e-government
e-Government (short for electronic government, also known as e-gov, digital government, online government or transformational government) is a diffused neologism used to refer to the use of information and communication technology to provide and improve government services, transactions and interactions with citizens, businesses, and other arms of government.
Delivery models and activities of e-Government
The primary delivery models of e-Government can be divided into:
- Government-to-Citizen or Government-to-Customer (G2C)
- Government-to-Business (G2B)
- Government-to-Government (G2G)
- Government-to-Employees (G2E)
Within each of these interaction domains, four kinds of activities take place[1][2]:
- pushing information over the Internet, e.g: regulatory services, general holidays, public hearing schedules, issue briefs, notifications, etc.
- two-way communications between the agency and the citizen, a business, or another government agency. In this model, users can engage in dialogue with agencies and post problems, comments, or requests to the agency.
- conducting transactions, e.g: lodging tax returns, applying for services and grants.
- governance, e.g: online polling, voting, and campaigning.
Non-internet e-Government
While e-government is often thought of as "online government" or "Internet-based government," many non-Internet "electronic government" technologies can be used in this context. Some non-Internet forms include telephone, fax, PDA, SMS text messaging, MMS, wireless networks and services, Bluetooth, CCTV, tracking systems, RFID, biometric identification, road traffic management and regulatory enforcement, identity cards, smart cards and other NFC applications; polling station technology (where non-online e-voting is being considered), TV and radio-based delivery of government services, email, online community facilities, newsgroups and electronic mailing lists, online chat, and instant messaging technologies.
Potential benefits and risks of e-Government
Risks
There are many considerations and potential implications of implementing and designing e-government, including disintermediation of the government and its citizens, impacts on economic, social, and political factors, and disturbances to the status quo in these areas. [3]
Hyper-surveillance
Increased contact between government and its citizens goes both ways. Once e-government begins to develop and become more sophisticated, citizens will be forced to interact electronically with the government on a larger scale. This could potentially lead to a lack of privacy for civilians as their government obtains more and more information on them. In a worse case scenario, with so much information being passed electronically between government and civilians, a totalitarian-like system could develop. When the government has easy access to countless information on its citizens, personal privacy is lost.[4][5]
Cost
Although “a prodigious amount of money has been spent” on the development and implementation of e-government, some say it has yielded only a mediocre product. The outcomes and effects of trial Internet-based governments are often difficult to gauge or unsatisfactory.[6]
Inaccessibility
An e-government site that provides web access and support often does not offer the “potential to reach many users including those who live in remote areas, are homebound, have low English proficiency, exist on poverty line incomes, suffer from chronic illness, are single parents or older adults.”[7]
False sense of transparency and accountability
Opponents of e-government argue that online governmental transparency is dubious because it is maintained by the governments themselves. Information can be added or removed from the public eye (i.e. the Internet) with or without public notice. For example, after the World Trade Center in New York City was attacked on September 11, 2001, United States federal officials removed a large amount of government information from its websites in the name of national security. This act went relatively unnoticed by United States citizens. To this day, very few organizations monitor and provide accountability for these modifications. Those that do so, like the United States’ OMBWatch[1] and Government Accountability Project, are often nonprofit volunteers. Even the governments themselves do not always keep track of the information they insert and delete.[8]
Benefits
The anticipated benefits of e-government include efficiency, improved services, better accessibility of public services, and more transparency and accountability.[9]
Democratization
One goal of e-government will be greater citizen participation in the nation’s capital. Through the internet, people from all over the country can interact with politicians and make their voices heard. Blogging and interactive surveys will allow politicians to see the views of the people they represent on any given issue. Moderated chat rooms can place citizens in real-time contact with elected officials and their offices, allowing voters to have a direct impact and influence in their government. These technologies can create a more transparent government, allowing voters to immediately see how and why their representation in the capital is voting the way they are. This helps voters better decide who to vote for in the future. A government could theoretically move more towards a true democracy with the proper application of e-government. Government transparency will give insight to the public on how decisions are made and hold elected officials accountable for their actions. The public could become a direct and prominent influence in government legislature to some degree.[10][11][12][13]
Environmental bonuses
Proponents of e-government argue that online government services would lessen the need for hard copy forms.[14] Due to recent pressures from environmentalist groups, the media, and the public, some governments and organizations have turned to the Internet to reduce this paper use. The United States government utilizes the website http://www.forms.gov to provide “internal government forms for federal employees” and thus “produce significant savings in paper.[15]
Speed, efficiency, and convenience
E-government allows citizens to interact with computers to achieve objectives at any time and any location, and eliminates the necessity for physical travel to government agents sitting behind desks and windows. Improved accounting and record keeping can be noted through computerization, and information and forms can be easily accessed, equaling quicker processing time. On the administrative side, access to help find or retrieve files and linked information can now be stored in databases versus hardcopies stored in various locations. Individuals with disabilities or conditions no longer have to be mobile to be active in government and can be in the comfort of their own homes.[16][17]
Public approval
Recent trials of e-government have been met with acceptance and eagerness from the public.[18][19] Citizens participate in online discussions of political issues with increasing frequency, and young people, who traditionally display minimal interest in government affairs, are drawn to e-voting procedures.
Although internet-based governmental programs have been criticized for lack of reliable privacy policies, studies have shown that people value prosecution of offenders over personal confidentiality. Ninety percent of United States adults approve of Internet tracking systems of criminals, and fifty-seven percent are willing to forgo some of their personal internet privacy if it leads to the prosecution of criminals or terrorists.[20]
Technology-specific e-Government
There are also some technology-specific sub-categories of e-government, such as m-government (mobile government), u-government (ubiquitous government), and g-government (GIS/GPS applications for e-government).
UN e-Government Readiness Index
The United Nations conduct an annual e-Government survey which includes a section titled e-Government Readiness. It is a comparative ranking of the countries of the world according to two primary indicators: i) the state of e-government readiness; and ii) the extent of e-participation. Constructing a model for the measurement of digitized services, the Survey assesses the 191 member states of the UN according to a quantitative composite index of e-government readiness based on website assessment; telecommunication infrastructure and human resource endowment.
The following is the list of the top 50 countries according to the UN's 2008 e-Government Readiness Index.[21]
| Rank | Country | Index |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Sweden |
0.9157 |
| 2 |  Denmark |
0.9134 |
| 3 |  Norway |
0.8921 |
| 4 |  United States |
0.8644 |
| 5 |  Netherlands |
0.8631 |
| 6 |  South Korea |
0.8317 |
| 7 |  Canada |
0.8172 |
| 8 |  Australia |
0.8108 |
| 9 |  France |
0.8038 |
| 10 |  United Kingdom |
0.7872 |
| 11 |  Japan |
0.7703 |
| 12 |  Switzerland |
0.7626 |
| 13 |  Estonia |
0.7600 |
| 14 |  Luxembourg |
0.7512 |
| 15 |  Finland |
0.7488 |
| 16 |  Austria |
0.7428 |
| 17 |  Israel |
0.7393 |
| 18 |  New Zealand |
0.7392 |
| 19 |  Ireland |
0.7296 |
| 20 |  Spain |
0.7228 |
| 21 |  Iceland |
0.7176 |
| 22 |  Germany |
0.7136 |
| 23 |  Singapore |
0.7009 |
| 24 |  Belgium |
0.6779 |
| 25 |  Czech Republic |
0.6696 |
| 26 |  Slovenia |
0.6681 |
| 27 |  Italy |
0.6680 |
| 28 |  Lithuania |
0.6617 |
| 29 |  Malta |
0.6582 |
| 30 |  Hungary |
0.6494 |
| 31 |  Portugal |
0.6479 |
| 32 |  United Arab Emirates |
0.6301 |
| 33 |  Poland |
0.6134 |
| 34 |  Malaysia |
0.6063 |
| 35 |  Cyprus |
0.6019 |
| 36 |  Latvia |
0.5944 |
| 37 |  Mexico |
0.5893 |
| 38 |  Slovakia |
0.5889 |
| 39 |  Argentina |
0.5844 |
| 40 |  Chile |
0.5819 |
| 41 |  Ukraine |
0.5728 |
| 42 |  Bahrain |
0.5723 |
| 43 |  Bulgaria |
0.5719 |
| 44 |  Greece |
0.5718 |
| 45 |  Brazil |
0.5679 |
| 46 |  Barbados |
0.5667 |
| 47 |  Croatia |
0.5650 |
| 48 |  Uruguay |
0.5645 |
| 49 |  Liechtenstein |
0.5486 |
| 50 |  Jordan |
0.5480 |
See also
{{Top}} may refer to:
- {{Collapse top}}
- {{Archive top}}
- {{Hidden archive top}}
- {{Afd top}}
- {{Discussion top}}
- {{Tfd top}}
- {{Top icon}}
- {{Top text}}
- {{Cfd top}}
- {{Rfd top}}
- {{Skip to top}}
If an internal transclusion led you here, you may wish to change it to point directly to the intended page.
{{Template disambiguation}} should never be transcluded in the main namespace.
- Digital Government Society of North America
- E-democracy
- Electronic voting
- E-Authentication
- E-participation
- E-Government Unit
- eRulemaking
- E-procurement
- Electronic services delivery
- IDABC
- Knowledge policy
- Online consultation
- Online deliberation
- Open source governance
- SEMIC.EU
- Transformational Government
- National Center for Digital Governance
- Privacy
- Identity document
- Egovernment factsheets
References
- ^ Mary Maureen Brown. "Electronic Government" Jack Rabin (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, Marcel Dekker,2003.pp.427-432.
- ^ Shailendra C. Jain Palvia and Sushil S. Sharma (2007). "E-Government and E-Governance: Definitions/Domain Framework and Status around the World" (PDF). ICEG. Retrieved 2008-07-10.
- ^ Atkinson, Robert D.; Castro, Daniel (2008), Digital Quality of Life (PDF), The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, pp. 137–145
- ^ Lyman, Jay (2006-02-01). "AT&T Sued for Role in Aiding US Government Surveillance". TechNewsWorld. Retrieved 2009-02-28.
- ^ Singel, Ryan (2007-08-06). "Analysis: New Law Gives Government Six Months to Turn Internet and Phone Systems into Permanent Spying Architecture". Wired. Retrieved 2008-02-28.
- ^ "The pros and cons of e-government". The Economist. 2008-02-14. Retrieved 2009-02-28.
- ^ Becker, Shirley A. PhD. "Bridging Literacy, Language, and Cultural Divides to Promote Universal Usability of E-Government Websites" (PDF). Northern Arizona University. Retrieved 2009-03-03.
- ^ Chiger, Stephen (2002-09-11). "Has Terrorism Curtailed E-Government?". Medill News Service. Retrieved 2009-01-23.
- ^ Atkinson, Robert D.; Castro, Daniel (2008), Digital Quality of Life (PDF), The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, pp. 137–145
- ^ Sinrod, Eric J. (2004-06-30). "A look at the pros and cons of e-government". USA Today. Retrieved 2008-03-01.
- ^ Schrier, Bill (2008-10-17). "How Web 2.0 Will Transform Local Government". Digital Communities. Retrieved 2008-03-01.
- ^ "Transparency". Center for Democracy & Technology. Retrieved 2009-03-01.
- ^ Thorpe, Stephen. "Facilitating effective online participation in e-government". E-government in New Zealand. Retrieved 2009-03-01.
- ^ Dezayas, Heidi (2008-01-30). "So, how much paper does our local government use?". Penn-Trafford Star. Retrieved 2008-03-01.
- ^ "Report to Congress on the Benefits of the President's E-Government Initiatives ("Business Gateway," p. 50)" (PDF). 2009. Retrieved 2009-02-28.
- ^ Satyanarayana, J. E-Government: The Science of the Possible. India: Prentice Hall, 2004.
- ^ Nixon, Paul G.; Rawal, Rajash, Enabling Democracy? e-Government, Inclusion and Citizenship, The Hague University, pp. 281–290
- ^ "Study Finds Federal Gains in Electronic Government and Citizen Services; Challenges Remain". Bearing Point. 2007-04-26. Retrieved 2009-03-08.
- ^ Urdiales, C.; de Trazegnies, C.; Salceda, J. Vazquez; Sandoval, F., eGovernment and Identity Management: using Biometrics to Reduce the Digital Divide (PDF), University of Malaga, Spain; University of Utrecht, the Netherlands
- ^ Roy, Saumya (2002-03-12). "How Much Government Snooping Is Okay?". Medill News Service. Retrieved 2009-01-23.
- ^ http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028607.pdf
- Encyclopedia of Digital Government. Edited by Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko and Matti Mälkiä. Idea Group Reference.
- I. Kushchu and M. H. Kuscu (2003). "From e-Government to m-Government: Facing the Inevitable". The 3rd European Conference on e-Government. pp. 253–260.
{{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter|booktitle=ignored (|book-title=suggested) (help) - Cordella, A (2007), E-government: towards the e-bureaucratic form?, Journal of Information Technology, 22, 265–274.
- Foundations of e-Government. Edited by Ashok Agarwal and V Ventaka Ramana. ICEG'07 5th International Conference on e-Governance
- West, Darrell. State and Federal Electronic Government in the United States. The Brookings Institution. 2008-08-26. Retrieved on 2008-09-16.
- West, Darrell. Improving Technology Utilization in Electronic Government Around the World. The Brookings Institution. 2008-08-26. Retrieved on 2008-09-16.
External links
 | This October 2008's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. |
Official eGovernment websites
- ICT for Government - ICT for Government and Public Services, (Official eGovernment site of the European Commission).
- eGovernment Resource Centre (Official eGovernment Site of the Victorian State Government, Australia).
- IDABC (Interoperable Delivery of European eGovernment Services to public Administrations, Businesses and Citizens), European Commission.
- http://www.e.govt.nz/ The New Zealand State Services Commission's e-government site.
- http://www.bund.de Germany's federal government eGovernment services.
eGovernment news websites
- FutureGov — International news and interviews with policymakers, with a primary focus on Asia Pacific, and the Gulf States.
- eGov monitor — Daily news covering developments in UK and Europe, plus comprehensive weekly newsletter.
- UNPAN eGovernment News — news from UN Division for Public Administration on eGovernment worldwide.
- UN e-Government Readiness Knowledge Base a service from UNDESA
- DigitalGovernance.org Initiative site about electronic governance models applicable for developing countries.
- www.digital-government.net e-Government Portal
- E-Government Bulletin from Headstar in the UK. Fortnight email newsletter with features articles and plenty of pointers since 1998.
General resources
- ePractice.eu — Good practice exchange scheme with a web portal, weekly newsletter, country factsheets, online library, practitioner profiles, events calendar and monthly workshops created by the European Commission for the professional community in eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth.
- The Failure of E-Government in Developing Countries: A Literature Review. — Danish Dada, London School of Economics and Political Science
- IPOL - a portal on Internet and politics — Edited by UK academics and hosted by the University of Salford, includes primary and secondary research resources related to e-democracy, e-government and the use of the Internet by parliaments and assemblies.
- Government Computerization in the Open Directory Project
- The e-Government Imperative OECD e-Government Publications
- ICEG International Congress of e-Government