e Govrernance in Public

7/31/2019 e Govrernance in Public

1/28

The Occasional Papers are pub-

lished quarterly by NISPAcee and dis-

tributed together with the NISPAcee

Newsletter. The series launches

academic publications that discuss

results of policy research in differ-

ent elds of public administration.

It provides a forum for the analysis

and discussion of contemporaryproblems and possible solutions,

models and methods of public ad-

ministration and public policy with

assessments of empirical evidence

from regional experience in public

sector reform.

The main goal is to enhance the

quality and quantity of intellectual

exchange among researchers,

educators, scholars and practitio-ners dealing with major issues of

public administration and public

policy in the Central and East Euro-

pean regions.

Content

Vassilis Peristeras,

Theodore Tsekos

e-Governance as a Public

Policy Framework /p. 3

Wolfgang Drechsler

The Estonian e-Voting Laws

Discourse: ParadigmaticBenchmarking for Central

and Eastern Europe /p. 11

Marcin Sakowicz

How Should e-Government

Be Evaluated?

Different

Methodologies

and Methods /p. 18

occasional

Volume V

No 2 Spring 2004

papers


2/28

opyrig t y P cee

EditorBohdan Krawchenko, Ukrainian Academy of Public Administration, Office of the President ofUkraine, Kiev, Ukraine

Deputy EditorJuraj Sklenar, NISPAcee Secretariat, Bratislava, Slovakia

Editorial Board Membersngri i ova, n ormation entre o t e European nion, Bu gariavan a y, asary niversity, zec Repu ic

ic a ner, ca emy o ciences, zec Repu ico gang Drec s er, niversity o Tartu, Estoniazia i e a ze, eorgian Tec nica niversity, eorgiayorgy enei, Bu apest niversity o Economic ciences, ungaryo am osta a, aza stan nstitute o anage ic P anning, aza -ent, Economics an trate

stana i urzaev, ca emy o anagement, yrg yzstana is av Domar as, aunas Tec no ogica ni ersity, it uania

Pawe wianiewicz, niversity o arsaw, Po angniesz a Paw ows a, aria urie- o ows a nivers , o ana rie a eci ia tanciu escu, ca emy o Economic tu ies, Ro aniaergei Pus arev, ra tate n s ty, Russiai an Buce , niversity Economics, ova Repu ic

tan a etni ar- a ar, niversity o ju jana, oveniaDrago ju avr n, overnment o er ia, ugos avia

Engl sh Language EditorTo G. Williams, Acme Anvil Language Services, Hungary

Submissions

n re eva n puPapers s ou e written po icy issues ase on em-c a m n s ro epirica researc carri apers s ou not exceen entra an East European countries.

. aorty pages in en ree-page Eng isa paper is written in a anguage ot er t an Eng is ,tsummary s o o t e entiree su mitte wit a i iograp y an a escription o t e e

. aocume se ection oc aut or may propose two reviewers or t eir su mission, ut t eer r previ ica-is at t e iscretion o t e e itor. T ose aut ors w ose papers are se ecte

tion i receive a mo est onorarium.

anuscripts for submEditorial correspondence, includi ion, should be addressed to Mr. Juree Secretariat, Hanulova 5/B, P.O.Sklenar, deputy editor, NISP 163, 840 02 Bratislava 42,

ax: + ail: [email protected] - 428 5557, e-Slovak Republic, phone uscripts should be sent inelectronic form.

nSubscripti

o available without charge. Requests toand limited additional copies areSubscrip e placede d be addressed to the deputy editor. Chaniling list or for additional copies shouon t e of ad-

dres er at least four weeks in advance, including botnotifications should be sent to the publise old and new addresses.

s are published with the support of the Local Government and PublicNISPAcee Occasional Pape

e (affiliated with the Open Society Institute), Nador ut. 11, 1525 Budapest,Service Reform Initiatungary.

-5945ISSN 13


3/28

VolumeVNo2Spring2004

NISPAcee

occasionalpapers

3

e-Governance: Paradigms for Public

Policy and Administration

e importance o e-governance in current

u ic a ministration an po icy, ot in t e-ry an practice, can ar y e overrate . ne ramewor o t e P cee nnua on er-

nce, t is topic is t ere ore covere y a spe-ia wor ing group. T e current issue o t eccasiona Papers eries presents t ree o t eest papers rom t is wor ing group, w ic

or one or t e ot er tec nica reason were notinc u e in t e se ecte papers e ition En-

ancing t e apacities to overn: a engesFacing t e EE ountries, e ecte Papers

rom t eth

P cee nnua on erence,Buc arest, Romania, , Bryane ic ae s,Rainer atte , an o gang Drec s er, e s.,Bratis ava: P cee, ), ut w ic never-

e ess are re evant or, an o great potentiainterest to, t e entra an Eastern European-governance iscourse. at ma es t eseree papers specia is t at a o t em, a eit

rom i erent ang es, attempt to epara ig-matic, i.e., t ey try to supp y a matrix, mo e ,

r perspective ow e-governance can eonceptua ize .

ass s Per steras an T eo ore Tse os,ormer y rom t e nite ations T essa oni ienter, reece, w o coor inate t e wor ingroup unti now, attempt in t eir essay,e- overnance as a Pu ic Po icy Framewor ,

o com ine in a re ative y simp e mo e t e

ntire p enomenon o e-governance as pro-ess, integrating a t e i erent actors asuc as possi e. arcin a owicz, o t earsaw c oo o Economics, Po an , inow to Eva uate e- overnment Di erent

et o o ogies an et o s, e ivers a rieut c ear escription o t e i erent aspectsn e ements o e-governance t at a ows com-arison an eva uation. n ina y, o gang

Drec s er, o t e niversity o Tartu, Estonia,in T e Estonian e- oting aws Discourse:

Para igmatic Benc mar ing or entra anEastern Europe, ana yzes t e Estonian e-voting aw, t e one in Europe t at is actua y

asse , in or er to see w at essons ot erountries, in entra an Eastern Europe, canraw rom t is experience.

tu ies o e-governance are a matter par-icu ar y prone to rapi c ange, again ot

in t eory an practice, an t us muc in or-ation a out it quic y ecomes out ate .

Essays on t e topic are t ere ore necessar-

i y snaps ots. owever, t e current artic esontain an interesting set o perspectives on-governance as para igms or Pu ic Po icyn ministration in any case, an so t eyre presente erewit .


4/28

4

e-Governance as a Public Policy Framework

e-Governance as a Public Policy

Framework

Vassilis Peristeras *, Theodore Tsekos **

ration of the overall rational policy makingramework and produces incoherent, ineffec-ive and inefficient applied policies.

Public policies become even less effec-ive insofar as the vertical breach couplesith a horizontal one, as is usually the case.

Policy outcomes are mostly the conjunction ofistinctive processes in different policy fields.

Full employment, for example, can only bensured through the joint efforts of economic,

industrial, educational, vocational training,egional development, and social and laborarket regulation policies.

The inability of full communication andooperation between all these distinctiveolicy constituencies and networks oftenesults in poor policy outcomes. Loose and

ineffective horizontal communications is avery common and widespread defect of con-emporary policymaking and administrativeystems. Public agencies entrench themselves

ith institutional, procedural and communica-ional fortifications, erected throughout theiristorical development.

Therefore, a bi-dimensional isolation oc-urs in the public policy sphere (fig 1): notnly a vertical, intra-organizational breach

impedes field integration but also a horizontaltrans-organizational gap jeopardizes fieldonnection and completion.

T e pro ematic situation escri eove creates an urgent nee or a i- imen-

iona integrative inter ace ri ging ot t evertica an t e orizonta po icy gaps anin ing a po icy ie actors to a cooperatingpo icy community. t is in o inter ace cane ui t t roug extensive use o mo ern in-

1. IN SEARCH OF COHERENT

POLICY M KING MODELS

Pu ic action, in or er to e e ective an e -icient, as to e conceive an eve ope asco erent an integrate system.

n practice, owever, a ic otomy con-erning po icyma ing occurs a ecting aimensions o pu ic po icy: co ective an

in ivi ua actors, esigning an imp ementing

rocesses, e c.T e reasons or t is ic otomy, terme

policy breach1, resi e in t e act t at esignn imp ementation are two quasi-in epen-ent an oose y in e su -processes.

ore speci ica y, t e po icy ana ysis anesign stage constitutes a top- own process

invo ving po itica or ig y po iticize per-onne . t is outcome oriente an operaten t e asis o genera criteria suc as mis-ion an vision concepts, organizationa an

nvironmenta va ues an strategies, po iticar or t es, etc.n t e ot er an , po icy imp ementation

is main y a ottom-up process invo ving P. .ro essiona s: mi e management an ow-

eve personne . T ere ore, imp ementationctivities are gui e y intra-organizationariorities an ay-to- ay management require-ents an restrictions. T ey are s ort-term

n output oriente wit on y vague re er-nces to t e ig picture an oose in s toe organization s ong-term o jectives an

trategic priorities an goa s.T e unsuita e connection an mismatc -

ing o two comp ementary steps o a processuppose to e inear ea s to t e isinte-

United Nations Thessaloniki Centre for Public Servicerofessionalism, Thessaloniki, Greece

United Nations Thessaloniki Centre for Public Servicerofessionalism, Thessaloniki, Greece

Tsekos, T. (2003), Towards Integrated Policy Making:Remedying the Public ction Dichotomy throughInformation and Communication Technologies and

earning , Rosenbaum, llan, Gajdosova Ludmila (Editors),State Modernization and Decentralization. Implications forEducation and Training in Public dministration: electedCentral European and lobal Perspectives, NISPAcee, 2003.

Figure 1

he Policy Breach


5/28


NISPAcee

occasionalpapers

ormationa an communication tec no ogiespp ie at eac an every stage o t e overao icy ma ing process.

ne acet o t is process must e associ-te wit t e transcription o current po icy

a ing proce ures in T app ications, inr er to stan ar ize, simp i y an acce erateertica coor ination an orizonta networ -

ing an , t us, aci itate po icy integration.eneric process an ata structures,

ig eve mo e or strategic p anning torovi e common e initions, voca u aryn a conceptua ramewor oro icy ma ing wit in roa er po icy

ie - ase su -categories o pu icgencies an a uni ying enterprise

rc itecture on w ic a pu icministration processing an in or-ation systems s ou e ase in

r er to ecome interopera e areome critica prerequisites or inte-rate pu ic po icies.

urrent y, t e pu ic a ministra-ion P ) omain ac s common ygree generic po icy ma ing mo e sin e to content stan ar s, e ini-ions an voca u aries, not on y at

e g o a eve among t e a minis-rative systems wor wi e, ut eveninsi e each country2

2. PROPOSING A MODEL

n t is paper, we propose a generic mo e oe po icy ma ing process. n or er to esignis mo e , we must irst s etc a genera

e ineation o t e overa governance systemocusing on t e main actors an t e primary

interactions amongst t em. Base on t is out-

ine, we t en present a more etai e iagram-atic representation o t e po icy ma ingtages, as a comp ex trans ormation process

t e society s nee s input) or services anegu ations output) t roug t e governanceystem.

2.1. The Governance System.

T e purpose o t is sc ema ig. ) is to out-ine t e omain o t e overnance ystem inroa terms, presenting t e main ac ors ane at ons ps t at exist amongst t em. T erere t ree main actors insi e t e overnanceystem: t e Po itica ystem, Pu ic min-

istration or ministrative System)3 anociety ivi e into two su -categories usi-esses an citizens).

T e overnance ystem is e ine as t eomposition o t ese t ree su -systems

t oug t e separation etween t eo itica an a ministrative systems as een

ierce y criticize y P sc o ars or t e tec -ica separation it intro uces, its ana yticaower s ou not e un erestimate .

itiona y, t is sc ema epicts t er mary e at ons ps among t e various

ctors. ome o t ese are consi ere out ocope wit regar to our wor e.g., usiness-o-citizens).

very interesting re ations ip exists e-ween c t zens an t e po t ca system. nemocratic regimes, citizens enjoy t e privi-

ege o e ecting t eir representatives an or-u ating t e po itica system in t is way. T e

e ations ip an in ormation ow etween t eitizen an t e po itica system in t is areaas usua y een a resse y t e T in ustrysing t e term e- emocracy. n a ition to

Tarabanis, K., V. Peristeras and G. Fragidis (2001), Buildingn Enterprise rchitecture for Public dministration:

High Level Data Model for Strategic Planning. 9th EuropeanConference on Information ystems.Vol. pp.: June 2001, Bled,Slovenia.

Inter-Agency Benchmarking & Best Practices Council (1996),government Process Classification Scheme, available at http://www.va.gov/fedsbest/index.htm,

3 Chevallier, J. (1986), cience dministrative, PressesUniversitaires de France.

F gure

overnance ystem


6/28

6


is, citizens can irect y a ress t eir nee so t e po itica system. ore etai s on t e at-er process wi e iscusse e ow.

oo ing at t e re ations ip etween t em n strat ve system an soc ety ),

e cou mention t at t is area as eenoose y speci ie as t at o pu ic servicerovision. t is important to mention t ate majority o t e so-ca e e-government

initiatives a ress t is area. T is as eenone, at an initia stage, t roug t e eve op-ent o ministration to itizens ) anministration to Business B) ront o ice

pp ications. owever, e-government systemesigners soon rea ize t e imitations o sucpproac es t at e t t e ac -o ice o t e a -

inistrative pro uction intact. Recent y, eve -ping ministration to ministration )or ac -o ice) systems an app ications asecome a prerequisite or rea izing e ectronicervices or citizens an usinesses. T eommon use o t e term e-government just orpu ic service provision may e mis ea ing,s t e ot er two re ations ips po itica -a -inistrative an po itica system-society) are

e t out o t e e-government scope. n or ero c ari y t e term, we ave two a ternatives:

it er we must genera ize t e e-governmentotion to inc u e a t e existing re ations ipspo itica -a ministrative, society-po itica sys-em an service regu ation provision), ore must eave t e term wit its usua conno-

ation just e ectronic service provision) anoin a new wor or expressing a super-c asso w ic e-government, e- emocracy ano itico-a ministrative T support are su -asses.

n t e igure, t e o owing re ations ipsan a so e oun :

Citizen to Citizen (C2C): This relation con-stitutes the basis of what has been calledCivil Society and although they belongto the governance system, this will not bea resse ere.Business to Business (B2B) and Businessto Citizens (B2C): As already mentioned,these relationships are out-of-scope in ourwork.Political System to Administrative System:At this point, some very interesting relation-

s ips exist an a critica ow o in ormationta es p ace. ater in t e presentation o t e

po icy ma ingmo e , we wi a ress on yt ose parts o t ese ows t at are connect-e wit service regu ation provision.

Po itica to Po itica P P). n t is category,we cou inc u e various interior po iti-ca system re ations ips e.g., etween t epar iament an t e government, t e presi-

ent an t e prime minister, amongst t evarious po itica parties, etc.). t ougt ese re ations ips are crucia to t eunctioning o t e governance system, t eyave attracte on y t e margina interest

o t e T community. T ese re ations ipsinterest us a ot ut t ey are e t out or t e

purpose o t is paper.

2.2. The Policy Making Process.

T e two representations t at o ow e owodel the process that describes a generic

olicy making process.

2.2.1 Administration to Society

interaction schema.

T e irst representation, (Fig. 3), s qu teimp e as it presents a macroscopic, ig - eve

n generic representation:

T e governance system po itica an a -inistrative system p us interaction inter aceit t e society, inc u ing co ective repre-

entative o ies, consu tation institutionsn processes as we as orma an in orma

ommunication c anne s) receives as inpute nee s o t e society an a ter processing

Figure 3

A2S interaction black-box

4 ridges, T. (1994), The Culture of Citizenship: InventingPostmodern Civic Culture. NY, State Univ of New York Press.


7/28


NISPAcee

occasionalpapers

7

em, pro uces services an regu ations toress t ese nee s.

is ac - ox view is use u or a et-er un erstan ing o a system s purpose ane os.

2.2.2 The Integrated Policymaking

Model

e secon sc ema goes into more etain ecomposes t e previous ac - oxpproac into various p ases (fig. 4). T eeneric escription upon w ic t is o e isase , secures t e app ica i ity o t e atter

o a i erent pu ic po icy ie s e.g., ur ananning, security, pu ic ea t , e ucation,

eve opment, etc.).

s a rea y mentione , t e ntegratePo icyma ing o e represents in more etai

e trans ormation process o socia nee so service regu atory provision. T ere are

ree main su -systems invo ve in t e n-

tegrate Po icyma ingModel: society (fromere everyt ing starts an en s), t e a min-istrative an t e po itica su -systems.

ctua y, society is t e u timate c ient

at must e serve . For t is reason, society

as e egate power to t e po itica su -sys-

em, ac now e ging to t e atter unctions o

primary server towar s t e society. n

emocratic regimes, t roug t e e ection proc-

ss, society eci es w et er a speci ic server

po itica party) as success u y o ere its

ervices or i t ere is a nee to test anot er

ype o server c aiming to o er eit er some-

ing i erent or t e same ut more e icient y.

n etween t e primary c ient an t erimary server, t oug , ies t e a ministrativeystem. ow oes t is system gain its egiti-acy o assigne it executive powers

ts ro e, presume y its position, is t at o a

ro er. ts speci ic unctions as a ro er arena yze separate y in t e two i erent parts

t e mo e it is invo ve in.During t e service regu ation provision

rocess t e po itica -a ministrative interac-ions ecome activate . ore speci ica y, t eo owing interaction an in ormation owccurs etween t e t ree su -systems:

From political to administrative, decisionsmade by the former and imposed througha legitimated dominance afterwards to

the latter. This dominance indemocracy gains its legitimacythrough the electorate and ispractically implemented withthe physical presence and theexecutive power of the minis-ters inside the administrativestructure they head. From administrative to po-litical, during the first stage(upwards movement of infor-

mation) information gatheredby the administrative systemdescribing the societal needsand at a later stage (downwardsmovement of information),expertise and administrativeknowledge regarding how to

realize political decisions.

T e mo e is presente as a circ e startingrom t e ottom w ere t e socia nee or co -ective action triggers an activates t e w o e

ystem. n act, it is t is nee t at egitimatese necessity o ui ing a governance systemn entrusts it wit t e monopo y o exercis-

ing physical violence . T e sc ema is ivi einto t ree roa er activity p ases: a ottom-up

Po icy Design input p ase, a orizonta Po icyFormulation & Approvalp ase an aPo icy

mp ementation output top- own p ase.Be ore starting t e etai e escription o

e mo e , it is interesting to map t e upperart of it as represented in fig.3 (political sys-

5 Weber M., (1958), Politics as a Vocation, in C. Wright Mills,(Ed), (1958),From Max Weber: Essays in ociology, OxfordUniversity Press, 90 p

F gure

e ntegrate Po cyma ng o e


8/28

8


em zone) wit t e ormu ate pu ic po icyajor pu ic a ministration process6. ccor -

ing y, t e mi e part a ministrative systemzone) w ere t e service provision occursorrespon s to t e provi e service major

.

2.2.2.1 The Policymaking Steps

et s ta e a c oser oo at w at appens ur-ing eac p ase:

Everyt ing starts, as a rea y mentione ,it a societa nee or co ective action.enera y, t e society as two ways to com-unicate a nee to t e po itica system: t e

orma , ureaucratic c anne t roug t eministration an a num er o a ternative

anne s w ic ypass ureaucracy in or ero reac t e po itica system. T ese c anne s

ay vary rom a orma po itica party oro t e po itica appointee aving an in ormaoffee downtown with ordinary citizens.

Returning to the formal administrativehannel which is of interest in this paper, theirst role of the administrative system be-omes apparent: it has to develop methods toetermine societal needs. Unlike the flexibility

inherited by the non-administrative channels,

he administration has to set up a systemapable of gathering information from theeneral public. In order to make this systemperate effectively, the capacity for not onlyollecting the declaratively expressed societaleeds but also to sense needs, thus acting

in a proactive way, must be included in thisystem.

After this first step, administrativerocessing follows. This processing is a

irst attempt by the administrative system torganize the unstructured information thatomes in from the gathering phase. Catego-izing, translating to administrative languagend summarizing are some aspects of thisrocessing.

However, at this stage there is always aontroversial point. The administrative systemas no right to choose or evaluate the incom-

ing needs. Bureaucracy has to be completelyeutral, a blind instrument that acts only with

ogic and professional expertise. Evaluation

eans ju gment an ju gment requires a setva ues i erent rom t e set o va ues uponic ureaucracy as ui t its egitimacy

neutra ity an pro essiona ism). T ere ore,po itica question arises: s it possi e or

e a ministrative system to process t eresse or orwar e eman s neutra y

r is t ere a ways an in irect intervention oe atter to t e ow o in ormation rom t e

rimary c ient to t e primary server, actings a i ter ase on va ues an criteria non-ex-icit y expresse course, t ese questionsi not e a resse in t is paper.

eeping in min t e controversia egiti-acy t at c aracterizes t e a ministrative

rocessing step, we reac t e c ec -in

oint as can e seen in t e igure. T is is t eoint w ere t e a ministrative ow meets t eternative root mentione previous y. Frome organizationa point o view, it is ereat we usua y in t e o ices o t e po itica

ersonne . T ey o t e ar wor o trying o a ance an trans er a t e in ormation

ey ee is critica to t e ey person. ver-ow at t is point is very usua . T e o ice isom ar e y controversia pressures an

itiona processing ecomes in ispensa e

e ore t e in ormation reac es its target in t eo itica system. Processing y t e po iticaayer, t oug , is somet ing comp ete y i er-nt t an t e previous type o processing. tis point, neutra ity is not accepte . incee ave entere t e rea m o t e po itica

u -system, po itica c oice ase on a set oo itica criteria as to e rea ize . ociety ase egate to t em t e power to exercise t isrivi ege. o t e o ice exc u es some o t eee s as inappropriate e.g., as not compat-

i e wit t e supporte po itica agen a) an

resents a ina ist o issues to e a ressey t e po itica system.

t t is point, we ave reac e t e p aseprioritizing. T is p ase is per aps t e

entra unction o t e po itica system in aegimes. n emocracy more speci ica y,i erent po itica approac es are eva uatey t e e ectorate epen ing on ow po iticaersonne prioritize t e society nee s t at a -ress t em, a ter t e a ore- escri e p ases.

For a citizen, eing a mem er o a speci ic

arty means acceptance o one proposerioritization an rejection o anot er. T e

Tabanis, K. and V. Peristeras (2000), Towards an EnterpriseArchitecture for Public Administration: A Top Downpproach. European Journal of Information ystems.Vol. 9

Dec. 2000): 252-260.


9/28


NISPAcee

occasionalpapers

9

ositioning o Prioritizing at t e ea o t eo e emp asizes t e prominent importanceat t is operation as over t e w o e system.

Being a po itica ea er an aving a c earo itica position practica y means aving

xp icit y presente your set o va ues anriteria upon w ic you as po itica ea er)i ju ge a emerging issues an accor ing yace t em, ierarc ica y or ere , in your

o itica agen a. T e main output o t is stepou e a ierarc ica y ran e ist o po iti-

a To-Dos, or in ot er wor s, a po itica p an.it t e po itica ecision occurring at

e prioritizing p ase, we start moving own-ar s in t e mo e . T e upwar movement as t e ow o t e society nee s towar s t e

ecision-ma ers or primary servers); t eownwar movement is t e ow o t e po iti-a ecisions or or ers) to t e u timate c ient.

e prioritizing p ase is o owe y t eassigning p ase. t e ormer c ear y ex-resses po itica i eo ogy, t e secon ea sit po itica organization an practica ity. nis p ase, t e po itica su system e egates

its egitimacy to t e a ministrative actor toea ize t e po itica system s i eas an priori-ies. owever, as can e seen in t e Figs. ,

ere exists an a ternative c anne or rea -izing po itica i eas: t e private sector can acts an a ternative provi er o pu ic serviceso society. T roug its egis ative power, t ear iament assigns uties to organizationantities eit er pu ic or private) to rea ize t egree or impose y t e majority po iti-a agen a. T e i eas an visions ecomeoncrete po itica p ans, wit actors, u gets,ccounta i ity an management. mongstt er t ings, t e speci ic a ministrative evee.g., centra , regiona or oca a ministration)

or t e rea ization p ase is eci e .e c ec -out point t at o ows is

ere t e ecision eaves t e po itica su -ystem an t roug t e ministers acting ase main actors) returns to t e a ministrative

u system or t e private sector). at Peop e usua y receive rom t is stage is a

aw t at t ey ave to en orce. En orcement,course, can mean a num er o i erentings: impose an c ec or comp iance,

rovi e a new service to t e society, ui a

ew organization, etc. ow t e a ministrativeystem, wit t e e p o t e po itica appoint-

e minister), as to organize an practica yxecute w at was requeste . at is t e ro e

t e minister now s t e minister sti actings a po itica personage uring t is rea ization

ase Basica y, no T e po itica ecisions

ere ma e uring t e previous steps e.g.,en t e minister/government /par iament

rioritize t e nee s o t e society to e cov-re y t e ministry). ow t e minister p ayse ro e o t e trustee agent appointe ye po itica system to manage t e rea ization

peration t at wi e execute y t e a min-istrative system. T e minister ecomes a man-ger responsi e or t e practica rea ization opo itica agen a. n as t e po itica systemants a po itica y e icate manager, t e

inister is pre erre to a tec nocrat. Toget erit t e experts o rea ization pu ic a min-istration pro essiona s), t e minister tries toea ize t e po itica ecisions an to pro uceoncrete resu ts.

o t e rea ization p ase constitutese main area or a ministrative action. T e

ramewor an ru es ave een eci e animp ementation starts. activities re ateo t e a ministrative pro uction o servicesre in e to t e rea ization p ase. Bui ing

r operating a ospita , sa eguar ing securityin t e cities, provi ing services to entrepre-eurs, preventing or reim ursing victims oatura isasters; t e pro uction o a t eseervices c ear y e ongs to t is rea izationage.

at o ows next is t e e ete istri u-ion. e ave intentiona y separate t ero uction p ase rea ization) rom t eistri ution p ase, proposing a tec nica utse u separation etween w at as eena e t e ront an t e ac -o ice. T is

eparation, a t oug very common in ot erin ustries e.g., oo , an ing insurance,tc.), as on y recent y starte to attract inter-st in pu ic a ministration, w ere pro uc-ion an istri ution was suppose to e an

integrate part o a unique unction. incee en o t e s, t ere ave een severa

initiatives rom a ministrations wor wi e toxp oit t e apparent a vantages o ea ingeparate y wit pro uction an istri ution inu ic a ministration. T e interesting s op-

ing ma concept or pu ic services or t ei ea o esta is ing citizen centers an ios s


10/28

0


o integrate comp ex a ministrative processest t e ront-en an provi e services rom aing e point accor ing to t e one-stop-s op

ministrative para igm, are examp es o t isren . course, ere once again, t e area

ertains to t e a ministrative actor.vious y, wit t e istri ution p ase,

e w o e governance system an s its outputo t e society. T e circ e starte rom t isame point an en s again in society. ocietys e or co ective action to so ve inconsist-ncies t at a emerge , an ina y societyets an output conceptua ize y t e po iticaystem an rea ize y t e a ministrative sys-em. T is output is suppose to constitute t eso ution to t e initia societa nee . But is it

ea y so at type o contro s an ee acec anisms are nee e to secure comp ianceetween w at was requeste an w at waseceive

2.2.2.2 Normative and individual

policymaking cycles

e steps escri e a ove, p ace on t euter cyc e o igure ormat ve cyc e),onstitute t e normative stage o t e overarocess. During t is stage output, outcome

n process stan ar s are set generating apo icy ma ing system.

T e interna n v ua cyc e represen se treatment o in ivi ua app ications an

eman s t roug out t e a ministrative ma-inery pro ucing an istri uting concrete

e ivera es to communities, citizens anusinesses, wit in t e normative rameworro uce an insta e t roug t e externa ormative, an po icy ma ing cyc e.

2.2.2.3 Controls and FeedbacksIn addition to the systems input-output de-criptions, we propose four eedback loops

in order to control several system character-istics that could be perceived as being criticaluccess factors (CSFs) for the delete overallystem operation. We envision four types ofrimary controls to be applied to the system.

Each control aims at providing feedback andhecks internal system (and sub-system) ca-acity at different stages. A short description

ollows:

st ontro o t ca Awareness: ec s t eivergence etween w atsociety nee s an

at t epo itica system t in s society nee se ectiveness o t e communication etweeno itica system an society).

n Control Administrative Accountabil-ty: ec s t e ivergence etween w at t e

po itica system wants to provi e to society anatsociety ina y gets ut o t e a ministra-

ive system (quality of communication be-ween po itica -a ministrative system, a min-

istrative capacity, etc.)

rd ontro o t ca Accounta ty: ec se ivergence etween t e receive eman

rom t e society y t e po itica system an

e ina po itica p an w ic is communicatey t e ormer to t e a ministrative systemor a ressing t is eman po itica ia i ity,apacity or po icy ma ing)

t ontro overnance Respons veness ec s t e ivergence etween w atsociety

as as e or an w at society receives y t eovernance system (system capacity, entropy,ffectiveness, efficiency, etc.).


11/28


NISPAcee

occasionalpapers

1

The Estonian e-Voting Laws

Discourse:

Paradigmatic Benchmarking for

Central and Eastern Europe

olfgang Drechsler *

1. Introduction

e Repu ic o Estonia as een, an sti is,i e y cre ite as eing a pioneer in e-gov-rnance an especia y e- emocracy, witeadlines such as Estonia: 10 Years from

Communism to Advanced e-Democracy! ta requent y een expecte , too, t at Esto-ia wou e t e ea ing country or e-voting,aving a rea y intro uce it or t e nationaections t is year. owever, in t e very astanges o t e respective aws, t e Estonian

Par iament vote or e-voting, ut not or t eimme iate uture; rat er on y wit a e ay oimplementation until the year 2005. Still, theEstonian case is t e irst case wor -wi e o aountry t at as actua y passe overa e-vot-

ing aws.is primacy, y virtue o some vari-nt o t e normative power o t e actua ,ere ore sets t e scene or a e-voting aws

onsi ere anyw ere ut especia y so ore countries o entra an Eastern Europe

(CEE), if we believe at all in any form ofegiona c aracteristics an t ere ore simi ar-

ity an compara i ity. T e Estonian e-votingaws, ut a so t e iscourse t roug w ic

ey emerge , t ere ore serve as a para ig-

atic enc mar roa y un erstoo eres a enc mar ot in a positive as we asossi y in a negative sense as we or a e-

University of Tartu, Estonia.

In the article at http: //www.e-smartransaction.com/asp/appliation.asp?cle=80 cat=Government.

Statements, state of legislation, and web-links in this paperre generally valid as of February 15, 2003. I am grateful to

Rainer Kattel and lle Madise for comments on this paper.

See, e.g., http: //www.time.com/time/interactive/stories/ociety/e_politics.html; http: //www.newsbytes.com/news/

01/160092.html; http: //www.imaginemedia.co.uk/newsletter/pr2001.htm: You cant stop progress though and it lookss though Estonia will be the world s first nation to provide-voting at its next General Election in 2003.

voting aw iscourses to occur in a t e ot erEE countries.

T is paper t ere ore sets out to, irst, o -ow t e process interesting as suc , it asn y een ocumente an ana yze once

efore (Drechsler and Madise 2002), and theurrent piece presents a very s ort ut a sop ate account o that story. 3 T e question

iscourse wi t en e a resse , an aninterpretation o ere . s t e enc mar ing

i in ee e seen to entai an inverte , i.e.,egative, quality as well (the dog that did otark during the night), a final segment willso rie y iscuss t ese aspects.

2. E-voting in Estonia: a narrative

The plan to introduce e-voting in Estonia wasirst publicly announced by the Minister ofJustice, Mrt Rask, a member ofRe ormiera-

on (Reform Party, eng.reform.ee), theeo-liberal (indeed, market-radical) transi-

ion winners party, at the beginning of 2001.Given the general fashion of e-related matters,

hich is particularly strong in Estonia, andwift developments in such fields as e-banking

(see e.g., www.hanza.net), paperless govern-ent (see www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/

kvote/stories/epolitics/estonia.html), androadcasting of parliamentary sessions (seeww.riigikogu.ee/news.html), this was a likely

tep to take. Developing Estonian leadershipin e-related fields was and is also seen as aey part of branding Estonia and overall ofaking Estonia better known globally.

3 I would like to thank the co-author of that essay, lle Madise,without whom the current paper would not exist, for hervery kind permission to use materials from the earlier piece,unmarked, in the current one. The paper by Drechsler andMadise 2002 also contains extensive references and technical

as well as legislative details.4 See generally, e.g., the Estonian genda 21,

www.agenda21.ee/english/EA21/3_4.html.


12/28

2

The Estonian e-Voting Laws Discourse

T e i ea o e-voting was t us strong yromote y Prime inister aar, w o uringe Par iamentary question perio o anuary, , propose t e i ea o testing e-voting

uring t e same year an o eci ing t en

et er to intro uce it or t e oca e ec-ions. ee www.riigi ogu.ee/ems/in ex. tm )

To get an overview o t e possi e met -s an ris s o remote nternet voting, t e

inistry o ustice or ere an ana ysis romwo sc o ars in t e ie . ipmaa an r

). T e report y t e nternet Po icy nsti-ute pu is e in t e at t e same time 5

as a so use as a asis o stu y. T e com-issione ana ysis recommen e preparing

ome experiments or pi ot-projects irst an

o orego intro uction o e-voting unti ,ecause an ear ier ate wou e tec nica y,n t ere ore a so socia y, too ris y. , - )n t e a o , anot er ana ysis was or-ere rom a mat ematician y t e Estonianinistry o Transport an ommunication,ic was to ocus especia y on tec nica

uestions an costs. n t is ana ysis, concreteecommen ations concerning t e voting proc-ss were given an a provisiona u get o-e ections was rawn up. T ee ia )

Ta ing into account t e reason or in-ro ucing pu ic remote nternet voting anome o t e recommen ations given y t experts, ut not t e one y its own expertss regar e postponement unti , e-vot-

ing provisions were ra te y t e inistryustice an sent to t e par iament. T ere,

ey were not genera y iscusse , ut as partour i erent new e ection aws: T e oca

ommunities E ection ct, t e Re eren umct, t e European Par iament E ection ct,n t eRiigi ogu E ection ct. T e iscus-ions in t eRiigi ogu, as ar as t e e-votingeature was concerne , were more or esseam ess an not rea y c ose y connecteit w at ct it actua y was. owever, since

oca e ections were sc e u e or , it as t is ct t at rew more attention t an t et ers, o owe y t e Re eren um ct e-ause o its imp ications or European nionccession. en iscussing speci ic eaturesw ic in t e en were t e same or a ourcts), wi t ere ore re er e ow to t e eve -

pment o t e provisions o t e oca ommu-t es Election Act. 6

s was to e expecte , o an new gov-rnment coa ition parties unti anuary ,

Rig t- i ertarian- o erate, rom t en i er-

arian-Popu ist were principa y in avour o-voting in t e very irst stage o eve opinge e-voting i ea, w i e t e opposition parties

Ra va iitan hendatud Rahvapartei actionsere against it. n or er to un erstan t is, it

is important to rie y s etc out t e Estonianarty structure. T e irst government coa itionentione ere aar , t e government

ea e , or t e secon time, y art aar)inc u e , in a ition to t e a orementione

i ertarian Re ormiera on

the right samaa iit(Pro Patria Un-ion, www.isamaaliit.ee/isamaa2/index_eng.html; cf. also Laar 2002), a generallynationalist but for the most part also mar-ket-radical party that in a slightly differentcomposition formed the government rightafter the regaining of independence; and

the moderate u a (Moderates,www.moodukad.ee/), who by their owndefinition are Social Democrats but byWestern standards quite to the right of

that field.The second government coalition (Kallas

headed by Siim Kallas) includesRe ormiera-on an

t e popu ist es era on (CentreParty, www.keskerakond.ee/), the maintransition osers party, wit a semi-c ar-

ismatic ea er, E gar avisaar, current yt e ayor o Ta inn, ut wit out a genuinepost- ocia ist i eo ogy.

The two opposition parties mentioned are

Eestimaa Rahvaliit(Estonian Peoples Un-ion, www.erl.ee), a party similar to es -era on ut wit a strong an exp icit ruraorientation; an

Eestimaa hendatud Rahvapartei(Esto-nian United Peoples Party, www.eurp.ee/eng/), the most clearly post-Socialist partywit a specia appea or t at part o t eRussian-spea ing popu ation o Estonia t atis actua y a owe to vote.

5 See www.riik.ee/evalimised/yldanalyysid/e_voting_report.pdf.

The initial draft of the Local Communities Election Act canbe found at www.riigikogu.ee/ems/index.html: Tiskogul

enetletud eelnu nr 747. Menetlusetapid. Algtekst.


13/28


NISPAcee

occasionalpapers

e governing coa ition a as oes not com-an a majority in t eRiigi ogu rat er,

n y o t e votes. T e missing votes aresua y e ivere y t eRa va ii w ic isso t e party o t e Presi ent), so t is party

anno be ignored.7E-voting provisions were a ways sup-

orte in p enary session. 8 t s ou e noteat pi ot projects were per aps occasiona y

onsi ere , as in t e eginning y aar im-e , ut t ey were never serious y put on t egen a. n some sense, t e entire ra t anen aw wou e its own pi ot project not

mo us operan i in Estonia. n t e en ,s a orm o compromise, in a aws or drafts,9

it was exp icit y state t at e-voting s ou

ot e app ie e ore t e year 5 5)in t e oca ommunities E ection ct). T isas apparent y in e erence to t eRa va iit

action as was mentione , t e governmentomman s at est a minority o out ootes, an t eirRa va iitvotes are t ere oresua y important a t oug not in t is speciaase), w ic is w y t eir opinion is ta en intoonsi eration.

. The discourse

3.1. Ministry

e iscourse to e ana yze starts at t einisteria eve . ccor ing to o t e Esto-

ian onstitution, em ers o t eRiigi ogua e e ecte in ree e ections ase on t e

rincip e o proportiona ity. E ections s ae genera , uni orm an irect. oting s ae secret. ince t e origina ra ting o t eonstitution in , t ese princip es ave noteen t e su ject o juri ica iscussion, so

ey are i - e ine . ee nnus , - )s to w et er e-voting wou in uence t eserincip es, t e inister an inistry aseemse ves on two asic ecisions:

. To use a te eo ogica approach to Constitu-tional interpretation means to say that Con-stitutional problems should be understoodthrough the problems the given principleswere meant to solve. As an example, in thecurrent case of e-voting, the principle ofsecrecy (raised most strongly in Parliament

later on) was said to protect an individualfrom any pressure or influence againsther or his free expression of the politicalpreference, i.e., that it is a means, not anend. This includes the threat that the stateor a public official can check who votedfor whom. But it was said that, if privacy isguaranteed in the polling station and if allthose who have voted via the Internet havethe right (which was proposed) to go to thepo ing station on e ection ay an rep ace

their electronically recorded, transferredan counte vote wit a new paper- a ot (see 55 of the initial draft of the LocalCommunities Election law), then the aim ofthe principle of secrecy, the end, is actuallyac ieve .

2. To start from the assumption that the Statemust trust the people and not interfere,if at all possible, in any of their decisions.TheReformierakondideology informs thisapproach. As an example in our context,the problem that e-voting would facilitatesome families, friends or colleagues votingtoget er, i.e., practice co ective voting, aswell as the buying and selling of votes, wassaid to hinge on the question of whetherthe State would have to protect an individu-al only from other individuals or also fromhis/herself. It was not seen that collectivevoting could be a problem for the state aswell and not only a problem for the indi-vi ua .

ccording to the descriptions given above, this meansthat the current governing coalition consists of transitionwinners and transition losers. However, in Estonia thisis not necessarily a contradiction, becauseReformierakondindeed does promulgate an ideology appropriate for itslientele, butKeskerakonddoes not; rather, it hardly has any

ideology at all. It is, therefore, a classic populist party. Theyre, furthermore, not unlikely coalition partners at all. Voting

is scheduled for March, 2003, i.e., the elections fall betweenthe deadline for this paper and the Bucharest conference, sothere might easily be a new coalition in place once this paperis discussed.

8 See the debate and voting results according to theinutes as cited below (FN 10). bout the voting process,

ee theRiigikogu Internal Rules ct, www.riigikogu.ee/legislation.html.

The Local Communities Election ct was adopted byarliament on March 2 , 2002 and entered into force on May, 2002. RT I 2002, 36, 220. The Referendum Act was adoptedn March 13, 2002 and entered into force on pril 6, 2002.

RT I 2002, 30, 176. The Riigikogu Election Act was adopted

n June 12, 2002 and entered into force on July 18, 2002. RTI 2002, 57, 355. The European Parliament Election Act wasdopted by Parliament on December 18, 2002 and entered

into force on January 23, 2003. RT I 2003, , 22.


14/28

4


.2 Parliament

Parliamentary debate on e-voting was longnd lively. In the plenary session, e-votingas discussed within all readings of all four

drafts. 10 We can draw up the following tablesf discussion points of problems of e-voting:

t may genera y e note t at a argeajority of Members shared the Ministrys

ttitu e towar s a te eo ogica interpretationf the Constitution, as well as the assumptionat

. e-voting increases voter turnout; an t att is

. automatica y as a positive e ect on De-mocracy.

3.3. Public

ere was ar y any accompanying iscus-ion o e-voting in me ia or society wit t exception o a ew newspaper artic es animp e an emotiona anonymous commentso t em in on ine-newspapers an in o-por-

tals); 11 i ewise, neit er were t ere any sig-i icant pu ic comments y socia scientistsr awyers. n anuary , t e e itoria oe usiness ai yripev was evote toe i ea o t e inister o ustice intro uc-

ing a system o e-voting in Estonia. i so ata aastani ) T e e itor as e

y Estonia s ou wait unti ; rat er,

nternet voting s ou e intro uce or t eoca e ections o . T is a t en eeniscusse . eeripev n ine, anuary 5,

, www.aripaev.ee/ /arv_ ysit us_. tm .)

4. D scuss on

ne can sa e y say t at t e e-voting initiativeame rom t e po itica e ite, an t at it wasn is arge y etac e rom t e peop e

ose participation it is suppose to increase.ne cou certain y iagnose or Estonian attitu e towar s t e rig t to vote, anemocratic ecision-ma ing in genera , t at

ne mig t escri e various y as pragmatic,e axe , etac e , or cynica . nec ota y, asegar s e.g., possi i ities o rau , one couten ear peop e saying t at i t ey trustee net wit t eir an ing, w y s ou t ey

ot in suc a muc ess important ie aso itica e ections

ti , w i e Estonia cou easi y ave eene wor ea er in e-voting y intro ucingis as a regu ar eature or t e oca e ections

, pro a y genuine worries t at tec ni-a pro ems wou not e so ve y t e Fa

t at year, as we as t e scepticism o in i-vi ua mem ers o parties genera y in avour

e-voting, a o t em reasona e an appro-riate, were among t e reasons t at preventeuc an outcome. onet e ess, t e resistance

t e rura opposition party, w ic i ewiseeasona y an appropriate y eare t at uc a eature wou increase t e vote o itsompetitor parties, an w ic t ere ore wouave very rig t y an proper y oug t against

it in Par iament, at east contri ute signi i-

ant y to t e postponement o actua e-votingin Estonia unti 5.

0 See the minutes at www.riigikogu.ee/ems/index.html. Theraft of the Local Communities Election was discussed on

June 1 , 2001; and on January 23, February 2 , and March27, 2002; the draft of theRiigikogu Election Act on June 14,2001; and on January 30, March 2 , May 15 and May 22, 2002;the draft of the Referendum Act on September 19, 2001; and

n January 30 and March 13, 2002; the draft of the Europeanarliament Election ct on January 23, 2002.

1 See, e.g., www.postimees.ee; www.delfi.ee. As all commentsare anonymous, their level is indeed exceedingly low, andthey often do not connect with the subject at hand.

1. Equality of citizens in political life unfair towards non - connected citizens / digital gap

2. Detriment to democracy (going to the polling station would be a valuable action in itself)

3. Unconstitutionality of e-voting (secrecy, generality, and uniformity)

4. Privacy and secrecy of voting not guaranteed

5. Security of electronic voting systems not sure

6. Proneness to fraud

7. Negative or absent experiences in other countries

8. The weakness of technical preparations

9. The problem of hackers


15/28


NISPAcee

occasionalpapers

owever, many o t e to- e-expecteoints o iscourse i an Buc -tein an eymanns provi e very goourveys) were ar y consi ere , an areissing rom t e Estonian iscourse. it out

aiming comp eteness, want to sing e out t eo owing ive points, two genera an t ree

Estonia-specific

. and 5. came as a great surprise to manyEstonian experts when mentioned; as regards., out of all people, the internet guru of theaar a ministration, innar ii , cautione

hat, compared to a traditional one, Itll costen times as muc to ave an e-election, uthis fact hardly entered the discourse.

More interesting for this paper, however,re the more fundamental questions of point 1nd also of point 2 because they are so oftena y consi ere . Regar ing t ese, resu ts

re not really in yet, but naturally, in suchkey matter as democracy, if there is reasonor a cautionary approach, this should be

entione very c ear y, an a so iscussen ta en into consi eration before aws areassed. Estonia is noticeable for its strong pro-livities of anything e-related among its politi-o-economic elite, as well as for an extremelyow level of resistance against, and indeediscourse about, any progressive develop-ents that might have unwanted side-effects

(biotechnology is another example; see Weber2001), which is perhaps why these matters

ere comparative y una resse . owever,robably not many CEE countries are doinguch better in this respect. Thus, the follow-

ing points mig t serve as a genera remin er:

4.1. Voter turnout

e ave no goo reason to t in t at e-vot-ing wi necessari y increase voter turnout.Rat er, it seems t at t ose peop e w o wi

vote on- ine are ig y e- iterate peop e w oare po itica y intereste a rea y. ee erstingn Ba ers eim ort coming) Darin Barneyas notice , correct y, t at recent researc

in icates t at networ tec no ogies ten

o rein orce existing patterns o emocratice aviour rat er t an mo i izing new actorsn practices. , ) But even i it were

t erwise, one mig t a so consi er t eoriesuch as the Crispin Curve argument posit-ing that overly high voter turnout is a sign of

roblems, not of a healthy democracy (1948,60-165).

Laars continuous touting of e-voting as aossibility to increase voter turnout and (par-

ially, therefore) develop democracy (see Laar2002, 244-246 et passim is therefore withoutny rationa asis.

4.2. Digital gapT at t e Digita Divi e or ap is a rea t reat

at wi in a i e i oo wi en various a -ea y-existing gaps in society is, t in , c earor anyone w o as stu ie t e su ject, an it as certain y een emonstrate or Estonia.

(Kalkun and Kalvet 2002) And if democracyis a out representing peop e, t enRa va iitisig t: T e stu ies we ave in icate t at inter-et voting can su stantia y c ange t e resu t.

(Cf., e.g., Tolbert and McNeal 2001, for theinfluence of Internet access (without e-voting)

n voter turnout). One of the most recent thor-ug stu ies we ave, o a erman countyommissioner e ection wit mo e e-voting,

ows t at t e resu t via e-voting wou averought another candidate to power (the more

eft one, incidentally). (See Meuren 2001). Itis some ow i icu t to reconci e t is wit t e

asic princip es o participatory emocracy.

4.3. e-matters and Democracy

But t ere is a so a very genera pro emic wi a ress on y rie y, an y way

f some quotes, here (see Drechsler 2002 for

2 Quoted in http: //www.thefeature.com/index.jsp?url=article.js?pageid=12832; on Viik, see http: //noweurope.com/CitybyC

ity.asp?ArticleNo=292.

1. Are the effects of e-voting really beneficial for Democracy?

2. Will e-voting increase voter turnout?

3. How high are the costs really?

4. Are there possibly adverse effects of the e-voting provisions for joining the European Union?

5. Are there dangers of a lawsuit on the basis of the European Human Rights Convention?


16/28

6


more extensive argument). u ert Drey usxce ent critique o virtua community ane ectronic repu ic a vocates, w o su errom a eep e iciency o t oug t on w at a

po is is a out an w at pure inci enta s or

ec anisms are , - ), s ou ean atory rea ing or a ea ing wit e-gov-

rnance. s e says, T e t enian agora isrecise y t e opposite o t e pu ic sp ere,

ere anonymous e ectronic i itzers rom aver t e wor , w o ris not ing, come toget -r to announce an e en t eir opinions. sn extension to t e eracinate pu ic sp ere,e e ectronic agora is a grave anger to rea

o itica community. ... it is ... a now ere p aceor anonymous now ere peop e. )

n virtua communities, Darin Barneya es t e simi ar genera point: T ougey mig t ee i e it, t e act remains t at

omputer networ s are not rea p aces, ani e t eir virtua ity mig t present certain

ene its or community ormation, t ese samettri utes compromise t e roote ness o t oseommunities once t ey are esta is e .

, ) T e networ igita computer isten presente to contemporary in ivi ua s

s t e ina tec no ogy o t eir u timate se -

reation ... in so ar as t ey re uce t e woruman eings inc u e to a stan ing-re-erve o its, networ s cu minate t e istinct yo ern tec no ogica con itions escri e

y artin ei egger: a con ition c aracter-ize y root essness, ca cu ation, an t e

enia o mystery. 5) Barney cites atu y rom a gary in w ic it was oun t at em ers ip in networ associations a

corrosive e ects on civi ity: Respon entso were most engage on ine ten e to e

e ative y isengage wit an istrusting o )

e rea community. t appears t at t esen ine associations cou e amaging to civiociety. )

5. Conclusions

t is we nown t at cy erspace, in ormationn communication tec no ogies T), t e

internet, t e we , networ tec no ogy, w at-ver you ca it, ma es our ives etter, easier,n sa er; attens ierarc ies an t us ma eseop e more in epen ent; osters emoc-acy; improves socia capita an t e sense oommunity; a ows or greater ree om or t e

in ivi ua person ecause o t e possi i ity oe- e ining onese again an again, an so on.

T is is t e asis o t e esira i ity o e-votings we as e-governance; un ortunate y, as aasic assumption o an automatism, it is a so

xact y as wrong as it is we - nown. et, it canar y e ou te t at, tec no ogy- riven asur time is, t is is t e train into t e uture.

at t e Estonian case s ows, an w yis is an exce ent para igmatic enc mar

or entra an Eastern Europe, is t at oneou consi er t e pro ems o e-voting t or-

ug y e ore passing respective aws; ane iscourse ana ysis as s own t at one

an simp y not re y on t e assumption t at aice conversation among a sta e o ers wi

appen. T at t e etac ment o t e iscourserom scienti ic approac es an stu y resu tsin just suc a science- an progress-c argeie is particu ar y curious. t is presents a

a enge precise y to socia scientists in t erea to pus or a ig er, an t ere ore moreesponsi e, eve o iscourse.

n t e most asic eve , en societaonsi eration o a new tec no ogy is imiteo i enti ying tec nica pro ems an tec ni-a so utions, t e genera con ition in w ic

ec no ogy o s sway is rein orce rat eran c a enge . T is, y an arge, as eene case wit networ tec no ogy. Barney

, ) orse, it as ecome part o t eenera para igm o to ay, an even mo est ritics o t e net easi y appear as u ites. T eost appropriate counter or t is is to ta e a

tep ac an oo at t e issue rom t e per-pective o w at t e uman person can an

ou e, an t en consi er w at networec no ogy genera y, an e-voting speci ica y,oes.


17/28


NISPAcee

occasionalpapers

References

ote: Pure we - ase in ormation is noteprinte ere.)

nnus, Taavi (2001),Riigiigus. Tallinn: Juura.

Buc stein, u ertus an ara eymanns,E s.) ), n ine- a en p a en: es eBu ric .

Crispin, Edmund (1948),Burie or P easure.on on: ictor o ancz.

Drec s er, ., ), Review o Drey us2001 and Barney 2001. Philosophy in Review /Comptes Rendus Philosophiques 22 (2): 87-90.

Drechsler, W. and . Madise, (2002), e-voting

in Estonia. Trames (3): 234-244. Also forth-oming in ersting an Ba ers eim.

Dreyfus, Hubert L. (2001), On the Internet.London New York: Routledge.

T ee ia Tane Tammet an annes ros-ing), ), E-va imise Eesti a ariigis:

ima uste ana s. so at ttp: //ats.rii .ee/mp ora/ ome/proje ti /e-va imise /aterja i /eva imisteana yys o t. oc.

Kalkun, Mari and Tarmo Kalvet (Eds.), (2002),

Digital Divide In Estonia and How to Bridge It.allinn: Emor and PRAXIS Centre for PolicyStudies. E-book, downloadable from http:

//www.praxis.ee/praxis/eng/home/main.php?menuID=14&pid=14.

ersting, or ert an ara Ba ers eimE s.), ort coming), nternet oting. Present

Forms an Future Perspectives. Basingsto e:Pa grave acmi an.

Laar, Mart, (2002),Das estnisc e irtsc a ts-wun er . [Tallinn: ] Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

ipmaa, . an . r , ), E-va imisteea iseerimisvima uste ana s. na ysis or-ere y t e Estonian inistry o ustice. sot www.just.ee/o just/ / ipmaamyr .p .

Meuren, D., (2001), Testfall Landrat-wa . piege n ine (17 September), atttp: //www.spiege . e/netzwe t/po iti /,1518,157659,00.html.

Miks oodata aastani 2003. Editorial,ripev(8 Januar 2001); also at www.aripaev.ee/1836/rv_juhtkiri.htm.l.

To ert, . an R. c ea , ), Does t enternet increase oter Participation in E ec-ions Paper presente to t e nnua eeting

t e merican Po itica cience ssociation,an Francisco.

Weber, A., (2001), baltikummer. Das verkauf-e o , Z agazin (3 November); also atww.zbi.ee/ uexkull/german/aweber.htm.

i , artin, ), nternetwa en. er as-sungsrec t ic e g ic eiten un renzen

tuttgart etc.: Boor erg.


18/28

8

How Should e-Government Be Evaluated?

1. Introduct on

T e riving o jective o t is paper is to i en-i y i erent approac es to measuring t eeve opment o e-government an proposeome in icators appropriate to t e countries

entra an Eastern Europe. T e irst ques-ion ta en into consi eration is ow e-gov-

rnment s ou e un erstoo . T e seconrea o examination ocuses on e-governmentva uation met o s a opte in ea ing in or-ation tec no ogy a vance countries i ee an t e European nion. y argu-ent is t at in many cases our perception o

-government is imite or simp i ie an t usis eva uate improper y. T e t ir vita issueo pon er is w et er we s ou app y t eame criteria o eva uation in post-socia isticountries or emp oy a i erent set o criteria.

First y, wou i e to point out t e neeo e ine t e concept o e-government. n ,

Tay or e son o res T ) un ertoo a majoro a stu y ocuse on t e impact o t e

nternet on government2. E-government wase ine as any usage o government on inet a eve s e era , state, oca ). But ou t

i t is survey roug t a c ear message a outtate o art in t e ie o e-government inountries ana yse .

2. E-government or e-governance?

T e interpretation o e- overnment is quiteroa an ivergent. T e genera e initionescri es e-government as t e use o in orma-

ion and communication technologies (ICT)o trans orm government y ma ing it moreccessi e, e ective and accountable 3. esua y i enti y our or ive stages o e-govern-ent eve opment escri e as:

in ormation avai a e on- ine; ne-way interaction; wo-way interaction; an u on ine transaction, inc u ing e ivery

n payment.

n a more etai e view, rea isation o Trojects may re er to narrow an roa arease- overnment. n t e irst case, e- overn-ent in sma is associate wit imp ementa-

tion o a ministrative processes, wit in t eomain o e - ministration. Broa y e ine ,ectronic government can inc u e a in or-ation an communication tec no ogy T)

to support government operat ons, engageitizens, an provi e government services.

T ere ore, t is is a roa er approac em-racing t e w o e range o governance anministrative projects inc u ing e-services,

- emocracy, e-voting, e-justice an in some

way even e-e ucation or e- ea t care. ear y,-government is muc more t an gat ering in-ormation, own oa ing i es or ma ing on ine

transact ons.Furt ermore, t e set o concepts re ate

to t e use o T as een enric e y t eotion o e-governance as a resu t o a newpproac to pu ic pro em solving4. e are

witnessing t e transition rom a conso i ateo e o ig government centra ise ,ierarc ica an operating in c ose networ s

to a new mo e o governance ase one -organising inter-organisationa networ sxc anging oca an g o a now e ge in t eigita economy. n to ay s wor , neit er po i-

ticians nor civi servants an a ministrationta are exc usive y responsi e or s aping

t e strategies an po icies o a given countryr oca community. narrow approac to-government may ea to tec nocratic gov-rnment or t e trans ormation o ureaucracy

into in ocracy. n t e contrary, e-governance

How Should e-Government Be

Evaluated? Different Methodologies

and Methods

arcin a owicz

Warsaw School of Economics, Department of Publicdministration, Warsaw, Poland

2 Government Online, an International Perspective, 2001

enchmarking Research Study, TNS3 -Government Handbook, http: //www.cdt.org/egov/

handbook/, 0 -03-2003

4 The tools of government, Guide to the New Governance,ester M. Salomon (ed.), Oxford University Press 2002, p. 9-18


19/28


NISPAcee

occasionalpapers

9

ssumes on ine engagement o many sta e-o ers in t e process o s aping, e atingn imp ementing pu ic po icies. it in t isroa e inition we can i enti y our imen-ions o e-governance5:

E-services This term describes the use ofelectronic delivery for government infor-mation, programs, strategies and services.These services are available on-line 24/7.It also refers to Electronic Service Delivery(ESD) and such expressions as one-stopservice centres. The latter describes asituation in which citizen needs are metthrough a single contact with the govern-ment. In many cases it assumes a mod-ernised front-office but not necessarily a

redesigned back office capacity. At thesame time, e-services emphasise innova-tive forms of citizen involvement and offerservices that demonstrate serious valuationof citizens as customer of administration.The strategic challenge is to deliver serv-ices to members of the public along withdimensions such as quality, convenienceand cost.E-management While e-Services focuson extra-organisational relations, e-man-

agement (e-administration) refers to thebehind-the-scenes information systemssupporting the management and admin-istrative functions of public institutions,including data and information manage-ment, e ectronic recor s maintenance anthe cross-departmental flow of information.E-governance initiatives within this domain

ea particu ar y wit improving manage-ment of government, from streamlining

usiness processes to improving t e cross-departmental flow of information. Effectiveusage of ICT requires a new organisationalculture in addition to new staff teams fo-cused on performance, customer servicesand response to citizen input. The solutionsto the problems for e-management lie inthe implementation of services designedaround possible life events or the life-epi-

so e approac an t e a aptation anintegration o ac -o ice processes 6.E- emocracy T is is t e most i icu t eature o e- overnance to generate an

sustain. it in t e ramewor o e- emoc-

racy, T is use as an instrument to e pset agen as, esta is priorities, ma eimportant po icies an participate in t eirimp ementation in a e i erative way. tre ers to activities t at increase citizeninvo vement inc u ing virtua town meet-ings, open meetings, cy er campaigns,ee ac po s, pu ic surveys an commu-

nity orums suc as t roug e-consu tationan e-voting)7. n s ort, i egovernment issuccess u y imp emente , new empowere

citizens may emerge. T ey wi e a e toorm an nternet iase a iance to responto various issues an ac ieve economican socia o jectives.E-commerce T is concept is in e to t e

usiness si e o government interaction.n e-commerce, t e exc ange o money or

goo s an services is con ucte over t enternet. For examp e, citizens paying taxes

an uti ity i s, renewing ve ic e registra-tions an paying or recreation programs,

or government uying o ices supp ies anauctioning surp us equipment t roug on-ine purc asing, e-procurement).

. Measur ng the e-Government,

exam nat on of var ous

frameworks

3.1. Methodologies remarks

s exemp i ie in Ta e , t ere are variouspproac es to measuring t e eve opment o

- overnment. you re er to t e concept o-governance, it is possi e to ana yse i er-nt maturity eve s o e-services, e-manage-ent, e- emocracy an e-commerce. ost o

- overnment appraisa s try to cover a t eseissues ut t e scope o ana ysis is very o ten

and limited

5 M. Sakowicz, Electronic Promise for Local and RegionalCommunities, LGB Brief, Winter 2003, p. 2 -28

6 M.Vintar, M. Kunstelj, . LebenDelivering Better QualityPublic Services through Life-Event Portals, http: //www.vus.uni-lj.si/nispa/, http: //www.nispa.sk/news/papers/wg2/Vintar.doc (April 2002)

S. Coleman, J.Gotze, Bowling Together: Online Publicngagement in Policy Deliberation, London: Hansard Society,

2002


20/28

20


Project name

(organisation)

Methodology of collecting and

analysing data. The scope of

analysis

Character features of evaluation - criteria, primary

goal and result

e-Europe, EU In the field of information society,

national statistics offices, all tiers of

government

E-government is measured by comparison of on -line

development of 20 key public services

UNPAN

(The United Nations

Online Network in

Public Administration

and Finance)

Website evaluation along with

questionnaire sent to public sector

professionals, national e-

government programs; e-

government is defined as: utilising

the Internet and the world-wide-

web for delivering government

information and services to citizens.

The study's primary goal is to objectively present

facts and conclusions that define a country's e -

government environment and demonstrate its

capacity (or lack thereof) to sustain online

development. Comparative analysis of fundamental

information technology (IT) indicators and critical

human capital measures for each UN Member State.

e-Government

Benchmarking

Electronic Service

Delivery (July 2001, e -

Envoy)

interviews, targeted questionnaires

worldwide, selected advanced

countries

The 2001 study has focused on a range of back- office

and wider e-government issues, such as accessibility

and interoperability.

KEeLAN Local and regional level web

scanning of 700 websites and then

thorough examination along with

interviews in the 50 Case Studies

To elaborate road-maps for e -government

development at the local level, to find top websites

on the basis of: Request/Application; Handling: Help;

Modality of appearance

Analysed issues: business model adopted,

transformation of workflow, responsibilities and

work processes and financial, legal, social and

cultural considerations

Eforum National, regional and local range

questionnaires addressed primary to

civil servants, face to face

interviews in order to collect

information helping to assess broad

trends in e -government

development in Europe.

ICT means, e-government perceived expectations and

fears from the point of view of the citizens,

businesses, civil servants, government, barriers and

drivers in the process of e-Government

implementation

Momentum Research

Group

interviews from the public and

business sectors

Main criteria are: Appl ication and service relevance;

citizens and business satisfaction; preservation of

public trust

The Government

Online Study (GO),

Taylor Nelson Sofres

The report is designed to measure

the impact of the Internet on

government globally and nationally.

The study is a result of telephone

interviews with over 29,000

individuals across 27 countries.

Key questions answered: What are the levels of e-

government usage? How is e-government being

used? Is the safety issue a barrier to e-government

uptake? How does e-government uptake compare to

internet use globally?

E-public services inPoland, CAP GEMINI

ERNST&YOUNG

(2002, 2003)

Front-office, in Poland 2002, 388institutions analysed, 74 % of them

have their own web site, average is

21%

Web-based survey on Electronic Public Services

Balanced E-

Government -

Connecting Efficient

Administration and

Responsive Democracy

12 services were the subject of

closer analysis along with more

than 50 individual conversations

were conducted

Various dimensions of e-democracy and e-

government services, 49 criteria in five areas:

benefits, efficiency, participation, transparency, and

change management were analysed

Infoville focus groups and large -scale postal

or face-to-face questionnaires to

citizen end users in 8 municipalities

Focus on end users, main question : how do people

use local websites?

a e

e ecte examp e o eva uat on enc mar ng o egovernment


21/28


NISPAcee

occasionalpapers

1

s ar as met o o ogy is concerne , as-essment is carrie out y com ining severaec niques inc u ing we surveys, question-aires, an ace to ace interviews. Researc

is usua y ivi e into stages. For examp e,

e Ee eva uation ramewor consistetwo stages 8. n t e i rst p ase o s tu y,

e sites o E municipa ities were scanneit t e e p o a we -scanning too . T is

oo is compose o a ist o questions w icssess t e eve o service e ivery or a pre-e ine se ection o services. it t e e pt is too , t e eve o maturity o t e oca

ut ority in imp ementing e-government wasompute . s a resu t o scanning, 5 munici-a ities were sing e out as stu y cases ase

n t e qua ity o ront-o ice per ormanceusa i ity, accessi i ity, eve o interactivityn services, an eve o response to externaeman s or service e ivery).

e secon p ase consiste o an on ineenc mar an site visits to t e 5 se ecteunicipa ities. T e on ine enc mar as-

esse a set o criteria wit respect to t erganisation an tec no ogy e in t e

ront-o ice. T e resu ts rom t e enc marorme t e asis o t e site visit, uring w ic

series o interviews were e wit eyersons wit in t e organisation in or er toxamine t eir ey actors o success. avingva uate 5 top oca aut orities, t e ina

ase o t e stu y concerne t e ra ting oi erent mo e s an roa maps or Europeannion municipa ities to imp ement e- overn-ent service e ivery, ase on t e organisa-

iona c aracteristics ront an ac -o ice).n t e case o P , two met o o ogies

ere use in a researc stu y on e-govern-ent. First, nationa government we sites

ere ana yse or t e content an servicesvai a e t at t e average citizen wou most i e y use. T e presence or a sence o spe-i ic eatures contri ute to etermining aountry s eve o progress. T e stages presentstraig t orwar enc mar w ic o jective-

y assesses a country s on ine sop istication.econ , a statistica ana ysis was one com-

aring t e in ormation an communicationec no ogy in rastructure an uman capitaapacity or em er tates.

ost o t e stu ies aim to assess overan genera e-government status an t ere ore

a e into consi eration t e w o e country, i.e.,ministrations an government at a eve s:

e era , regiona an oca . n y out oxamp es s own in Ta e exc usive y ocusn regiona or oca communities n ovi en Ee projects). owever, t e oca anegiona eve seems to e essentia as mostervices are provi e y t e territoria se -overnment units an a so participation in t eu ic i e s ou e ig er at t e oca t an at e nationa eve .

3.2 Misleading e-government indicators

Issues analysed by different evaluations leadso different outcomes and give only part ofhe answer as to what the level of e-govern-

ent in a given country or local communityis. Firstly, most evaluations focus on theubject how given countries are preparedor the era of e-Government. Analysed ques-ions are as follows: do web-sites allow for theending of on-line forms, are citizens able to

ontact elected representatives by means ofew technologies, do countries have enoughapability to develop e-Government? Theseinds of research studies are technologicallyriven approaches designed to primarilyhow the level of technological advancement.

This remark refers to such analysis within theEU framework. During the program entitledeEurope 2002, e-government was analysedt the level of providing the 20 key govern-ent public services online that are measured

sing a four stage framework (Table 2). Usef on-line public services by the public con-titutes a less important factor. Furthermore,

if we consider the whole eEurope reportn building an information society, we canotice that much consideration is devoted to

echnological aspects 9. Most EU targets weretipulated as follows: (by the end of 2001) allchools should have access to the Internet

8 The KEeL N project (Key Elements for Electronicocal Authorities Networks) was launched in February

002 as part of the European fifth Framework Programnd Development and is supported by the EuropeanCommission, http: //www.keelan.elanet.org/egovernment/benchmarking.asp

9 . Jung, Tworzenie spoeczestwa informacyjnego w Unii

uropejskiej I w krajach kandydackich prba ocenykryteriw in: Polska w przededniu czonkostwa w Uniiuropejskiej. Nadzieje i obawy, SGH-KES Warszawa 2002, p.

263 - 2


22/28

22


n mu time ia resources, y t e en o), a pupi s s ou e igita y iterate

y the time they leave school10

essons rom enc mar ing eEuropee to t e amen ment o emp oye in ica-ors. According to the new framework, eEu-ope s ou ave a imite num er o po icy

in icators. T ese s ou e easy to rea annderstand. The eEurope 2005 Commissionroposes po icy in icators an supp e-entary in icators. T e new enc mar ing

riteria are more ocuse on ow nternete ate tec no ogies are use : irms to use-commerce, sc oo s not on y connecte utso ma ing u use o t e nternet in c ass;

nternet usage in t e ea t sector. T e newpproac is c ear y visi e i we compare-Europe in icators wit po icy enc -arking indicators for 2005 (Table 3)11.

it re erence to e- overnment issues,

e po icy in icator is t e num er o asicu ic services u y avai a e on- ine. upp e-entary statistica in icators are t e percent-

ge o in ivi ua s an enterprises using t enternet to interact wit pu ic aut oritiesroken down by purpose (purposes: obtain-

ing in ormation, o taining orms, returningilled in forms). There also additional supple-

entary in icators to e t e su ject o pi ottu ies wit a view to examining t eir easi i -

ity at t e mi -term review i e t e num er o

vai a e asic pu ic on- ine services witintegrate igita ac -o ice processes; pu ic

rocurement processes t at are u y car-ied out online in % (value) of overall publicrocurement, an t e percentage o pu icut orities using open source software.

0 Europe, An Information Society for All, Communication ona Commission Initiative for the Special European Council of

isbon, http: //europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/1 Europe 2005: Benchmarking indicators, COM (2002) 655

inal, http: //europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/ews_library/documents/benchmarking05_en.pdf

Services for the Citizens Services for Businesses

1. Income taxes 1. Social contribution for employees

2. Job search 2. Corporate tax

3. Social security benefits 3. VAT

4. Personal documents 4. Registration of a new company

5. Car registration 5. Submission of statistical data

6. Application for building permits 6. Customs declarations

7. Declaration to the police 7. Environment-related permits

8. Public libraries 8. Public Procurement

9. Birth and marriage certificates

10. Enrolment in higher education

11. Announcement of change of residence

12. Health-related services

a e

st o pu c serv ces ana yse n t e course o e-Europe as t e as s o e-governmenteve opment

ource: e urope ; mpact an riorities, ina , russe s .


23/28


NISPAcee

occasionalpapers

3

a e

List of eEurope Benchmarking indicators

Source: List of eEurope Benchmarking indicators, http: //europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/benchmarking/in icator_ ist.p ;

eEurope2005: benchmarking indicators; http: //europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/news_library/documents/benchmarking05_en.pdf

Europe 2002 Europe 2005 policy indicators (14)

1. Percentage of population who regularly use the Internet

2. Percentage of households with Internet access at home

3. Internet access costs

A Citizen access to and use of the Internet

A1. Percentage of households or individuals with

internet access at homeA2. Percentage of individuals regularly using the

Internet

4. Speed of interconnections and services availablebetween and within national research and education

networks (NRENs) within EU and world-wide

B Business access to and use of ICTsB1. Percentage of persons employed using computers

connected to the Internet, in their normal work routine

5. Number of secure servers per million inhabitants Internet access costs

C.1 Costs of Internet access broken down by different

frequency of use: 20, 30, 40 hrs/month, unlimited

access

6. Percentage of Internet-using public that have experienced

security problems

D. e-government

D1. No. of basic public services fully available on-line

7. Number of computers per 100 pupils in

primary/secondary/higher levels

E e-learning

E.1 Number of pupils with Internet connections

(broadband/not broadband)8. Number of computers connected to the Internet per 100

pupils in primary/secondary/higher levelsF. e-healthF1. Percentage of Population (aged 16 and over) using the

Internet to seek health information whether for

themselves or others.

F.2. Percentage of general practitioners using electronic

patients records

9. Number of computers with high speed connections tothe Internet per 100 pupils in primary/secondary/higherlevels

G. Buying and selling on-lineG.1 Percentage of a businesss total turnover from e-

commerce

10. Percentage of teachers using the Internet for non-

computing teaching on a regular basis

H. e-business readiness

H1 e-business index (composite indicator)

11. Percentage of workforce with (at least) basic IT training

12. Number of places and graduates in ICT related higher

level education

I Internet users experience and u sage regarding ICT-

security

I1 Percentage of individuals with Internet access havingencountered security problems

I2 Percentage of enterprises with Internet access havingencountered security problems

13. Percentage of workforce telecommuting

14. Number of Public Internet Points (PIP) per 1000inhabitants

15. Percentage of central government websites that conform

to the WAI accessibility guidelines at level A

16. Percentage of companies that buy and sell over the

Internet

J Broadband penetrationJ1. Percentage of businesses with broadband access

J2. Percentage of households and individuals withbroadband access

J3. Percentage of public administrations with broadband

access

17. Percentage of basic public services available on-line

18. Public use of government on-line services for

information/ for submission of forms

19. Percentage of public procurement which can be carriedout on-line

20. Percentage of health professionals with Internet access

21. Use of different categories of web content by health

professionals

22. Percentage of EU web sites in the national top 50 visited

23. Percentage of motorway network (vs. total length of

network) equipped with congestion information and

management systems


24/28

24


ereas E , P an P E ,Po an s survey, ocus on y on ront-o ice, t e

Ee ramewor exp ores ront-o ice ase as ac -o ice aspects o e-government.

o t em ocus on t e supp y si e o e-gov-

rnment an not necessari y on t e nee sn expectations o en users. n t e case oEe , you simp y measure t e qua ity ogiven we site y measuring t e o owingspec s:

Request/Application: covers level of in-teractivity of the local authority websiteby addressing issues related to uploadingand downloading information /applicationforms, availability of information and mo-dalities of interaction, etc.;

Handling: covers response to externaldemands by addressing issues relatedto reply time and modality of reply to arequest, accessibility of databases (editingand monitoring of data);Help: covers level of interactivity and mo-dalities of support; andModality of appearance: user-interfacefeatures of the website supporting service

e ivery.

e question o citizen voice an nee s is

art y answere y t e overnment n ineT stu y. t provi es g o a an nationaenc mar s re ating to t e use o governmentervices on ine an perceptions o sa ety

en provi ing persona in ormation to t eovernment. But t is stu y so e y concen-rates on citizens/users an t eir experience

in using T wit t e government. n turn, t eForum survey rings a message o e-govern-ent upta e rom t e perspective o pu ic

ervants.

T ere ore, as a resu t o met o o ogyopte , most e- overnment eve opmentsre assesse rom on y one perspective oitizens, usinesses or pu ic o icia s.

3.3 The necessity of a holistic approach

to evaluating e-government

ertain y, e- overnment is not eBusiness. tis muc more. e- overnment is a out oure ations ips wit our civic institutions ane oun ation o our next-generation o

tates an communities. n erstan ing w atitizens an usinesses want an ow gov-rnment, private sector an t e t ir sector

easure t e return on government s nternetinvestment is t e c a enge. Benc mar ing

e revo ution requires new t in ing a outo icy issues an po itica rea ities an t eir

impact on citizen an usiness satis action.

n essentia step towar urt er usage o Tis to oo or an integrate mo e o eva ua-ion o e-government eve opment w ic wissociate ene its an a costs an un s ear-ar e or imp ementation o new tec no o-

ies in t e pu ic omain. T e very importantn i icu t question to answer is: oes Tsage provi e ene its commensurate wit

its costs T ere ore, a necessary eva uationgovernment s ou inc u e our omainse-governance: e-services, e-management,

-commerce an e- emocracy compare witxpectations an nee s o a sta e o ersinvo ve , ut especia y t e en users, i.e.,itizens, usinesses an s. n urt eronsi eration two approac es are wortentione .

n t e irst one, aut ors o t e report enti-e Benc mar ing t e e overnment Revo u-

ion propose t e in icator o ExperimentaReturn on nvestment R ) to measure t e

ectiveness o e-government12. R is a unc-

ion o t ree critica varia es: Application and service relevance; Citizens and business satisfaction; and Preservation of public trust.

pp ication an service re evance ies in itsva ue proposition. T e questions are as o -ows: Does t e promise o e- overnment meet

e nee s an improve t e ives o citizensDo T so utions e p citizens an usinesses

perate more e icient y an oster ettere ations ips wit oca aut orities re oca

overnments more capa e o reac ing t eire - ec are o jectivesitizen an usiness satis action in ex is

measure o e ectiveness o T usage versusxperience o i erent users. T is measuree ers to t e a i ity o government to a ressoca eman s. n or er or citizens an usi-esses to e ieve t at an investment in nter-et tec no ogies is wort w i e, t ey nee toe satis ie wit nternet ase services.

12 Benchmarking the e-Government Revolution(2000), Year 2000 report on Citizens andBusiness, Momentum Research Group


25/28


NISPAcee

occasionalpapers

5

Preservation o pu ic trust is one o t eost critica issues acing t e eve opment oe nternet to ay. i e t e transition towarectronic emocracy an e ectronic e iverysome government services as a rea y

egun, it wi e a ong an i icu t processo ac ieve true e-government wit out paying

ore attention to on- ine privacy an securityissues an strengt ening t e eve o trust

etween oca aut orities an citizens.e secon integrate approac is t e

oncept o Ba ance e overnment esigney t e Berte sman Foun ation. T is stu yom ines areas o a ministrative on ine ser-ices or ot citizens an ot er customersit t e notion o eDemocracy w ic encom-

asses t e net s potentia or civic participa-ion an etter in ormation or citizens. n t easis o t e Ba ance e overnment core-ar , aut ors ana yze t e internationa gooractises in i erent countries y means oes researc an in- ept interviews.

owever, t e pro em sti persists in t ease o e- emocracy appraisa . e-Democracyeans i erent t ings to i erent peop e an

in particu ar cases it re ers to a wi e-ranginge inition o t e topic an issues w ic impact

pon it. T emes inc u e: citizen consu tationgovernment po icy ocuments, tr

e Govrernance in Public

Documents

Transcript of e Govrernance in Public