-government initiatives are led and coordinated by the respective regional and local county councils and municipalities. The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and the Federation of Swedish County Councils have formed a joint federation—the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. The Swedish National Audit Office carries out annual audits of Government agencies’ accounts and administration (financial audit) and audits the effectiveness and efficiency of Government operations (performance audit).

Norway [9] Through the White Paper on ICT-policy “An Information Society for All,” the government presented a strategy for ICT-development. The strategy enlightens two focused areas, as shown in the table below. The general approach to e-government in Norway is decentralized. At the political level, the Ministry of Government Administration and Reform (FAD) is responsible for the development and coordination of the use of information technology. The Department of ICT and renewal within the Ministry of Government Administration and Reform fulfills the Ministry’s overall responsibility for management and restoration of the public sector, and for ICT policy. The Government Administration Services (GAS) is a government agency aiming at providing synergy for the ministries with cost effective and common tasks. The Agency for Public Management and e-government (DIFI) is a government agency with the aim to assist the Public Sector in achieving efficiency, improving user-orientation and

29


581

Strategy

Description

Digital inclusion

1. Digital access is above all a question of ensuring everyone of good provisions for high-speed Internet access 2. Universal design of ICT solutions is a precondition for participation by everyone 3. Digital skills throughout the nation 4. The users should be offered an open, accessible, and coherent public sector featuring integrated and fully digital services via sound electronic self-service solutions 5. Resources should be freed up and used more effectively through ICT in order to strengthen public welfare provisions, while reducing administrative burdens 6. The Government will make provisions for round-the-clock electronic public administration entailing far more extensive inter-organizational cooperation

Round-the-clock electronic public administration improves services


ensuring transparency. The Office of the Auditor General shall ensure that the community’s resources and assets are used and administered in compliance with the decisions of the Norwegian Parliament. Regional and local authorities carry out projects within the framework of their competences. The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities (KS) aims to contribute to ICT development in several directions.

Germany [10] In January 2009, the Federal Government approved the Implementation Plan 2009 of e-government strategy the “E-Government 2.0 programme.” There are four strategies identified in the document (see below).

Strategy

Description

1. Portfolio

Enhancement of the federal e-government services in terms of quantity and quality Establishing of electronic collaboration between the public administration and the business community utilizing common business process chains Introduction of an electronic identity card (e-ID Card) and development of electronic identification concepts Development of secure communication infrastructure for citizens, businesses, and public administrations

2. Process chains

3. Identification 4. Communication


582

R.L. Orelli et al.

The responsibility for Germany’s e-government strategy lies with the Federal Ministry of the Interior. Better coordination of implementation is achieved through the IT Management at Federal Level and the IT Director and Chief Information Officer. The Office of the Federal Government Commissioner for Information Technology (Commissioner) is the key contact person of the Federal Government for cooperating with Federal States, municipalities and all relevant national and international stakeholders on IT-related questions. It brings together the unit responsible for the coordination of the “Information Society,” the main IT Strategy of German Federal Administration and the Office of the Task Force “Deutschland Online” as well as the unit responsible for the operative trans-departmental ITSteering. All government departments have set up a Chief Information Officer (CIO). All of the Federal States (Länder) and local authorities are working in parallel on the further expansion of their own e-government services. Political coordination of the implementation of Deutschland-Online is carried out by a Conference of State Secretaries in Federal and State governments. Each German State (Land) has its own audit body, which liaises and works on equal terms with the Federal Court of Accounts in areas where there is dual responsibility for the provision and delivery of public services.

Spain [11] The current Spanish e-government strategy results from: (1) the Avanza Plan for the development of the Information Society; the plan entered its second phase, “Avanza2,” which will run from 2009 to 2012; (2) the Action Plan for the Implementation of the so-called “Law on e-administration.” Avanza2 is structured around the five following action lines (see below). Strategy

Description

1. Development of the ICT sector

To develop new ICT products, processes, applications, contents, and services and participating in the establishment of the future Internet and of digital contents To massively include citizens and companies in the information society To improve the quality of public services delivered by the networked public administration This action line will further boost the development and establishment of the information society at local level To foster citizens’ and businesses’ trust in ICT and to improve the accessibility of e-services

2. ICT training 3. Public e-services 4. Infrastructure and trust 5. Security and accessibility


Avanza is placed under the responsibility of the Ministry for Industry, Tourism and Trade, as the competent authority for Information Society Development. Certain of its areas of action imply a close cooperation with the Ministry of the

29


583

Presidency responsible for the development of e-government, and the Autonomous Communities (regions) and Local Governments. A part of the State Secretariat for Public Function, the Directorate General promotes e-government by conducting relevant studies, and ensuring cooperation among all levels of Government. The Higher Council for Electronic Administration tasked with the preparation and development of the e-government strategy. Regional e-government initiatives are led and coordinated by the respective Autonomous Communities. Local e-government initiatives are led and coordinated by local authorities. The Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces is in charge of maintaining and promoting the “Avanza Local Solutions Platforms.” The Court of Audit is tasked with controlling the collection and use of public funds. The Autonomous Communities (Regional Governments) have their own Audit Offices.

The Netherlands [12] The Government’s action program is known as National Implementation Programme (NUP). The activities required to implement ICT facilities which will realize the electronic government fall into seven “domains” (see below).

Strategy

Description

1. Electronic access to the government

By linking the various types of information and services, it will be possible to create a single, all-embracing government information point The aim is to allow certain types of transaction to be completed “on line” If data is to be stored, managed and retrieved efficiently, all users must have a unique identifying reference number Centralized storage and management of data will rely on so-called key registers Attention must also be devoted to data transport

2. Electronic authentication 3. Uniform numbers for companies and citizens 4. Key registers 5. Electronic information exchange 6. Fast connections between government organizations

To realize a broadband network for the cluster of government offices in The Hague and to interconnect other public sector organizations

Source: Toward the electronic government (Jun 2009).

The State Secretary of the Interior and Kingdom Relations has the political responsibility for the coordination of the e-government policy. Government-wide consultation takes place in the Services and e-government Management Committee, and the Ministerial Burden of Regulations Steering Group and the Committee of Secretaries General on Burden of Regulations are involved. ICTU foundation, established to coordinate ICT developments in Government, and GBO. Overheid, an

584

R.L. Orelli et al.

agency founded in order to manage the developed basic facilities. Municipalities are in charge of strategy and implementation within the framework of their competencies. In the provinces, the consultations are organized by the Interprovincial Information Consultative Group. The Court of Audit determines whether central government uses funds from the public purse correctly and effectively.

Italy [16] The current Italian e-government strategy is embodied in the document toward the national e-government system: strategic lines, where seven strategic objectives are identified (see below).

Strategy

Description

1. Improvements in the efficiency 2. Interoperability and full cooperation 3. Efficiency and transparency of public expenditure

Improving the efficiency of the administration requires the simplification of administrative processes The simplification process requires a global revision of the administration’s work processes The computerization of payments within the administration and to the attention of the administration shall be fully ensured The first step to implement e-democracy is the overtaking of the digital divide and the promotion of e-inclusion

4. E-citizenship by promoting e-democracy and overcoming the digital divide 5. Systematic quality and efficiency measurement approaches 6. Competitive environment for businesses and ICT industry 7. A more active part in the European administrative innovation process

Each action of the public administration shall be measurable both in quality and in quantity The administration shall become an “intelligent customer,” interoperable, inclusive, and transparent This implies taking a greater part in the exchange of experience and good practice at the European and international levels


The Minister for Public Administration and Innovation is in charge of the definition of the Italian e-government strategy. The Committee of Ministers for the Information Society is charged with devising and/or endorsing the strategic action lines pertaining to Information Society in Italy. The Standing Committee on Technological Innovation has the function of advising the Minister responsible for the development and implementation of technological innovation. The regional and local authorities are responsible for the implementation of regional and local e-government projects falling within their respective areas of competence.

29


585

References Achterkamp, M. C., & Vos, J. F. J. (2007). Critically identifying stakeholders. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24(1), 3–14. Anthony, R. N., & Young, D. W. (2003). Management control in nonprofit organizations (7th ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance, international comparisons. London: Routledge. Bouckaert, G., & Pollitt, C. (2005). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Bruijn, H. (2002). Managing performance in the public sector. London, UK: Routledge. Dubnick, M. J., & Romzek, B. S. (1991). American public administration: Politics and the management of expectations. New York: Macmillan. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. New York: Oxford University Press. EIPA (2003). eGovernment in Europe: The state of affairs. Belgium: Publishing Atlanta. EuropeanCommission (1993). Growth, competitiveness and employment: The challenges and courses for entering into the XXIst century. EuropeanCommission (1994). Europe and the Global Information Society: Recommendations to the European Council (Also known as the Bangemann Report). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. EuropeanCommission (1999). eEurope: An information society for us all. Retrieved from europa.eu.int EuropeanCommission (2000). eEurope Action Plan. Retrieved from europa.eu.int EuropeanCommission (2007a). i2010 – Annual Information Society Report 2007. EuropeanCommission (2007b). The user challenge benchmarking the supply of online public services. Belgium: Capgemini. Farneti, G., Mazzara, L., & Savioli, G. (1996). Il sistema degli indicatori negli enti locali [Performance measurement indicators in local governments]. Torino: Giappichelli. Garson, G. D., & Shea, C. M. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of Public Information Systems (3rd ed.). New York, London: CRC Press. Guthrie, J., Humphrey, C., Jones, L. R., & Olson, O. (Eds.). (2005). International public financial management reform. Progress, contradictions, and challenges. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hammers Specht, P. (2000). The Impact of IT on organization performance in the public sector. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems (pp. 141–151). New York: Marcel Dekker. Hammers Specht, P., & Hoff, G. (2005). Information technology investment and organizational performance in the public sector. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems (pp. 127–142). New York, London: CRC Press. Hatry, P. H. (1999). Performance measurement. Getting results. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. Heeks, R. (2001). Understanding e-governance for development. IDPM i-Government Working Paper, (11). Heeks, R. (2006). Benchmarking eGovernment: Improving the National and International Measurement, Evaluation and Comparison of eGovernment. IDPM i-Government Working Paper, (18). Hoek, F., van Montfort, C., & Vermeer, C. (2005). Enhancing public accountability in the Netherlands. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(2), 69–86. Hood, C. (1983). The tools of government in the digital age. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1–31.

586

R.L. Orelli et al.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading MA: Adison Wesley. Poister, T. H. (2003). Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Pollitt, C., Van Thiel, S., & Homburg, V. (Eds.). (2007). The new public management in Europe: Adaptation and alternatives. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238. Romzek, B., & Dubnick, M. (1991). Accountability, professionalism and leadership: The Los Angeles Police Department and the Rodney King Beating. Paper presented at the national public management conference, The Maxwell School, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. Talbot, C. (2006). Performance regimes and institutional context: Comparing Japan, UK and USA. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Policy Evaluation. Talbot, C., Wiggan, J., & Johnson, C. (2005). Exploring performance regimes – a new approach to understanding public sector performance [A report for the National Audit Office] (Vol. 4). Willmott, H. (1996). Thinking accountability: accounting for the disciplined production of self. In M. R. & M. J. (Eds.), Accountability: Power, ethos and the technologies of managing. London: International Thomas Business Press. Worral, L., Remenyi, D., & Money, A. (2000). A methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of delivery of IT services. A comparative study of six british local authorities. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems (pp. 501–520). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Chapter 30

The OECD Budgetary Transparency: An Examination of Online Budgetary Information Across European Union Countries Carmen Caba Pérez, Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar, and Antonio Manuel López Hernández

Public administrations have adopted new ICTs with a view to improving access to government services and information, thus improving accountability. OECD Member countries recognize ICTs to be powerful tools for enhancing citizen engagement in public policy-making. Providing information, consultation and active participation makes government more transparent and more accountable. The particular approach adopted in implementing New Public Management models affects the policies adopted by an Administration in opening itself up to competition, and may lead to a greater emphasis on the concepts of information quality and transparency. This chapter seeks to analyse whether the central governments of EU countries, operating under different administrative cultures, use the World Wide Web as a means of making financial budgetary disclosures. Selected European countries are at the same time OECD members. To achieve this aim the OECD project of best practices for budget transparency (OBPBT) has been used as our reference point. The results of the study confirm that differences do exist among countries organized under different administrative cultures. It indicates the need for European countries to make a great effort in online budget transparency in terms of OBPBT compliance in order to foster citizens’ participation in public management and to improve e-democracy in these countries.

C.C. Pérez (B) University of Almería, Almería 04120, Spain e-mail: [email protected] M.P.R. Bolívar University of Granada, Granada 18071, Spain e-mail: [email protected] A.M.L. Hernández University of Granada, Granada 18071, Spain e-mail: [email protected]


587

588

C. Caba Pérez et al.

1 Introduction Citizens are increasingly aware of the need to endow public sector bodies with effective, efficient management systems in order to rationalize the use of financial resources and improve the performance of public services. Thus, more information transparency is required concerning governmental financial affairs, so that government accountability may be facilitated and citizens apprised of decision-making processes. As the single most important policy document published by a government is its budget, in which policy objectives are reconciled and implemented in concrete terms, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has highlighted the need for budget transparency in order to achieve better governance within the public sector (OECD, 2001a). Budget transparency is defined as the full disclosure of all relevant fiscal information in a timely and systematic manner. Therefore, making budgetary information more transparent requires the use of tools that enhance budget disclosures. This need has led public administrations to search within the world of business for tools, which can be adopted so that greater transparency may be provided (Bonsón et al., 2006). In this milieu, public administrators have adopted novel Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) – those that allow people and organizations to communicate and share information digitally, which are becoming an increasingly important means of improving access to government services and information, thus improving accountability, a process that has been called e-government. This approach, i.e. the use of information and communication technologies, and particularly the Internet provides a major tool to help governments meet the administrative reforms to achieve both an improved transparency and a better public sector management (OECD, 2003), at all levels of public administration. Today, OECD Member countries recognize ICTs to be powerful tools for enhancing citizens’ engagement in public policy-making (OECD, 2003). Information, consultation and active participation make governments more transparent and more accountable. Thus, from 2001, governments in all the OECD countries have increasingly had to respond to public demand for more responsive, efficient, effective and participatory government (OECD, 2005). This evolution leads to a stronger democracy (OECD, 2001b) and to greater legitimacy of the state and its relationship with citizens and the rule of law, entering into the realm of e-democracy and e-governance (Brown, 2005). In fact, rather than considering it merely a tool for the improved delivery of public services, the use of new technologies by governments should be seen as the beginning of a new form of governance of society, as it entails a new form of interaction between governments, citizens, the private sector and community organizations (Snellen, 2002). Public sector reforms under the New Public Management framework (NPM) have been implemented in recent years in governments all over the world. This reform of public management systems has been characterized by a move towards a new management culture, inspired by various currents, with proposals such as opening public sector entities to competition, placing a greater emphasis on citizen satisfaction and on quality, providing more transparent information and updating

30

The OECD Budgetary Transparency

589

control mechanisms. EU countries have been pressured by the external context to introduce changes in their public administration in accordance with the NPM doctrine (Alam & Nandam, 2005), influencing management systems in public administrations, although in each one NPM has been implemented in diverse ways. The differences in implementing NPM postulates seem to lie in the diverse concepts of state and the separation doctrine underlying administrative thought (Rutgers, 2000, 2001), in customer orientation based on the empowerment of service users (Flynn, 2002) and in differences in cultures and levels of socioeconomic development. The particular approach adopted to NPM may influence different policies concerning opening up the Administration to competition, and may lead to a greater emphasis on citizen satisfaction and on the concepts of information quality and transparency. This chapter seeks to analyse whether the central governments of EU countries, operating under different administrative cultures, use the World Wide Web as a means of making financial budgetary disclosures. Selected European countries are at the same time OECD members. To achieve this aim the OECD project of best practices for budget transparency (OBPBT) has been used as our reference point. Our contribution in this article is threefold: first, we propose a model for scoring online governmental budgetary financial reporting under OBPBT recommendations. Second, the proposed model is applied to the central governments of the sample countries, so as to compare the achievements of the initiatives to promote online financial budgetary disclosures in terms of OBPBT fulfilment, in the different approaches analysed. This comparison may reveal how useful the different Websites are, thus contributing to encouraging a benchmarking process among different public administration approaches, as well as to identifying and disseminating best practices. Third, we wish to determine whether the differences in the results obtained can be explained in terms of different cultural contexts in which apparently identical concepts have been transposed. From a practical point of view, this chapter wonders whether the harmonization in the dissemination of budgetary information needs to consider the administrative culture as an essential element in the implementation of practices to issue and disclose budgetary information. The chapter is organized as follows: first, differences in the NPM approach and administrative cultures in public administration in Europe are analysed. Second, we examine the main international pronouncements on fiscal and budget transparency. The empirical results are presented in the third section of the chapter. Finally, we highlight the main conclusions of our research and discuss the potential implications.

2 Differences in Public Administration Styles in Europe Although there are similarities in the implementation of NPM models among homogeneous groups of developed countries, there is no single global standard for implementing NPM reforms worldwide (Haque, 2006). Nevertheless, the

590


implementation of NPM has in fact been similar among countries that share some cultural values that influence the role and character of the state and its relationship with citizens, and contribute the emphasis on transparency and accountability attributed to NPM systems (Kickert, 1997). Thus, among EU members, there are five broad styles of public administration, termed Anglo-Saxon, Southern European, Germanic, Central and Eastern European and Scandinavian. The Netherlands are included in the Scandinavian category because its system bears similarities with these administrative system models (Kickert, 1997). Whereas from a Southern European point of view, public administration and the State apparatus are almost synonymous, and references to the State as defining Public Administration are conventional (Stillman, 1999), the idea of statelessness is an important factor in administrative thought in Anglo-Saxon countries (Rutgers, 2001). In fact, in the southern European countries, the State is the defining source for the scope and substance of public administration (Stillman, 1999) and therefore the concept of public administration is, in essence, deduced from that of State (Rutgers, 2001). In contrast, in Anglo-Saxon countries, and especially in the USA, the separation doctrine is firmly established and, therefore, Government, and not State, is the core concept and the meaning and scope of public administration cannot acquire a legitimacy of its own separate from the political function in society (Rutgers, 2001). Rather, administration is viewed as an appendage derived from the separation of powers (Rutgers, 2000). In addition, whereas the Southern European public administration style is built around administrative law (Rouban, 1997), which decisively influences the content, logic and institutional autonomy of its Public Administration, the Anglo-Saxon model has been very effective in creating controls, checks and balances over bureaucratic management (16). In this framework, in southern European countries, politicians and bureaucrats are assumed to wield considerable power (ArellanoGault & del Castillo-Vega, 2004) and these countries have incorporated NPM reforms into their bureaucratic models. By contrast, under the Anglo-Saxon model, bureaucracies are considered to be dangerous if they are granted excessive power. It is believed that accountability must be kept strong and that efficiency is the true mission of public administration. On the other hand, the German legal system is unified in all areas of law. This has been achieved by means of the federal government’s concurrent legislative power and by its right to enact framework legislation (Lüder, 2002). In the Germanic countries, administrative practice is characterized by an overriding legalistic philosophy (Rechsstaat) with Constitutional protection. German governmental budgeting and accounting at all three levels of government (federal, state and local) are regulated by law and not by a governmental external standard-setting body. Thus, in the Germanic countries, the bureaucratic model remains basically Weberian in the framework of a federal system and a complex interrelationship between federal government (Bund) and the Länders (Hammerschmid & Meyer, 2003). Traditional governmental budgeting and accounting in Germany are input-oriented, cash-based, compliance-oriented and exclusively aimed at meeting the budgetary control needs

30


591

of the legislature (Lüder, 2002). In addition, as in most other Western countries, it is incomplete and lacks transparency (Lüder, 2002). The recently incorporated EU members are economies in transition. These central and eastern European countries (also termed simply “Eastern Countries”) are jointly characterized as post-communist States, but present many cultural differences. Indeed, it is well-known that Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Romania did not have identical experiences under communist rule, and that those of the eastern European countries differed both from each other and from those of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, which emerged directly from the USSR (Palubinskas, 2002). The government structures prevailing within this context did not meet the demands of a modern state. The authoritarian structures were never conductive to public participation and the emphasis was entirely on policing and the extraction of resources, in colonial fashion. This led to a degree of industrial specialization, but the system was far from efficient and the public service was characterized at independence by poor financial reporting and accountability mechanisms, inadequate pay and incentives and a lack of performance measurement and evaluation (Jacobs, 2004). In addition, it featured a poorly defined allocation of budgetary responsibilities between the Ministry of Finance, line ministries and other budgetary institutions; the existence of numerous extrabudgetary and “special” funds; the separation of decision-making on capital investment programmes and operational budgets; weak accounting and reporting standards; poor linkages between budgets and results; and no tradition of multiyear financial planning (Allen, 2002). In barely a decade, the countries of this region have attempted to align themselves with and resemble western European economies (Wiarda, 2002a). However, authors that have analysed the process of change from authoritarian regimes to democratic ones have identified several fundamental variables that make the Central and Eastern European transition unique (Ellison, 2007). The most important is that, although the political institutions and, ultimately, constitutions changed in eastern Europe, their administrative states remained largely in place (Wiarda, 2002b). Nonetheless, a triple transformation has been undertaken in these countries, from a single-party State to a pluralist democracy, from a centrally planned economy to a free market economy and from subordination to independent statehood. Significantly, however, many shared characteristics can be detected, suggesting there is a common pattern of political and social change. These features include far-reaching decentralization, and the emergence of distinct spheres of economic and political life and privatization. Finally, the Scandinavian countries have been influenced by both the Southern European and the Anglo-Saxon public administration styles; they are considered to be a mixture of the Anglo-Saxon and Continental European public administration types (Beck, 1996). Two characteristics of the Scandinavian countries are the intensive role played by interest groups in the foundation of public policies, as denoted by the label “corporatist states” (Kickert, 2007) and the more pragmatic version of managerial reforms (Kickert, 2007). The provision of services is aimed at the citizen-user and citizens are encouraged to participate both in public

592


policy evaluation and in management, particularly in the social area (Kuuttiniemi & Virtanen, 1998). In this milieu, the search for efficiency and effectiveness involves satisfying citizens’ wishes.

3 International Experiences for Fiscal and Budget Transparency: OECD Recommendations on Best Practices for Budget Transparency Some countries, like Germany, recognize that the budgetary information available lacks transparency (Lüder, 2002). This lack of transparency is one of the critical factors, which has led to difficulties in enforcing fiscal discipline, particularly as concerns expenditure control (Alesina et al., 1995). It contributes to confusion and ambiguity on the real state of public finances, by concealing current and future tax burdens, overemphasizing the benefits of spending, and underestimating the extent of current and future liabilities (Alesina & Perotti, 1996). By contrast, transparent fiscal management and budget transparency could promote accountability and increase the political risk linked to the maintenance of non-sustainable political actions (IMF, 1999). The disclosure of public sector financial information contributes to achieving this goal by informing about the use of public sector activities and their contribution to the social and economic development of society. In this context, governments and international bodies have increasingly valued the role of fiscal and budget transparency in enhancing trust in economic policies and, therefore, in improving the prospects for economic growth. This consideration has led to the publication of international benchmarks for fiscal and budget transparency. In synthesizing international experiences, institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) (IMF, 1999) have pointed out that fiscal transparency is one of the main aspects by which successful public sector management is recognized. Fiscal transparency means informing citizens about fiscal policies and forecasts, and government financial information. In brief, fiscal transparency promotes accountability and provides a basis on which the performance of fiscal policies may be assessed. In its best practices code of fiscal transparency (IMF, 1998), the IMF highlights the role of fiscal transparency as a key aspect to achieving better governance by public sector entities. Four major principles are included: (i) a clear definition of functions and responsibilities; (ii) public access to information; (iii) transparency in the issuance, performance and disclosure of the budget; and (iv) monitoring control. As for the public access to fiscal information, the Manual of Fiscal Transparency (IMF, 1999) indicates four areas that should be taken into account in providing information about public finances: (a) the annual budget; (b) physical and financial budgetary information; (c) contingent liabilities, fiscal expenses and quasi-fiscal activities; and (d) financial liabilities and assets.

30


593

In May 2001, the OECD published a document entitled “OECD Best Practices for Budget Transparency” (OBPBT), which was intended to be a paramount reference tool for OECD member and non-member countries to use in order to increase their degree of budget transparency. In this paper, the OECD emphasized that all fiscal reports referred to in these Best Practices should be made publicly available, including on the Internet, free of charge (OECD, 2001a). Thus, the disclosure of fiscal reports on the Internet is of great importance for budget transparency and for improving democratic governance. OBPBT is organized in three parts (OECD, 2001a). Part I lists the principal budget reports that governments should produce and their general content. Part II describes specific disclosures to be contained in the reports. This includes both financial and non-financial performance information. Part III highlights practices for ensuring the quality and integrity of the reports. The principal budget reports included in part I could be separated into two groups: policy documents – ex-ante reports – and accountability documents – expost reports – (see Fig. 30.1). The first group of documents is composed of the pre-budget report, the budget report and the long-term report. These documents are characterized by the inclusion of policies and the government’s economic and fiscal policy intentions for all government revenue and expenditure programmes with a detailed commentary on each one. These documents should state explicitly the government’s long-term economic and fiscal policy objectives and they should include a long- and medium-term forecast of how revenue and expenditure are expected to develop. Policy documents

Accountability documents Ex post Information

Ex ante Information Budget reports

Long term reports Pre-Budget reports

Monthly reports Mid-year reports

Year-end reports Pre-election reports

Fig. 30.1 Budget reports in OECD best practices for budget transparency (own elaboration)

On the other hand, the monthly reports, the mid-year reports, the year-end reports and the pre-election reports are what are termed “accountability documents”. These provide a comprehensive update on the implementation of the budget, including an updated forecast of the budget outcome for the current fiscal year and, at least, the following two fiscal years. Their main objective is to show the progress made in implementing the budget. Thus, they are the government’s key accountability documents, and especially so the year-end report. In accordance with the aforementioned differences in NPM implementation in different countries, it is recognized that there will be different reporting regimes and

594


that there may be different areas of emphasis for transparency (OECD, 2001a). In this context, Best Practices are based on different countries’ experiences in each area and are not meant to constitute a formal “standard” for budget transparency. Therefore, an analysis of online budget transparency in terms of OBPBT fulfilment could be of interest, analysing different administrative cultures in order to determine whether the different NPM approaches implemented by countries comprise a determining factor in the meaning of budget transparency on the Web.

4 Empirical Research 4.1 Description of the Research Methodology A coincidence index, implementing the Cooke index methodology (Cooke, 1989), was established to determine whether there are differences in the online disclosure of budget transparency in terms of OBPBT compliance among EU countries that belong to the Anglo-Saxon, Southern European, Germanic, Central and Eastern European and Scandinavian styles of public administration. The Cooke index (1989) is a ratio that weighs the information submitted by an organization regarding the maximum possible expected, in which this can vary. One of the most important characteristics of this model is that the public administration is not penalized not to disclose those elements that are not relevant to it. The data used in the coincidence index were obtained by means of a scoring sheet. The components for this coincidence index were chosen on the basis of the OECD Best Practices for Budget Transparency (OECD, 2001a). This coincidence index has two levels: • Level one: this level examines whether there are differences among countries with different administrative styles, in terms of the availability of budget reports on the Internet, irrespective of their content. This first level highlights seven items (R), which coincide with each of the reports to be published as recommended in the OBPBT. However, as the latter includes, for the improvement of budget transparency, both ex-ante and ex-post budgetary information, we believe it useful to distinguish these two elements within the first level. Thus, in level one we examine whether ex-ante budgetary information (A) and ex-post budgetary information (P) are published on the Web, irrespective of the level of detail presented in these reports. In the category of ex-ante budgetary information, we consider whether the following reports are included: budget reports (b), pre-budget reports (p-b) and long-term reports (l). On the other hand, in analysing the ex-post budgetary information published on the Web, we take into account the existence of monthly reports (m), mid-year reports (mi), year-end reports (y) and pre-election reports (p-p). • Level two: here, we concentrate on the content of each of the budgetary reports presented (CR). In the second level, the OBPBT distinguishes 75 elements –

30


595

Table 30.1 Distribution of variables in the second level Number of variables (RC)

%

Ex-ante budgetary information (A) • Budget reports (b) • Pre-budget reports (p-p) • Long-term reports (l)

29 22 5 2

39 26.33 6.66 2.66

Ex-post budgetary information (P) • Monthly reports (m) • Mid-year reports (mi) • Year-end reports (y) • Pre-election reports (p-e) TOTAL EX-ANTE AND EX-POST BUDGETARY INFORMATION (A + P)

46 8 13 19 6 75

61 10.66 17.33 25.33 8.00 100

see Appendix – distributed among the ex-ante and ex-post reports as shown in Table 30.1. It should be borne in mind, however, that as two sections were distinguished in the first level, the same scheme will be adopted in the second. Among the alternatives presented for the scoring of these items (R for level one and CR for level two), we opted for a dichotomous procedure in which an item scores one if the information recommended in the OBPBT is disclosed on the Web and zero if it is not. Once all the items have been scored, two coincidence indexes (TC1 and TC2) are created for each group of countries, to measure the level of consistency with the requisites of online budgetary information to be provided by each group of countries with similar public administration styles of budget transparency, in accordance with OECD recommendations. The TC1 and TC2 indexes are obtained by summing the means of the online disclosure scores of each group of countries. Taking into account the existence of two levels, and the fact that each contains two sections, the maximum number of items that could coincide is different in each case. Thus, we obtained a first-level coincidence index (TC1) which could produce a maximum score of 7 points (R), of which 3 would correspond to the ex-ante budgetary information and 4 to ex-post budgetary information. Therefore, the TC1 index is defined as: TC1 = TC1A + TC1P = XRb + XRp-p + XRl + XRm + XRmi + XRy + XRp-e where XRx is the mean of the online report scores, irrespective of their content, obtained by each group of governments with a similar public administration style. The second-level coincidence index (TC2) could produce a maximum score of 75 (CR), of which 29 would correspond to the first section, and 46 to the second. Partial indexes for each of the following reports could be labelled as follows: TCb for budget reports, considering only the CRb scores; TCp-p for pre-budget reports,

596


considering only the CRp-p scores; TCl for long-term reports, considering only the CRl scores; TCm for the monthly reports, considering only the CRm scores; TCmi for the mid-year reports, considering only the CRmi scores; TCy for the yearend reports, considering only the CRy scores; TCp-e for the pre-election reports, considering only the CRp-e scores. Thus, the TC2 index is defined as: TC2 = TC2A + TC2P = TC2b + TC2p-p + TC2l + TC2m + TC2mi + TC2y +TC2p-e= XCRb + XCRp-p + XCRl + XCRm + XCRmi + XCRy + XCRp-e × 100

where XCRx is the mean of the online budgetary information content scores of this report obtained by each group of governments with a similar public administration style.

4.2 Study Sample From an original membership of 6 states in 1952, there have been 5 successive enlargements of the European Union (EU), and at the moment it has 27 member countries and 7 (and possibly even more) are expected to join in the foreseeable future. Bearing in mind that 19 of these 27 current states are at the same time OECD members, these countries were selected. Thus, the study sample was composed of 70.17% of the EU member countries, which represented 91.93% of the population of the EU and 98% of the GDP of the EU (see Table 30.2). Table 30.2 Administrative culture and sample countries Group

Public administration culture

Countries

Group 1 Group 2

Germanic public administration style Scandinavian public administration style Southern European public administration style Anglo-Saxon public administration style Eastern European public administration style

Germany and Austria Netherlands, Finland, Denmark and Sweden France, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal and Greece UK and Ireland

Group 3 Group 4 Group 5

Slovak Republic, Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic

Because there are differences in the public administration styles of the EU member countries, we opted to provide an overview of EU governments, distinguishing them in terms of the five public administration styles defined in the second section of this chapter (see Table 30.2). To gather this research data, we visited the Department of Finance Websites of the respective bodies of each central government analysed in the present study. The Websites of these agencies were analysed during June and July 2009.

30


597

4.3 Results Analysis We begin our analysis of the degree of budget transparency in the EU member countries with the first level of coincidence, that is, by studying the Internet availability of budgetary reports recommended by the OECD, irrespective of their content. The first-level coincidence index (TC1) shows that the Anglo-Saxon countries (Group 4) achieve the highest score. Nevertheless, not all the budgetary reports set out in OBPBT are currently included in the Internet pages of all the central governments represented in this group (Fig. 30.2), because they only upload to the Internet 57.14% of the reports proposed by the OECD.

Fig. 30.2 First-level section coincidence: the online disclosure percentage of budgetary reports

Examination of each of the sections within Level 1 (Fig. 30.2) shows that the Anglo-Saxon countries analysed attach the greatest importance to both ex-ante and ex-post budgetary information. Nevertheless, the degree of importance of these sections is different. In fact, the Anglo-Saxon countries consider it more important to disclose the policy information reports – 66.67% of these reports recommended by the OCDE are disclosed versus 50% of the accountability information reports. A similar situation is found in the countries that apply the Southern European and Germanic styles of public administration. However, this feature is not found with the countries with an Eastern European public administration style. In this particular case, considerably more importance is attached to the disclosure of ex-post than to ex-ante budgetary information reports, with a difference of approximately 19% between the two types of information. In fact, the eastern European countries are those with the second greatest preference for

598


publishing ex-post documents (44%). On the other hand, the Scandinavian countries tend to disclose a fairly similar proportion of policy and accountability information reports, around 31%. A more detailed analysis of the reports included on the Web shows that the budget report is the most significant ex-ante budgetary information disclosed on the Internet, whereas the monthly report is the most important ex-post information disclosed (Fig. 30.3).

Fig. 30.3 First-level report coincidence: the online disclosure mean of budgetary reports

A detailed analysis of the groups of public administration styles shows that the budget report and the monthly reports are considered essential among Germanic countries. The monthly reports seek to highlight the progress made in implementing the budget during the monthly period, while, on the other hand, other policy and accountability documents are not disclosed on the Internet by the Germanic countries. In fact, the key accountability document, the year-end report, is not disclosed online. In regard to the Scandinavian countries, the key policy document – the budget report – and the key accountability document – the year-end report – are the most commonly disclosed online reports. In addition to the year-end report, 25% of the Scandinavian countries sampled disclose the mid-year report, which provides a comprehensive update on the implementation of the budget during the mid-year period. However, the online disclosure of the other documents is not considered necessary by any of the Scandinavian central governments. On the other hand, the southern European countries choose to disclose, in addition to the budget report, two accountability documents – the monthly report and the year-end report. The reports that are least commonly published on the Internet by the southern European governments are those assessing the long-term sustainability of current government policies, and the pre-election report. In fact, information related to the general state of government finances immediately before an election occurs is not disclosed in any of the countries analysed.

30


599

All the Anglo-Saxon countries consider it essential to publish the two key documents recommended by the OECD – the budget report and the year-end report. In addition, it is considered fundamental by all the countries in this group to show the progress made in implementing the budget each month. However, the general state of government finances immediately before an election, and 6-monthly reports on the implementation of the budget are considered to be of less importance. Finally, with respect to the Eastern European public administration style, the monthly report is the only document that is disclosed on the Internet by all the countries sampled. We find, thus, that the budget report is not disclosed on the Internet by all these countries.

Fig. 30.4 Second-level section coincidence: the online content of budgetary reports

Analysis of the second-level coincidence (Fig. 30.4), shows that the Anglo-Saxon countries again score highest, publishing on the Internet 37% of the items proposed by the OECD, followed by the southern European governments. The eastern European countries score lowest in the online content of budgetary reports, a striking result because it indicates that although these countries disclose a high percentage of budget documents – mainly the accountability reports – these documents do not disclose the content recommended by the OECD. In addition, Fig. 30.4 shows that in all the cultural contexts, excluding the eastern European cultural area, the content of the ex-ante information was disclosed to a greater degree than was that of the accountability documents. Nevertheless, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon countries, there is a large difference (35%) between the disclosure of the content of ex-ante information and that of the content of ex-post documents.

600


As regards the analysis of the content of the OECD key policy documents, in the Anglo-Saxon countries, the budget report included over 61% of the items recommended by the OECD (Fig. 30.4). Nevertheless, in all the administrative cultures, great importance is given to explicit disclosure of the budget report on the Internet about all government revenue and expenditure, comparative information on actual revenue and expenditure during the past year and an updated forecast for the current year for each programme, and the classification of expenditure by each administrative and economic unit (Appendix). Furthermore, the analysis reveals the low priority granted in all the countries to providing information on accounting policies, or to the performance of a sensitivity analysis showing what impact would be made on financing costs. As regards the pre-budget report content (see Fig. 30.5 and Appendix), compliance levels are 50% of the recommended items in the Anglo-Saxon countries, but only 26% in Group 3 and 0 in the rest of the groups. The items most frequently presented in this report are the government’s key economic assumptions and the total levels of revenue, expenditure, deficit or surplus, and debt. On the other hand, the item least complied with is a sensitivity analysis of the impact changes in the key economic assumptions would have on the budget. Concerning the items related to the long-term report, this document was disclosed by the Anglo-Saxon countries. Note, however, that this report is given the lowest weighting in the OECD guidelines. On analysing the content of the accountability documents, we see that the OECD highlights, in addition to certain items that reflect the use of funds during the economic year, others that demonstrate the importance of obtaining budgetary information more frequently than annually, namely monthly and mid-year information. To prevent this information from becoming outdated, the OECD proposes that the monthly report should be released on the Web within 4 weeks of the end of each

90 80 70

G1

60

G2

50

G3

40 G4

30 G5

20 10 0 %Budget=22

%Pre- %Long Time %Monthly %Mid year %Year-end %Prebudget=5 report=2 report=8 report=13 report=19 election=6

Fig. 30.5 Second-level report coincidence: the online content of budgetary reports

30


601

month, and the mid-year report within 6 weeks of the end of the mid-year period. In practice, this potential of the Internet is complied with, as regards the monthly information on their Web pages, with this information being offered by 100% of the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and southern European countries. Nevertheless, this value is lower in the case of the mid-year information because only 25% of the Scandinavian and eastern European countries offer this report within 6 weeks of the end of the mid-year period. Let us also note that the monthly report disclosed on the Web includes, in Groups 1 and 5, respectively, 81 and 59% of the items recommended for these reports; these values are lower in the case of the mid-year report, which in Groups 2 and 5 comprised 8 and 4%, respectively, of the recommended items. In the monthly report there is a notable absence of items such as expenditure classified by administrative unit. In the mid-year report, in no case is disclosure made of the following: the actuarial assumptions underlying the calculation of employee pension obligations; borrowings classified by the currency denomination of the debt and the maturity profile of the debt; financial assets; non-financial assets; employee pension obligations; significant contingent liabilities; a summary of relevant accounting policies. With regard to the content of the key accountability report, the year-end report, which is not disclosed online by the Germanic countries, the Scandinavian countries disclose on the Internet 41% of the OECD-recommended items; this figure decreases to 38 and 37% in the southern European and Anglo-Saxon countries, respectively, and to as little as 13% in the eastern European group. In Group 2, the following items are the most commonly disclosed: comparative information on the level of revenue and expenditure during the preceding year; all financial liabilities; all financial assets and compliance with the levels of revenue and expenditure authorized by Parliament in the budget. The following items are least commonly disclosed within this Group: in-year adjustments to the original budget, the actuarial assumptions underlying the calculation of employee pension obligations, the audit report and the accounting policy. Finally, let us note that disclosure of the pre-election report is not made in any of the countries. In summary, the second-level disclosure index (DI) is the highest in the case of the Ministry of Finance Web pages published by the Anglo-Saxon countries, with a mean value of 37%. This score is distributed among each of the two sections analysed – ex-ante and ex-post information – with compliance rates for the selected items of 59 and 24%, respectively.

5 Conclusions The main focus of the present study was to analyse whether the central governments of the EU member countries considered to operate under the Germanic, the Scandinavian, the Southern European, the Anglo-Saxon and the Eastern European

602


styles of public administration use the World Wide Web as a means of making financial budgetary disclosures in compliance with the OECD project of best practices for budget transparency (OBPBT). The results obtained confirm that there are differences in online budget transparency in terms of OBPBT compliance, depending on the styles of administrative culture prevailing in each of the countries analysed. This finding might reflect the varying degree of implementation of NPM and of its orientation towards the disclosure of information. With respect to the analysis of the availability on the Internet of the budgetary reports recommended by the OECD, the Anglo-Saxon countries are those that achieve great importance to the disclosure of budgetary reports and the content of these reports, although these sample countries provide a higher level of disclosure of policy documents. These results are in accordance with the stronger orientation towards transparency in the administrative culture of Anglo-Saxon countries. Furthermore, the high degree of online disclosure of budgetary reports reflects the interest in these countries in fostering citizens’ participation in public management, and reveals the discharging of their responsibility as regards accountability. In contrast, the countries corresponding to the Germanic and Eastern European styles of public administration achieved the lowest rates in online budgetary information in terms of OBPBT compliance. Nonetheless, whereas the eastern European countries made a higher disclosure of online budgetary information than did the Germanic countries, the content of the documents provided by the Germanic countries was more relevant. Although the eastern European countries recorded the lowest rate of online disclosure of policy documents, they did score a higher rate of online disclosure of accountability reports. Moreover, the budgetary report contents published online did not correspond to the OECD proposals, especially those concerning the budget implementation. These data confirm, nevertheless, that in recent years, the countries of this region have attempted to align themselves with western European economies, in accordance with requirements for EU membership. Thus, they have adopted public administration reforms to increase the empowerment of citizens and employees and to move towards a higher degree of public accountability, overlapping with their traditional administrative systems. The results obtained for the southern European countries reveal a similar degree of online disclosure of budgetary reports to that found in the Scandinavian countries, although this is greater in the southern European countries, which is not in accordance with the stronger orientation of administrative culture in the Scandinavian countries towards meeting citizens’ needs, together with a more practical approach to administrative reforms. In any case, the results obtained show that all countries, except for the Slovak Republic, irrespective of the style of public administration practised, take into consideration the need to present online a document illustrating how revenue and expenditure will develop during the next fiscal year, i.e. the budget. Although all the countries within the administrative cultures analysed in this study consider the budget to be the key online policy document, there is little agreement as to granting priority to the online disclosure of this document; while the Anglo-Saxon and the Scandinavian countries consider it more important to disclose online year

30


603

reports, the Germanic and Eastern countries place greater emphasis on the publication of monthly reports. The results obtained for the southern European countries reveal a similar degree of online disclosure of year-end reports to that found for the monthly reports. The same contrasts between countries belonging to different styles of administrative culture can be found with respect to the content of the diverse reports that are published, except for the Anglo-Saxon countries, which put greater emphasis on the budget report. Our results show that the Anglo-Saxon countries are the only ones that consider it more important to produce online publication of data on the long-term sustainability of current government policies. In addition, none of the sample countries disclose online information about the pre-election report, and although the mid-year report is disclosed online by the Scandinavian, southern European and eastern European countries, its contents are not significant. The findings of this chapter indicate the need for European countries to make a great effort in online budget transparency in terms of OBPBT compliance in order to foster citizens’ participation in public management and to improve e-democracy in these countries. Particular endeavour is required of the Eastern and Germanic countries, which obtain the lowest scores in this study, a finding that suggests executive accountability to Parliament and to the general public in these countries is not sufficient.

0,00 0,00

0,00 0,00

0,00

0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

1,00 1,00

0,00 1,00

0,00

1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00

1,00 0,75 0,75 1,00

0,00

1,00

0,25

0,25

0,00

0,00 0,43 0,43 0,00

0,00

0,00

0,43

0,43

0,00

ST

MEAN

MEAN

ST

GROUP 2

GROUP 1

0,86 0,86 1,00 0,57

0,29

0,71

0,14

0,86

0,86

MEAN

0,35 0,35 0,00 0,49

0,45

0,45

0,35

0,35

0,35

ST

GROUP 3

Availability of Information OECD Detail About Budget Reports on the Internet

Budget 1. The budget is comprehensive, encompassing all go government revenue and expenditure, 2. The budget, or related documents, includes a detailed commentary on each revenue and expenditure programme. 3. Non-financial performance data are presented for expenditure programmes. 4. Comparative information on actual revenue and expenditure during the past year and an updated forecast for the current year is provided for each programme. 5. Comparative information on actual non-financial performance data during the past year and an updated forecast for the current year is provided. 6. Expenditures is classified by administrative unit 7. Expenditures is classified by economic category 8. Expenditures is classified by functional category 9. The budget includes a medium-term perspective illustrating how revenue and expenditure will develop during, at least, the two years beyond the next fiscal year.

Appendix 1

1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00

0,50

1,00

0,50

1,00

1,00

MEAN

0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

0,50

0,00

0,50

0,00

0,00

ST

GROUP 4

0,50 0,75 0,25 0,50

0,00

0,75

0,00

0,25

0,75

MEAN

0,50 0,43 0,43 0,50

0,00

0,43

0,00

0,43

0,43

ST

GROUP 5

604 C. Caba Pérez et al.

10. All key economic assumptions are disclosed explicitly (the rate of employment and unemployment, the current account, inflation and interest rates, so on) 11. A sensitivity analysis is disclosed of what impact changes in the key economic assumptions would have on the budget. 12. The estimated cost of key tax expenditures is disclosed as supplementary information in the budget. 13. All financial liabilities are disclosed in the budget 14. All financial assets are disclosed in the budget 15. Borrowings are classified by the currency denomination of the debt, the maturity profile of the debt, whether the debt carries a fixed or variable rate of interest, and whether it is callable. 16. Financial assets are classified by major type, including cash, marketable securities, investments in enterprises and loans advanced to other entities. 0,50

0,00

0,50

0,50 0,00 0,00

0,00

0,50

0,00

0,50

0,50 0,00 0,00

0,00

0,00

0,25

0,00

0,25

1,00

0,25

1,00

MEAN

MEAN

ST

GROUP 2

GROUP 1

0,00

0,43

0,00

0,43

0,00

0,43

0,00

ST

Appendix 1 (continued)

0,14

0,29

0,14

0,29

0,71

0,29

1,00

MEAN

GROUP 3

0,35

0,45

0,35

0,45

0,45

0,45

0,00

ST

0,00

0,00

0,50

0,50

1,00

1,00

1,00

MEAN

GROUP 4

0,00

0,00

0,50

0,50

0,00

0,00

0,00

ST

0,00

0,25

0,00

0,25

0,00

0,00

0,75

MEAN

GROUP 5

0,00

0,43

0,00

0,43

0,00

0,00

0,43

ST

30 The OECD Budgetary Transparency 605

Pre-budget report 23. The report states explicitly the government’s long-term and fiscal policy objectives 24. The report states the government’s economic and fiscal policy intentions for the forthcoming budget and, atleast, the following two fiscal years. 25. It is highlight the total level of revenue, expenditure, deficit or surplus, and debt.

17. In the budget, a sensitivity analysis is made showing what impact changes in interest rates and foreign exchange rates would have on financing costs. 18. Non-financial assets, including real property and equipment, are disclosed 19. Employee pension obligations are disclosed in the budget 20. Key actuarial assumptions underlying the calculation of employee pension obligations are disclosed. 21. All significant contingent liabilities are disclosed in the budget. 22. A summary of relevant accounting policies accompany the report

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,50

0,50

0,00

0,50

0,50

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,25

0,50

0,50

0,00

MEAN

MEAN

ST

GROUP 2

GROUP 1

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,43

0,50

0,50

0,00

ST


0,43

0,29

0,14

0,00

0,14

0,00

0,14

0,29

0,00

MEAN

GROUP 3

0,49

0,45

0,35

0,00

0,35

0,00

0,35

0,45

0,00

ST

0,50

0,50

0,50

0,00

0,00

0,50

0,50

0,50

0,00

MEAN

GROUP 4

0,50

0,50

0,50

0,00

0,00

0,50

0,50

0,50

0,00

ST

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

MEAN

GROUP 5

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

ST


Monthly reports 30. They are released within four weeks of the end of each month. 31. They should contain the amount of revenue and expenditure in each month and year-to-date. 32. A comparison should be made with the forecast amounts of monthly revenue and expenditure for the same period.

Long-term report 28. It should be released at least every five years, 29. The report should assess the budgetary implications of demographic change, such as population ageing and other potential development over the long term (10–40 years).

26. All key economic assumptions are disclosed explicitly (the rate of employment and unemployment, the current account, inflation and interest rates, so on) 27. A sensitivity analysis is disclosed of what impact changes in the key economic assumptions would have on the budget.

0,00 0,00

0,00

1,00

1,00

0,00

0,00

1,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

MEAN

MEAN

ST

GROUP 2

GROUP 1

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

ST


0,57

0,43

0,29

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,43

MEAN

GROUP 3

0,49

0,49

0,45

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,49

ST

0,00

0,50

1,00

0,50

0,50

0,50

0,50

MEAN

GROUP 4

0,00

0,50

0,00

0,50

0,50

0,50

0,50

ST

0,50

0,75

1,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

MEAN

GROUP 5

0,50

0,43

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

ST


Mid-year report 38. This report includes an updated forecast of the budget outcome for the current fiscal year. 39. This report includes an updated forecast of the budget outcome for the following two fiscal years. 40. The report should be released with six weeks of the end of the mid-year period. 41. The economic assumptions underlying the budget should be reviewed and the impact of any changes on the budget disclosed 42. All financial liabilities are disclosed in the mid-year report 43. All financial assets are disclosed in the mid-year-report

33. A brief commentary should accompany the numerical data. 34. Expenditures is classified by administrative unit 35. Expenditures is classified by economic category 36. Expenditure is classified by functional category 37. Monthly borrowing activity is disclosed in the monthly reports

0,00 0,00

0,00 0,00

0,00 0,00

0,00 0,00

0,50

0,50

0,00

0,00

1,00

0,00

0,00

1,00

0,00

0,50

0,50

0,00

0,50

0,50

0,00

0,00

0,25

0,25

0,25

0,25

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

MEAN

MEAN

ST

GROUP 2

GROUP 1

0,00

0,00

0,43

0,43

0,43

0,43

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

ST


0,14

0,14

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,14

0,57

0,57

0,57

0,43

0,57

MEAN

GROUP 3

0,35

0,35

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,35

0,49

0,49

0,49

0,49

0,49

ST

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,50

1,00

0,50

0,00

0,50

MEAN

GROUP 4

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,50

0,00

0,50

0,00

0,50

ST

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,25

0,00

0,25

0,75

0,25

0,75

0,00

0,75

MEAN

GROUP 5

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,43

0,00

0,43

0,43

0,43

0,43

0,00

0,43

ST


Year-end report 51. It is audited by the Supreme Audit Institution, 52. It is released within six months of the end of the fiscal year

44. Borrowings are classified by the currency denomination of the debt, the maturity profile of the debt, whether the debt carries a fixed or variable rate of interest, and whether it is callable. 45. Financial assets are classified by major type, including cash, marketable securities, investments in enterprises and loans advanced to other entities. 46. Non-financial assets, including real property and equipment, are disclosed 47. Employee pension obligation are disclosed in the mid-year-report. 48. Key actuarial assumptions underlying the calculation of employee pension obligations are disclosed. 49. All significant contingent liabilities are disclosed in the mid-year report. 50. A summary of relevant accounting policies accompany the report 0,00

0,00 0,00

0,00

0,00 0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,50

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

MEAN

MEAN

ST

GROUP 2

GROUP 1

0,50

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

ST


0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

MEAN

GROUP 3

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

ST

0,00

0,50

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

MEAN

GROUP 4

0,00

0,50

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

ST

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

MEAN

GROUP 5

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,0

0,00

0,00

ST


53. The year-end report shows compliance with the level of revenue and expenditures authorized by Parliament in the budget. 54. Any in-year adjustment to the original budget is shown separately. 55. The year-end report, or related documents, should include non-financial performance information, including a comparison of performance targets and actual results achieved where practicable. 56. Comparative information on the level of revenue and expenditure during the preceding year should also be provided. 57. Similar comparative information should be shown for any nonfinancial performance data. 58. Expenditures are classified by administrative unit 59. Expenditures are classified by economic category 60. Expenditures are classified by functional category 61. All financial liabilities are disclosed in the Year-End Report 62. All financial assets are disclosed in the Year-End Report 0,00

0,00 0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

0,00

0,00 0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

0,75

0,75

0,50

0,50

0,25

0,25

1,00

0,25

0,00

0,75

MEAN

MEAN

ST

GROUP 2

GROUP 1

0,43

0,43

0,50

0,50

0,43

0,43

0,00

0,43

0,00

0,43

ST


0,43

0,57

0,71

0,57

0,14

0,14

0,57

0,29

0,43

0,57

MEAN

GROUP 3

0,49

0,49

0,45

0,49

0,35

0,35

0,49

0,45

0,49

0,49

ST

0,50

0,50

0,50

1,00

0,00

0,00

1,00

0,50

0,00

0,00

MEAN

GROUP 4

0,50

0,50

0,50

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,50

0,00

0,00

ST

0,00

0,50

0,25

0,25

0,00

0,00

0,25

0,00

0,00

0,00

MEAN

GROUP 5

0,00

0,50

0,43

0,43

0,00

0,00

0,43

0,00

0,00

0,00

ST


Pre-election report 70. The general state of government finances immediately before an election is disclosed 71. It should contain a comprehensive discussion of the government’s financial assets

63. Borrowings are classified by the currency denomination of the debt, the maturity profile of the debt, whether the debt carries a fixed or variable rate of interest, and whether it is callable. 64. Financial assets are classified by major type, including cash, marketable securities, investments in enterprises and loans advanced to other entities. 65. Non-financial assets, including real property and equipment, are disclosed 66. Employee pension obligations are disclosed in the Year-End Report 67. Key actuarial assumptions underlying the calculation of employee pension obligations are disclosed. 68. All significant contingent liabilities are disclosed in the Year-End Report. 69. A summary of relevant accounting policies accompany the report 0,00

0,00 0,00

0,00

0,00 0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,25

0,00

0,25

0,50

0,50

0,50

MEAN

MEAN

ST

GROUP 2

GROUP 1

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,43

0,00

0,43

0,50

0,50

0,50

ST


0,00

0,00

0,29

0,43

0,14

0,29

0,43

0,29

0,43

MEAN

GROUP 3

0,00

0,00

0,45

0,49

0,35

0,45

0,49

0,45

0,49

ST

0,00

0,00

0,50

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,50

0,50

MEAN

GROUP 4

0,00

0,00

0,50

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,50

0,50

ST

0,00

0,00

0,25

0,00

0,00

0,25

0,00

0,00

0,50

MEAN

GROUP 5

0,00

0,00

0,43

0,00

0,00

0,43

0,00

0,00

0,50

ST


72. It should contain a comprehensive discussion of the government’s liabilities 73. It should contain a comprehensive discussion of the government’s non-financial assets 74. It should contain a comprehensive discussion of the government employee pension obligations 75. It should contain a comprehensive discussion of the government’s contingent liabilities

0,00 0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00 0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

MEAN

MEAN

ST

GROUP 2

GROUP 1

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

ST


0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

MEAN

GROUP 3

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

ST

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

MEAN

GROUP 4

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

ST

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

MEAN

GROUP 5

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

ST


30


613

References Alam, M., & Nandam, R. (2005). Public sector reform and accounting change in a cultural environment. Paper presented at the 10th CIGAR Conference, May, Poitiers, France. Alesina, A., & Perotti, R. (1996). Fiscal discipline and the budget process. The American Economic Review, 86(2), 401–407. Alesina, A., Mare, M., & Protti, R. (1995). The Italian budget procedures: Analysis and proposals. Columbia University Discussion Paper, No. 775, October. Allen, R. (2002). Budgetary and financial management reform in Central and Eastern Europe, OECD. Journal on Budgeting, 2(Supplement 1), 81–114. Arellano-Gault, D., & del Castillo-Vega, A. (2004). Maturation of public administration in a multicultural environment: Lessons from the Anglo-American, Latin, and Scandinavian political traditions. International Journal of Public Administration, 27(7), 519–528. Baker, R. (2002). Introduction: Transition and reform in post-authoritarian states. In: R. Baker (Ed.), Transitions from authoritarianism: The role of bureaucracy (pp. 1–13). Wespot, CT: Praeger Publishers. Beck, T. (1996). From continental law to Anglo-American behaviorism: Scandinavian Public administration. Public Administration Review, 56(1), 94–103. Bonsón, E., Escobar, T., & Flores, F. (2006). Online transparency of the banking sector. Online Information Review, 30(6), 714–730. Brown, D. (2005). Electronic government and public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 241–254. Cooke, T. E. (1989). Disclosure in the corporate reports of Swedish companies. Accounting and Business Research, 19(74), 113–114. Ellison, B. A. (2007). Public administration reform in Eastern Europe. A research note and a look at Bulgaria. Administration & Society, 39(2), 221–232. Flynn, N. (2002). Explaining the new public management. The importance of context, in new public management. In K. McLaughlin, S. P. Osborne, & E. Ferlie (Eds.), Current trends and future prospects, London and New York: Routledge. Hammerschmid, G., & Meyer, R. (2003). Current initiatives and central actors in the Austrian administrative reform process. EGPA Annual Conference, Oeiras, Portugal, 3–6 September 2003. Haque, M. S. (2006). Modernising government: The way forward – an analysis. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72(3), 319–325. International Monetary Fund (IMF) (1998). Best practices code of transparency in monetary and financial policies: a Statement of principles. International Monetary Fund. http://www.imf.org/external/esl/index.asp, December. International Monetary Fund (IMF) (1999). Manual of Fiscal Transparency. International Monetary Fund. Jacobs, C. (2004). The challenge of public sector reform in EC accession countries: reflections from the Baltics, especially Latvia. Public Administration and Development, 24(4), 321–331. Kickert, W. (1997). Public Management in the United States and Europe. In W. Kickert (Ed.), Public management and administrative reform in Western Europe (pp 15–38). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Kickert, W. (2007). Distinctive characteristics of State and Administrative Reform in Southern Europe. Paper presented at the Proceedings to IRSPM Conference 2007, Postdam. Kuuttiniemi, K., & Virtanen, P. (1998). Citizens charters and compensation mechanisms, Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of Finance, Public Management Department. Lüder, K. (2002). Government budgeting and accounting reform in Germany, OECD Journal on Budgeting, 2(Supplement 1), 225–242. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001a). OECD Best practices for budget transparency. France: OECD publications.

614


Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2003). Engaging citizens online for better policy-making. OECD Observer, Policy Brief, Retrieved 22 October, 2009, from http://www.oecd.org/publications/Pol_brief. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2005). E-government for better government. OECD E-Government Studies, Retrieved 15 October, 2009, from http://www.oecd.org. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001b) Citizens as partners. OECD handbook on information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. France: OECD publications. Palubinskas, G. T. (2002). Economic transformation – the full societal transformation thesis. Virginia, USA: A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the School of Public Policy, George Mason University. Rouban, L. (1997). The administrative modernisation policy in France. In W. Kickert (Ed.), Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe (pp 141–156). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Rutgers, M. R. (2000). Public Administration and the Separation of Powers in a Cross-Atlantic Perspective. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 22(2), 287–308. Rutgers, M. R. (2001). Traditional flavours? The different sentiments in European and American Administrative Thought. Administration & Society, 33(2), 220–244. Snellen, I. (2002). Electronic governance: implications for citizens, politicians and public servants. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68(2), 183–198. Stillman, R. J. (1999). American versus European Public Administration: does Public Administration make the Modern State?. In W. J. M. Kickert, & R. J. Stillman (Eds.), The modern state and its study, New administrative sciences in a changing Europe and United States, Northampton: Edward Edgar Publishing. Wiarda, H. J. (2002a). The politics of European enlargement: NATO, the EU, and the US-European relationship. World Affairs, 164(4), 178–197. Wiarda, H. J. (2002b). Southern Europe, Eastern Europe and comparative politics: Transitology and the need for new theory. World Politics, 15(3), 485–501.

Chapter 31

Does Size or Geography Matter? Empirical Analysis of Finnish Local Government Services on the Internet Tommi A. Inkinen

This chapter provides an empirical assessment of the current availability of e-government services on the Internet provided by Finnish municipalities. Finland can be considered as an advanced Nordic information society. Moreover, service provision is steered and legitimized by national and local policies. Current e-government provision logic reflects broader social conditions and theories (e.g. new public management) together with issues of the social construction of technology, e-inclusion, accessibility and computer literacy. This chapter uses Internet data collected during the period March–June 2009 from all Finnish municipalities with local governments, a total of 348. I focus on interactive civic services and compare municipalities according to their size and location. Data have been collected according to content framework and will be analysed according to methods of content analysis. The analysis shows that municipalities have fully adopted the Internet as an important medium. The quality of service provision is dependent on municipality size; the smallest units have limited service provision and their Internet designs are less developed. Further, the service level decreases when municipalities have less than 10,000 inhabitants. Geographical location is also important with respect to the number of available languages together with specific information sources relevant to particular municipalities and local contexts.

1 Introduction E-government, incorporating technological advancements into public affairs, has been one the newly recognized concepts in administration and political studies. E-government is a broad concept that in its broadest meaning refers to governing processes using information technology (IT). E-government combines three main elements: citizens, administration and technology. Moreover, national and local T.A. Inkinen (B) University of Helsinki, Department of Geosciences and Geography, Helsinki 00014, Finland e-mail: [email protected]


615

616

T.A. Inkinen

strategies of technology implementation into public services guide e-government developments and, therefore, also incorporate the policy dimension into the overall structure. My focus is on the citizen–technology interface, and I examine the measurable elements of information provision on the Internet. The main question of the paper is “what is the current scope and condition of Finnish local government services on the Internet?” To answer this question, I use empirical data to demonstrate the extent local administration service provision. I also discuss the internal and external factors affecting service provision. These include municipality size and geographical location. The empirical data have been collected in Finland, which is a feasible location for such a case study as it is one of the leading countries in IT-based development (e.g. Dutta & Mia, 2009; IMF, 2009). E-government and online service provision requires recognition of organizations (how services are arranged and who provides them), technology policies (guidelines for visions and development) and citizens (usability and amount of available services). The terms “broad” and “narrow” e-government are used. The first refers to a broad socio-political view that endeavours to understand e-government as the whole fabric of administrative conduct including all processes affected by the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). The latter, on the other hand, refers to segmented perspectives within administrative conduct and selected (narrowed) processes (e.g. Jauhiainen & Inkinen, 2009). A conceptual distinction is necessary—e-government and e-governance. Bovaird (2003) provided a concise definition and distinction, “e-government will be used to denote e-enablement of all the services provided or commissioned by the public sector” and “e-governance will be used to denote e-enablement of all the other activities of government (e.g. management of democratic activity, ensuring fairness and transparency of decision making in public bodies, etc.)” (Bovaird, 2003, p. 38). The definition thus indicates that “service” is something different from “other activities”. E-government is often used to describe “passive” provision or making public services available. Governance, on the other hand, includes interaction, participation and recognition of the interfaces between government, business and citizens (Kooiman, 2005; Rhodes, 1997). Therefore e-government is commonly associated with a top-down model whereas governance involves a bottom-up perspective on the functionalities of public administration. This broad distinction is taken into account in the conceptual framework of this paper (Fig. 31.1): e-government realizes through “sectoral relations” and “identified dimensions” of sector collaborations whereas e-governance is explicated as “transparency”, “participation” and “inclusion”.

2 Broad and Narrow Issues in E-service Provision The development of new forms for government and governance includes the recognition of large societal conditions including technology accessibility and

31

Does Size or Geography Matter

Content categories - Literature

Data collection according to contents - Transparency

617

Analysis - Frequencies

- Preliminary studies

o

Availability of documents

- Distributions

- Earlier evaluations

o

Extensiveness of available information

- Clusters

- Participation and identification Identified dimensions -

Technology

- Economy - Social (end-user)

Sectoral relations

o

Used identification method

o

Extensiveness of identification

o

Possibility to submit ideas

o

Possibility to participate

o

Possibility to make contact

- Qualitative assessment - Interpretation

Results

- Inclusion o

Availability of languages

o

Availability of support services

o

Contact information

- Functionality and reliability - Extensiveness - Quality

- G2C & C2G

considerations

- G2G - G2B&B2G

Fig. 31.1 A visualizationof the content analysis framework including conceptual categories and selected indicators

e-inclusion. Zuurmond (2005) has used a broad perspective to illustrate the theoretical complexities of social theories and public sector services provision. As he argues, “From a Weberian perspective, the convergence of Internet and classical ICT and the consequence of this development for the structures of organization are exponents of the process of globalization and modernization. Western, capitalist democracies create an ever more complex, dynamic and interdependent society. In this information society organizations are needed that combine effectiveness, obedience, efficiency and calculability with flexibility, speed, and a more holistic approach” (Zuurmond, 2005: 147). This quote presents the fact that government and national implementation of governance is a reflection of the societal condition. Transparency of governance is a key element of e-government. Transparency together with interaction and participation comprise essential elements of the framework used in this study. Therefore the provided e-services are not only single marks of ICT development and adoption into government, but also illustrate values related to technologies that are embedded in society. Tools and platforms of e-governance are products of collaboration. Wilson III (2005) has presented a relevant classification of societal sectors producing “Internet Governance”. His approach emphasizes collaboration and power networks between the public sector, NGOs and the private sector that either together or separately produce elements for governance through research and development. As stated, information systems used in the realization of e-government and e-governance are

618

T.A. Inkinen

commonly based on organizational agreements between public and private sector organizations. These include front-/back-office information system structures and interface designs through which contents are disseminated. Generally, agreements are made in networks including financial, political and social power structures. Therefore we are dealing with network relations that often are associated with macro-level concepts of “business” (B), “citizen” (C) sometimes defined as “customer” and government (G). These relations are also recognized in the conceptual framework of Fig. 31.1. In principle, two main routes provide online service: either producing the service in-house or using subcontractors who execute the project partially or fully. E-government projects are often extensive software projects, into which hardware development may be integrated. In these cases the aim is to develop a full interface platform for C2G interaction. In the production of e-services the public administration thus plays a managerial role in supporting and enhancing its operations. In particular, the development of data security and e-identification results in sophisticated applications enabling key elements to be identified in the analyses of e-government (see Anttiroiko & Mälkiä, 2006). Governmental end-user solutions require also understanding of production process because it includes essential linkages between integration of public services (e.g. identification for e-services) and private sector solutions (e.g. banking codes). In Finland, banking codes are the most common method of e-identification illustrating public–private collaboration model. Thus, public and private functions may be fused together in the production and development of e-services. In broad perspective, networks emerge in spatial and geographical contexts. Local (municipal), national (state) and international or transnational (EU) levels of administrative policy guidance create a platform for e-government development. Provision agreements vary according to geographical scales. Spatial scales interact with each other in service provision, and local services are provided through subcontractor and supplier networks commonly expanding to transnational and global scales (Ahlqvist & Inkinen, 2007; Polenske, 2007; Swyngedouw, 1997; van den Meer & van Winden, 2003). Considering international scale, the European Union (EU) has been active in the promotion of IT-based growth within the member states. The goal is to provide common guidelines for implementing an interactive e-governance process (e.g. European Commission, 2004; Wimmer, 2002). These include information distribution via the Internet, form download options, form filling options, decision information distribution and e-identification. In Finnish case, this broader European Union policy guidance has relevance. Christou and Simpson (2006, pp. 58–59) have provided a literature-based assessment of the Internet and public–private governance in the European Union. They conclude that the neo-liberal globalization paradigm has intersected with the development and commercialization of the Internet. They also raise the issue of technology development in communications and its relations to international political economy. On a national level, the Finnish government actively supports the implementation and integration of IT systems and online services. It considers (Finnish government,

31


619

2006) that the successful development of interactive governance and the information or knowledge society requires integrated online service provision to back-office systems. A content analysis of the current information society strategy (Inkinen, 2008) has shown that the rhetoric of global competition and economic efficiency are strongly present in information society and e-government guidance documents supporting the neo-liberal note presented by Christou and Simpson (2006) concerning the EU. Similarly, Dunleavy et al. (2005) have assessed the condition of new public management and e-government intersections. Their paper intertwines public policy values and the contemporary mindset of efficiency, and the social values, through which public services are produced, maintained and developed. Geographical scale (local or national) also intertwines with the aspect of time. E-services are expected to reduce overall service provision time and efficiency. This trend towards faster service handling also depicts societal “speeding-up” discourse (e.g. Hylland Eriksen, 2001). However, changes taking place in service provision arrangements may lower service quality compared to earlier situations if the software product is not fully functional. The Microsoft Vista operating system can be used as an example. Several organizations are being forced to change their old XP systems to new ones according to their license agreements. However, because of reliability problems the old operating system would have performed better than the new. Broad perspective requires also narrower look on government citizen relations concerning actual cases of e-government implementation. I begin with e-service “provision models” and use the work of Westholm (2005) to demonstrate a narrower perspective and the determinants of e-service development. He takes into account that a “single template” of e-service provision could not be found in his empirical study. His conclusions indicate that successful e-service interoperability is a complex issue that cannot be reduced to two- or three-key variables: “The three models extracted from the services covered by the research illustrate that there are different strategies of governance, ranging from a more hierarchical principle in the centralization version to a more cooperative approach in the clearinghouse-strategy” (Westholm, 2005, p. 131). This also includes the question of organizational knowledge transfer within the public sector from one organization to another (Gano et al., 2006). Essentially, issues of information validity (updating) and system reliability (functionality) are of importance in this regard (also Bovaird, 2003). Online services are front-office interfaces. However, in several cases the functionality of the service is dependent of back-office reliability. Welch and Pandey (2006) approached e-government services through intranet services and their significance in aiding administrative work. They focus on the back-office and administrative e-processes taking place within administrative structures. They argue that ICT research on public management has been “heavily context dependent; the existence, magnitude, and direction of the relationship between red tape and ICT usage are far from conclusive” (Welch & Pandey, 2006, p. 380). In-house functionality is therefore an important issue considering online services. If the front-/backoffice information transfer is not functional, the visible façade on the Internet is

620

T.A. Inkinen

meaningless. For example, available feedback option on the Internet site is useless if the information does not proceed forward after the submission. Support mechanisms for active citizenship and knowledge distribution are important determinants in the successfulness of e-governance. Moreover, citizen-driven e-government development is commonly associated with terms such as digital or e-inclusion. This refers to the active promotion of citizens’ IT skills and technology accessibility with the goal of making online services available to all social groups. Inclusion is the third element of the study framework. Citizen-driven studies have stressed the user experience of governance (e.g. Al-Mashari, 2007; Janssen & Kuk, 2007; van Velsen et al., 2009). An essential part of the e- implementation is societal (civic) know-how and accessibility to terminals and user interfaces, whether workstations, laptops, palmtops or mobile phones.

3 Content Framework and Questions E-government research traditions provide an overall view of the complexities involved in the changes brought about through advancements in technological development. In particular, the traditions of service provision and change resistance are often rooted deep in the organizational cultures of public organizations and changing new service platforms might prove difficult (Welch & Pandey, 2006). Heeks and Bailur (2006) analysed the field of e-government research and underlying research philosophies. Their analysis indicates that most research in this field is either modelor category-based. An illustration of this is that e- has been argued to progress, in several cases, in steps (e.g. Heeks, 2005; Jaeger & Thompson, 2003; Layne & Lee, 2001; UN, 2009). Following the classification of Heeks and Bailur (2006, p. 254) this work fits to the tradition of “category”-based analyses due its empirical focus. The following categories were constructed for the content analysis: (1) transparency, (2) participation and identification and (3) inclusion. These categories originally functioned as parameters for selected key variables in the data collection. They are generalizations that derive from the literature and they focus on G2C and C2G relations. Relations to private sector (G2B and B2G) are narrowed out of the empirical section. However, they also contribute to the framework in “sectoral relations” and “identified dimensions” of Fig. 31.1. Figure 31.1 visualizes these categories together with the key indicators (results in Tables 31.1 and 31.2). The first content category, transparency, is essential in democratic systems. Finland has continuously been considered one of the least corrupt countries in the world in the benchmark studies of Transparency International (2009). In 2008, Finland was globally ranked fifth. Empirically, the availability of decision-making documentation through the Internet involves a practical aspect of this fundamental principle. The second category is participation, commonly concerning issues of urban and regional planning. Planning theories (see Hall, 2002; Wilson & Corey, 2006) have pointed to the complex intersections between planning

100

100

1 0

4

4

4

4

4

4

– Partially – No

Feedback options available

Initiative or idea submission

Email contact information

Form download available

Possibility to download public decision minutes

Finnish language available

100

100

100

100

100

25.0 0

75.0

4

3

– Yes

100

4

Site (tree) structure available

Interactive services

100

4

Advanced search options

100

4

12

12

12

12

7

11

7 1

4

11

10

8

11

12

100

4

4

Search engine available

Number of municipalities Number of municipalities with Internet site

% within N region 100 12

100

100

100

100

58.3

91.7

58.3 8.3

33.3

91.7

83.3

66.7

91.7

100

100

%

Surrounding municipalities of the capital area

N

Helsinki capital area

10

10

10

10

8

10

7 0

3

10

7

4

10

10

10

N

100

100

100

100

100

100

70.0 0.0

30.0

100

70.0

40.0

100

100

100

%

Large cities

10

10

10

10

7

10

9 1

0

9

6

3

10

10

10

N

100

100

100

100

100

100

90.0 10.0

0

90.0

60.0

100

100

100

100

%

65

66

66

0

19

60

54 5

7

61

38

13

61

66

66

N

98.5

100

100

0.0

28.8

90.9

81.8 7.6

10.6

92.4

57.6

19.7

92.4

100

100

%

Population Middle-sized cities 10,000–31,000

89

89

85

89

11

74

59 28

2

61

41

17

75

89

89

N

100

100

95.5

100

12.4

83.1

66.3 31.5

2.2

68.5

46.1

19.1

84.3

100

100

%

Population 5,000–9,999

141

143

116

144

13

102

79 62

3

82

56

17

95

144

144

N

97.9

99.3

80.6

100

9.0

70.8

54.9 43.1

2.1

56.9

38.9

11.8

66.0

100

100

%


11

12

5

13

0

4

0 13

0

0

1

0

6

13

13

N

84.6

92.3

38.5

100

0

30.8

0 100

0

0

7.7

0

46.2

100

100

%

Population less than 1,000

Table 31.1 Frequencies and percentages ofcities’ Internet sites according to population and geographical segments

342

346

308

282

69

275

216 110

22

238

163

66

272

348

348

N

98.3

99.4

88.5

81.0

19.8

79.0

62.1 31.6

6.3

68.4

46.8

19.0

78.2

100

100

%

Finland total

31 Does Size or Geography Matter 621

100

100

100

2

4

4

2

Map-based (GIS) information service available

Interactivity of GIS service

-Street address search 4 engine

4

Other languages (e.g. German, French, Russian) available

-Commercial service search engine

e-Identification system available for C2G interactivity

2

12

12

12

12

3

10

9

16.7

100

100

100

100

25.0

83.3

100

4

10

10

10

10

7

10

7

40.0

100

100

100

100

70.0

100.0

70.0

Large cities

3

10

10

10

10

4

10

6

30.0

100

100

100

100

40.0

100.0

60.0

Middle-sized cities

3

56

59

59

66

19

45

26

4.5

84.8

89.4

89.4

100

28.8

68.2

39.4



1

68

73

73

84

12

42

23

1.1

76.4

82.0

82.0

94.4

13.5

47.2

25.8


0

80

82

82

125

22

47

29

0

55.6

56.9

56.9

86.8

15.3

32.6

20.1


0

2

2

2

8

4

9

10

0

15.4

15.4

15.4

61.5

30.8

69.2

76.9

Population less than 1,000

15

242

252

252

319

73

177

4.3

69.5

72.4

72.4

91.7

21.0

50.9

32.8

Finland total 114

All questions are dichotomous (feature exists or not on the site) indicating whether or not the function in question is available online. N refers to the number of municipalities that have the feature in question.

50.0

100

50.0

100

4

English language available

100

4

Swedish language available

Helsinki capital area

Surrounding municipalities of the capital area

622 T.A. Inkinen

Helsinki capital area (N = 4) Surrounding municipalities of the capital area (N = 12) Large cities 70,000–210,000 population (N = 10) Middle-sized cities 33,000–66,000 pop. (N = 10) 10,000–31,000 pop. cities and municipalities (N = 66) 5,000–9,999 pop. municipalities (N = 89) 1,000–4,999 pop. municipalities (N = 144) Municipalities with less than 1,000 people (N = 13) 3.00 2.83 3.00 2.90

2.64 2.38 2.27 1.77

2.70

2.40

2.12

1.48

1.08

0.38

Availability of downloadable decisions documents 3 = extensive 2 = moderate 1 = few 0 = non

3.00 2.17

Availability of downloadable forms 3 = extensive 2 = moderate 1 = few 0 = non

0.69

1.81

1.90

2.11

2.10

3.05

4.00 2.58

Extensiveness of available information 4 = Most extensive 3 = More than average 2 = Average 1 = More limited than average 0 = Most limited

2.00

1.96

1.98

2.44

2.10

2.74

3.50 2.83

Functionality and usability of the Internet site 4 = Highly functional 3 = Better than average 2 = Average 1 = Less than average 0 = Low functionality

Table 31.2 Score averages for different municipal groups according to the content analysis

1.15

2.05

2.21

2.61

2.30

2.73

3.50 2.75

Overall evaluation of the Internet site 4 = Top quality 3 = Better than average 2 = Average 1 = Less than average 0 = Poor quality


624

T.A. Inkinen

process, view of expertise through which the process takes places and urban/regional visualizations that reflect contemporary societal conditions. The third category is inclusion. It refers to actions and principles involved in providing information to all groups within society. E-inclusion is often considered a part of “digital divide”, referring mainly to differences between industrialized and developing countries (e.g. Norris, 2001). Inclusion research has traditionally focused on an analysis of citizens’ (individual) ability to access and use ICTs beneficially (West, 2004). To summarize Fig. 31.1, the “content categories” are based on existing literature and earlier research. “Identified dimensions” are meta-categories through which society–technology interfaces are commonly studied. “Sectoral relations” show the main linkages between societal sectors. “Analysis” refers to the standard means used to classify collected content material from which results are derived. The main study questions address issues related to functionality and reliability together with the extensiveness and overall quality of produced Internet sites. Based on these considerations, highlighting the importance of technological functionality, service provision logic (agreements), spatial scale and civic (customer) aspects, I use the following three questions to asses the main problem of the chapter “What is the current scope and condition of Finnish Local Government Services on the Internet?”

• To what extent are different types of citizen online services currently available? • Are there differences between municipalities in their online service provision? • What are the main challenges for the future development of e-services?

4 Empirical Evidence 4.1 Context, Data and Methods Finland was ranked 15th in the latest available e-government readiness index (UN, 2009, p. 20), which is a middle position among Northern and Western European countries. Finland presents an example of an industrialized Northern European country that has a long tradition of technology-driven policy implementation (e.g. Castells & Himanen, 2002). The public sector has traditionally strongly supported information society development in the Nordic countries. Therefore, particularly at the national level, the implementation of e-government translates easily into the provision of Internet services. However, the number of collaboration agreements between societal sectors has increased as have their complexities, due to more extensive search on efficiency. The spatial structuring of national and local administration is important to this study. Finland has basically two main operational scales: national government and local government. There is also a regional level with regional councils but these do not operate in the direct citizen service provision obligated by the law. Regional councils are responsible for general regional planning and thus interact with other public sector offices. Municipalities have tax collecting rights

31


625

and provide most everyday public services required by Finnish law. These services include the provision of elementary education, healthcare and senior citizens’ services. Together they comprise the backbone of the Nordic welfare state. Regional and municipal structuring is a difficult arena to generalize about because countries vary considerably in size and in their regional structures. Finland’s land area is the fifth largest in Europe (338,000 km2 ). The population (5.5 million) is, on the other hand, the 18th largest. Finland’s population amounts to 1.1% of the total European population, including the 27 countries of the EU. Clearly, the small population of Finland has a relatively large number of administrative units such as municipalities. By comparison, Sweden with a population of 9 million has approximately 290 municipalities. The number of Finnish municipalities has decreased from 447 (2005) to the current 348, due to the fact that the overlapping service provision in small municipalities is ineffective. In several cases, services can be produced more efficiently in economic terms by larger units. However, this has created problems including long distances to service locations and fragmented municipal structures. The distance between centres can be more than 50 km (35 miles) within one combined municipality. The empirical data were collected from all Finnish municipalities having local administrations in March–June 2009, including a total of 348 municipalities. The data were collected by a single researcher to avoid subjective variations in qualitative interpretations. The data were coded to Excel and it was also transformed into SPSS format. The data were collected with a classification scheme including 33 indicators. Most of the indicators are dichotomous (property exists or does not exist, see Table 31.1) in order to avoid subjective distortions and to increase the overall reliability. There were 10 subjectively ranked measures to classify the “quality” of Internet sites, of which 4 included a written description to indicate the grounds for each evaluation. Therefore the method is a variation of content analysis which has objective and countable elements together with subjective evaluations. Several problems are related to the overall assessment of Internet sites and their contents. First is the identification of the providing organization(s). Municipality Internet sites are usually outsourced either fully, referring to situations where the server is located in the premises of the subcontractor, and maintenance together with updating is done by the subcontractor, or the contractor provides an easy-touse updating platform from which public officials can update contents remotely. Service can also be partially subcontracted so that site structure is developed by the subcontractor and after-sales services are taken care of by the municipalities’ IT administrations. In some cases the municipalities create their own service internally. However, empirical validation of municipality service provision arrangements is impossible without IT administrative interviews. The above-mentioned three solutions are commonly used in the arrangement of Internet services. I decided to focus on Internet sites that are clearly identified as municipality-offered services representing the official Internet site image of the location. Thus the aim was to find Internet sites that are clearly created or ordered by a municipal administration. The second problem is the dispersion of service provision to (sub)organization(s) that are vertically or horizontally integrated or connected to the

626

T.A. Inkinen

provision organization. This refers to the situation of several municipalities—they can collaborate as a group to provide services. These inter-municipal agreements are often realized through the business model (municipality-owned development companies), private sector subcontractor or non-commercial organizations. For example, healthcare services might have online booking systems requiring e-identification but this is located beneath the third-party service provider domain. So the municipalities that provide the actual service do not necessarily provide the information system linked to that service. I chose to include only those services that are provided by non-commercial organizations. The final decision to include or disregard services provided by domains other than municipalities was based on the researchers’ evaluation of the situation. This demonstrates the difficulty of arriving at clear-cut definitions in B2G and G2G collaborations. The third problem relates to qualitative assessments of the Internet sites. The classification into the classes of “extensive”, “functional” or “quality” is dependent on the researchers’ evaluation. Consideration was dependent on the overall data set, and the aim was to produce distributions that should be normally distributed. This was realized rather well in the data. However, several dichotomous variables were biased to “available” or “yes” categories, such as GIS map services, regardless of the municipality size or location groups. Still, these indicators provide general information regarding visible properties and functionalities that depict the current condition of Finnish local-level e-government.

4.2 Results The results are presented according to size-ranked municipality groups. This division is deepened with the geographical distinction of capital area and surrounding municipalities. Otherwise, groups follow municipal populations. The studied groups vary considerably in size. The smallest cluster, the Helsinki capital area, has only four municipalities whereas the largest group of municipalities of 1,000–4,999 inhabitants includes 144 cases. The main findings are shown in Table 31.1, which depicts the frequencies and percentages of the dichotomous variables. The first important notion is that all Finnish municipalities have an Internet site and thus have adopted the Internet as an integral part of information distribution regardless of their size or location. As a reference, the smallest municipality on January 1, 2009 had only 115 inhabitants. According to the Finnish municipality law even this small administrative unit should arrange public services including healthcare and primary education. Table 31.1 indicates that municipalities have provided search engines to help navigation on their Internet sites. This may be seen as the adoption of the “easy usability” doctrine highlighted in technology development. The level of advanced search options is, however, rather limited and only every fifth municipality has developed them. Municipality size matters, the smaller the population of the municipality the likelihood of no advanced services increases (see Table 31.1).

31


627

The first question “to what extent are different types of citizen online services currently available” is answered here. Considering transparency and availability of information regarding public official decisions together with e-tools to enhance public participation, a key finding is the extensive availability of public sector documentation of municipal decisions (Table 31.1, over 80% of all municipalities). Municipalities also offer a good range of downloadable forms via their Internet sites. They have also adopted the idea of “feedback”. In general, some four out of five municipalities have an e-feedback system. However, systems targeted to civic initiatives or idea submissions concerning municipalities are not common; less than 20% of municipalities provide this specific service. E-identification has been a key topic in e-government and governance research. Still, the frequency of e-identification is very low in the data. This comprises one of the key problems in the development of functional and extensive e-government systems. In Finland, the solutions have relied to a large extent on the banks, because the Nordic countries have a long tradition of e-banking services. This also illustrates the collaboration between private sector banking and public sector e-services. Internetbanking has continued to be the most used Internet content among adult population since the early 2000 (Inkinen, 2003, 2006; Nurmela et al., 2006). Banking codes, which are sent via ordinary mail to users, are the most common identification system in public sector affairs in Finland. This is a good example of functional public–private collaboration. The Finnish national administration has tried for a long time to create an eidentification card (HST card) that is a credit card sized microchip card. The Finnish government has decided to end this effort in 2009 after a decade of financial investment and product development. The problem of a physical card relates to device connectivity and standardization of consumer electronics such as desktops or laptops. The success of a physical identification card could have been possible if large international manufacturers would have integrated reading devices into their products. This, however, never happened and it was the consumer’s responsibility to acquire these devices. The result was a failure, which illustrates clearly that the public sector service provision method should be based on researched knowledge of consumer behaviour. Several examples exist of failed technology–society integration (also Heeks, 2003). In addition, the citizen–government relation is not the only interface that public officials should pay more attention to in the development of new IT services. The business–government relation includes challenges too, mainly in maintenance and standards. For example, public transportation smart cards and their level of standardization has been an interesting issue in the Helsinki capital area. The organization responsible for transport development in the capital area ordered remotely readable transport cards from a small company that provided a product outside of global standards. Now, the entire system maintenance (e.g. availability of new cards for new customers) is dependent on this company, resulting in a monopoly situation. The whole system will be changed in the near future and the process has consumed a considerable amount of public resources.

628

T.A. Inkinen

Geographical information technologies have been a success concerning their availability. Map-based services are available practically everywhere (over 90% penetration). Map services are also commonly interactive, and street address search options are the most common interactivity content. Moreover, commercial and business search engines are available in most municipalities. An interesting future development will be whether or not global Internet content creators such as Google will override the efforts of municipalities regarding their own spatial territory in information provision regarding the location in question. This would require further research on consumer preferences, specifically whether consumers would prefer to use locally provided e-services (municipality-provided maps) or global information sources. In the case of societal groups’ inclusion in the “e-society”, language options are important. In Finland, as well as in other Nordic countries, information availability in English is commonly taken for granted. This also shows in the data. In practice, all large municipalities have English information resources on their Internet sites. It should be recognized that even Finnish language information availability is not 100%, as the data show an overall figure of 98.3%. This is due to the official status of the Swedish language. Six municipalities located on the coastline have only Swedish language information available. These municipalities are also small in population (all with less than 5,000 inhabitants). As well, large differences in the availability of other languages exist. In general only every fifth municipality offers information in other languages (e.g. German, French or Russian). A visible geographical dimension is present, particularly concerning Russian. Particularly largeand middle-sized cities located in eastern parts of Finland and close to the border (Finland–Russia) offer services also in Russian language whereas the provision of German and French does not have a geographical basis. Table 31.2 summarizes municipal characteristics and qualitative categories. It shows the average scores for qualitative variables. The groups have been analysed with standard statistical tests for categorical data. Average scores are a simple and easy way to present main categories that are different from other categories. N refers to the number of municipalities included in a segment. The average score scales are shown on the variable description. The overall N of municipalities is 348 The second question “are there differences between municipalities in their online service provision?” is answered here. Table 31.2 shows that there are clear differences in averages grouped according to municipality size. The first two indicators (availabilities of downloadable forms and decision documents) illustrate that the threshold gap between municipalities emerges between the 10,000 to 31,000 and 5,000–9,999 inhabitant groups: Score averages are generally 0.5–1.5 points lower in small municipalities than in municipalities larger than 10,000 inhabitants. This division is also clear in the ratings of municipality Internet site qualities concerning the extensiveness, functionality and overall evaluation indicators. Geographical segmenting of the capital area, the surrounding region and other locations gives indications of the spatial properties of Internet services. The surrounding capital area municipalities are of the most importance due to the large variations of municipality size. Another visible distinction can be made between

31


629

the smallest-sized municipality group (less than 1,000 inhabitants) and the rest. However, the size factor is not that important in the evaluation of site functionality. This brings forth the problem of site designs and amount of information available. In larger municipalities the information requirements are more extensive than in small municipalities and from the functionality (usability) perspective a simple site is easier to navigate and understand (e.g. Table 31.2 “Functionality and usability of the Internet site” average score 2.00 for the smallest group concerning “). Therefore it should be recognized that the relatively high functionality scores of the smallest municipalities do not tell much regarding a site’s sophistication. The largest size and geographical centrality meet in the cases of the four capital area municipalities. Three of these are among the four largest municipalities in Finland (Helsinki, Espoo and Vantaa). Their central location in terms of economic activity and concentrations of national administration offices together with large number of industrial headquarters also result in the fact that public Internet service quality and extent is the highest in the data (Table 31.2 average scores 3.50–4.00 for capital area). The capital area has the highest scores in the case of all indicators. This result indicates that large structures have larger resources for implementing technology solutions in their operations. The online structures of the cities of Helsinki and Espoo, for example, are considerably larger than in smaller locations. The physical size (population) of a municipality is reflected in the size (extent) of its Internet presence. Statistical testing supports the interpretation of the frequency distributions. I conducted a one-way analysis of variances and Tamhane T2 post hoc tests suitable for group comparisons without the equality of variances being assumed (Appendix). Even though the dependent list includes only 5-step ordinal variables (not scale, as they should) this test provides adequate support for the presented frequencies showing the major thresholds of municipality differentiation. The testing showed statistical differences among all qualitative variables (extensiveness, functionality and overall quality) between municipal groups. The population factor is the smallest in functionality, and greatest in overall impression of the Internet site quality (Appendix). Statistical differentiation takes place at the ends: the largest capital area municipalities are significantly different from other sized groups. The middle groups are similar, and there are no statistically significant differences in the Internet site features between municipalities having populations from 10,000 to 210,000 people. Naturally, variations exist between single cases, but as grouped categories the differences level out to become statistically non-significant. Small communities with less than 10,000 inhabitants more likely have limited services. In larger municipalities, service quality and extensiveness tend to level out (Table 31.2 and Appendix). The third question “what are the main challenges for the future development of e-services” is answered here. Three main observations can be made, (1) the municipalities have adopted the idea of transparency and information distribution in terms of provision quantities; (2) information distribution in languages other than Finnish and Swedish is comparably high in the EU context; and (3) e-identification systems are limited. The results exemplify the criticism of Finnish e-government services in their lack of interactivity. The identification process is crucial to the development

630

T.A. Inkinen

of higher-level interactive services. In some respect the distinction between national and local administrative spheres is problematic. For example, the HST card has been a national government IT development effort applied by some of the largest cities. Finnish national government has also promoted municipality IT efforts with best practice competitions. For example, the public passenger traffic online guidance service, provided by the Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council, has been awarded several times by national institutions after its launch in 2001 as a citizen-centred information society service. Overall, the distinction between national and local service provision is fundamentally dependent on the law. For example, in education elementary and secondary schools are locally arranged together with polytechnics whereas universities are always funded by the national government. Therefore the roles of administrative levels (EU, national and local) operating in the same locality should be recognized in the analyses of municipal online services.

5 Conclusions The increasing complexities of technological solutions require longer and more extensive qualification processes to ensure the durability and functionality of online services. This is particularly important in the maintenance and support of einterfaces. These expire faster due to the rapid development of components. The literature overview and the empirical analysis illustrate the variations of the narrow understanding of e-government. First, the phenomena include a technical challenge as well as usability design issues, front-office and back-office system integration and information security (also Bovaird, 2003). Furthermore, the real challenge lies in the transfer from e-government (tools of service provision) towards interactive governance (active citizenship and participation). Second, service provision solutions are intriguing. The question is whether or not public offices and organs produce their web designs in-house or through subcontractors. Furthermore, if subcontractors are deployed, to what extent and with what conditions will the updating and after-sales services be maintained? The acquisition law in Finland states that all public purchases exceeding C15,000 must be competed by at least two providers. This perspective incorporates government–business relations into the picture and has implications regarding the transparency of governance and functional principles of the public sector. In addition, geographical concepts are important in e-service provision. Spatial scale and local context are examples of these geographical concepts. Administration and service provision networks are embedded in local conditions and national characteristics. The development of local service specialization is a slow process. Third, customer, thus citizen, interface gives rise to issues requiring research attention. These include user-driven analyses of technology, usability evaluations and service quality assessments. In addition, societal conditions and the existence of digital divides within nation states combine e-government development with education and the overall knowledge or competence levels of populations. A reasonable question is the teaching of public affairs in schools, along with computer classes,

31


631

because both are required in the creation of an information or knowledge-based society. Therefore the development of governance for knowledge-empowered citizens is not only a question of industrial processes and networks but also includes the broad societal context of knowledge in the population. The following four conclusions can be made: • Internet technologies are extensively applied in Finland in order to enhance and develop citizens’, non-governmental organizations’ and the private sector’s options to obtain relevant information and to conduct government relations. • Technology adoption in government processes enhances service quality and reliability. This results in cost savings and efficiency. The municipality size matters as indicated in Table 31.2 and Appendix. • E-government realization is in most cases a result of spatially varying subcontracting networks and interactions between stakeholders. This result became clear when the overall structures of the Internet sites were classified into the data matrix. • Technology enhances governance transparency through easier information transfer from government to citizens. Availability (Table 31.1) and extensiveness (Table 31.2) of the Internet services are tools to promote transparency and democratic functioning of municipalities. These four points are realized in governmental processes in spatial contexts. A prime principle in Finnish regional policy has been the doctrine of equal municipal (local-level) service production regardless of geographical location. This has been, and still is, the unquestioned discourse concerning local administration functions. Thus, in an optimum situation, waiting times and availability of public services should not be dependent on location. Therefore ideally e-services on the Internet should provide similar outcomes regardless of location. In the real world, as well as in the virtual world of the Internet, this is not always the case. The empirical analysis regarding e-services in municipalities revealed a clear differentiation in service levels between large and small municipalities. These results indicate that municipality size affects the overall characteristics of e-government in relation to Internet service provision. A distinction can be made between three groups of municipalities: large municipalities with extensive information distribution and resources, small municipalities having considerably less-extensive site structures and service quality, and the smallest municipalities having the most limited service provision. The current economic crisis is affecting the economies of Finnish municipalities. Several of the smaller ones are merging with surrounding municipalities to establish larger administrative entities. It remains to be seen if these mergers will contribute to the overall quality and availability of e-services bringing forth an interesting future research theme. Acknowledgements This work is part of Project 127213 funded by the Academy of Finland. We thank Kirsi Koskela, BSc, for collecting the data. We also thank the editor and the three anonymous referees for their constructive comments, thus improving the paper.

632

T.A. Inkinen

Appendix Descriptive statistics and ANOVA table for municipality groups (N = 348). Tamhane’s test results are not presented due to a large number of comparisons and the length of the tables. Levene statistics for dependent variables are 2.337, 2.437 and 1.152 with statistical significances of 0.032, 0.026 and 0.332 in the order of appearance on the descriptive table. In the case of two first variables “extensiveness” and “functionality” variances are unequal on 95% level and therefore Tamhane’s test is applied. Dependent variable “overall evaluation” has equal variances among groups and it is interpreted by using both Tamhane’s test and LSD test. One-Way Analysis of Variances (ANOVA): Procedure produces an analysis of variance for a quantitative dependent variable by a single factor (independent) variable. Analysis of variance is used to test the hypothesis that several means are equal. This technique is an extension of the two-sample t-test. Each group is an independent random sample from a normal population. Analysis of variance is robust to departures from normality, although the data should be symmetric. The groups should come from populations with equal variances. Levene’s homogeneity of variance is a suitable test to evaluate equality of variances (Source: PASW 17.0 online help, available with the analysis software). Tamhane T2 test: In pairwise multiple comparisons test the difference between each pair of means and yield a matrix indicating significantly different group means at significance level of 0.05. Tamhane’s T2 is a conservative pairwise comparisons test and it is based on a t-test. It is appropriate when the variances are unequal (Source: PASW 17.0 online help, available with the analysis software).

Functionality and usability of the Internet site

Extensiveness of available information

Total

Total Municipalities with less than 1,000 people 1,000–4,999 population 5,000–9,999 population 10,000–31,000 population Middle-sized cities 33,000–66,000 pop. Large cities 66,000–210,000 pop. Helsinki capital area

Municipalities with less than 1,000 people 1,000–4,999 population 5,000–9,999 population 10,000–31,000 population Middle-sized cities 33,000–66,000 pop. Large cities 66,000–210,000 pop. Helsinki capital area

3.50

4

2.12

2.60

10

348

1.96 1.94 2.48 2.41

4.00

4

144 89 70 18

2.90

10

1.94 2.00

1.79 1.91 2.13 2.41

144 89 70 18

348 13

0.69

Mean

13

N

0.916

0.577

0.516

0.871 0.866 0.964 0.939

0.783 0.707

0.000

0.876

0.670 0.706 0.592 0.795

0.630

SD

Descriptives

0.050

0.289

0.163

0.075 0.096 0.116 0.228

0.043 0.196

0.000

0.277

0.058 0.078 0.071 0.193

0.175

Std. error

2.03

2.58

2.23

1.81 1.75 2.25 1.93

1.86 1.57

4.00

2.27

1.68 1.76 1.99 2.00

0.31

2.22

4.42

2.97

2.10 2.13 2.71 2.89

2.03 2.43

4.00

3.53

1.91 2.07 2.27 2.82

1.07

0

3

2

0 1 1 1

0 1

4

2

0 1 1 1

0

4

4

3

4 4 4 4

4 4

4

4

3 4 3 4

2

Lower bound Upper bound Minimum Maximum

95% Confidence Interval for Mean


Overall quality of the Internet site

Total

Municipalities with less than 1,000 people 1,000–4,999 population 5,000–9,999 population 10,000–31,000 population Middle-sized cities 33,000–66,000 pop. Large cities 66,000– 210,000 pop. Helsinki capital area 2.20 2.62 2.47

2.70

3.50

89

70

18

10

4 2.22

2.03

144

348

1.15

Mean

13

N

0.937

0.577

0.675

0.943

0.909

0.922

0.846

0.801

SD

0.052

0.289

0.213

0.229

0.109

0.102

0.073

0.222

Std. error

Descriptives (continued)

2.12

2.58

2.22

1.99

2.40

1.99

1.89

0.67

Lower bound

2.32

4.42

3.18

2.96

2.84

2.40

2.17

1.64

Upper bound

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

0

3

1

1

1

1

0

0

Minimum

4

4

3

4

4

4

4

3

Maximum

634 T.A. Inkinen

31


635 ANOVA

Extensiveness

Functionality

Overall quality

Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total

Sum of squares

Df

Mean square F

Sig.

55.698 146.208 201.906 26.743 249.163 275.906 40.861 247.990 288.852

6 341 347 6 341 347 6 341 347

9.283 0.453

20.508

0.000

4.457 0.771

5.778

0.000

6.810 0.768

8.870

0.000

References Ahlqvist, T., & Inkinen, T. (2007). Technology foresight in multiscalar innovation systems. A spatiotemporal process perspective. Fennia. International Journal of Geography, 185(1), 3–14. Anttiroiko, A.-V., & Mälkiä, M. (Eds.). (2006). Encyclopedia of Digital Government. Hershey, PA: IGI. Al-Mashari, M. (2007). A benchmarking study of experiences with electronic government. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 14(2), 172–185. Bovaird, T. (2003). E-Government and e-governance: Organisational implications, options and dilemmas. Public Policy and Administration, 18(2), 37–56. Castells, M., & Himanen, P. (2002). The information society and the welfare state. The Finnish Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Christou, G., & Simpson, S. (2006). The Internet and public–private governance in the European Union. Journal of Public Policy, 26(1), 43–61. Dutta, S., & Mia, I. (Eds.). (2009). The global information technology Report 2008–2009. Mobility in a Networked World. World Economic Forum, Geneva. Accessed July 28, 2009, from http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gitr/2009/gitr09fullreport.pdf Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2005) New public management is dead— Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. European Commission. (2004). State of the art report. Volume I. Accessed August 18, 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/eprocurement/study_vol1_en.pdf Finnish government. (2006). A renewing, human-centric and competitive Finland. The national knowledge society strategy 2007–2015. Helsinki: Prime Minister’s Office, Information Society Programme, Edita. Gano, G.L., Crowley, J.E., & Guston, D. (2006). “Shielding” the knowledge transfer process in human service research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 39–60. Hall, P. (2002). Urban and regional planning (4th ed.) London: Routledge. Heeks, R. (2003). ost eGovernment-for-development projects fail: How can risks be reduced? iGovernment Working Paper Series 14. University of Manchester: Institute for Development Policy and Management. Heeks, R. (2005). e-Government as a carrier of context. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 51–74. Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. (2006). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 243–265.

636

T.A. Inkinen

Hylland Eriksen, T. (2001). Tyranny of the moment. Fast and slow time in the information age. London: Pluto Press. IMF. (2009). World Economy Outlook 2009. Geneva: IMF. Accessed September 17, 2009, from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/pdf/text.pdf Inkinen, T. (2003). Information society, citizens and everyday life: does the Internet make a difference in spatial practices? Fennia. International Journal of Geography, 181(1), 25–33. Inkinen, T. (2006). The social construction of the urban use of information technology: the case of Tampere, Finland. Journal of Urban Technology, 13(3), 49–75. Inkinen, T. (2008). Gender and the social use of mobile technologies. From information society policies to everyday practices. In P. T. Uteng & T. Cresswell (Eds.), Gendered mobilities (pp. 213–228). Aldershot: Ashgate. Jaeger, P. T., & Thompson, K. M. (2003). E-government around the world: Lessons, challenges, and future directions. Government Information Quarterly, 20(2), 389–394 Janssen, M., & Kuk, G. (2007). E-government business models for public service networks. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 3(3), 54–71. Jauhiainen, J. S., & Inkinen, T. (2009). E-governance and the information society in periphery. Case study from Northern Finland. In C. Reddick (Ed.), Handbook of research on strategies for local e-government adoption and implementation: comparative studies (pp. 496–513). Hershey, PA: IGI. Kooiman, J. (2005). Governing as governance, London: Sage. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four-stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136. van den Meer, A., & van Winden, W. (2003). E-governance in cities: a comparison of urban information and communication technology policies. Regional Studies, 37(4), 407–419. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide. Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet world wide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nurmela, J., Parjo, L., & Sirkiä, T. (2006). From citizen to eCitizen: Results from statistical survey about Finns’ use of ICT 1996–2005 (Reviews 3/2006). Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Polenske, K. R. (Eds.). (2007). The economic geography of innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rhodes, C. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press. Swyngedouw, E. (1997). Neither global nor local: “glocalization” and the politics of scale. In K. R. Cox (Ed.), Spaces of globalization. reasserting the power of the local (pp. 137–166). New York: The Guilford Press. Transparency International. (2009). Transparency international 2008 corruption perceptions index. Accessed September 17, 2009, from http://www.transparency.org/content/download/ 36508/574364.pdf UN. (2009). UN E-Government Survey 2008. From e-government to connected governance. Accessed August 30, 2009, from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/ unpan028607.pdf van Velsen, L., van der Geesta, T., ter Heddeb, M., & Derks, W. (2009). Requirements engineering for e-Government services: A citizen-centric approach and case study. Government Information Quarterly, 26(3), 477–486. Welch, E. W., & Pandey, S. K. (2006). E-government and bureaucracy: Toward a better understanding of intranet implementation and its effect on red tape. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3), 379–404. West, D. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27. Westholm, H. (2005). Models of improving e-governance by back office re-organisation and integration. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 99–132. Wilson, M., & Corey, K. (2006). Urban and regional technology planning: Planning practice in the global knowledge economy. London: Routledge.

31


637

Wilson III, E. J. (2005). What is Internet governance and where does it come from? Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 29–50. Wimmer, M. A. (2002). A European perspective towards online one-stop government: the eGOV project. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 1(1), 92–103. Zuurmond, A. (2005). Organisational transformation through the Internet. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 133–148.

Chapter 32

E-government Interoperability Framework: A Case Study in a Developing Country Pavel Shvaiko, Adolfo Villafiorita, Alessandro Zorer, Lourino Chemane, and Teotonio Fumo

Harmonizing decentralized development of ICT solutions with centralized strategies, e.g., meant to favor reuse and optimization of resources, is a complex technical and organizational challenge. The problem, shared by virtually all the governments, is becoming a priority also for developing countries, such as Mozambique, that have started their ICT policy relatively recently and for which it is now evident that—if no particular attention is devoted to the interoperability of the ICT solutions being developed—the result will rapidly become a patchwork of solutions incompatible with each other. The focus of the chapter is on formulation of e-GIF4M, E-government Interoperability Framework for Mozambique. The framework is based on a holistic approach, which we believe is needed for making interoperability sustainable within those countries. It builds on top of the existing experiences in e-GIFs all over the world, but it addresses some specific needs and peculiarities of the developing countries. The result is a comprehensive framework based on (i) a reference service delivery architecture along with technical standards, (ii) a standardization life cycle, (iii) a maturity model, and (iv) some key actions meant to make the initiative sustainable in the longer term. P. Shvaiko (B) TasLab, Informatica Trentina S.p.A., Trento, Italy e-mail: [email protected] A. Villafiorita Fondazione Bruno Kessler IRST, Trento, Italy e-mail: [email protected] A. Zorer CREATE-NET, Trento, Italy e-mail: [email protected] L. Chemane UTICT—ICT Policy Implementation Technical Unit, Maputo, Mozambique e-mail: [email protected] T. Fumo UTICT—ICT Policy Implementation Technical Unit, Maputo, Mozambique e-mail: [email protected]


639

640

P. Shvaiko et al.

1 Introduction Harmonizing decentralized development of ICT solutions with centralized strategies is a challenge many governments of developed countries are facing. In a scenario that is typical of many nations, the development of coherent and efficient ICT policies is often hindered by the number of stakeholders typically involved in the decision making and in the development processes and by the stratification of laws, procedures, and systems occurred over the years. For example, consider Citizen Registries in Italy, where each municipality has the responsibility for maintaining data about the citizens residing in the corresponding town. There is no central nation-wide database, nor any agreed-upon standard. Since over the years different municipalities have adopted different and custom ICT systems, the migration to a common solution or a standard requires finding an agreement among all the stakeholders or changing the law regulating citizen data, operations whose implementation is not obvious at all. To make things worse, the increasing reliance of government on digital documents and data raises issues related to access by citizens and accessibility of documents over the years, that is, the possibility of being able to access documents produced in the past, possibly with a program not available anymore. To address the points mentioned above, in the last few years many governments of developed countries have started adopting interoperability frameworks. The scope and goals of such interoperability frameworks are the most diverse, ranging from defining a set of technical standards that have to be adopted for data format, up to specifying the procedures, organizational structures, and the systems to maintain data over the years and to foster interoperability among public administrations. ICT and e-government have a fundamental role for developing countries, as they are a key enabler for increasing efficiency and reducing costs, facilitating transparency and accountability, thus contributing to the overall development of a country. The adoption of ICT in developing countries presents particular difficulties and opportunities. On one hand, poor infrastructuring often means that ICT systems and paper-based procedures need to live together and be tightly integrated. On the other hand, later adoption of ICT with respect to other countries offers the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of other governments, make use of tools and methodologies already established and tested, and promotes a quicker implementation of e-government policies. Of course, there is a need to adapt and verify the adoption in developing countries, carefully taking into account the specificity of this other environment. Given the context depicted above, it is clear that interoperability is a strategic issue for several developing countries. This was also recognized by the government of Mozambique, which started its own ICT policy quite recently and decided to adopt an interoperability framework shortly thereafter. This chapter is an extended and updated version of an earlier conference paper (Shvaiko et al., 2009), which presents e-GIF4M—E-government Interoperability Framework for Mozambique or, in other words, the interoperability plan for Mozambique. By building on top of the achievements from the various e-GIFs in the

32

E-government Interoperability Framework

641

world, adapting to the specific context and issues of the developing countries, and as a part of implementation of the e-government strategy of Mozambique, here we propose a systematic and comprehensive approach to interoperability in this country. The approach is devised to facilitate its early adoption and to be sustainable in the longer term. We achieve this by addressing risks and opportunities of Mozambique, generalizing the aspects that can also be found in other developing countries in such a way that e-GIF4M can be seen as a general framework to be adopted in those contexts. Notice that the uniqueness of the e-GIF4M approach (compared to other e-GIF initiatives), which we believe can be exported in other countries having a similar socio-economic environment, is due to both the scope and priority of the core actions and the novelty of some of the support actions, such as the Maputo Living Lab. The remainder of the chapter is organized as follows. The next section provides an overview of the interoperability frameworks and the following one focuses on risks and opportunities in developing countries. We then provide our analysis of the ICT context in Mozambique. We continue by presenting e-GIF4M, the interoperability framework for Mozambique, by detailing the technical infrastructure (architecture and standards), the organizational infrastructure (to manage the project), the roadmap for the implementation, and the systemic actions we defined to support the initiative. We finally present an overview of the major findings of the chapter.

2 Interoperability Frameworks Various interoperability frameworks have been defined in the world. A classification, an assessment, and a critical review of the existing frameworks, therefore, is an essential step to understand what the most successful practices and the success factors are. A noteworthy and excellent starting point for such an assessment is the work described in (UNDP, 2007a–c; 2008), which provides a concise comparative survey of eight selected e-GIFs. The documents compare the frameworks on the basis of – – – –

context that underpins the whole framework, technical content, creation and revision of the e-GIF documentation, and implementation and compliance issues.

For each area mentioned above, one or more parameters, usually in the form of a check box, are defined. Thus for instance, technical content is evaluated according to whether the framework provides indications on the technical standards to adopt. The framework is very useful to compare different approaches according to scope and content and thus provides useful information in drafting an interoperability

642

P. Shvaiko et al.

plan. The study, however, does not cover two aspects we were particularly interested in, namely, the context in which the interoperability framework was defined together with considerations and factors contributing to longer-term sustainability of the initiatives. Moreover, other e-GIFs had appeared after the initial release of the analysis. We decided, therefore, to elaborate on the UNDP data by – adding information about the context in which e-GIF initiatives started. To do so, we used per-capita GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and the e-government readiness index. The former, in fact, allows getting a view of the economic context in which a specific e-GIF initiative was started. The latter allows us getting a better grasp on the government’s ICT context. The e-government readiness index, in fact, is a composite index defined by the UN to measure human capacity, infrastructure development, access to information and knowledge, three factors that are determinant in building the capacity of a government to deliver services (see United Nations, 2008 for more details). – adding information about the duration and liveness of the project. To do so, we collected information about the first and last release available of each e-GIF document. Intuitively, a successful e-GIF project should go through different releases and span across various years (exceptions, of course, could be possible—e.g., the implementation of an e-GIF in a very small country; the fast change of technologies and standards, however, requires to keep interoperability information up to date). Results of the analysis conducted are shown in Table 32.1. The first two columns show GDP per capita and national rank in 2008, according to World Bank data. The third and fourth columns show the e-government readiness index and rank. Columns five to seven show the domain of the framework. They distinguish whether the framework includes organizational standards, semantic data interoperability, and architectural standards. The data are taken from (UNDP, 2007a–c; 2008). The last two columns show the year of the first release and the year of the last release. From our analysis of the existing interoperability frameworks we highlight the following aspects: 1. The most active and up-to-date e-GIFs appear to be those of New Zealand and of the United Kingdom. The former, in particular, went through ten editions from 2002 up to its last release in February 2008 and that provided, together with the UNDP documents, an excellent reference for standards. 2. Most of the e-GIFs in the world have been implemented in the developed countries, where ICT deployment is in progress for many years and the interoperability emerges as one of the main and more costly problems to deal with to extend or consolidate the e-government initiatives. Some initiatives happened in emerging countries like South Africa and Brazil. The former released the e-GIF in its final version in September 2007 and focused on a minimal set of interoperability standards. The only documented e-GIF project in a developing country is in Ghana; however, the level of its implementation is not clear,

11 14 5 34 15 146 22 57 59 23 115 31 68 91 16 12

47,498 8,400 62,333 17,223 44,471 691 31,749 7,222 6,819 30,618 1,848 18,973 5,685 3,869 43,089 46,716

GDP (USD)

Org.: Organizational aspects; Arch.: Architecture

Australia Brazil Denmark Estonia Germany Ghana Greece Malaysia Mauritius New Zealand Philippines Saudi Arabia South Africa Thailand United Kingdom United States

Rank

GDP per capita 2008

8 45 2 13 22 138 44 34 63 18 66 70 61 64 10 4

Rank (2008) 0.81 0.57 0.91 0.76 0.71 0.30 0.57 0.61 0.51 0.74 0.50 0.49 0.51 0.50 0.79 0.86

Value (2008)

e-government readiness index

x

x

Planned x x

Org.

Domain

Table 32.1 Selected e-GIF initiatives

x x

x

Planned x x x x x x x

Data

x x x x x

x

x x x x x x x x

Arch.

2005 2006 2008 2005 2008 2006 2008 2003 2002 2002 2003 2005 2007 2006 2000 2007

First version

2005

2008

2009

2009

2007

Last version

32 E-government Interoperability Framework 643

644

P. Shvaiko et al.

since the last version of the interoperability document, released in February 2006, is still a draft. Other comprehensive e-government initiatives have been implemented in other similar contexts (see, e.g., Weerakkody, Dwivedi, Brooks, Williams, & Mwange, 2007), but no particular attention has been devoted to e-GIFs yet. 3. Common to nearly all e-GIFs we have analyzed is the definition of standards to adopt (see, e.g., the e-GIF of South Africa (Government of South Africa, 2007)). Slightly less common is the definition of a reference architecture to achieve interoperability, typically based on service-oriented architectures (see, e.g., UNDP, 2008), and addressed only by a part of the e-GIFs are organizational, managerial, and technical aspects related to maintenance in the longer term of the frameworks (see, e.g., Bundesministerium des Innern, 2003). Finally, it is worth noting that the work in (Marcucci, Kluzer, Nicolini, & Cimander, 2006) has been selected by EU as a good practice case for e-government interoperability at local and regional levels. 4. The longer living initiatives are to be supported (or have created) a significant infrastructure, both in organizational and in technical terms. Aspects related to maturity and compliance might also play a role, as they appear in the New Zealand and in the UK frameworks.

3 Interoperability in Developing Countries: Risks and Opportunities Similarly to what is described by other studies (see, e.g., Bell Canada, 2007; cc:eGov, 2007; Chemane, Taula, & Carrilho, 2006; Gottschalk & Solli-Sather, 2008; NZ, 2008), the e-GIF we defined has been devised to achieve the following goals: 1. Citizen-centric, one-stop delivery of services through a variety of channels: Better public services tailored to the needs of citizens and businesses require the seamless flow of information across government institutions. 2. Better decision making: In most countries, policy makers are faced not only with overlapping and uncoordinated data sources but also with the absence of common terms of reference and means of representing these data. This results in time consuming and costly procedures to non-homogeneous data. Interoperability will allow data compiled by different agencies to be used together to make better decisions. 3. Better coordination of government agency programs and services: If information about government is easier to obtain, policy-makers can design better projects and can more easily avoid redundant or similar projects. Furthermore, policyand decision-makers would have more information with the help of which they can evaluate the performance of agencies and the public services they deliver. 4. Better accountability: Although indirectly related, e-GIF, by favoring availability, transparency, sharing and fruition of data, might help improve accountability.

32


645

5. Better coordination of ICT initiatives: Late adoption of technology has the advantage of allowing one to learn from other people’s mistakes. An interoperability plan provides the opportunity for integrating solutions from the beginning; solutions that in other countries grew independently, causing inefficiencies and increased costs. 6. Cost savings and/or cost avoidance: Demanding interoperability breaks reliance on single vendors and yields a choice for governments in their purchases and upgrades, opening at the same time possibilities for local development. By adopting an interoperability framework, the government promotes the adoption of best practices in the private sector also (e.g., by contractual agreement for the delivery of services), helping improve quality and efficiency of local companies. 7. Promotes international cooperation: Interoperability among governments can help creating the infrastructures necessary to solve cross-border problems, such as drug trafficking, environmental pollution, money laundering, and illegal arms trade. Interoperability among governments can also mean delivery of egovernment services to citizens and businesses across a region and facilitate trade between a group of countries and their trading partners.

However, besides the criticalities experienced by many countries all over the world in implementing their e-GIFs (see, e.g., (UNDP, 2008) for an overview), our work also needed to take into account the specific issues and opportunities that are typical of developing countries (see, e.g., Banerjee & Chau, 2004), i.e., nations with a low level of material well-being and Gross National Income per capita but experiencing a fast development, some among which are

• Governance: ICT projects are often supported by international donors and the resulting governance process is more complex than that of other projects. The possibility to enforce common architectural solutions and standards on these projects, for instance, is limited, requires strong political commitment, and clearly defined organizational roles. • Skills: The limited availability of specialized technical ICT and managerial skills in the country implies a strong dependence on external support to implement and manage the ICT projects. Without establishing a transition path to provide the necessary competencies to the local context and to gradually increase and enlarge the base of ICT skills, there is a risk of not being able to control the convergence of e-government projects on the interoperability framework. • Sustainability: The traditional approach of setting up specific projects to respond to the needs of government agencies is not suited for a long-term initiative like e-GIF, where most of the results are envisioned from 3 to 5 years. Hence, management of e-GIF requires the setup of conditions that allow for operation in a multi-year perspective.

646

P. Shvaiko et al.

4 An Analysis of ICT Initiatives in Mozambique The government of Mozambique initiated the development of a national ICT policy in 1998, by establishing the ICT Policy Commission, whose work resulted in the release of the national ICT Policy in 2000 and, subsequently, its implementation plan. The plan, approved in 2002, identified e-governance as a strategic area for the development of the country. One of the final goals was to switch to a citizen-centric government, that is, to a state of affairs in which the government delivers integrated services focused on the needs of citizens and private sector and where these are able to interact with government in a manner, time, and place of their choice (cc:eGov, 2007; Gov3, 2006; CMM, 2006; UTICT, 2000). Having adopted a comprehensive approach in the implementation of this vision, many government departments started, since 2000, implementing various ICT initiatives (e.g., Public Servants Information System, State Financial Information System, Enterprise Licensing and Cadastre Information System, Information System of the Administrative Tribunal, E-land Registry and Management Information System) supported by international donors and several projects related to a functional analysis and process re-engineering of government departments. As we could expect, the analysis of the state-of-the-art of e-government ICT projects in Mozambique has revealed a heterogeneous situation in terms of the maturity of e-government strategy implementation—in some areas few isolated projects started; in some other departments more effort has been put on ICT development, but the projects where still separated in terms of budget, technologies, approach and of course the result was IT solutions not integrated with one another; and finally there were some good examples of converging resources to a single effort, adopting project management (PM) and technical methodologies, and leveraging on a common IT infrastructure to develop all the required services. The latter can be used as “champions” for building the critical mass to develop and evolve common systems and functionalities to serve multiple agencies. It became therefore clear quite soon that without proper governance and guidance, and without the definition of a proper interoperability framework, namely e-GIF, e-government services in Mozambique would soon be based on a patchwork of incompatible and closed systems, not different to what happened in other countries so far.

5 The e-GIF4M: The Approach The risks and opportunities of developing countries mentioned above, which we deeply analyzed in the context of Mozambique, require setting up a framework that refines existing approaches by tailoring these to the specific needs and constraints of Mozambique. E-GIF4M is therefore based on the following fundamental actions:

32


647

Technical implementation, organized in two key areas: – Implementation of an architectural framework (the e-GIF4M service delivery architecture) based on a government service bus (GSB), where all the systems will converge to interoperate. We envisage the development of the architecture to be guided by a specific government unit. This helps drastically simplify the interoperability implementation process and reduce the dependencies, the expectations, and the needs for strong coordination with donor-funded projects. – Specification of the technical standards to be adopted at each level of the architecture, if applicable, and definition of a life cycle for the standards, to accommodate evolving e-government projects and innovation in technologies. Notice that the life cycle is an essential aspect to favor maintenance of the framework in the long run. Organizational implementation, structured in the following: – Definition of an interoperability maturity model, which measures the level of compliance and of adoption of e-GIF4M. This is essential to quantify and make visible the benefits (or disadvantages) of e-GIF4M and can be used as an important tool for the setup of incentives for the more virtuous projects. – Setup of an organizational structure and of the decision processes to manage e-GIF4M, to monitor its execution, and to maintain and enforce it in the longer term. Systemic support actions, meant as the set of activities to favor the growth of local skills and capabilities, to help create and disseminate a culture of interoperability, to help increase international networking of local companies and universities, and to create a virtuous cycle among public institutions, higher education, and private companies.

6 Technical Implementation In this section we first discuss the e-GIF4M service delivery architecture (§6.1) and then the technical standards to be adopted at each level of the architecture (§6.2).

6.1 The e-GIF4M Service Delivery Architecture Figure 32.1 describes the e-GIF4M service delivery architecture. It will serve as the basis for interoperation of data, systems, and processes. The architecture is based on a government service bus and follows the standard SOA (service-oriented architecture) and EDA (event-driven architecture) approaches.

648

P. Shvaiko et al.

Users Channels

Citizens and Communities

Private Sector

Tourists

State Agents

…

One-StopShop

Telephone

Internet

Digital TV/ Radio

…

Authentication and Authorization

Services

Application Interfaces

Government Portals Legal entity services

Government Service Bus

Civil identification services

Driving License services

Land use services

Health services

…

Common Information Platform (processes & data) Common Communication Platform (GovNet) Secured Transactions

Existing Systems

System 1 (SOA)

System 2 (Legacy)

System 3 (SOA)

System 4 (Legacy)

…

Fig. 32.1 The e-GIF4M service delivery architecture

We distinguish: – Users, who are the actual service recipients that can be individuals, representatives of a private sector, such as SMEs, state agents, etc. – Channels that deliver the services, e.g., one-stop shop, telephone, Internet. – Services that are offered by e-government, such as legal entity services and civil identification services. Notice that access to the services offered either via a government portal or application interfaces might require authentication and authorization procedures. – Government service bus is the core of the interoperability. It is constituted by two main components, the common information platform (that provides interoperability of data and processes), and the common communication platform (that provides network and infrastructure). Of these two components, the latter has already been implemented. As a matter of fact, within the GovNet project, in its fifth year of operation, more than 140 government institutions from central (ministries), provincial, and district levels are already interconnected (Chemane, Taula, & Carrilho, 2006; Mapsanganhe & Chemane, 2007). – Existing systems by sectors represent information systems already in place. Some examples include Enterprise Licensing and Cadastre Information System, State Financial Information System, E-Land Registry, and Land Management Information System.

32


649

6.2 Technical Standards The implementation of the architecture described in Fig. 32.1 relies upon the identification and allocation of technical standards to the various architectural components. E-GIF4M, therefore, starts from the taxonomy illustrated in Fig. 32.2, which organizes standards in (i) networks and infrastructures, (ii) process interoperability, and (iii) semantic data interoperability. These areas are then further developed according to the seven layers covered by UNDP (UNDP, 2007a). In parenthesis we indicate the number of standards considered in each area (only a subset of which is shown in Fig. 32.2). eGIF4M (125) Networks and Infrastructure (39) Interconnection (20)

Security (19)

Network IP v4 IP v6 Directory LDAP v3 File transfer FTP HTTP v1.1 Mail transfer SMTP, POP3 Registry DNS Time NTP Messaging SOAP v1.2 VOIP SIP

Languages WSS SAML v2 xACML v2 Enc XML Network HTTPS SSL Messaging S/MIME PKI RFC2527 Smart cards ISO / IEC 7811 12/13

Process Interoperability (19)

Semantic Data Interoperability (67)

Web Services (19)

Standards for business areas (0)

Data Integration (20)

Metadata (22)

Information access and presentation (25)

Registry ebXML RS UDDI v3 Description WSDL BPEL Access SOAP v1.2 Messaging ebXMLmsg WSRM GeoServices WFS WMS CSW WCS Compliance WS-I

These standards have been distributed among the rest of the technical layers, e.g., WFS appears in the web services layer and HL7 is in the data integration layer. We kept this layer here for completness purpose as it has been used by UNDP.

Character sets ASCII UTF-8/16 Struct. data XML Data process. SAX DOM XSLT Xpath SQL Channel feeds RSS Busin. trans. UBL Health sector HL7

Data modeling UML ER RDF OWL SAWSDL DTD XMLS SQL DDL Name &Addr xNAL Cust. Rels. xCRL Busin. Rep. xBRL Naming URI URL

Document formats DOC, RTF, PDF, ODF Image formats GIF, PNG, JPEG, BMP Audio formats WAV, mp3, OGG Video formats DivX, mpeg, avi Web content HTML XHTML Compression ZIP, RAR

Fig. 32.2 Overview of the e-GIF4M standards

In Fig. 32.3 we provide a high-level mapping of the e-GIF4M standards onto the architecture layers. In particular, the interconnection standards are matched to both the channels layer and the common communication platform of GSB, thereby resulting in 1-to-n mapping. The Web services, data integration, metadata, and information access and presentation layers are matched to both the portals/application interfaces part of the services layer and the common information platform part of GSB, thereby resulting in n-to-n mapping. The mapping is done similarly for the security standards. Notice that in Fig. 32.3, the “users” (meant as systems used by third parties to connect to the government services), the “services,” and the “existing systems by sectors” layer are left unmatched. The users are out of scope here, since we clearly do not have any control over them. Particular services, such as the land use services, are (composite) logical government functions, which are at a higher level than the technical standards. Once these functions have been formalized as processes the

650

P. Shvaiko et al.

Users

Private Sector

Channels

Interconnection (20)

… 1

Internet

…

Security (19)

2

Authentication and Authorization Services

3 Web Services (19)

Application Interfaces 4

Land Use services

…

Metadata (22)

6

Common Communication Platform (GovNet) Secured Transactions Existing Systems

System 4 (Legacy)

8

Process Inter-operability (19)

Data Integration (20)

5

Common Information Platform (process & data)

GSB

Networks and Infrastructure (39)

7

eGIF4M (125)

Semantic Data Interoperability (67)

access and presentation (25)

…

Fig. 32.3 Mapping e-GIF4M standards onto architecture

standards can be applied. Finally, heterogeneity of the existing systems is usually handled through the service bus. This is also the reason why the Web services, data integration, metadata, and information access and presentation standard layers are matched via n-to- m mappings to the corresponding back- and front-office parts of the architecture. In order to provide further technical details on the mappings between the e-GIF4M standards and the architecture, we now consider a scenario from the land management application following the path of eight items marked by numbers in rectangles in Fig. 32.3. Notice that items 1–5 can be grouped under the front-office heading, while items 6–8 represent back-office. Suppose there is a private company that provides mediator services for renting land parcels, and there is a farmer that wants to rent one for agricultural use with the help of this company (item 1). The farmer has several choices among various land parcels and, hence, asks the company first to provide the maps of the identified areas to study them in order to make an informed decision with respect to which land parcel to rent. To process the request of the farmer, the company uses Internet (item 2: IP v41 ), passes through the necessary authentication and authorization procedures (item 3: LDAP2 ), and interacts in a secured way (item 7: SAML3 ) via the exposed application interfaces (item 4: SOAP4 , WMS5 ) of the land use services of the government (item 5) with 1 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0791.txt 2 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1777.txt 3 http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=security 4 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-soap12-part1-20070427/ 5 http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wms

32


651

the E-land Registry system (item 8). In turn, item 6 provides the interoperability glue at the process, data, and infrastructure levels that is necessary to process the request. For example, to describe metadata about geo-data ISO 191156 is used; for describing metadata about geo-services ISO 191197 is used (as required by CSW8 ); a map request is handled with WMS, etc. This request requires integrating data from some other systems beside E-land Registry, such as the forestry cadaster. This is needed to check if the land parcel under consideration is in the forest area, which cannot be exploited for agricultural use. Finally notice that for each legacy system the adaptors have to be developed in order to use these systems under the government service bus. Some further technical details concerning geo-service integration can be found in (Vaccari, Shvaiko, & Marchese, 2009), and semantic heterogeneity reduction needed to establish adapters in (Euzenat & Shvaiko, 2007; Giunchiglia, Yatskevich, McNeill, Pane, Besana, & Shvaiko, 2008).

7 Organizational Implementation The organizational aspects of the e-GIF4M plan are meant to address the issues related to the actual implementation and also to the maintenance of the solution. They include the definition of – an organizational structure (§7.1), – a set of measurements to monitor the level of adoption of the interoperability framework (§7.2), – the definition of a life cycle for technical standards (§7.3).

7.1 Supporting the Development of the Interoperability Framework E-GIF4M includes a complex set of initiatives, which needs a well-defined crossdepartmental organization and clear horizontal processes to be managed and coordinated. To provide an appropriate support and governance, e-GIF4M is based on two organizational structures: – An inter-agency and inter-ministry committee responsible for defining the enforcement policies and the incentives for the diffusion of standards. The policies and standards, to be of any effect, have to be approved by a government’s authorized body; procedures and accountable people/agencies have to be individuated to make sure these are applied. 6 http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=26020 7 http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39890 8 http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/cat

652

P. Shvaiko et al.

– An operational group responsible for the execution of the e-GIF4M plan and reporting to the inter-agency committee. It includes the reference person accountable for the execution of the entire plan.

The operational group is accountable for maintenance of the information set (that is, all the documentation necessary for the interoperability initiative) and for the definition of the strategy/maintenance of the interoperability platform. The group, moreover, coordinates and provides support to ICT projects and to agencies related to interoperability. The operational group requires personnel with two complementary profiles: ICT architects and ICT project managers. The former are devoted to supporting all the technical aspects of e-GIF4M maintenance, including management of the standardization life cycle and supporting public administration agencies in the technical adoption of standards and guidelines, while the latter should be in charge of managing the government service bus, the case studies, and the enforcement of e-GIF4M in ICT government projects. Skills such as networking technologies, process analysis and re-engineering, data semantics, and integration are essential requirements that complement a clear understanding of Mozambique government central and local administrations. Figure 32.4 illustrates the main interactions and the main functions of the agencies responsible for the implementation of e-GIF4M (some functions and interactions are abstracted away). Rectangles represent organizational structures and rounded rectangles functions (or outputs). Functions of the operational group are guaranteed by the endorsement of the inter-agency committee on interoperability, which, in turn, is endorsed both by the government and by the agencies.

7.2 E-GIF4M Interoperability Maturity Model One important aspect of e-GIF4M is providing the ability to measure the level of adoption and diffusion of the interoperability framework. Such a capability, in fact, allows decision makers and the operational group to understand more precisely the level of adoption, the impact, and the success of e-GIF4M. Moreover, it allows them to plan actions meant to improve the delivery of services through the adoption of the interoperability framework. Various models exist to measure the maturity of organizations in developing systems, e.g., CMMI (CMMI, 2009), ISO/IEC 15504 (ISO/IEC 15504, 1998), Bootstrap (Kuvaja et al. 1994), and Trillium (Bell Canada, 1994). Others specifically measure the level of interoperability, see, e.g., (NETHA, 2007; University of Albany, 2005), the family of standards identified by SEI (C4ISR Interoperability

32


653

Endorsement

Government

Endorsement People

Government Agency

Inter-agency Committee

Endorsement eGIF coordination eGIF support

EGIF4M Operational Group

Data

eGIF coordination eGIF support

Updates Problems

Data

Information Set Maintains

Interoperability Platform Ownership Coordination

eGOV Project

eGIF Pilot Project

…

…

eGOV Project

eGIF Pilot Project

Fig. 32.4 E-GIF4M organizational structure

Working Group, 1998; Morris, Levine, Meyers, Plakosh, & Place, 2004; Tolk, & Muguira, 2003), as well as the surveys in (Software Engineering Institute, 2009; Kasunic & Anderson, 2004). All models share a common approach that is based on: – identification of the targets of evaluations, for which the maturity level has to be determined (for instance, an organization or a system); – a set of maturity levels (for instance, initial, managed, defined, measured, and optimized); – a set of goals that define what has to be measured (for instance, procedures, applications, infrastructures, and data). – a method to determine the maturity level. This can be accomplished, for instance, by assigning the maturity level demonstrated by the target of evaluation in achieving each goal. A transformation function, e.g., as a (weighted) average of the scores, can be used to determine the total level of maturity.

654

P. Shvaiko et al. Data Maturity Levels

System Maturity Levels Organization Maturity Levels

Technology Maturity Levels

5 Government Bus Data Sharing

5 Government Bus Integration

4 Data Sharing

4 Modularity/Reuse

3 Metadata Defined

3 Development Standards

2 Ownership and rights defined

2 Government-wide Technology

1 System Specific Data

1 System Specific Technology

Process Maturity

Infrastructure Maturity

4 Optimized

4 Integrated

3 Measured

3 Standard Based

2 Citizen-centric

2 Connected

1 Initial

1 Isolated

Fig. 32.5 E-GIF4M interoperability maturity model

The approach we propose in e-GIF4M, illustrated in Fig. 32.5, is based on an adaptation of some of the models described above to provide a measurement system which is closer to the needs of Mozambique. Specifically, the model has two targets of evaluation: (i) organizations, and (ii) software development (system) projects. Notice that targeting projects is a peculiarity of e-GIF4M, which allows to manage inter-departmental projects more easily and to raise awareness of interoperability as early as possible in the development cycle. The assessment of (software development) projects is performed on their artifacts (e.g., requirements, design, prototype, implementation) and is meant to measure two dimensions: level of data interoperability (for which we revised the Conceptual Interoperability levels of the LISI approach (Tolk & Muguira, 2003)) and technical maturity, meant as the level of adoption of standard technologies for the development (for which we devised specific goals, being loosely inspired by the work in NETHA (2007)). The assessment of organizations is based on the PAID attributes (Process, Applications, Infrastructure, and Data) of the LISI model. For the process and the infrastructure we adapted the LISI model, whereas for the applications and the data attributes we reused the model adopted for projects. We expect various benefits from the adoption of the model, among which are the possibility of measuring the penetration of interoperability at different levels of granularity (government, agency, and systems), the identification of criticalities in the implementation of the framework, and raising awareness on interoperability opportunities and advantages.

32


655

7.3 Keeping the E-GIF4M Healthy In the longer term the initial standards defined for the various components of the architecture will have to evolve, e.g., to better accommodate changing requirements of the government and changing technologies. However, uncontrolled evolution of the standards could end up with the same situation we started from, namely a patchwork of non-interoperable systems. To allow a disciplined approach to change, e-GIF4M, similar to other interoperability initiatives, defines a life cycle for standards. The life cycle builds on top of the work in (UNDP, 2008) and includes the following states (see also Fig. 32.6):

Current

Emerging

Future

Assessed

Fading

Possible

Remaining

Mandatory

Disappearing

Experimented

Fig. 32.6 E-GIF4M interoperability maturity model

Emerging: It includes all the standards that the government is considering for introduction. – Future. It encompasses all the standards that are not in use in the government (and not included in any of the states below)—no matter what the reason is (not needed, future consideration, and so on). – Assessed. The standard has been evaluated and approved by the e-GIF4M task force for experimental introduction, though is not yet in use. – Experimented. An assessed standard has been deployed and it is in use in a controlled environment (e.g., in the scope of a new project; by some government agencies). The experimentation has the goal of assessing usefulness of the standard. The standard runs in parallel with other current standards. A deadline is defined for a final assessment and evaluation, which will lead to a change of state (e.g., from experimented to future; from experimented to current). Current: It includes all the standards that the government is currently using. We distinguish two levels that encode the prescription for the standard. – Possible. It refers to a standard that can be used for data and services. Adoption is not compulsory. A standard can be kept in this state to, e.g., improve flexibility (not all the agencies have the possibility of switching to a corresponding mandatory standard, or it might not make sense for them to switch to the standard), while, at the same time, moving toward a common reference framework.

656

P. Shvaiko et al.

– Mandatory. The standard is officially adopted. Government bodies are required to deliver services and documents using the mandatory format.

Fading: It includes all the standards that are not in use anymore. When a format is in the fading state, no new document or service can be produced in the faded format. Furthermore, we distinguish two sub-cases, according to the policy chosen for historical data:

– Disappearing. Government bodies are required to migrate all data to the new format. A deadline is set for the migration. – Remaining. Old data do not need to be migrated. The government ensures the readability of the format by maintaining support for the applications that handle the corresponding data.

8 The Plan The roadmap for the implementation of the interoperability framework in Mozambique starts from the following assumptions:

– Scope: Full top-down implementation of the architecture requires a significant effort. We envisage, instead, an incremental approach, through the definition of a few (one or two) significant case studies, whose selection is driven by Mozambique’s strategic priorities (e.g., civil identification and land use services), and whose implementation will be based on a few selected delivery channels, such as Internet and one-stop shop. This should facilitate the early adoption of the framework. – Coherence of the architecture: Maintaining coherence, simplicity, and efficiency of the architecture requires clear ownership in the setting up of the vision and in the definition of the strategic lines of development. For this reason a specific task force within a suitable government unit has to be responsible and accountable for its development. – Migration: In order to be of any use, legacy systems will have to converge (technically, e.g., via adaptors) on the government service bus. The framework uses the maturity model as a tool to measure compliance of the projects with the vision; defines technical standards to which projects migrate and proposes managerial standards (e.g., minimal technical documentation) that will also allow to have third parties migrate solutions, if necessary.

For the reasons mentioned above, the e-GIF4M implementation plan is structured as illustrated in Fig. 32.7. In particular, after an initial setup (including the approval

32

E-government Interoperability Framework Setup

657

eGIF Architecture

Handover and Operations Case Study

Systemic Actions

Fig. 32.7 Overview of the e-GIF4M plan

from the government of Mozambique of the initiative—approval that was given in August 2009), three different sets of actions are carried out in parallel9 : – development of the e-GIF architecture, during which the interoperability platform will be built according to the technical guidelines described above. – identification, selection, and execution of a set of case studies. The case studies serve as pilots for the migration of government systems to the interoperability platform. These allow us to deliver results incrementally and to define customized policies for the integration in the e-GIF architecture. – in parallel to the two other sets of activities, a set of systemic actions helps monitoring and fostering the development of e-GIF4M. Finally, the completion of the architecture and of an initial set of case studies will allow us to move onto an “operations” phase, that will include maintenance of the system and the inclusion of the remaining systems, based on the experience obtained with the “case studies.” Of a particular interest are the policies chosen for the case studies and the systemic actions; we describe these in more detail in the next two subsections.

8.1 Integration in the E-GIF4M Platform An analysis of the ICT initiatives in Mozambique revealed a heterogeneous situation with respect to the maturity of the projects. This, in turn calls for an adaptive strategy for the integration of the projects into the framework.

9 Notice that we are abstracting away some logical dependencies in the plan, most notably, between the development of the interoperability architecture and the case studies.

658

P. Shvaiko et al.

We distinguish in particular three different levels of maturity, to which we have three corresponding levels of integration: – For the most mature initiatives the goal is that of building the critical mass to develop and evolve common systems and functionalities to serve multiple agencies. From the e-GIF point of view, it is important to align these projects with the interoperability framework by providing functionalities of those projects as e-government services and integrate them with the government service bus by exposing the corresponding implementations of those services. In this way e-GIF4M tests its deployment in mature, ongoing project without risking their objectives but providing medium–long-term benefits in terms of cost and maintenance of the ICT solutions. – In the case of ICT initiatives started but not yet consolidated and integrated, the goals are to increase the users and stakeholders and to define common standards and processes that need to be used in order to reduce the manual activities, thus avoiding data duplication and inconsistency. In particular, the aspect of common data formats and data sharing among IT systems is the most critical in these cases. Systems in these areas need to be migrated to the government service bus and to be re-implemented as services also to be used by other departments. – In the case of the less mature initiatives, integration in the framework can proceed from the beginning. In fact, by developing these systems on top of the government service bus, we would reuse the skills made available on the technologies already in place and simplify the integration with the current infrastructures and solutions while adopting standard approaches and make possible cross-processes among public administrations and ministries.

8.2 Systemic Actions Maintenance in the longer term of the interoperability solution is based on the creation of the environmental conditions that help fostering the solution. Therefore, two systemic actions are envisaged in the plan: – Dissemination, networking, and higher education. One of the key issues in implementing a sustainable e-GIF initiative in a developing country like Mozambique is to enhance the skills of the local players, both in the public and private sector, and to better connect them with international initiatives. The plan for dissemination, higher education, and mobility initiatives in e-GIF4M therefore includes aspects related to increasing national and international visibility of e-GIF4M and the definition of exchange programs between Mozambique’s and international universities. – Living lab to connect user institutions, research centers, and local companies. To combine some of the actions previously described and to create a stable infrastructure in which public initiatives, education, and private companies

32


659

can exchange experiences, e-GIF4M is strongly tied to the Maputo Living Lab (LLM) initiative that has recently become part of the European network of Living Labs10 . This is a system for building future economy in which real-life usercentric research and innovation will be a normal co-creation technique for new products, services, and societal infrastructure. We expect LLM to become the reference point for the strengthening of national and international networking of local companies and the place for the exchange of best practices.

9 Next Steps The Council of Ministers of Mozambique approved the final version of the e-GIF4M on 18th August 2009 with the following recommendations: 1. develop the e-GIF4M detailed implementation plan with clear identification of actors, roles, and responsibilities; 2. propose the technological solution or choice for the government service bus; 3. present the detailed project description of each of the pilot projects proposed; 4. propose a document with the initial standards and protocols to be adopted by the government of Mozambique during the first phase; 5. reorganize UTICT (ICT Policy Implementation Technical Unit), as the appointed EGIF4M Operational Unit for the implementation of the e-GIF4M, with the capacity to address this new challenge. The Council of Ministers adopted the e-government Interoperability Framework Reference Architecture and the proposed standards. The e-GIF4M pilot projects identified areas related to the implementation of the following four services using the e-GIF4M framework: – Civil identification services; – Services provided at the one-stop shop for the public services called Balcões de Atendimento Único—BAUs; – District services for economic activities; – Administrative court approval of public employee contracts. This work will be strongly linked with the public sector reform initiatives, in particular those focused in streamlining and simplification of service delivery to the citizens.

10 http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/

660

P. Shvaiko et al.

10 Conclusions Several frameworks have been proposed and adopted by different countries to address issues and costs due to the lack of interoperability in public agencies and in government’s ICT systems. Approaches and scope vary quite a bit, to reflect the different allocation of responsibilities between central and peripheral agencies, the level of automation, and the maturity of e-government services. In this chapter we have introduced the e-GIF basics and overviewed various e-GIFs in the world. Then, we discussed the main issues and opportunities characterizing developing countries’ e-GIFs. Moreover, we illustrated the principal actions we envisage for the implementation of e-GIF4M, part of a wider Mozambique’s e-government initiative whose implementation started in 1998. The framework is based on several key actions (implementation of the government service bus, monitoring, and control through the interoperability maturity levels) and on a set of wider-scope actions, such as living labs. All actions are based on the definition of technical standards to adopt and of their life cycle, coherently with what happen in various other e-GIFs, but their combination and their priorities are tailored to the specific characteristic of a developing country. We therefore drew general implications from the empirical e-GIF4M experiences which can be useful also for the other countries in the world at similar stage and speed of development. We expect various benefits from the adoption of the framework in this context, among which the main is governing a transition to more interoperable solutions, while, at the same time, allowing for a certain independence in the choice and development of ICT solutions, which is one of the priorities of countries that are quickly introducing ICT technologies and services to automate the government processes. The possibility of measuring the penetration of interoperability at different levels of granularity (government, agency, etc.) and using the information to guide decision making, the increased efficiency coming from the implementation of a citizen-centric government (for whose implementation interoperability is essential), together with the broader actions suggested in the framework, constitute a further opportunity to sustain and accelerate the growth of these countries which, in the last years, have experienced a steady economical growth. Acknowledgments This work was funded by the Italian Cooperation. We appreciate support and useful suggestions from Fausto Giunchiglia, and the Common Communication Platform and Interoperability Framework Working Group of Mozambique on the themes of the chapter.

References Banerjee, P., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2004). An evaluative framework for analysing e-government convergence capability in developing countries. Journal of Electronic Government, 1(1), 29–48. Bell Canada. (1994). The trillium model. Available at: http://www.sqi.gu.edu.au/trillium/. Last retrieved, July 13, 2010. Bundesministerium des Innern (2003). Standards and architectures for e-government applications. KBSt Publication Series ISSN 0179-7263 Volume 59. Available at http://www. apdip.net/projects/gif/country/GE-GIF.pdf. Last retrieved 13 July 2010.

32


661

C4ISR Interoperability Working Group. (1998). Levels of Information Systems Interoperability (LISI). Department of Defense. cc:eGov (2007). A handbook for citizen-centric eGovernment. Available at http://www. ccegov.eu/downloads/Handbook_Final_031207.pdf. Last retrieved 13 July 2010. Chemane, L., Taula, R., & Carrilho, S. (2006). MCDM framework and the selection of network topology – GovNet case study. Proceedings of IST-Africa. CMM. (2006). Council of Ministers. Public sector reform strategy. Council of Ministers Publication, Maputo, Mozambique. CMMI (2009). Software Engineering Institute. Capability maturity model integration. Available at http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/. Last retrieved 13 July 2010. Euzenat, J., & Shvaiko, P. (2007). Ontology matching. Berlin: Springer. Giunchiglia, F., Yatskevich, M., McNeill, F., Pane, J., Besana, P., & Shvaiko, P. (2008). Approximate structure preserving semantic matching. Proceedings of ODBASE. Gov3 (2006). Citizen centric government – Global best practices in delivering agile public services to citizen and business. Available at http://www.cstransform.com/white_papers/ CitizenServiceTransformationV1.pdf. Last retrieved 13 July 2010. Government of South Africa (2007). Minimum interoperability standards (MIOS) for information systems in government. Available at http://www.i-gov.org/images/articles/4760/ MIOS_V4.1_final.pdf. Last retrieved 13 July 2010. Gottschalk, P., & Solli-Sather, H. (2008). Stages of e-government interoperability. Journal of Electronic Government, 5(3): 310–320. ISO/IEC 15504 (1998): Information technology – software process assessment – part 7 : Guide for use in process improvement. Kasunic, M., & Anderson, W. (2004). Measuring systems interoperability: Challenges and opportunities. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2004-TN-003, Software Engineering Institute. Kuvaja, P., Simila, J., Krzanik, L., Bicego, A., Koch, G., & Saukonen S. (1994). Software process assessment and improvement: the BOOTSTRAP approach. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Mapsanganhe, S., & Chemane, L. (2007). GovNet e-mail system capacity planning. In Proc. of IST-Africa. Marcucci, L., Kluzer, S., Nicolini, A. & Cimander R. (2006). ICAR – a system for e-enabled cooperation among regional, local and national administrations in Italy. European Commission. Available at http://www.egov-iop.ifib.de/downloads/GPC_ICAR_Italy.pdf. Last retrieved 13 July 2010. Morris, E., Levine, L., Meyers, C., Plakosh, D., & Place, P. (2004). Systems of systems interoperability. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2004-TR-004, ESC-TR-2004-004, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. NETHA. (2007). Interoperability Maturity Model. National E-Health Transition Authority Ltd. NZ (2008). New Zealand e-government interoperability framework. Available at http://www. e.govt.nz/standards/e-gif/e-gif-v-3/e-gif-v-3-total.pdf. Last retrieved 13 July 2010. Shvaiko, P., Villafiorita, A., Zorer, A., Chemane, L., Fumo, T., & Hinkkanen, J. (2009). eGIF4M: eGovernment Interoperability Framework for Mozambique. In Proc. of EGOV. Software Engineering Institute (2009). Guide to interoperability. Available at http://www. sei.cmu.edu/isis/guide/index.htm. Last retrieved 13 July 2010. Tolk, A., & Muguira, J. A. (2003). The levels of conceptual interoperability model. In Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, Florida. United Nations. (2008). UN e-Government Survey 2008. From e-Government to Connected Governance. Technical Report ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/112. UNDP. (2007a). e-Government Interoperability: A Review of government Interoperability Frameworks in Selected Countries. UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok. UNDP. (2007b). e-Government Interoperability: Guide. UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok. UNDP. (2007c). e-Government Interoperability: Overview. UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok. UNDP. (2008). e-Government Interoperability: e-Primers for the Information Economy, Society and Policy. UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok.

662

P. Shvaiko et al.

University of Albany. (2005). Sharing justice information: A capability assessment toolkit. UTICT. (2000). Estrategia da politica de informatica em Mocambique. UTICT Publication, Government of Mozambique, Maputo, Mozambique. Vaccari, L., Shvaiko, P., & Marchese, M. (2009). A geo-service semantic integration in spatial data infrastructures. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 4, 24–51. Weerakkody, V. Dwivedi, Y. K., Brooks, L., Williams, M. D., & Mwange A. (2007). E-government implementation in Zambia: Contributing factors. Journal of Electronic Government, 4(4), 484–508.

Index

Note: Page numbers followed by “f” and “t” refer to figures and tables respectively. Appendix is given with the word “app” after the page number. A “Accordi di Programma,” 192 Accountability, 563–564 and performance e-government affecting, 565–567 influence of e-government on, 570–575 systems, types of, 553f Accountability, performance and e-government: European Union countries government, 561–562 accountability, 563–564 accountability and performance, e-government affecting, 565–567 influence of e-government on accountability and performance, 570–575 performance in public sector, 564–565 public sector, e-government development in, 567 e-government European outputs, 569–570 EU’s strategies and actors for e-government, 568–569 evolution of e-government in European Union, 567–568 Achievements, 565 ADELE program, 579 app Administrative culture and countries, 596t Adoption of e-government: India, 371–372 e-government, 373–374 research methodology, 377 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), 379–383 regression analysis, 384–385 reliability and multicollinearity assessment, 383–384

sample selection and data collection, 377–378 statistical analysis, 379 results and discussion, 385–386 theoretical framework, 374–377 Adoption of e-government by disadvantaged groups, US/UK, 201–203 accessiblility of government web sites, 208 UK, 209 US, 209–210 barriers to internet use, 205 internet and e-government usage by disadvantaged groups UK, 203–204 US, 204–205 legal requirements and policy guidance on web accessibility, 206 UK, 206–207 US, 207–208 web content accessibility guidelines, 207 policies and initiatives UK, 210–213 US, 213–216 Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), 166 Africa e-government maturity over 10 years, 10–11 top-ten internet countries, 269f population of, 268f “Aire urbaine,” 224 Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], 1988, 208 Analysis, 624 Anglo-leasing scandal, 263–264 Argentina, e-government maturity over 10 years, 18

C.G. Reddick (ed.), Comparative E-Government, Integrated Series in Information Systems 25, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-6536-3, C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

663

664 Asia, e-government maturity over 10 years, 12–13 ATI laws, developing nations with/without e-government readiness, political rights, and civil liberties in, 533f e-participation in, 534f human capital in, 535f telecommunication infrastructure in, 536f web measure in, 533f Australia, e-government maturity over 10 years, 13–14 Austrian Federal Government, federal ICT strategy, milestones, 576–577 app “Avanza2,” 582 app B Bahrain, e-participation in, 80–81 Balkans, impact and adoption of e-government services in, 92–95 basket of e-services, 97 defuzzification methods, 99–100 e-government adoption across Balkans business services, 109 citizen services, 109 discussion, 109–111 sophistication stage of services, 106–108 evaluation metrics, 103 average gained time I, 103–104 average gained time II, 104–105 average gained time III, 105–106 defuzzification, 106 expressing time with fuzzy numbers, 100–101 forming time matrices, 102–103 fuzzy numbers, 98–99 linguistics and fuzzy set theory, 98 sophistication of e-government services, 95–96 Bangladesh citizen/e-government interaction, local government level, 30 e-government strategies of, 27–28t Bangladesh Computer Council (BCC), 30 Barbados e-government development in, 322t status of enabling environment for ICTs in, 321t Barriers for e-government interactions, 293t Basket of services for businesses, 97t for citizens, 97t

Index Beijing’s business e-park, success of, 121–122 vs. Nanhai, 121–122 Belgian federated approach, 185 Bhoomi (India) e-government recommendations for, 131–132t objectives, 126 success of, 125–126 Bisector of Area (BOA), 100 Blogs (Web 2.0), 168 “Bobby 5.0,” 209 Brazil e-government maturity over 10 years, 18 technological adoption of privatised e-government, 299–301 privatisation of telecommunications, 305–307 “relationships improvement” agenda, 307–309 “services improvement” agenda, 301–305 Budget transparency, 588 “BundOnline 2005,” 222 “Business meets government,” 228–229 C Canada compared to Mexico and US, 146 digital government in, 144–145 e-government and federalism co-ordinating e-government across jurisdictions, 189–191 political and fiscal federalism in Canada and Italy, 186–187 e-government maturity over 10 years, 17 five themes, digital government, 157t understanding priorities in, 146 comparing countries, 148 objectives, 146–148 projects, 150–152 strategies, 149–150 understanding priorities in Mexico/US and, 146 comparing the countries, 148 objectives, 146–148 projects, 150–152 strategies, 149–150 Canadian government, Web 2.0 adoption by, 161–164 adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and US governments, 174–175 frequency of use of, 171t methodology, 166

Index comparable Web 2.0 technologies, rationale and definitions, 168–170 evolution of web 2.0, 166–167 Web 2.0/Web 1.0, differences between, 167–168 results, 170 government agencies adopting Web 2.0, 170–171 US government agencies adopting Web 2.0, 171–174 theoretical overview, 164–166 Center of Gravity (COG), 99 CFA, factor loading for, 380–381 Challenges of effective e-governance: Kenya, 259–260 background, 260–262 anglo-leasing scandal and Kibaki’s reform, 263–264 history, 262–263 e-governance in Kenya, 264–265 discussions and recommendations, 270 infrastructure, penetration, and connectivity, 268–269 M-PESA—mobile money transfer, 267–268 seeking transparency, 266–267 research directions, 270–271 Challenges of e-governance in small, developing society: Trinidad/Tobago, 313 background, 313–314 digital access, 327–328 fragmentation of ICT Units and lethargy of public sector, 324–325 funding, 322–324 introducing e-government, 317–319 introduction of policy, 319–322 private-sector partnerships, 325–326 reform of public sector in Trinidad/Tobago and public management, 314–316 Challenging e-journey along silk road, 115–117 China: case studies comparative analysis of Beijing and Nanhai, 123–124 Nanhai’s district-level e-government, 123 success of Beijing’s business e-park, 121–122 factors for successful e-government, 118–119 Heeks’ design-reality gap model, 120

665 infoDev and e-government in developing countries, 119 India: case studies analysis and comparison, 129–130 failure of Gyandoot, 126–128 impact, analysis, and comparison, 128–129 success of Bhoomi, 125–126 role in development, 117–118 Chief Information Officer Branch (CIOB), 154 China, e-government (case studies) comparative analysis of Beijing and Nanhai, 123–124 Nanhai’s district-level e-government, 123 success of Beijing’s business e-park, 121–122 China, e-governments, compared to Heeks’ ITPOSMO Model, 133–135t CINTEC, 35 Cities’ internet sites according to population and geographical segments, frequencies and percentages of, 623t “Citizen-centric projects,” 11 Citizen/e-government interaction, local government level, 26–36 Bangladesh, 30 India, 31 Korea, republic of, 32 Pakistan, 33 Sri Lanka, 35–36 Citizen Service Center (KEP), 94 City of Helsinki project, 85 Closed cycle process renovation of South Korean e-government strategy, 29f “Collaborative” political federalism, 186–187 Collective intelligence (CI) theory, 164–165 CompraNet, 151 Connecting the UK: the Digital Strategy, 210 Construct reliability and variance, 383t “Cross-Government Enterprise Architecture (xGEA),” 357 Crossroads Bank for Social Security (CBSS), 185 Current e-government system to future e-government system, paradigm shift of, 43f “Cyber Korea 21,” 32 D Declaranet, 151 DeclaraSat, 151

666 Defuzzification, 106 methods, 99–100 Demographic information, descriptive statistics of, 379 Department of Electronics (DoE), 31 “Design-Reality Gap” model, 115 Developing country: e-government interoperability framework, 639–641 analysis of ICT initiatives in Mozambique, 646 e-GIF4M, 646–647 interoperability frameworks, 641–644 interoperability in developing countries, 644–645 organizational implementation, 651 E-GIF4M interoperability maturity model, 652–654 keeping E-GIF4M healthy, 655–656 supporting development of interoperability framework, 651–652 plan, 656–657 integration in E-GIF4M platform, 657–658 systemic actions, 658–659 technical implementation, 647 e-GIF4M service delivery architecture, 647–648 technical standards, 649–651 Developing nations definied, 530 e-government and political indicators in, 525–526 data and findings, 529–537 discussion, 537–538 literature review, 527–529 online services, accessible publications, searchable databases, and foreign languages on government Web sites in, 536t Developing nations with/without ATI laws e-government readiness, political rights, and civil liberties in, 532f e-participation in, 534f human capital in, 535f telecommunication infrastructure in, 536f web measure in, 533f Developing society, e-governance in: Trinidad/Tobago, 313 background, 313–314 digital access, 327–328

Index fragmentation of ICT Units and lethargy of public sector, 324–325 funding, 322–324 introducing e-government, 317–319 introduction of policy, 319–322 private-sector partnerships, 325–326 reform of public sector in Trinidad/Tobago and public management, 314–316 Dichotomous and scale additive index components, website usability, 486t “Digital Bangladesh,” 26 Digital Britain, 203 Digital Britain Report, 210 Digital government, 141 understanding, 140–142 Digital government in North America, 140 budget priorities, 153–154 country overviews, 143 Canada, 144–145 comparing three countries, 146 Mexico, 143–144 US, 145 IT governance, 154–155 research design and methods, 142–143 understanding digital government, 140–142 understanding priorities in Canada, Mexico and US, 146 comparing the countries, 148 objectives, 146–148 projects, 150–152 strategies, 149–150 Diplopedia (US foreign affairs agencies within the State Department), 173 Disability equality duty, 206–207 Disadvantaged groups using e-government, US/UK, 201–203 accessiblility of government web sites, 208 UK, 209 US, 209–210 barriers to internet use, 205 internet and e-government usage by disadvantaged groups UK, 203–204 US, 204–205 legal requirements and policy guidance on web accessibility, 206 UK, 206–207 US, 207–208 web content accessibility guidelines, 207 policies and initiatives UK, 210–213 US, 213–216

Index E “EASSY,” 269 Economic Management and Technical Assistance Program (EMTAP), 30 E-GIF initiatives, selected, 643t E-GIF4M, 646–647 interoperability maturity model, 654–656, 654f–655f keeping, healthy, 655–656 organizational structure, 653f plan, 657f platform, integration in, 657–658 service delivery architecture, 649–650, 648f standards, 649f E-governance challenges in, see Challenges of effective e-governance: Kenya; Challenges of e-governance in small, developing society: Trinidad/Tobago; Challenging e-journey along silk road in developing countries, see Developing country: e-government interoperability framework; Developing nations; Developing society, e-governance in: Trinidad/Tobago factors affecting, and their source, 75t see also Digital government E-governance/e-participation, social media for advent and potential of social media, 551–552 gathering citizens’ views and concerns, 555–556 participatory budgeting, 554 problem reporting and follow-up, 554–555 uncovering public sector information, 556–557 E-government accountability and performance, 571–573t accountability mechanisms for implementation of strategies, 575t adoption, 355 advantages, 118 defenition, 5, 162–163, 410 development in Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Jamaica, 322t elements of, 333t five levels of sophistication in, 96t focus on efficiency or effectiveness by e-government strategies, 576t

667 framework, four-dimensional, 42f implementation strategies, integrating different, 234f in improving services, potential of, 404t index values for MENA countries, 65t and information and communication technologies (ICTs), 72 initiatives, advantages and challenges related to, 8t readiness, political rights, and civil liberties in developing countries with/without ATI law, 532f readiness index 2008, 343t services, reasons impeding use of, 348 stages of, vertical and horizontal integration, 6f strategic plans, 366–367t, app strategies of selected countries of study, 27–28t E-government adoption by governments: Greece, 353–355 background, 356–358 greek case, 358–360 investigating e-government adoption, 360–364 E-government Adoption-Citizen Intention Model, 377f revised model, 386f E-government adoption landscape Zambia, 241–244 adoption model in Zambia, 253f conceptual framework of e-government e-government maturity models, 244 issues and challenges for e-government implementation, 244–247 e-government adoption models, 247–249 issues status of citizen, 249–251 regulatory and institutional frameworks, 251–254 E-government and federalism in Italy and Canada, 183–185 comparative assessment, 195–197 co-ordinating e-government across jurisdictions, 189 Canada, 189–191 Italy, 192–195 political and fiscal federalism in Canada and Italy, 186 Canada, 186–187 Italy, 188–189 “E-government code,” 192 E-government Handbook for Developing Countries, 119

668 E-government in India, conceptualizing/ implementation, 391–393 analysis and status, 401–402 barriers to e-government, 402–403 conceptualization of e-government, 393–394 familiarity factors, 395 infrastructural factors, 394–395 political factors, 394 e-government plan, 396 key components, 396–398 mission mode projects, 398–399 impact assessment, 403–404 implementing e-government plan, 399 funding plan, 399 institutional setup for implementation, 399–400 role of private sector, 400–401 method, 393 recommendations for Bhoomi and Gyandoot, 131–132t significant perceived barriers to, 405t E-government in New Zealand, 505–506 digital divides, local governments and marginalised people, 519–520 elderly (case), 518 homeless (case), 518 intellectually impaired (case), 517 local government websites, 515–516 marginalised New Zealanders, 510–511 digital divide, 511 user issues, 511–512 multiple disabilities (case), 516–517 New Zealand’s national digital strategy, 506–510 research method, 514–516 theoretical framework, 512 boundary conditions and marginalisation, 512–513 e-readiness maturity model for local governments in New Zealand, 513–514 social informatics, 512 uncertainty, 513 E-government interoperability framework: developing country, 639–641 analysis of ICT initiatives in Mozambique, 646 e-GIF4M, 646–647 interoperability frameworks, 641–644 interoperability in developing countries, 644–645 organizational implementation, 651

Index E-GIF4M interoperability maturity model, 652–654 keeping E-GIF4M healthy, 655–656 supporting development of interoperability framework, 651–652 plan, 656–657 integration in E-GIF4M platform, 657–658 systemic actions, 658–659 technical implementation, 647 e-GIF4M service delivery architecture, 647–648 technical standards, 649–651 E-government in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, 409–410 challenges and future issues, 420–421 country background information, 411–412 e-government in Cyprus, 413–415 importance of e-government concept, 410–411 organization of e-government in Northern Cyprus, 416 legal infrastructure for e-government, 417–418 organizational structure, 417 Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus government websites, 418–420 reasons for considering case of Northern Cyprus, 412–413 reasons for e-government adoption, 415–416 E-government maturity model (2001), 9f update, 10f E-government maturity over 10 years, 3–5 background, 5–6 stages of e-government, 6–8 challenges for e-government, 19–20 country comparison, 8–10 Africa, 10–11 Asia, 12–13 Australia, 13–14 Europe, 14–16 North America, 16–17 South America, 17–18 emerging trends in e-government, 18–19 “E-Government 2.0 programme,” 581 app E-government services in Balkans, impact and adoption of, 92–95 basket of e-services, 97 defuzzification methods, 99–100 e-government adoption across Balkans business services, 109

Index citizen services, 109 discussion, 109–111 sophistication stage of services, 106–108 evaluation metrics, 103 average gained time I, 103–104 average gained time II, 104–105 average gained time III, 105–106 defuzzification, 106 expressing time with fuzzy numbers, 100–101 forming time matrices, 102–103 fuzzy numbers, 98–99 linguistics and fuzzy set theory, 98 sophistication of e-government services, 95–96 E-government transformation in Turkey, 331–332 concept of e-government, 332–334 e-government, 334–336 e-government’s problems, 348–350 studies and project in Turkey’s local governments, 342–343 studies and projects in Turkey’s ministries, 336–342 Turkish e-government analyses with statistics, 343–347 E-government websites by body/institution responsible for their contents, distribution of, 59f categorized into four levels of e-government development, percentage of, 64f comparative study of contents of, 50–52 e-government challenges faced by MENA nations, 54–55 e-government for better governance in MENA nations, 53–54 e-government indices for MENA nations, 64 features available on e-government websites, 62–63 ICT in MENA nations, 52–53 methods, 57–58 online executable services, 63 public private partnerships (PPP) in MENA nations for e-government, 55–56 results and discussion, 58 role of comparative research in MENA countries’ e-government adoption, 56–57 service types, 61–62

669 stages of development of e-government services, 63–64 types of e-government websites, 58–61 undesired outcome of widespread ICTs in MENA nations, 53 features available on, 62–63 of MENA countries, features available on, 60f online executable services, 63 sample of, 57 service types, 61–62 stages of development of services, 63–64 types of, 58–61 EGov online service developments, stages of, 436 EGov services, standardisation of, 435–437 Egypt e-participation in, 77–79 population and internet users, 268f E-participation in developing nations with/without ATI laws, 534f e-government in Bahrain, 80–81 in Egypt, 77–79 in Estonia, 81–83 in Finland, 83–85 initiatives, recommendations for, 550t landscape of barriers to e-participation, 547–549 citizen participation and e-participation taxonomies, 544–545 citizen participation/e-participation, 543–544 critical factors for e-participation, 546–547 e-participation state of play, 545–546 synthesis of key recommendations for e-participation projects, 549–551 in Middle East and Northern Europe, 71–72 background, 72–77 e-participation in Bahrain, 80–81 e-participation in Egypt, 77–79 e-participation in Estonia, 81–83 e-participation in Finland, 83–85 Epractice.eu, survey of, 443f E-readiness maturity, 508t E-readiness index evolution within European Union countries (2003–2008), 289t

670 E-readiness (cont.) maturity model for local governments in New Zealand, 513–514 E-service projects, tenders for, 364 “E-Sri Lanka” project, 35 Estonia, e-participation in, 81–83 Europe, 14–16 e-government maturity over 10 years, 221–235 electronic public services for citizens and businesses in, 570t metropolitan area Rhine-Neckar, local e-government, 14–16 Europeanization, 283–284 European metropolitan area Rhine-Neckar, 228f local e-government, 221–224 definition PF (European) metropolitan areas, 224–226 interpretations and limitations of results, 232–234 results, 230–232 setup and research methodology, 227–229 European metropolitan areas in Germany, 227t European Union comparison of sophistication and full online availability, 569t e-government factsheet, 568t e-readiness index evolution within, 289t evolution e-government, 567–568 European Union countries, OECD budgetary transparency, 587–589 differences in public administration styles in Europe, 589–592 empirical research description of research methodology, 594–596 results analysis, 597–601 study sample, 596 international experiences for fiscal and budget transparency, 592–594 European Union countries government: performance, accountability and e-government, 561–562 accountability, 563–564 accountability and performance, e-government affecting, 565–567 influence of e-government on accountability and performance, 570–575 performance in public sector, 564–565 public sector, e-government development in, 567

Index e-government European outputs, 569–570 EU’s strategies and actors for e-government, 568–569 evolution of e-government in European Union, 567–568 Evaluation metrics for selected countries business services, 109t citizen services, 109t F Federalism in Italy and Canada, e-government and, 183–185 comparative assessment, 195–197 co-ordinating e-government across jurisdictions, 189 Canada, 189–191 Italy, 192–195 political and fiscal federalism in Canada and Italy, 186 Canada, 186–187 Italy, 188–189 “Federated architectures,” 183, 189 “Federation,” 183 Finnish local government services on internet, 615–616 broad and narrow issues in e-service provision, 616–620 content framework and questions, 620–624 empirical evidence context, data and methods, 624–626 results, 626–630 e-participation, 83–85 Five-tier local e-government organizational structure, 37f Four-dimensional e-government framework, 42f Four-layer e-government operational strategies, 42t French e-government strategy, 579 app Fuzzy and crisp values of evaluation metrics for case of Slovenia business services, 109t citizen services, 108t Fuzzy numbers, 98–99 expressing time with, 100–101 forming time matrices, 102–103 linguistics and relations between, 101t uzzy set theory, 98 Fuzzy set theory, 98 Fuzzy triangular number, 99f

Index G GCPEDIA, 170, 174 Germany e-government implementation, 581 app e-government maturity over 10 years, 15–16 European metropolitan areas in, 227t GIS, evolutionary waves of, 454f GIS-based monitors, learning with, 480t GIS-based monitors (learning): Netherlands, 467–468 empirical findings, 472 case-studies, 472–473 current functions of GIS-based monitors, 473–474 learning barriers, 475–477 learning conditions, 474–475 learning levels, 477–478 functions of GIS-based monitors, 478 GIS-based monitoring, 468–470 theoretical framework, 470 cultural approach, 471–472 political approach, 471 rational approach, 470–471 research strategy, 472 GOL initiative, 151 GovBenefits.gov, 215 Government agencies, IT expenditures, 303t Governmental agencies to interact with using digital means (preferred), 291t Government ministry websites, usability of Trinidad and Tobago, 483–484 findings, 490 accessibility accommodations, 496–497 information architecture, 496 legitimacy, 495 navigation, 494–495 overview, 490–494 methodology, 485–486 other divide and website usability, 484–485 usability distributions of pilot portal site, 497–499 website usability: dimensions and variables, 487–488 Government On-Line (GOL), 17, 153 Government web sites, accessiblility of, 208 barriers to internet use, 205 legal requirements and policy guidance on, 206 web content accessibility guidelines, 207 Greece, e-government adoption by governments, 353–355 background, 356–358

671 greek case, 358–360 investigating e-government adoption, 360–364 Gyandoot (India) e-government recommendations for, 131–132t failure of, 126–128 objectives of, 127 H Heeks’ design-reality gap model, 120 Heeks’ ITPOSMO Model, e-governments in China and India compared to, 133–135t Helsinki at Your Service vision for 2013, 85 Human capital in developing nations with/without ATI laws, 535f I “I2010—A European Information Society for growth and employment,” 92 ICTs densities in 2007, 254t evolution of investment as a percentage of total budget, 278f personnel, 279f initiatives in Mozambique, analysis of, 646 in MENA nations, 52–53 profile of, 51t undesired outcome of widespread, 53 in Trinidad and Tobago allocations for implementation and strengthening of, 323t status of enabling environment for, 321t India citizen/e-government interaction, local government level, 31 e-government maturity over 10 years, 12 e-governments, compared to Heeks’ ITPOSMO Model, 133–135t e-government strategies of, 27–28t India, conceptualizing and implementation of e-government in, 391–393 analysis and status, 401–402 barriers to e-government, 402–403 conceptualization of e-government, 393–394 familiarity factors, 395 infrastructural factors, 394–395 political factors, 394 e-government plan, 396 key components, 396–398 mission mode projects, 398–399

672 India, conceptualizing (cont.) impact assessment, 403–404 implementing e-government plan, 399 funding plan, 399 institutional setup for implementation, 399–400 role of private sector, 400–401 method, 393 India, e-government (case studies) analysis and comparison, 129–130 failure of Gyandoot, 126–128 framework of, 38 impact, analysis, and comparison, 128–129 success of Bhoomi, 125–126 InfoDev and e-government in developing countries, 119 Information society and e-government in Spain, strategic action plans for, 281t “Innovation Directive,” 192 Institutional factors affecting online governance, 73f “Integrative continuum,” 184 Intellipedia (US intelligence community), 173 Internally focused communication, 176 Internet cities’ according to population and geographical segments, frequencies and percentages of, 621t score averages for different municipal groups according to content analysis, 623t probability to interact with government using, 294t types of interactions with public agencies using, 292t use of, Turkey, 345f users of social networks as percentage of using, 553f users of Web 2.0 services as percentage of using, 553f using for administrative interactions benefits, 290t inconveniences, 291t using percentage anywhere, by age and income UK, 204f US, 204f Investment climate, 326t Italy e-government and federalism

Index co-ordinating e-government across jurisdictions, 192–195 political and fiscal federalism in Canada and Italy, 188–189 e-government strategy, 584 app IT governance, 154–155 ITPOSMO framework, 120 e-governments in China and India compared to Heeks’, 133–135 J Jamaica e-government development in, 322t status of enabling environment for ICTs in, 321t K “KamuNet” (Public Network), 417 Kenya e-government maturity over 10 years, 11 population and internet users, 268f Kenya, challenges of effective e-governance, 259–260 background, 260–262 anglo-leasing scandal and Kibaki’s reform, 263–264 history, 262–263 e-governance in Kenya, 264–265 discussions and recommendations, 270 infrastructure, penetration, and connectivity, 268–269 M-PESA—mobile money transfer, 267–268 seeking transparency, 266–267 research directions, 270–271 Kibaki’s reform, 263–264 Kiosks, 127 Korea, republic of citizen/e-government interaction, local government level, 32 L Landscape of e-participation barriers to e-participation, 547–549 citizen participation and e-participation taxonomies, 544–545 citizen participation/e-participation, 543–544 critical factors for e-participation, 546–547 e-participation state of play, 545–546 synthesis of key recommendations for e-participation projects, 549–551 Latent constructs, model fit indices of, 382t

Index Learning with GIS-based monitors: Netherlands, 467–468 empirical findings, 472 case-studies, 472–473 current functions of GIS-based monitors, 473–474 learning barriers, 475–477 learning conditions, 474–475 learning levels, 477–478 functions of GIS-based monitors, 478 GIS-based monitoring, 468–470 theoretical framework, 470 cultural approach, 471–472 political approach, 471 rational approach, 470–471 research strategy, 472 Linguistics fuzzy numbers and fuzzy set theory, 98t relations between, 101t Local government, 24 concept of, 39f implementation: European metropolitan area Rhine-Neckar, 221–224 definition PF (European) metropolitan areas, 224–226 interpretations and limitations of results, 232–234 results, 230–232 setup and research methodology, 227–229 level, framework of e-governance at, 23–24 background, 24–26 citizen/e-government interaction, 26–36 recommendations, 39–41 services on internet, Finnish, 615–616 broad and narrow issues in e-service provision, 616–620 content framework and questions, 620–624 context, data and methods, 624–626 results, 626–630 websites (New Zealande), 515–516 Local level incorporating all stakeholders, increased partnership at, 40f M Mapping e-GIF4M standards onto architecture, 650f Mashups (Web 2.0), 169 MENA, see Middle East and North Africa (MENA)

673 MENA nations e-government better governance, 53–54 challenges faced by, 54–55 indices for, 64 public private partnerships (PPP) in, 55–56 role of comparative research in, 56–57 undesired outcome of widespread ICTs in, 53 e-government index values for, 65t features available on e-government websites of, 60f ICT profile of, 51t Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, 225 Metropolitan area, 224 Metropolitan area networks (MAN) projects, tenders concerning, 363 “Metropolitan statistical area” (MSA), 225 Mexico compared to Canada and US, 146 digital government in, 143–144 five themes, digital government, 155t understanding priorities in Canada and US, 146 comparing the countries, 148 objectives, 146–148 projects, 150–152 strategies, 149–150 Microblogs (Web 2.0), 169 Middle East, e-participation in, 71–72 background, 72–77 e-participation in Bahrain, 80–81 e-participation in Egypt, 77–79 Middle East and North Africa (MENA), 49 Ministry and pilot portal sites, overall number of usability variables for, 498t Model fit indices of latent constructs, 382t Modernising Government, 202 Monitoring, 469 M-PESA—mobile money transfer, 267–268 Myguide, 211 N Nanhai’s district-level e-government, 123 vs. Beijing, 123 National Computer Policy of 1983 (COMPOL), 35 National E-governance Plan of India, priority projects under, 403t National Implementation Programme (NUP), 583t

674 National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)/Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), 152 Natural Resources, Energy and Science Authority of Sri Lanka (NARESA), 35 Netherlands empirical findings, 472 case-studies, 472–473 current functions of GIS-based monitors, 473–474 learning barriers, 475–477 learning conditions, 474–475 learning levels, 477–478 functions of GIS-based monitors, 478 GIS-based monitoring, 467–470 government’s action program, 583 app theoretical framework, 470 cultural approach, 471–472 political approach, 471 rational approach, 470–471 research strategy, 472 New Zealand, e-government in, 505–506 digital divides, local governments and marginalised people, 519–520 elderly (case), 518 government digital strategy targets, 507–508t homeless (case), 518 intellectually impaired (case), 517 local government websites, 515–516 marginalised New Zealanders, 510–511 digital divide, 511 user issues, 511–512 maturity over 10 years, 13–14 multiple disabilities (case), 516–517 national digital strategy, 506–510 New Zealand’s national digital strategy, 506–510 research method, 514–516 theoretical framework, 512 boundary conditions and marginalisation, 512–513 e-readiness maturity model for local governments in New Zealand, 513–514 social informatics, 512 uncertainty, 513 Nigeria e-government maturity over 10 years, 11 population and internet users, 268f North America, digital government in, 140

Index budget priorities, 153–154 country overviews, 143 Canada, 144–145 comparing three countries, 146 Mexico, 143–144 US, 145 e-government maturity over 10 years, 16–17 IT governance, 154–155 research design and methods, 142–143 understanding digital government, 140–142 understanding priorities in Canada, Mexico and US, 146 comparing the countries, 148 objectives, 146–148 projects, 150–152 strategies, 149–150 Northern Europe, e-participation in e-participation in Estonia, 81–83 e-participation in Finland, 83–85 Norway, white Paper on ICT-policy, 581 app O OECD budgetary transparency: European Union countries, 587–589 best practices for, budget reports in, 593f differences in public administration styles in Europe, 589–592 empirical research description of research methodology, 594–596 results analysis, 597–601 study sample, 596 first-level report coincidence: the online disclosure mean of budgetary reports, 598f first-level section coincidence: online disclosure percentage of budgetary reports, 597f international experiences for fiscal and budget transparency, 592–594 second-level report coincidence: the online content of budgetary reports, 600f second-level section coincidence: online content of budgetary reports, 599f OECD countries, drivers for information and data-sharing, 344t OECD detail about budget reports on internet, availability of information, 604–612 app OMB MAX Federal Community (Executive Branch personnel to collaborate on budget issues), 173

Index OMB USAspending.gov Requirements Community, 173 Online governance factors affecting radar plot of scaled values for institutional, 76f institutional factors affecting, 73f Online services accessibility accommodation usability scores for websites, 496t accessible publications, searchable databases, and foreign languages on government Web sites in developing nations, 536t information architecture usability scores for websites, 496t legitimacy usability scores for websites, 495t navigation usability scores for websites, 494t operational definitions variables for, 487t variables for accessibility accommodations, 490t variables for information architecture, 489t variables for legitimacy, 489t variables for navigation, 488t variables for user-help, 488t overall number of usability variables for best practice sites, 492t usability scores for websites, 493t P “Pact for E-Government Development,” 195 Pakistan e-government maturity over 10 years, 12–13 e-government strategies of, 27–28t Pakistan Telecommunications (Re-organization) Act, 33 Participatory budgeting, 554 PCs 70 diffusion in governmental settings, evolution of, 280f Perceived usefulness, 165 Performance, accountability and e-government: European Union countries government, 561–562 accountability, 563–564 accountability and performance, e-government affecting, 565–567 influence of e-government on accountability and performance, 570–575

675 performance in public sector, 564–565 public sector, e-government development in, 567 e-government European outputs, 569–570 EU’s strategies and actors for e-government, 568–569 evolution of e-government in European Union, 567–568 Performance expectancy, 248 Podcasts (Web 2.0), 169 Political indicators in developing nations, e-government and, 525–526 data and findings, 529–537 discussion, 537–538 literature review, 527–529 Politics of e-government in Spain, 275–277 basic attributes, 280 electronic certification and identification policy, 288 Europeanization, 283–284 ICTs management norms and regulation, 286–287 organizational structure, 284–285 people, 285–286 strategy, 281–283 first steps of computerization in Spanish central government, 277–280 social demand for e-services and public opinion about e-government, 288–294 Portuguese e-government strategy, 578 app PPGIS themes for local e-government, implications of, 462t Privatised e-government, technological adoption of: Brazil, 299–301 privatisation of telecommunications, 305–307 “relationships improvement” agenda, 307–309 “services improvement” agenda, 301–305 Public participation geographic information systems, 449–450 evolution of technology, 452 traditional desktop-based GIS, 452 Web GIS, 452–454 overview, 450–452 PPGIS themes, 454 empowerment, 460–461 institutional structure of participatory decision-making processes, 458–459

676 Public participation geographic (cont.) significance of context, 455–456 technical GIS concerns, 456–458 Public private partnerships (PPP) in MENA nations, 55–56 Public sector e-government development in, 567 e-government European outputs, 569–570 EU’s strategies and actors for e-government, 568–569 evolution of e-government in European Union, 567–568 performance in, 564–565 R Really Simple Syndication (RSS) (Web 2.0), 169 Rhine-Neckar, European metropolitan area, 228f S SCRAN, web-services, 441f SCRAN’s development of Trans-national Comparator, 425–426 academic networking of SmartCities, 426 configuring smartcities triple helix, 429 inverting normal representation and “turning things upside down,” 431–433 SCRAN as three-way partnership, 426 SCRAN’s take on triple helix, 428–429 step-wise logic, 429–431 triple helix, 426–428 network, 438–439 main areas of site, 442–443 shared enterprise and joint venture, 439 web-services, 440–442 workspaces, 440 reaching above baseline, 433 measurement, 433–434 standardisation of eGov services, 435–437 transformative business-to-citizen applications across north sea, 437–438 trans-national comparator, 434–435 “SEACOM,” 269 Section 508 Legislation (US), 207–208 Service orientation, 358 Singapore citizen/e-government interaction, local government level, 34

Index e-government strategies of, 27–28t Singapore’s National Computer Board (NCB), 34 SmartCities, 425 partner(s), academic organisation of, 427f triple helix of, 430f Wiki, 442f SmartCities, academic networking of, 426 configuring smartcities triple helix, 429 inverting normal representation and “turning things upside down,” 431–433 SCRAN as three-way partnership, 426 SCRAN’s take on triple helix, 428–429 step-wise logic, 429–431 triple helix, 426–428 SmartCities 2, triple helix of, 432f Socializing e-governance, 543 landscape of e-participation barriers to e-participation, 547–549 citizen participation and e-participation taxonomies, 544–545 citizen participation/e-participation, 543–544 critical factors for e-participation, 546–547 e-participation state of play, 545–546 synthesis of key recommendations for e-participation projects, 549–551 social media for e-governance/ e-participation advent and potential of social media, 551–552 gathering citizens’ views and concerns, 555–556 participatory budgeting, 554 problem reporting and follow-up, 554–555 uncovering public sector information, 556–557 Social media for e-governance/e-participation advent and potential of social media, 551–552 gathering citizens’ views and concerns, 555–556 participatory budgeting, 554 problem reporting and follow-up, 554–555 uncovering public sector information, 556–557 Social networking sites (Web 2.0), 169 Soochana Kosh, 128 Soochanalayas, see Kiosks

Index Sophistication in e-government, five levels of, 96t Sophistication stage utilization percentage per business services, 108t citizen services, 107t Sophistication stage for five countries business services, 107t citizen services, 107t South America, e-government maturity over 10 years, 17–18 South Korea e-government framework of, 38f e-government strategies of, 27–28t closed cycle process renovation of, 29f Spain, politics of e-government in, 275–277 basic attributes, 280 electronic certification and identification policy, 288 Europeanization, 283–284 ICTs management norms and regulation, 286–287 organizational structure, 284–285 people, 285–286 strategy, 281–283 e-government strategy, 582 app first steps of computerization in Spanish central government, 277–280 social demand for e-services and public opinion about e-government, 288–294 strategic action plans for, information society, 281t Sri Lanka citizen/e-government interaction, local government level, 35–36 e-government strategies of, 27–28t, 29f “Standard metropolitan statistical area” (SMSA), 225 Strategic plan, implementation method of, 354 Successful e-government, factors for, 118–119 Heeks’ design-reality gap model, 120 infoDev and e-government in developing countries, 119 Sweden, action plan for e-government, 579–580 app T TC1 index, 595 TC2 index, 596 “TEAMS,” 269 Technological adoption of privatised e-government: Brazil, 299–301

677 privatisation of telecommunications, 305–307 “relationships improvement” agenda, 307–309 “services improvement” agenda, 301–305 Technology acceptance model (TAM), 164–165 Telecommunication infrastructure in developing nations with/without ATI laws, 536f Time matrix for businesses, 103t for citizens, 102t forming, 102–103 Tobago allocations for implementation and strengthening of ICTs in, 323t e-government development in, 322t government ministries, 502t app government ministry websites, see Trinidad/Tobago government ministry websites, usability of status of enabling environment for ICTs in, 321t “Today I Decide plus” (TID+), 81–82 “Today I Decide” (TID) project, 81 Traditional desktop-based GIS, 452 Trans-national comparator, 434–435 academic networking of SmartCities, 426 configuring smartcities triple helix, 429 inverting normal representation and “turning things upside down,” 431–433 SCRAN as three-way partnership, 426 SCRAN’s take on triple helix, 428–429 step-wise logic, 429–431 triple helix, 426–428 network, 438–439 main areas of site, 442–443 shared enterprise and joint venture, 439 web-services, 440–442 workspaces, 440 reaching above baseline, 433 measurement, 433–434 standardisation of eGov services, 435–437 transformative business-to-citizen applications across north sea, 437–438 trans-national comparator, 434–435 SCRAN’s development of, 425–426 Transparency, 266

678 Trinidad allocations for implementation and strengthening of ICTs in, 323t e-government development in, 322t government ministries, 502t app status of enabling environment for ICTs in, 321t Trinidad/Tobago government ministry websites, usability of, 483–484 findings, 490 accessibility accommodations, 496–497 information architecture, 496 legitimacy, 495 navigation, 494–495 overview, 490–494 methodology, 485–486 other divide and website usability, 484–485 usability distributions of pilot portal site, 497–499 website usability: dimensions and variables, 487–488 Triple helix of SmartCities, 430f TT government benchmark websites for usability dimensions, 500t ministry and portal websites, usability index for, 493t portal scale variables raw scores and usability performance, 499t Turkey attaining computing course, 346f internet, using, 345f activities of enterprises, 347f activities of household individuals, 347f Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, e-government in, 409–410 challenges and future issues, 420–421 country background information, 411–412 e-government in Cyprus, 413–415 importance of e-government concept, 410–411 organization of e-government in Northern Cyprus, 416 legal infrastructure for e-government, 417–418 organizational structure, 417 Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus government websites, 418–420 reasons for considering case of Northern Cyprus, 412–413

Index reasons for e-government adoption, 415–416 technology ownership in, 414t URLs of central government ministries and agencies, 419t URLs of local government units and their unions, 420t “Tweeple,” 171 Twitter, 171 U UK adoption of e-government by disadvantaged groups accessiblility of government web sites, 209 internet and e-government usage by disadvantaged groups, 203–204 legal requirements and policy guidance on web accessibility, 206–207 policies and initiatives, 210–213 community projects, 212–213 digital literacy, 213 e-government maturity over 10 years, 15 e-government strategy, 578 app home internet access, 212 improving web usability, 213 Myguide, 211 online centres, 211–212 percentages using Internet anywhere, by age and income, 204f United Kingdom, see UK United nations e-readiness index evolution within European Union countries (2003–2008), 289t United States, see US US adoption of e-government by disadvantaged groups accessiblility of government web sites, 209–210 city-wide broadband and digital inclusion strategies, 214–215 improving web usability, 215–216 internet and e-government usage by disadvantaged groups, 204–205 legal requirements and policy guidance on web accessibility, 207–208 policies and initiatives, 213–216 public libraries, role in using e-government, 214

Index compared to Canada and Mexico, 146 digital government in, 145 e-government maturity over 10 years, 16–17 five themes, digital government, 157t governments, frequency of use of, Web 2.0 tools for levels of, 172t percentages using Internet anywhere, by age and income, 204f understanding priorities in Canada/Mexico and, 146 comparing the countries, 148 objectives, 146–148 projects, 150–152 strategies, 149–150 US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Practitioner’s Handbook, 173 User-help usability scores for websites, 493t US governments, Web 2.0 adoption by, 161–164 adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and US governments, 174–175 methodology, 166 comparable Web 2.0 technologies, rationale and definitions, 168–170 evolution of web 2.0, 166–167 Web 2.0/Web 1.0, differences between, 167–168 results, 170 government agencies adopting Web 2.0, 170–171 US government agencies adopting Web 2.0, 171–174 theoretical overview, 164–166 USGSA’s USA Services Intergovernmental Collaborative Work Environment (incubator space for 20 intergovernmental communities), 173 V Video sharing (Web 2.0), 169 “Virtual dustbin,” 309 W Web 2.0, 162, 167 adoption by US cities, counties, and states, 174t framework, 176 technologies in government, framework for adoption of, 177–178t tools for levels of Canadian governments, frequency of use of, 171t

679 for levels of US governments, frequency of use of, 172t vs. Web 1.0, differences between, 167–168 Wikis, 169 Web 2.0 adoption by Canadian and US governments, 161–164 adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and US governments, 174–175 methodology, 166 comparable Web 2.0 technologies, rationale and definitions, 168–170 evolution of web 2.0, 166–167 Web 2.0/Web 1.0, differences between, 167–168 results, 170 government agencies adopting Web 2.0, 170–171 US government agencies adopting Web 2.0, 171–174 theoretical overview, 164–166 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), 206–207 Web GIS, 452–454 Web measure in developing nations with/without ATI laws, 533f Web measure index, phases of, 7 Websites (e-government) accessibility accommodation usability scores for, 496t in developing nations, online services, accessible publications, searchable databases, and foreign languages on government, 536t features available on, 62–63 information architecture usability scores for, 496t legitimacy usability scores for, 495t ministry and pilot portal sites, overall number of usability variables for, 498t navigation usability scores for, 494t online executable services, 63 online services usability scores for, 493t sample of, 57 service types, 61–62 stages of development of services, 63–64 types of, 58–61 usability dichotomous and scale additive index components, 486t user-help usability scores for, 493t see also Government web sites, accessiblility of

680 Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0, 168 Wikis, government agencies using, 173 Wired-up communities [WuC] project, 212 Z Zambia, e-government adoption landscape, 241–244 conceptual framework of e-government e-government maturity models, 244

Index issues and challenges for e-government implementation, 244–247 e-government adoption model in, 253f e-government adoption models, 247–249 ICT densities in 2007, 254t internet penetration in, and neighboring countries region, 250t issues status of citizen, 249–251 regulatory and institutional frameworks, 251–254 Zhongguancun E-park, 122

Comparative E-Government (Integrated Series in Information Systems 25)

Metagraphs and Their Applications (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Design Research in Information Systems: Theory and Practice (Integrated Series in Information Systems, 22)

Sports Data Mining (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Information Security Policies and Actions in Modern Integrated Systems

Information Security Policies and Actions in Modern Integrated Systems

Information Systems Action Research: An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

The Dynamics of International Information Systems: Anatomy of a Grounded Theory Investigation (Integrated Series in Information Systems, 23)

Information Systems Action Research: An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Medical Informatics: Knowledge Management and Data Mining in Biomedicine (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Integrated Construction Information

Economics and Information Systems, Volume 1 (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems)

National Security, Volume 2 (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems)

Comparative Information Technology

Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations (John Wiley Series in Information Systems)

E-Business Management: Integration of Web Technologies with Business Models (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Infectious Disease Informatics: Syndromic Surveillance for Public Health and Bio-Defense (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Logical Data Modeling: What it is and How to do it (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Infectious Disease Informatics and Biosurveillance (Integrated Series in Information Systems, Vol. 27)

Logical Data Modeling: What it is and How to do it (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Terrorism Informatics: Knowledge Management and Data Mining for Homeland Security (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Infectious Disease Informatics: Syndromic Surveillance for Public Health and Bio-Defense (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Information Systems for Emergency Management (Advances in Management Information Systems)

Planning for Information Systems (Advances in Management Information Systems)

Pervasive Information Systems (Advances in Management Information Systems)

Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems (John Wiley Series in Information Systems)

Temporal Information Systems in Medicine

Geographic Information Systems in Business

Geographic Information Systems in Business

Advances in Intelligent Information Systems

Cases on Strategic Information Systems (Cases on Information Technology Series)

Comparative E-Government (Integrated Series in Information Systems 25)

Metagraphs and Their Applications (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Design Research in Information Systems: Theory and Practice (Integrated Series in Information Systems, 22)

Sports Data Mining (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Information Security Policies and Actions in Modern Integrated Systems

Information Security Policies and Actions in Modern Integrated Systems

Information Systems Action Research: An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

The Dynamics of International Information Systems: Anatomy of a Grounded Theory Investigation (Integrated Series in Information Systems, 23)

Information Systems Action Research: An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Medical Informatics: Knowledge Management and Data Mining in Biomedicine (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Integrated Construction Information

Economics and Information Systems, Volume 1 (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems)

National Security, Volume 2 (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems)

Comparative Information Technology

Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations (John Wiley Series in Information Systems)

E-Business Management: Integration of Web Technologies with Business Models (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Infectious Disease Informatics: Syndromic Surveillance for Public Health and Bio-Defense (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Logical Data Modeling: What it is and How to do it (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Infectious Disease Informatics and Biosurveillance (Integrated Series in Information Systems, Vol. 27)

Logical Data Modeling: What it is and How to do it (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Terrorism Informatics: Knowledge Management and Data Mining for Homeland Security (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Infectious Disease Informatics: Syndromic Surveillance for Public Health and Bio-Defense (Integrated Series in Information Systems)

Information Systems for Emergency Management (Advances in Management Information Systems)

Planning for Information Systems (Advances in Management Information Systems)

Pervasive Information Systems (Advances in Management Information Systems)

Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems (John Wiley Series in Information Systems)

Temporal Information Systems in Medicine

Geographic Information Systems in Business

Geographic Information Systems in Business

Advances in Intelligent Information Systems

Cases on Strategic Information Systems (Cases on Information Technology Series)

Recommend Documents