Introduction
E-government can be described as the implementation of digital processes and technologies in order to increase the efficiency, reliability and coverage of internal and external government services and information sharing to citizens while at the same time implements a concept known as “lean governance” wherein wasteful spending, processes and methods of operation are in effect eliminated as a direct result of utilizing E-government procedures and systems. Basically, E-governance is a means of making government services more easily accessible to government employees and citizens thus resulting in the following aims that it tries to achieve:
- Greater citizen satisfaction in the way in which services are provisioned
- Fewer complaints regarding the inefficiency of government services and the release of information
- Better connectivity between citizens and government agencies
- More efficient methods of inter-governmental agency communication and collaboration
- Lastly, fewer resources wasted on inefficient processes and procedural “red tape”
For example, the automation of the voting process in countries such as the U.S., U.K., and Australia considerably decreased the work force needed during elections, resulted in a far faster method of knowing election results and created a positive impact on local communities due to the greater convenience associated with the voting process resulting in more people going to vote.
Automatic voting is a form of E-governance which shows how the proper implementation of efficient, reliable and above useful IT systems results in a positive impact for both local governments and their citizenry. Other examples of E-government services take the form on online websites where government services can be utilized and information obtained.
For example, in the U.S., U.K., and Australia information related to statistical data obtained via their census bureaus can be seen on the website of their bureau of statistics (or their equivalent). Information related to the weather, new government policies, foreign relations and a variety of information within the same scope can also be seen on websites of the government agencies involved in such operations.
As for government services, there has been an increasing trend in online registration and digitization wherein in people could avail of services such as Social Security, health insurance, business registration processing, taxation etc. through the various online service platforms developed by government agencies in order to streamline such processes (Gauld 2009, 1).
In fact it has been noted that one of the more interesting yet not at all surprising developments in E-governance has been a push towards having people conduct more and more of their inquiries and service requests online by making the costs associated with such online services far cheaper as compared to their “real world” service counterparts. For example, if the cost of a face to face small business registration within the U.S. or Australia would amount to $120. its online equivalent on the other hand would be $50 or less.
The reason behind this is quite simple, when it comes to an online digitized process a government agency doesn’t have to pay the costs associated with employee salaries, health insurance, facilities cost, electricity etc. A website can be hosted through a secure remote location with all the necessary data controlled and integrated through the server’s connection to a secure government network. Carrizales et al., (2011) even indicates that the price discrepancy is an intentional maneuver by governments in order to entice/force people to utilize online services instead (Carrizales et al., 2011: 935 – 945).
While there are doubtlessly many merits to utilizing online systems and digitized functions it must be questioned whether there are drawbacks to the implementation of E-governance and whether it can truly result in a better functioning government. As such this paper will explore the costs and benefits of E-governance programs, their merits and the results of their application in a variety of recorded cases. It is expected that through this investigation the viability of E-governance systems will be discovered and a proper recommendation regarding its implementation be created.
While E-government systems are an efficient method of providing services and information to the general public it is only applicable to a case by case basis and should not be thought of as a generally accepted method of governance for all government agencies and programs due to issues related to the cost of implementation and perceived returns on investment.
Cost Versus Benefit Paradigm
Based on the work of Kaushik & Kumar (2009) it can be seen that one of the subsequent impacts of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and the present day economic recession that came about because of it has been a push towards lean governance and more efficient services (Kaushik & Kumar, 2009: 101 – 109). The reason behind this can actually be connected to a long standing “tradition” among many present day governments wherein in order to bolster local employment such individuals were given jobs within the government.
As highlighted by the case of Greece which recently shed 35,000 government employees this resulted in the development of redundant operations, inefficient processes and more people than what is actually needed in order to accomplish a particular task or operation.
Due to cost cutting operations instituted by many governments in response to public outcries over outrageous government spending this has resulted in a trend within the past 3 years wherein governments have increasingly cut down on particular bureaus, divisions and taskforces and have begun integrating particular offices and tasks so as to increase efficiency while reducing costs.
One way in which this has been accomplished within the countries such as the U.K. has been through the development of online services from which various individuals could avail of government services without having to go to offices themselves. Unfortunately there has been a growing amount of public dissension over the implementation of such websites given the costs involved in their creation.
For example, the website businesslink.gov.uk which is connected to the revenue and customs agencies of the U.K. had an estimated total cost of 35,000,000 pounds for non-staff related development with 788,000 pounds for staff salaries. Other such websites such as civiservice.gov.uk which is directly connected to the cabinet office of the U.K. had an estimated cost of 155,000 thousand pounds with an estimated yearly cost of 132,372 for staff salaries.
While such costs may seem to be rather excessive what must be understood is that the provision of particular services on a site which can include server costs, maintenance, various online tools, software and appropriate procedural development does increase the overall cost of a particular project.
Furthermore not all websites should be considered similar; several studies have indicated that public outrage over the development costs associated with E-governance websites has been mainly due to ignorance over what particular processes go into making an effective E-governance website. For example, a site that merely displays information is far removed from one that handles an individual’s social security information or one that handles the business taxation, import scheduling and a variety of other functions.
Take for example the website businesslink.gov.uk, while the development costs of the website amounted to 35,000,000 it enables companies based in the U.K. to submit their VAT returns online, apply for licenses, file their company details, and for entrepreneurs enables them to register their business. It is this and other such services and the degree of online infrastructure development that goes into the implementation of such tools that resulted in the increased costs of the development of this particular site.
On average though businesslink.gov.uk receives 1,164,663 unique monthly visitors per month with 93,502,545 page impressions, these are impressive numbers for a non-commercial website (i.e. YouTube, Google, Yahoo, MSN etc) and as such is indicative that this particular web portal has accomplished its goal of E-governance in automating various business related functions in order to make it more convenient for consumers and thus reduce the cost of operations in line with the concept of lean governance.
What must be understood though is that businesslink.gov.uk is but one of dozens (potentially hundreds) of websites that the U.K. government has brought online within the past five years yet not all of them have the same justification of costs as compared to businesslink.gov.uk. For example, the website equalities.gov.uk promoted by the U.K government as a source for information for issues on equality regarding women and transgender issues had an estimated cost of 19,329 pounds yet only receives 21,501 visitors per month with absolutely no page impressions.
The lack of page impressions is indicative of the fact that visitors only saw the homepage and left immediately as indicated by the two minute average time spent on the site. This shows that people basically find the site useless despite the amount of money spent in its creation.
The same can be said for dozens of other sites seen in the web metrics report published by the U.K. government which shows that a large percentage of the websites that have been developed are basically underperforming given the amount of money put into their development. Studies such as those by Bhatnagar et al., (2008) indicate that despite the fact that nearly $3.6 trillion was spent in 2011 (U.S., U.K., Australia etc.) for E-governance platforms only 10% of the population of a particular state was actually using them (Bhatnagar et al., 2008: 69 – 93).
The reason behind this, as Gauld and Goldfinch (2006) explains, is that governments have been so caught up in instituting E-governance platforms for particular services and distributing information that they underestimate the costs related to the implementation of such platforms as well as neglecting to consider if such services and methods of disbursing information should even have an E-government website (Gauld and Goldfinch., 2006) (Goldfinch, 2007: 917-929).
One way of looking at this situation is through the case of the U.K. government website eatwell.gov.uk. This particular website was put in place as a way to encourage healthy eating habits among U.K. citizens. While its development costs reached 379,000 pounds it receives 362,086 monthly views with 13,813,065 page impressions which is indicative of a rather stable collection of continuous users who go to the site in order to read the articles available on it.
While the site may seem like a success what must be understood is that there are quite literally thousands of other websites online which display the same type of information, target the same type of consumers, are able to generate more interest and were developed for less than 5,000 pounds as compared to the high cost of development associated with eatwell.gov.uk.
It can be argued that the costs are justifiable since it is part of the government’s approach in reducing obesity within the U.K. however you have to realize that despite the number of views they are nothing more than a glass of water compared to the massive lake that is the U.K. online health community which has thousands of sites, millions of article and are far more sustainable due to commercial revenue from advertisements.
As such it seems rather redundant to have a website offer at cost to U.K. taxpayers what is already offered freely online by commercial providers. Justifying this particular example is the view of Tejasvee & Sarangdevot (2010) who states that nearly 34 – 40% of all ICT projects related to E-governance actually don’t have any realizable benefits and as such actually adds to the problems inherent in government spending (Tejasvee & Sarangdevot, 2010: 221-223).
Not only that, it was seen by Saxena (2005) that nearly 40% of costs associate with particular ICT projects were outside of the initial budget estimates due to 65% of all ICT managers who were part of the development process of a particular E-governance platform severely underestimating the inherent cost of development (Saxena, 2005: 498-513).
Further compounding this issue is the fact that studies such as those by Salazar (2010) indicate that nearly 22% of all associated expenditures related to an E-governance project are in fact wasted as a result of miscellaneous problems appearing during the development process (Salazar, 2010: 91-99).
What must be understood is that ICT development for E-government projects is vastly different than what is present in private industries where cost limitations and proper budgeting is such an essential and integral part of the planning process that companies pride themselves on meeting these budgetary goals or risk losing their contracts all together.
In the case of government projects these self-imposed limitations are at times not present at all since budgetary allotments for particular projects can be adjusted unlike in the case of the private sector where the price stated for the implementation of a particular service is the price that is charged at the end.
It must also be noted that the failure rate of E-government projects in developing countries often reaches a rate of 60 to 80 percent while in industrialized countries it reaches 60 percent. What must be understood is that while particular E-government solutions can be developed for the populace of a country there is still the issue of accessibility with not that many people being inclined towards utilizing the internet for government services.
Studies such as those by Kolsaker and Lee-Kelley, (2008) reveal that issues related to age, technological proficiency and personal preference factor into the use of E-governance and as such despite the best efforts of the government to push through with E-governance platforms a vast majority of citizens still prefer to do things “the old fashioned way” which makes the systems developed for particular services redundant since too few people are using them to justify the cost of their construction (Kolsaker and Lee-Kelley, 2008: 723-738).
Will it lead to a better functioning government?
The main issues related to E-governance are the following:
- Its inherently high costs versus the uncertain return on investment
- Low public interest in actually utilizing E-governance services (Goldfinch, Gauld and Herbison, 2009: 333–350)
- Concerns regarding privacy and security issues through online transactions (Goldfinch, Gauld and Herbison, 2009: 333–350)
- Lastly, lack of sufficient initiative towards utilizing online services since the government still offers such services via its various offices scattered around the country (Goldfinch, Gauld and Herbison, 2009: 333–350).
D’agostino et al., (2011) indicates that while it may be true that a proper E-governance system can lead to a better functioning government the fact remains that this can only be achieved through calculated and slow integrations of E-governance into government services rather than the broad approach that is currently being utilized (D’agostino, Schwester, Carrizales & Melitski, 2011, 3-28).
As mentioned earlier, governments are in effect wasting millions if not billions a year on systems that are barely used which doesn’t justify the cost of implementation. A better functioning government can be identified through its implementation of a system that speeds up the process and is widely used resulting in greater citizen satisfaction yet what is being seen is the wide spread implementation of several projects that are barely being used with little impact on the majority of citizens within a country.
The approach to a working and effective E-governance system must follow the same line of reasoning seen in the case of automated voting systems in the U.S, U.K. and Australia wherein there is actual and prolific usage of the system which results in satisfaction over the services provided.
Based on this particular line of reasoning it can be stated that with the way in which E-government is being implemented at the present it is unlikely that it will result in a better functioning government since money is being wasted on a massive scale on websites and projects that people barely even know about or even utilize.
It is in this regard that one possible way in which to “fix” the current situation is to implement a method of “lean E-governance” wherein instead of a broad approach towards implementing as many E-governance platforms as possible what would be done instead is to focus on a structured approach wherein only a few select programs and services will be considered as being plausible enough to be utilized in an E-governance platform.
The way in which this could be accomplished is to judge whether a particular system can replace or enhance a particular service that causes delays for the general public. One example of this can be seen in the case of business registration which can be easily automated and has been in the case of the U.K., U.S. and Australia.
Other strategies to be implemented would include implementing stricter budgetary allotments for particular E-government projects, the use of public-private partnerships in developing such systems in order to reduce costs and finally the implementation of sufficient methods of service analysis in order to determine which are essential for E-governance and which are just wastes of money (Sharma & Seth, 2011: 15-25).
It is anticipated that through the implementation of such considerations an efficient, effective and above all affordable means of E-governance can be achieved which will subsequently result in a better functioning government.
Reference List
Bhatnagar, S, Chandrashekhar, R, Dubey, S, Chawla, R, Kumar, P, Kareer, N, Verma, S, & Rao, V 2008, ‘Impact Assessment of e-Governance Projects: A Benchmark for the Future’, Vikalpa: The Journal For Decision Makers, 33, 4, pp. 69-93
Carrizales, T, Melitski, J, Manoharan, A, & Holzer, M 2011, ‘E-Governance Approaches at the Local Level: A Case Study in Best Practice’, International Journal Of Public Administration, 34, 14, pp. 935-945
D’agostino, M, Schwester, R, Carrizales, T, & Melitski, J 2011, ‘A study of e-government and e-governance: an empirical examination of municipal websites’, Public Administration Quarterly, 35, 1, pp. 3-28
Gauld, R. & Goldfinch. S.2006, Dangerous Enthusiasms: E-government, computer failure and information system development, Otago University Press, New Zealand.
Gauld, R. 2009, ‘E-Government: Is it the next big public management trend?’ In International Handbook of Public Sector Reform edited by S. Goldfinch & J. Wallis, Edward Elgar, London.
Goldfinch, S 2007. ‘Pessimism, computer failure, and information systems development in the public sector.’ Public Administration Review 67 (5):917-929.
Goldfinch, S., Gauld, R & Herbison, P 2009, ‘The participation divide? Political participation, trust in government, and e-government in Australia and New Zealand.’ The Australian Journal of Public Administration 68(3): 333–350.
Kaushik, A, & Kumar, L 2009, ‘Use of Development Indicators in Evaluation of e-Governance Initiatives’, Proceedings Of The International Conference On E-Government, pp. 101-110
Kolsaker, A, & Lee-Kelley, L 2008, ‘Citizens’ attitudes towards e-government and e-governance: a UK study.’ International Journal of Public Sector Management 21 (7):723-738.
Salazar, M 2010, ‘The Impact of ICT Literacy and Organizational e-Readiness Factors on the Success of Information System Implementation in a State University Setting’, Proceedings Of The International Conference On E-Government, pp. 91-99
Saxena, KC 2005, ‘Towards excellence in e-governance’, International Journal Of Public Sector Management, 18, 6, pp. 498-513
Sharma, V, & Seth, P 2011, ‘Effective Public Private Partnership Through e-Governance Facilitation’, Journal Of E-Governance, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 15-25.
Tejasvee, S, & Sarangdevot, S 2010, ‘E-Governance and Service Oriented Computing Architecture Model’, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1324, 1, pp. 221-223.