E-Government Initiatives: A Critical Discussion Essay

Introduction

In recent years, the strategic, coordinated utilization of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in public administration and social-political and economic decision making has been recognized by many governments and mainstream policymakers across the world.

Today, for example, majority of the European Union (EU) and OECD member countries have not only formulated national e-government strategies but are increasingly acknowledging that e-government capabilities, together with associated organizational change and skills development, could provide the needed impetus for the fulfillment of their strategic political, social and economic objectives (Eynon & Dutton 2007; Von Haldenwang 2004).

This is possible because appropriate utilization of digital networks and technologies in the public domain, including the internet and Email, can benefit governments, citizens and business entities in many interconnected ways, such as enhancing cost-effective and efficient public services delivery, round-the-clock availability, capacity to store and present vast amounts of data, and customization of public services to citizens’ needs (Teerling & Pieterson 2011; Bekkers 2003).

Yet, despite these and many more potential benefits emanating from implementing and adopting e-government, a strand of existing literature (e.g., Eynon & Dutton 2007; Bekkers 2003) demonstrates that many governments across the world are yet to experience real progress, primarily because their e-government initiatives have considerably failed to meet expectations and have been comparatively slow compared to the uptake of other technologies such as e-business.

Additionally, some analysts are sceptical about the capabilities of e-government, arguing that it may “…not always end up promoting good governance” (Von Haldenwang 2004, p. 418). The present paper, therefore, seeks to look into the broad subject of e-government, with particular reference to critically discussing its aims, costs and benefits, and if it leads to a better functioning government.

Understanding E-Government

Researchers have identified a plateau of definitions for the concept of ‘e-government’ depending on the context and scope of use. InfoDev (2009) describes e-government as “…the use by government agencies of information technologies (such as Wide Area Networks, the Internet, and mobile computing) that have the ability to transform relations with citizens, businesses, and other arms of government” (p. 2).

So far, as insinuated by Misuraca (2009), the dominant literature perceives e-government as the next phase in the rationalization of government activities along the continuum of new public management, particularly in terms of better delivery of government services to citizens, enhanced interactions with business and industry, and citizen empowerment through access to critical information.

On his part, Bekkers (2003) describes e-government as the use of contemporary “…ICT, at this moment, especially internet and web technology, by a public organization to support or redefine the existing and/or future (information communication and transaction) relations with stakeholders in the internal and external environments in order to create added value” (p. 90).

It is imperative to state that ICT is often perceived as a set of tools which can assist to reinvent government activities in such a manner that existing institutional arrangements, in which the contractual transactions and other interactions between government and its stakeholders are embedded, can be reorganized and new arrangements can occur with a view to increase the access of government, facilitate the quality of service delivery, stimulate internal efficiency, increase political participation of citizens, and support public and political accountability (Bekkers 2003).

These new arrangements, according to the author, are often introduced under the e-government flagship. However, Basu (2004) suggests that e-government is a project, process, policy and managerial concept, which has barely any theoretical or conceptual underpinnings, although there is a huge strand of empirical research available which trains attention to the effects of ICT on the effective functioning of public administration.

Consequently, as a result of this fuzzy assortment of practices, many researchers are in agreement that the concept of e-government is hardly described and founded on pragmatic experiences and visions (Taylor & Lips 2008).

Aims of E-Government

As noted by Bekkers (2003), one of the foremost aims of e-government is to promote access to and delivery of government services to benefit relevant stakeholders, who include citizens, companies, societal organizations, other government agencies and civil servants.

More important, according to Fedorowicz et al. (2010), e-government aspires to assist in the strengthening of the government’s drive toward effectual governance and enhanced transparency with a view to efficiently administer a country’s social, political and economic resources for development.

Montserin (n.d.) argues that e-government not only aims at promoting inclusion by providing better public services and quality of life, but also serves as a platform through which relevant stakeholders can conduct important administrative procedures with government agencies through electronic means.

Additionally, according to this particular author, e-government aims to provide relevant stakeholders with an infrastructure to access government services at times and locations of their choosing, taking into account a multiplicity of variables, such as special needs, type of service required, level of literacy among the populace, and social, economic and ethnic considerations.

Costs and Benefits of E-Government

Discussions of the utility of cost-benefit analyses for e-government initiatives have been an ongoing exercise in many countries around the world, but many analysts and mainstream commentators warn that countries should not overly rely on cost-benefit analyses as the single basis for evaluating e-government initiatives and that other facets of technology and governance must be considered (Monitoring and Evaluation 2007).

As noted in this document, “…cost-benefit analysis is typically readily calculable for bricks and mortar projects like dams and roads but is less obviously of value for government initiatives where the expected benefit may be public convenience or even improved public perceptions of public services” (p. 7).

This view is reinforced by Jones et al. (2007), who suggest that the relevancy of some formal measurement methods in the public service domain is questionable, primarily because economic measures, such as added value and time savings, are very difficult to define and operationalize in the public sector.

For example, there has been an ongoing debate concerning the economic value of small-time savings made possible through embracing e-government initiatives. If the public, on average, spends one hour less waiting in queue for the relevant government agency to issue them with a driver’s license, it could be argued that these small increments, though hard to quantify, are indeed truly recoverable and can be put to other economically productive uses.

The above notwithstanding, a strand of existing literature (e.g., Bekkers & Homburg 2007; Taylor & Lips 2008) demonstrates that researchers and policy analysts have succeeded in developing measures for evaluating direct and indirect costs related to e-government initiatives.

To justify the launching of an e-government initiative, governments and policymakers must not only compare costs of an e-service and the traditional equivalent (Monitoring and Evaluation 2007), but must also analyze the costs of investing in the infrastructure as well as uptake costs (Taylor & Lips 2008).

An effective launching plan for e-government initiatives must also consider operational costs, including maintenance of infrastructure, training of personnel and general housekeeping. Additionally, long-term costs, such as the cost of updating systems and depreciation, must be factored in if the e-government initiatives are to become a success (Monitoring and Evaluation 2007).

In terms of benefits, Jones et al. (2007) acknowledge that “…the emergence of Electronic Government has been due to the requirement to develop local and national government operational and process efficiencies, as well as providing accessibility to citizens and other involved stakeholders” (p. 1).

This implies that efficient delivery of public services as well as easy accessibility of government services form an important constituent of the potential benefits that can be attained from implementing and adopting e-government initiatives. McClure (2000) cited in Layne & Lee (2001) reports that e-government “…has the potential to help build better relationships between government and the public by making interaction with citizens smoother, easier, and more efficient” (p. 123).

According to these particular authors, the United States General Accounting Office has on several occasions reported that many U.S. government agencies have established the necessary infrastructure to use e-government not only to deliver core business operations to business entities but also to disseminate information and services faster, cheaper, and to wide groups of citizens.

A study commissioned in 2002 by the Australian National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE) to look into the demand for and benefits of e-government found that the concept benefited Australian citizens in being able to access Commonwealth Government information and services online, actual cost savings associated with interacting with government online compared to traditional channels, significant improvement in the use of finding information, significant improvement in service quality, and significant improvement in the citizens’ capacity to make informed decisions (Monitoring and Evaluation 2007).

Potential benefits accruing to the Australian government as a direct consequence of implementing and adopting e-government initiatives included: significant reduction in costs due to improved business processes; significant reduction of costs of servicing, such as advertising costs, staff costs and client management costs, and; significant reduction in costs through the use of multi-agency delivery channels (Monitoring and Evaluation 2007).

Future benefits of e-government initiatives, according to Ramanujam (2012), include the provision of a seamless online government presence that avails more information to stakeholders, structured in such a manner that it is easy to find and does not oblige a clear understanding of how the government operates.

Additionally, e-government initiatives are bound to further integrate and cluster services across agencies and departments at all levels of government (Monitoring & Evaluation 2007). According to InfoDev (2009), the resulting benefits of embracing e-government initiatives include less corruption perpetrated by government personnel, increased transparency, superior convenience, revenue expansion, and huge operational cost reductions

E-Government & Better Functioning Government: Reality or Mirage?

InfoDev (2009) acknowledges that “…governments, businesses, communities, and citizens around the world are recognizing the value that information and communication technologies can bring to their operations, relationships, and outcomes” (p. 1).

Properly designed and implemented, e-government initiatives have the capacity to contribute toward a better functioning government, particularly in terms of better delivery of government services to relevant stakeholders, enhanced interactions with business and industry, stakeholder empowerment through ready and easy access to information, and more efficient government management (InfoDev 2009; Teerling & Pieterson 2011).

Surprisingly, therefore, analysts and public administrators are increasingly contemplating the initiation and adoption of e-government initiatives in all countries globally.

Comparable to e-commerce, which permits business enterprises to transact with each other more effectively (B2B) and brings customers within close proximity to the business enterprises (B2C), “…e-government aims to make the interaction between government and citizens (G2C), government and business enterprises (G2B), government and employees (G2E) and inter-agency relationships (G2G) more friendly, convenient, bi-directional, transparent, and inexpensive” (InfoDev 2009, p. 2).

When viewed under this lens, it can be argued that e-government initiatives, if well designed and implemented, can lead to an efficient, lean and functional government that is answerable not only to the needs of its citizens but also to the demands and aspirations of other stakeholders.

Although e-government is not an end in itself (InfoDev 2009), sustained empirical research in its capabilities demonstrates that it has the capacity not only to boost the efficiency of government structures and operations but also to enhance good governance and transparency through the employment of checks and balances (Teerling & Pieterson 2011; Layne & Lee 2001 ).

A system of good governance and transparent administration, according to these authors, can generate a contributing environment that enhances economic development through the provision of fast, inexpensive, dependable, and reliable services to citizens and business enterprises.

E-government provides a window of opportunity for the private sector to participate in government projects, but also avails the needed impetus to reshape the public service and remake the relationships between citizens, business enterprises, and the government by allowing for open communication, participation, and public discourses in formulating and implementing national, regional and local policies and regulations (Basu 2004; InfoDev 2009). In this light, e-government leads to a better functioning government.

When designed and implemented in an effective and efficient way, e-government provides the capacity for governments to avail the new public management agenda to its citizens and other stakeholders, namely “…efficiency, accountability, decentralization and marketisation (or client-focused service delivery, where the optimization of procedures is key in redefining governance practices and processes)” (Misuraca 2009, p. 408).

These deliverables, in any case, are critical to the attainment of a better functioning government. Indeed, Von Haldenwang (2004) posits that such deliverables will have the capacity to ‘leapfrog’ countries towards good governance by strengthening citizens, employees, government agencies, civil societies, and business enterprises even under authoritarian rule.

However, a strand of existing literature (e.g., Layne & Lee 2001; Bekkers & Homburg 2007) reports country-specific experiences with e-government as disorganized and unmanageable, despite recent numerous attempts at divergent levels of respective governments to implement and effectively adopt the concept. Indeed, e-government presents a multiplicity of challenges for public administrators.

InfoDev (2009) reinforces this view by acknowledging that without effective leadership, an enabling environment and sound public sector managerial practices, e-government initiatives “…can be costly, time-consuming, and ineffective” (p. 1). A number of researchers (e.g., Layne & Lee 2001; Basu 2004) are in agreement that e-government is not easy and may not necessarily result in a better functioning government due to a multiplicity of hurdles.

The first hurdle that faces proper implementation of e-government initiatives in many governments globally is an embedded lack of recognition that the concept is more about government than technology, and do in fact require considerable shift in many facets of government, including roles, authority, processes and, ultimately, structures (Bekkers & Homburg 2007; InfoDev 2009).

Many government agencies adopt the technology component of e-government without undertaking deep-seated changes to modernize and streamline their governmental structures, resulting to failure. Second, as is the case with other change efforts, e-government initiatives are bound to encounter challenges and resistance from vested interests, making such initiatives fail in the process of assisting relevant stakeholders realize the fruits of a better functioning government (Von Haldenwang 2004; InfoDev 2009).

Another hurdle concerns privacy of confidential information and data sharing in the public sphere. Indeed, Fedorowicz et al. (2010) acknowledge that “…in the public sector, few topics related to the collection and use of data for e-government applications resound as loudly and clearly as personal privacy and the potential for governmental abuse of the vast amount of information it collects on individuals” (p. 317-318).

A study instituted to evaluate the uptake of e-government initiatives in Sri Lanka found that a sizeable number of citizens were sceptical about using e-government applications as they perceived that their personal information may be reused unfairly by government operatives without their permission (Weerakkody et al. 2009).

More important, previous research studies on privacy have failed to ingeniously address broader organizational, managerial, and social issues concerning how government agencies treat personal information as well as the moral obligations they have to divergent stakeholders (Fedorowicz et al. 2010).

The fourth hurdle that continues to desecrate the gains already made by e-government initiatives is lack of sustained leadership and poor management. Indeed, InfoDev (2009) acknowledges that “…without sustained leadership and drive, careful planning, effective implementation, and performance reporting, programs and projects can easily fail – and many have” (p. 1). According to Weerakkody et al. (2009), this challenge is largely to blame for the failure by some local authorities in the U.K. to adopt e-government applications.

Other hurdles, according to extant literature, include: poor reliability of new and emerging technologies; lack of awareness; lack of trust; lack of skills and funding; real or perceived likelihood of misuse by public and private actors, particularly in developing countries; barriers to access for huge sections of the population, lack of strategy and frameworks; security concerns, and; the failure of many e-government initiatives to successfully meet their set objectives (Von Haldenwang 2004; Weerakkody et al. 2009).

Conclusion

It is indeed true that e-government provides a real possibility of streamlining government services and providing a better functioning government, but only if it is adopted efficiently and effectively, embracing the opportunities that modern ICTs present to successfully meet the public needs and expectations while being cost-effective.

Indeed, Weerakkody et al. (2009) acknowledge that “…successful e-government is more than choosing the right technology; it is also taking into account the organizational capability; institutional and regulatory constraints; political, social, environmental, and cultural challenges; as well as the required human resources” (p. 174).

For successful implementation of e-government, the challenge for governments and analysts, therefore, is to develop strategies and policies that will have the capacity to overcome the challenges discussed in this paper, particularly the challenges of lack of trust, misuse by public or private actors, resistance due to vested interests, inflexible structures, lack of access to services, and lack of leadership and drive. It is only by addressing these challenges that e-government initiatives in many countries globally will have the capacity not only to improve the quality and efficiency of all public services but also to increase responsiveness of public service delivery.

Reference List

Basu, S. 2004, ‘E-government and developing countries: An Overview’, International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, vol. 18 no. 1, pp. 1-132.

Bekkers, V. 2003, ‘E-government and the emergence of virtual organizations in the public sector’, Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, vol. 8 no. 3/4, pp. 89-101.

Bekkers, V. & Homburg, V. 2007, ‘The myths of e-government: Looking beyond the assumptions of a new and better government’, Information Society, vol. 23 no. 5, pp. 373-382.

Eynon, R. & Dutton, W. H. 2007, ‘Barriers to networked governments: Evidence from Europe’, Prometheus, vol. 25 no. 3, pp. 225-242.

Fedorowicz, J., Gogan J. L. & Culnan, M. J. 2010, ‘Barriers to interorganizational information sharing in e-government: A stakeholder analysis’, Information Society, vol. 26 no. 5, pp. 315-329.

Info Dev 2009, E-government primer. Web.

Jones, S., Irani, Z. & Sharif, A. 2007, E-government evaluation: Reflections on three organizational case studies. Web.

Layne, K. & Lee, J. 2001, ‘Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model’, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 18 no. 2, pp. 122-147.

Misuraca, G. C. 2009, ‘E-government 2015: Exploring M-government scenarios between ICT-driven experiments and citizen-centric implications’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, vol. 21 no. 3, pp. 407-424.

Monitoring and evaluation of e-government in OECD countries 2007. Web.

Montserin, A. n.d., The importance and objectives of e-government. Web.

Ramanujam, P. G. 2012, ‘E-government strategies for successful e-procurement’, International Journal of Engineering and Management Sciences, vol.3 no. 1, pp. 37-56.

Taylor, J. A. & Lips A. M. B. 2008, ‘The citizen in the information polity: Exposing the limits of the e-government paradigm. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, vol. 13 no. 3/4, pp. 139-152.

Teerling, M. L. & Pieterson, W. 2011, ‘How to improve e-government use: An empirical examination of multichannel marketing instruments’, Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, vol. 16 no. 2, pp. 171-187.

Von Haldenwang, C. 2004, ‘Electronic government (E-government) and development’, European Journal of Development Research, vol. 16 no. 2, pp. 417-432.

Weerakkody, V., Dwivedi, Y. K. & Kurunananda, A. 2009, ‘Implementing e-government in Sri Lanka: Lessons from the UK’, Information Technology for Development, vol. 15 no. 3, pp. 171-192.