Integrated Series in Information Systems

Volume 25

Series EditorsRamesh ShardaOklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

Stefan VoßUniversity of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

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

Christopher G. ReddickEditor

Comparative E-Government

123

EditorChristopher G. ReddickDepartment of Public AdministrationUniversity of TexasSan Antonio, TX 78207, USAchris.reddick@utsa.edu

ISSN 1571-0270ISBN 978-1-4419-6535-6 e-ISBN 978-1-4419-6536-3DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-6536-3Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London

Library of Congress Control Number: 2010930823

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the writtenpermission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York,NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use inconnection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden.The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they arenot identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subjectto proprietary rights.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

This book is dedicated to my father GeorgeWilliam Reddick.

Preface

Electronic government or e-government has impacted all countries of the world.E-government is not just a movement that has transpired in one particular country,it is truly a global phenomenon, impacting both developed and developing nations.Essentially, e-government has influenced nations on all corners of the earth to dif-ferent degrees. The discussion of e-government does not necessarily imply that Websites are the only mechanism for its expression; many new and emerging technolo-gies have appeared recently and are part of the e-government movement, such aswireless and new social media technologies. This book is one of the first of its kindto examine e-government across different nations.

The research on e-government took off with the commercialization and rise ofthe Internet in the mid-1990s. The Internet became a viable tool for businesses toreach more customers and essentially made it more accessible to a broader arrayof individuals. Emerging in a new millennium many scholars touted some of thepromises of e-government to be revolutionary having the ability to change boththe nature of government operations and the way the citizens interact with theirgovernment. We now know that e-government as envisioned during this period hasnot lived up to expectations, but it still resonates given the broad and continueddiscussion on the topic and its continued application throughout the world.

E-government has multiple meanings and has been defined numerous times byboth scholars and practitioners. As mentioned, government Web sites were whate-government was originally envisioned upon, but as we know new technologieshave emerged and are also part of e-government. One common thread, through mostdefinitions of e-government, indicates its ability to transform government and makeit more responsive and accountable to citizens. The chapters in the book address thetransformational impact of e-government in many nations of the world.

The book Comparative E-Government examines the impact of information andcommunication technology (ICT) on the governments throughout the world. Thefocus of this book is to examine the adoption of e-government in countries bothby comparing different countries, and by focusing on individual countries and thesuccess and challenges that they have faced.

This book has 32 chapters from leading e-government scholars and practition-ers from around the world. There is representation of developing and developedcountries in this book and their different stages of e-government adoption. There

vii

viii Preface

are three parts in this book. Part I compares the adoption of e-government in twoor more countries. The purpose of these chapters is to discern the development ofe-government by comparing different countries and their individual experiences.As the reader will see from Part I e-government, although a global phenomena,has more of an impact on some countries than others. Its impact is global, but thedegree of adoption varies with the nature of the country, its social and demographiccharacteristics, and degree of economic development.

Part I in its analysis of e-government across different countries had some inter-esting common findings. The chapters in this part demonstrate that many developingcountries are struggling with providing the most basic infrastructure for ICT, whichlimits citizens’ use of e-government. However, mobile technologies make Internetconnectivity more promising for developing countries. E-government developmentacross both developing and developed countries seems to be more at the publish-ing and two-way interaction stages of development. There is not a lot of wholesaletransformation as a result of e-government. Some factors that are associated withmore successful e-government adoption are leadership, collaboration, and civicengagement. In order for governments to effectively implement more advancede-government systems, they need to listen to their stakeholders. One way for moresuccessful e-government adoption is a bottom up approach where adoption is drivenby stakeholders and their opinions and uses of systems. The digital divide is one ofthe most pressing issues that all countries face in the adoption of e-government, anissue that is not likely to go away in the near future.

Part II of this book provides more in-depth focus of case studies on the adoptionof e-government in select countries. Similarly to part one, the Part II shows thatdevelopment is global, and varies in the context of the country. The lessons learnedhere is that e-government cannot just be applied from one country to the next, thecontext of the country must be taken into account. Essentially, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to e-government that will be successful, therefore, more researchshould be conducted on providing individual country case studies.

For instance, some of the chapters discuss that implementation of e-governancein many developing countries is weakened due to challenges such as the lack oftransparency and broadband infrastructure. Another issue addressed in the secondpart is that many countries are approaching e-government as service delivery ratherthan enhancing democracy and participation. The cultural and legal aspect of thecountry has a tremendous impact on e-government adoption. Many chapters discussthe state of the art in e-government development, examining political, infrastructure,and funding issues.

Part III, the last part of the book, examines emerging innovations and tech-nologies in the adoption of e-government in different countries. Some of theemerging technologies are the new social media movement, the development ofe-participation, interoperability, and geographic information systems (GIS). Thepurpose of Part III is to leave the reader with some of the new issues that haveemerged and will become part of e-government in the future.

Some of the issues discussed in Part III are e-government adoption and partic-ipation through GIS systems. Usability of e-government and the digital divide in

Preface ix

general are issues that still need to be addressed. Access to information laws willenhance transparency and accountability of governments and some nations are moredeveloped in this than others. New social media technologies such as Web 2.0 caninfluence citizen participation in government. Other issues such as performancemeasurement, accountability, and budget transparency are addressed as importantissues for the future of e-government.

This book would not be possible without the tireless work of the authors. Thisbook was peer reviewed, with each chapter reviewed by at least three reviewers.Without the helpful comments of these reviewers this book would not be possi-ble. I believe that both scholars and practitioners will find this book useful, havingboth theoretical and best practices in e-government. In addition, the global cov-erage of Comparative E-Government provides insights into the development ofe-government in both developed and developing countries throughout the world,which is unmatched in existing books.

San Antonio, Texas Christopher G. Reddick

Contents

Part I Comparing Countries and Regions

1 E-government Maturity over 10 Years: A ComparativeAnalysis of E-government Maturity in Select CountriesAround the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3M. Naveed Baqir and Lakshmi Iyer

2 Framework of E-governance at the Local Government Level . . . . 23Hakikur Rahman

3 A Comparative Study of Contents of E-government ServiceWebsites of Middle East and North African (MENA) Countries . . 49Abebe Rorissa, Devendra Potnis, and Dawit Demissie

4 Towards E-participation in the Middle East and NorthernEurope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Girish J. “Jeff ” Gulati, David J. Yates, and Anas Tawileh

5 Evaluation of the Impact and Adoption of E-governmentServices in the Balkans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91Ourania I. Markaki, Dimitris E. Charilas,and Dimitrios Askounis

6 A Challenging E-journey Along the Silk Road: LessonsLearned from E-governments in China and India . . . . . . . . . . 115Alankar Bandyopadhyay and Sahar D. Sattarzadeh

7 Digital Government in North America: A ComparativeAnalysis of Policy and Program Priorities in Canada,Mexico, and the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139Luis F. Luna-Reyes, Theresa A. Pardo, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia,Celene Navarrete, Jing Zhang, and Sehl Mellouli

8 Adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and US Governments . . . . . . 161F. Dianne Lux Wigand

xi

xii Contents

9 E-government and Federalism in Italy and Canada—AComparative Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183Barbara -Chiara Ubaldi and Jeffrey Roy

10 Adoption of E-government by Disadvantaged Groupsin the United States and the United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Doria Pilling

11 Implementing E-Government Locally—An EmpiricalSurvey from the European Metropolitan Area Rhine-Neckar . . . 221Sebastian Olbrich

Part II Country Case Studies

12 E-government Adoption Landscape Zambia: Context,Issues, and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241Bwalya Kelvin Joseph

13 Challenges of Effective E-governance: Problems ofTransparency, Infrastructure, and Connectivity in Kenya . . . . . 259David Wachira and Sudha Arlikatti

14 The Politics of E-government in Spain: Between RecentInnovations and Old Inertias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275J. Ignacio Criado

15 Technological Adoption of a Privatised E-government:Implications for Democracy and Socially MarginalisedCommunities in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299José Rodrigues Filho

16 The Challenges of E-governance in a Small, DevelopingSociety: The Case of Trinidad and Tobago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313Ann Marie Bissessar

17 Towards E-government Transformation in Turkey: Policyand Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331Hatice Özkan Sancak and Sevcan Güleç

18 Measuring E-government Adoption by Governments:The Greek Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353Leonidas G. Anthopoulos, Vassilis C. Gerogiannis,and Panos Fitsilis

19 Critical Factors for Adoption of E-government: Validityof Adoption Model in Indian Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371Mahmud A. Shareef, Norm Archer, Vedmani Sharan,and Vinod Kumar

Contents xiii

20 Conceptualizing and Implementation of E-government in India . . 391Subhajyoti Ray

21 E-government in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus . . . . 409Mustafa Sagsan and Mete Yıldız

22 SCRAN’s Development of a Trans-national Comparatorfor the Standardisation of E-government Services . . . . . . . . . . 425Mark Deakin

Part III Innovations and Emerging Technologies

23 Public Participation Geographic Information Systems:A Literature Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449Sukumar Ganapati

24 Learning with GIS-Based Monitors in the Netherlands . . . . . . . 467Dennis de Kool

25 Bridging the Other Divide: An Assessmentof the Usability of Trinidad and Tobago GovernmentMinistry Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483Charlene M.L. Roach and N. Joseph Cayer

26 E-government in New Zealand: Local Governments, DigitalDivides and the National Digital Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505Kay Fielden and Pam Malcolm

27 A Study of E-government and Political Indicatorsin Developing Nations with and Without Access-to-Information Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525Jeannine E. Relly

28 Socializing E-governance: A Parallel Study of ParticipatoryE-governance and Emerging Social Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543Eleni -Revekka Staiou and Dimitris Gouscos

29 E-government, Accountability, and Performance:Best-in-Class Governments in European Union Countries . . . . . 561Rebecca L. Orelli, Emanuele Padovani, and Eric Scorsone

30 The OECD Budgetary Transparency: An Examinationof Online Budgetary Information Across EuropeanUnion Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587Carmen Caba Pérez, Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar,and Antonio Manuel López Hernández

xiv Contents

31 Does Size or Geography Matter? Empirical Analysisof Finnish Local Government Services on the Internet . . . . . . . 615Tommi A. Inkinen

32 E-government Interoperability Framework: A Case Studyin a Developing Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639Pavel Shvaiko, Adolfo Villafiorita, Alessandro Zorer,Lourino Chemane, and Teotonio Fumo

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663

Contributors

Leonidas G. Anthopoulos Project Management Department, TEI of Larissa,Larissa, Thessaly 41110, Greece, lanthopo@teilar.gr

Norm Archer McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L8,archer@mcmaster.ca

Sudha Arlikatti University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203-0617, USA,arlikatti@unt.edu

Dimitrios Askounis National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, 15780Athens, Greece, askous@epu.ntua.gr

Alankar Bandyopadhyay University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742,USA, alankarb@umd.edu

M. Naveed Baqir University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA,mnbaqir@udel.edu

Ann Marie Bissessar The University of the West Indies, St Augustine, Trinidad,West Indies, annmarie.bissessar@sta.uwi.edu

Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar University of Granada, Granada 18071, Spain,manuelp@ugr.es

N. Joseph Cayer Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA,joe.cayer@asu.edu

Dimitris E. Charilas National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, 15780Athens, Greece, dcharilas@mobile.ntua.gr

Lourino Chemane UTICT – ICT Policy Implementation Technical Unit, Maputo,Mozambique, chemane@infopol.gov.mz

J. Ignacio Criado Department of Political Science and International Relations,Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, ignacio.criado@uam.es

Mark Deakin Centre for Learning Communities, Academic Development,Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK, m.deakin@napier.ac.uk

xv

xvi Contributors

Dennis de Kool Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DRRotterdam, The Netherlands, dekool@publicinnovation.nl

Dawit Demissie University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY12222, USA, dd536519@albany.edu

Kay Fielden Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand,kfielden@unitec.ac.nz

José Rodrigues Filho Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa, Brazil,jrodrigues.filho@uol.com.br

Panos Fitsilis Project Management Department, TEI of Larissa, Larissa, Thessaly41110, Greece, fitsilis@teilar.gr

Teotonio Fumo UTICT — ICT Policy Implementation Technical Unit, Maputo,Mozambique, tfumo@infopol.gov.mz

Sukumar Ganapati Public Administration Department, PCA 363B School ofInternational and Public Affairs, College of Arts and Sciences, FloridaInternational University, Miami, FL 33199, USA, ganapati@fiu.edu

Vassilis C. Gerogiannis Project Management Department, TEI of Larissa,Larissa, Thessaly 41110, Greece, gerogian@teilar.gr

J. Ramon Gil-Garcia Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas, Mexico,DF 01210, Mexico, joseramon.gil@cide.edu

Dimitris Gouscos University of Athens, Athens 105 62, Greece,gouscos@media.uoa.gr

Girish J. “Jeff” Gulati Bentley University, Waltham, MA 02452, USA,jgulati@bentley.edu

Sevcan Güleç Gazi University, Faculty of Economics and AdministrativeSciences, Besevler, Ankara, Turkey, gulecsevcan@hotmail.com

Antonio Manuel López Hernández University of Granada, Granada 18071,Spain, alopezh@ugr.es

Tommi A. Inkinen University of Helsinki, Department of Geosciences andGeography, Helsinki 00014, Finland, tommi.inkinen@helsinki.fi

Lakshmi Iyer University of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC 27412, USA,lsiyer@uncg.edu

Bwalya Kelvin Joseph University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana,kelvin.bwalya@mopipi.ub.bw

Vinod Kumar Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1C 5X7,vinod_kumar@carleton.ca

Contributors xvii

Luis F. Luna-Reyes Universidad de las Americas Puebla, Cholula, Puebla 72820,Mexico, luisf.luna@udlap.mx

Pam Malcolm Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand,pmalcolm@unitec.ac.nz

Ourania I. Markaki National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, 15780Athens, Greece, omarkaki@epu.ntua.gr

Sehl Mellouli Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada G1V 0A6,sehl.mellouli@sio.ulaval.ca

Celene Navarrete California State University, Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA90747, USA, cnavarrete@csudh.edu

Sebastian Olbrich University of Duisburg-Essen (Campus Duisburg), MercatorSchool of Management, Lotharstraße, 65 47057 Duisburg, Germany,sebastian.olbrich@arcor.de

Rebecca L. Orelli University of Bologna, Bologna 47126, Italy,rebecca.orelli@unibo.it

Emanuele Padovani University of Bologna, Bologna 47126, Italy,emanuele.padovani@unibo.it

Theresa A. Pardo Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany,SUNY, Albany, NY 12205, USA, tpardo@ctg.albany.edu

Carmen Caba Pérez University of Almería, Almería 04120, Spain, ccaba@ual.es

Doria Pilling School of Community and Health Sciences, City UniversityLondon, London EC1A 7QN, UK, d.s.pilling@city.ac.uk

Devendra Potnis University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 37996,USA, dpotnis@utk.edu

Hakikur Rahman Institute of Computer Management & Science, Mirpur, Dhaka1216, Bangladesh, email@hakik.org

Subhajyoti Ray Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar, Orissa 751013,India, subhajyoti@ximb.ac.in

Jeannine E. Relly University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA,jrelly@email.arizona.edu

Charlene M.L. Roach The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus,Trinidad & Tobago, West Indies, charlene.roach@sta.uwi.edu

Abebe Rorissa University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY12222, USA, arorissa@albany.edu

Jeffrey Roy Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 3J5, roy@dal.ca

xviii Contributors

Mustafa Sagsan Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey, msagsan@baskent.edu.tr

Hatice Özkan Sancak Gazi University, Faculty of Economics and AdministrativeSciences, Besevler, Ankara, Turkey, haticesancak@hotmail.com

Sahar D. Sattarzadeh University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA,ssattarz@umd.edu

Eric Scorsone Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA,scorsone@msu.edu

Vedmani Sharan Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1C 5X7,vvedmani@connect.carleton.ca

Mahmud A. Shareef McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L8,mahmud_akh@yahoo.com

Pavel Shvaiko TasLab, Informatica Trentina S.p.A., Trento, Italy,pavel.shvaiko@infotn.it

Eleni-Revekka Staiou University of Athens, Athens 105 62, Greece,erstaiou@media.uoa.gr

Anas Tawileh Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales CF24 3AA, UK,anas@tawileh.net

Barbara-Chiara Ubaldi OECD, 2, rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16,France, barbara.ubaldi@oecd.org

Adolfo Villafiorita Fondazione Bruno Kessler IRST, Trento, Italy,adolfo.villafiorita@fbk.eu

David Wachira University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203-0617, USA,davidwachira@my.unt.edu

F. Dianne Lux Wigand Institute of Government, University of Arkansas at LittleRock, Little Rock, AR 72204, USA, fdwigand@ualr.edu

David J. Yates Bentley University, Waltham, MA 02452, USA,dyates@bentley.edu

Mete Yıldız Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey, myildiz@hacettepe.edu.tr

Jing Zhang Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610, USA, jizhang@clarku.edu

Alessandro Zorer CREATE-NET, Trento, Italy, alessandro.zorer@create-net.org

Part IComparing Countries and Regions

Chapter 1E-government Maturity over 10 Years:A Comparative Analysis of E-governmentMaturity in Select Countries Around the World

M. Naveed Baqir and Lakshmi Iyer

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

M.N. Baqir (B)University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USAe-mail: mnbaqir@udel.eduL. IyerUniversity of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC 27412, USAe-mail: lsiyer@uncg.edu

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

4 M.N. Baqir and L. Iyer

1 Introduction

Recognizing the benefits of improved efficiency in delivering government servicesthrough electronic medium, e-government initiatives have increased rapidly in thelast decade (Weerakkody, Choudrie, & Currie, 2004). Examples of such public sec-tor services include (but not limited to) tax filing, identity management (includingissuance and renewal of identity cards, driving licenses, and passports), online appli-cation for government jobs, determination of eligibility for government benefits,obtaining of birth certificates/marriage licenses, renewal of driver licenses, applica-tion for high school grants, registering to vote, and in some cases casting of votes.The nature of government service delivery has been facing rapid transformationin the recent years (Heeks & Bailura, 2007; Mosse & Whitley, 2009). New ser-vice industries; better delivery of services; and faster, cheaper communication aresome of the by-products of this technological revolution (Devadoss, Pan, & Huang,2002).

While the idea of using computers and networks for government servicedelivery is not new, the challenges in the development, deployment, and useof e-government continues to plague policy makers, developers, and serviceproviders. Due to political, organizational, and technical challenges, many of thee-government initiatives are lagging behind user expectations (United NationsReport, 2008). While similar challenges exist in private sectors, businesses haveimplemented Business Process Management (BPM) practices to increase agility,productivity, and operational effectiveness and now there is growing pressure fromcitizens and businesses for public sectors to do the same since e-governmentbuilds on e-business principles (Weerakkody et al., 2004). To leverage the effectof modern technologies, it is important that organizational processes are docu-mented, understood, and properly coordinated with its information technology (IT)strategy.

The implementation of e-government implies different objectives and levels oftransformation. For instance, in the United States, the main objective is to auto-mate and integrate different islands of information to simplify and maximize thebenefits of technology (Iyer, Baqir, & Vollmer, 2006; Navarra & Cornford, 2003),whereas in Europe the emphasis is to modernize public services and offer bet-ter services to citizens (Cuddy, 2003). However, whatever may be the primarygoal, the effective delivery of e-services requires process and information systems(IS) integration and coordination of processes between disparate organizations andstakeholders. Historically, bureaucracies associated within government organiza-tions prevent them from being effective (Wilson, 1989). Even after the emergenceof e-government, most of those bureaucratic processes still involve manual workand have abundant (and redundant) checkpoints. When the stakeholders in a pro-cess work as separate entities, each managing or dealing with disconnected silos ofknowledge and information, it is very hard to deliver a service efficiently. Hence,the first step toward efficient delivery of services is to facilitate a transparent

1 E-government Maturity over 10 Years 5

networked environment where governments can truly partner with other govern-ments, businesses, citizens, and additional stakeholders (GAO, 2003).

Because governments are increasingly looking toward a digital future,e-government yields an interesting area of research. The chapter gives an overviewof the major e-government measurement methods that lay the foundation for thee-government maturity model. The chapter also reviews e-government initiativesduring the last 10 years in several developed and developing countries from fourcontinents (i.e., North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia) and identifies majorissues between the e-government services usage. It also looks at the results of thecomparative analysis between these countries and maps them on an e-governmentmaturity model. A discussion of the difficulties and future challenges that citi-zens face when using e-government services will benefit policy makers, servicedevelopers, and service providers in designing and delivering better e-governmentservices. The chapter concludes by highlighting future trends and challenges fore-government.

2 Background

E-government definitions have evolved over the last 10 years and efforts to compre-hensively describe it in a single statement seem impossible. However, a commonunderstanding is that e-government refers to the use of information and communi-cation technologies (ICTs), particularly Web-based applications, to provide faster,cheaper, easier, and more efficient access to and delivery of information/servicesto the public, businesses, other agencies (non-profit), and governmental entities(Biancucci et al., 2001; Dearstyne, 2001; Palvia & Sharma, 2007). This in turn,enhances relationships, enlarges the overall customer base, and improves corebusiness operations through re-examination of internal processes.

During the last 10 years several ideas of providing modern administration anddemocracy in public service delivery have emerged with a major component ofbringing transparency to public dealing. E-government is considered as a “guid-ing vision toward modern administration and democracy” (Wimmer & Traunmuller,2000). E-government has been reportedly instrumental in bringing transparency topublic dealing (Cho & Byung-Dae, 2004). The focus of e-government has alsoshifted toward constituencies and stakeholders at all levels including government atthe city, county, state, national, or even international levels (Palvia & Sharma, 2007).Essentially, it is with the transformation that governments and public administrationhave to undergo in the future. Hence, e-government is not an option but a mustfor governments to realize the benefits of ICTs to not fall behind. E-governmentis also seen as “transferring power to people, by operating in a one-stop, non-stopway, and doing more for less” (Lawson, 1998). Research on technology emphasizesthat “technology is only one of the structural materials” (Nadler & Tushman, 1997),

6 M.N. Baqir and L. Iyer

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

2.1 Stages of E-government

In order to evaluate e-government maturity in selected countries around the world,we present the theoretical foundations in this section.

Several researchers have developed e-government framework and its evaluationplans (Grant & Derek, 2005). A widely used model which recognizes four stages ofe-government development: (1) cataloguing, (2) transaction, (3) vertical integration,and (4) horizontal integration (Layne & Lee, 2001). Within the first stage, govern-ments set up their initial online presence. This includes, and is very often limited,to the online presentation of information. Governments, citizens, and businesses arenot able to conduct any transactions. Instead, efforts focus on the internal collectionof information, their (re)organization, and final presentation on the Web. However,forms might be downloaded, printed, and then sent back via the normal postalsystem. The second stage, transaction, includes an increase in services and accessto online forms. Citizens and businesses are now able to engage in electronic trans-actions with governments. Examples include the use of interactive forms and digitalsignatures for tasks such as registering a business, applying for a building permit,or filing for unemployment benefits. In addition, governments will increase theirefforts in linking their internal procedures to the online world. While cataloguingis characterized by sparse integration as well as simple technological and organi-zational complexity, horizontal integration is characterized by integration withineach level. Integration along different levels, local, state, and federal characterizesvertical integration. Figure 1.1 shows the visual representation of this model.

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

1 E-government Maturity over 10 Years 7

Fig. 1.2 Phases of Webmeasure index (UnitedNations Report, 2008)

A recent model (see Fig. 1.2) developed by the 2008 United Nations study one-government, identifies five stages for Web measure index. These stages include:(1) emerging, (2) enhanced, (3) interactive, (4) transaction, and (5) connected.Accordingly to this model, countries face different thresholds in terms of infras-tructure development, content delivery, business re-engineering, data management,security, and customer management. In the first stage, government Web sitesmight make basic information about government department available. In thesecond stage they might have more public policy governance-related informa-tion. In third stage, the governments may provide downloadable forms. In thefourth stage, governments might actually be involved in public–government trans-actions. In the last stage, different level and departments of governments maytransform themselves in the form of an integrated back office infrastructure. Itis clear from the descriptions of these two models that during the last decade,while new ideas might have evolved, the basic understanding of the stages remainssomewhat same. Therefore, the next section on country comparison providesmore insights into how to classify different countries within the described frame-work. For citizens, businesses, and governments, aggressive moves toward anincreased integration are desirable since they offer better access to a broader num-ber of governmental services and reduce functional barriers within governmentsthemselves.

During the past 10 years, several authors have reported on the advantages ofe-government with concrete examples of actual e-government systems that resultedin real cost savings. At the same time, there have been several publications thatreport on the challenges e-governments face. Table 1.1 lists a summary these advan-tages and limitations presented in literature on e-government (Accenture, 2004,2009; Dhillon, 2001; Dillon, Deakins, & Chen, 2006; Iyer et al., 2006; Seifert &Petersen, 2002; Symonds, 2000; Tillman, 2003). While advantages and challengesas addressed in the literature are given in a single table, their location in the table

8 M.N. Baqir and L. Iyer

Table 1.1 Summary of advantages and challenges related to e-government initiatives

Advantages Challenges

Increases efficiency and effectiveness Privacy/security/confidentiality concernsIncreases communication Information overloadEliminates redundancies and

inconsistenciesHow to value information

Enhances transparency Web sites do not work/are outdatedYields opportunities to partner with private

sectorBenefits often linked only to high stages of

developmentCan have repercussions on entire economy Internal resistance/lack of leadershipSpurs adoption of internet Lack of resources/capabilities/infrastructureReduces costs (communication,

information, labor, and material)High investments necessary

Improves speed and service delivery,broadens reach, eliminates distanceproblems

Eliminates personalinteraction/contact/possibility to askquestions

Increases convenience Threatens jobsEmpowers citizens Advertising opportunities limited and hence

less awarenessAttracts investments, businesses and skilled

peopleVast size and bureaucratic nature of

governments reduces flexibilityIncreases amount of available information Enhance citizen trust in e-governmentImproves utilization of resources

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

3 Country Comparison

The core ideas and techniques associated with putting governments online firstemerged in the most developed western countries in the mid-1990s. Then, through-out the past years other countries have also established their own e-governmentWeb sites. For developed countries, however, the issue is no longer whether gov-ernment is or should be online, but in what form and with what consequences.These countries have expanded participatory services online through the use ofe-participation portals and online consultation mechanisms encouraging citizenfeedback on important economic and social policy issues (United Nations Report,2008).

An Accenture study revealed that in 2004 (Accenture, 2004), 173 of the UnitedNations’ 191 members operated Web sites and 18 countries, predominantly inAfrica, remain completely offline. However, there are only three nations for whichgovernments do not yet have an online presence by 2008, i.e., Central AfricanRepublic, Somalia, and Zambia. In 2009, Central African Republic and Somaliaare the only two countries that still do not have official government Web sites.Even though most countries have developed some level of online presence, use of

1 E-government Maturity over 10 Years 9

e-government services is still very limited (United Nations Report, 2008). The rea-soning is that very often the public sectors’ offerings differ from what users reallywant. Also, despite all the improvements that have been made so far only 15 gov-ernments in the world accept the publics’ comments on policy issues and only 32allow online transactions. In developing countries about 60% of all e-governmentprojects fail and about half waste tax payer money (United Nations Report, 2008).

Based on the theoretical foundation developed in the previous section,e-government maturity index is developed and shown in Fig. 1.3. This figure dis-plays the relative positioning of selected countries on the “e-government maturityindex” that was developed on the basis of Layne and Lee’s (2001) four stage.

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

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

10 M.N. Baqir and L. Iyer

Pakistan, India, China,Jordan, Kenya, Nigeria

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

United Kingdom, Singapore, Australia, Japan,France, Canada, New Zealand, Germany

Norway, Sweden,Denmark, United States

Fig. 1.4 An update on e-government maturity

index ranking from 1st position in 2005 to 24th in 2008 (United Nations Report,2008). The drop in ranking signifies the fact that several countries give up on keep-ing up with e-government services innovation while others continuously improve(United Nations Report, 2008).

These rankings are based upon quantitative data from 2004 Accenture study,UN 2005 study, UN 2008 study, and qualitative evaluation of several countries onthe basis of the established e-government services, improvement since 2006 andnew e-government initiatives as discussed in the following sections. E-governmentstrategies in countries from six continents, i.e., Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe,North America, and South American are presented in more detail below.

3.1 Africa

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

1 E-government Maturity over 10 Years 11

In some cases individuals or groups have developed Web sites that claim it to bean “official government Website” (e.g., somaligovernment.org) to fill the gap of aproperly maintained government Web site.

In some parts of Africa extensive e-government infrastructure developmentefforts started as early as the late 1980s and early 1990s. From using Informationand Decision Support Systems (IDSS) to facilitate intra-government communica-tion in Egypt (Kamel, 1998) to the use of geographic information system to registerelectorates and support elections process in South Africa (Microsoft, 2000) showsthat the potential of e-government has increased in Africa over time. While thereare still several challenges with regards to technical, legal, institutional, human, andleadership issues, one can expect countries in Africa to leap ahead of others bylearning from e-government success and failure stories of other countries.

3.1.1 Kenya

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

3.1.2 Nigeria

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

12 M.N. Baqir and L. Iyer

3.2 Asia

Asian countries present interesting contrast in the level of penetration and use ofe-government services. On one side, there are countries such as Singapore, SouthKorea, and Japan that have high degree of Internet infrastructure penetration and areattempting to be 100% paperless. On the other side, there are countries such as Indiaand Pakistan where a number of impressive e-government services implementationbecome spectacular failures because ordinary citizens cannot use them due to thelack of access to ICT infrastructure. We take a look at the e-government maturity inIndia and Pakistan in detail below.

3.2.1 India

According to the Ministry of IT in India (Ministry of IT, 2005), mostly south-ern states in India have implemented several e-government projects after estab-lishing considerably good IT infrastructure. Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, AndhraPradesh, Maharashtra, and Chandigarh are ranked leaders in e-readiness index fore-government delivery. Even though India was using computerized databases for itsmilitary, elections, economic planning, national census, and tax collection, it wasnot until 1990s that citizens could directly interface with e-government projects.Projects such as Bhoomi (land administration for Karnataka), CARD (land admin-istration for Andhra Pradesh), Gyandoot (computing services for villagers), e-seva(utility bill payments in Andhra Pradesh), Akshaya (computer training for villagersin Kerala), Lokvani (various government services), and SARI (wireless internetlink for villagers) are both aspiring and indicative of public–private interest increating an environment to develop and use e-government services even thoughteledensity stands at 12.74% (India Core, 2006), telecom growth in certain statesis phenomenonal. With approximately 541 Gbps international bandwidth link, allwhat’s left is to create and establish in-house infrastructure for the people living infar off places in India. We have places in India at the “Enhanced” level in Fig. 1.4.

3.2.2 Pakistan

Information technology infrastructure is one of the fundamental requirements forthe establishment of e-government deployment and use. The turn of the millenniumproved to be a tipping point for Pakistan’s information technology infrastructure.Teledensity in Pakistan has grown from 2.80% in 2000 to 64% in 2009 (PakistanTelecommunication Authority [PTA], 2009). Internet users grew from 10,000 usersin 10 major cities in 1999 to over 5 million (internet service providers’ asso-ciation claims this number to be 10 million) in over 400 cities in 2009 (PTA,2009). Increasing deployment of high-speed Internet (mostly DSL/ADSL), is cre-ating an opportunity for the development of e-government environment. Evenwith expanding use of high-speed Internet, number of companies offering onlineproducts/services are negligibly small (less than 1% of the population). Withan enormous growth in infrastructure during the past few years, Government of

1 E-government Maturity over 10 Years 13

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

3.3 Australia

Australia and New Zealand, in the Australian continent provide their citizens severale-government services. These two countries placed with countries with transactionale-government services. Literature on e-government projects, initiates, and evalua-tions in Australia and New Zealand is extensive and focuses on the transactionaland connectedness issues (Gauld, Graya, & McComba, 2009).

3.3.1 Australia

Even though Australian government started providing e-government services forabout a decade now, strategy toward e-governance launched in 2006 has led towide variety of e-government-related research issues. A major challenge faced inAustralia is to protect citizens’ data secure, and create a seamless operation betweenagencies that may currently be working on a number of different software systemsor technologies. The focus on the development of integrated and customer-orientedonline services to respond faster while reducing costs puts them in “transactional”e-government maturity level in our model. However, the challenge to deal with moresophisticated and complicated integration of government services still remains achallenge and a major hindrance.

3.3.2 New Zealand

The e-government services and challenges are not new in New Zealand.Implementation of e-government is an interesting case in New Zealand. It only has

14 M.N. Baqir and L. Iyer

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

3.4 Europe

Europe represents a wide level of diversity as far as e-government maturity isconcerned. Several countries, particularly in Scandinavia, e-government maturityis very high. Data from UN 2008 survey also suggest that Norway, Sweden, andDenmark now lead United States if citizen participation in e-government is con-cerned. There are several countries especially in eastern Europe that are still at eitheremerging or enhanced phase of Web maturity index. In 2000, the European Summitsat Lisbon and Feira redefined the continent’s e-government ambitions by setting fourguidelines. The new agenda include the continuous development of Internet-basedservices to improve access to information and services, the improvement of trans-parency of public administration, the full exploitation of information technology,and the establishment of e-procurement. These objectives show a high similarityto the United States’ objectives. However, as often, these challenging targets couldnot yet be implemented to their full extend. Overall, Europe’s public sector faceschallenging economic and social conditions, institutional change, and of course theimpact of information technology. In order to boost growth, efficiency, and pro-ductivity, quality of governmental services still need to be improved. Today, about67% of public services are accessible online. Since such numbers always dependon the underlying assumptions for their calculation they have to be used with cau-tion. Whereas, the percentage is higher by looking at public services merely froma perspective of online availability, the percentage is lower if focus is on publicservices that are already truly transactional. Among the public service categories,income-generating services (tax and social contributions) are the most developed,

1 E-government Maturity over 10 Years 15

followed by registration services (car and new company registration) and returns,such as social security. Services related to documents and permits (driver’s license,passports) are the least developed on the Web. Services for businesses reach 79% ofonline sophistication, whereas the services for citizens reached a level of 58%. Insummary, on the one hand, Europe makes progress in e-government. On the otherhand, taking the measure of fully transactional services and highly advances stagesof e-government development the result seems to be more pessimistic.

3.4.1 United Kingdom

Although the United Kingdom (UK) is among those European countries that havehigher maturity levels, its e-government growth seemed to have slowed in the lastcouple of years. The UK government’s initial objective (in 2000) was to make allpublic services available electronically by the end of 2005. However, the project wasdelayed several times. Since 2005, over a billion pounds have been invested to boostUK’s central government’s online offerings. However, despite high Internet penetra-tion (70.9% of the population has internet access); the use of e-government servicesremains low. Several challenges, issues, and complexities in realizing “transfor-mation” stage in e-government are identified (Weerakkody et al., 2004). So farabout 70% of government services can be accessed via the Internet. That figurewas expected to reach 80% by the end of 2005, the date by which everythingwas supposed to have been “e-enabled.” However, these projects were not actu-ally completed for inherent inefficiencies in communication modules among variousorganizations (Mosse & Whitley, 2009). What is more worrying is that where suchservices have already been put online, hardly anyone seems to be using them.Since the British are, similar to the Americans, rather an Internet savvy societye-government usage patterns are disappointing. The vast amount of different Websites, the required coordination between several organizations, as well as the neces-sity to visit multiple sites before finding valuable information, again appear to be themain problems why e-government is not really taking off in UK. In addition, somegovernment’s sites are out of date or do not work properly. Finally, the British havetraditionally been skeptical about their governments’ initiatives, given the examplesof failures in the past. That is why take-up of e-government services in Britain con-tinuous to be an issue. For the future, the UK government still plans to increasespending on e-government by several billion in the next few years. We have placedit in the “Transactional” category in Fig. 1.4.

3.4.2 Germany

Germany is within the cluster of low to medium growth stage countries on the lifecycle. Emphasis is still on providing information on the Web and a really noticeablepush toward the transaction level is not yet evident. In addition, e-government is notconsidered as a crucial aspect in the political debate. The transfer of BundOnline2005 out of the Ministry of Inner Affairs to the Federal Office for Administrationsupports this view. Fewer than half of the country’s regular Internet users have ever

16 M.N. Baqir and L. Iyer

used any e-government service at all. One of the problems e-government faces inGermany is that the majority of initiatives have so far been targeted at the federallevel. Although the number of government portals and sites is immense, the mostsignificant services for citizens and businesses are provided primarily by munici-pal governments, however. Also, Germany is a highly unionized country and theextensive amounts of employment laws make a hire-and-fire strategy (like in theUnited States) impossible. The fear of trading a large number of municipal gov-ernmental jobs for advances in e-government thus already restricts some activitiesin their initial phase. Finally, Germany is often dominated by the call for security,legal certainty, and data privacy, which is in part attributable to the country’s cul-ture and working habits. Nevertheless, some plans such as the introduction of adigital passport in 2008 have already starting giving good results. Thoughts aboutthis type of passport, that requires a digital signature, first emerged after the terror-ist attacks in the United States in 2001. Its successful implementation, along withother planned activities, is bringing Germany back into a more desirable positionof e-government maturity. The country’s technological infrastructure and capabili-ties definitely favor a position more toward innovative practices and higher maturitylevels and do not resemble the low-maturity status the country currently has. Inthe recent 2008 UN survey, Germany received very low ranking as far as citizenparticipation e-government-based democratic interaction with the government isconcerned. We have placed it in the “Transactional” category in Fig. 1.4.

3.5 North America

The United States (US) and Canada in the North American continent have been lead-ing in e-government infrastructure development for several years. Recently, othercountries specially the ones in Scandinavia have left both the US and Canada a littlebehind in the recent UN e-government survey rankings. However, both countrieshave developed and enhanced e-government infrastructure significantly during thelast years.

3.5.1 United States

The United States currently is among the top four countries with regard toe-government maturity. It still leads the field in readiness of the amount of informa-tion available, services and products offered, as well as the underlying infrastructuresuch as telephones, computers, and Internet connections (United Nations Report,2008). About 73% of the population has access to Internet and e-government useis considerably high (United Nations Report, 2008). Also, the country’s popula-tion is Internet savvy and supports the ideas of increased convenience and time andcost savings. Finally, legislation is more in favor of moving e-government strate-gies forward than putting up restricting barriers. It was the United States togetherwith Great Britain, Canada, and Australia that led the way in one 2006 ranking(Iyer et al., 2006), in establishing a basic information form of Web presence in