|
Introduction
The State – both in the North and the
South – has undergone substantial transformation over the past 15 to 20
years. This in turn is the result of a series of pressures and factors,
which, in our view, have made the State adapt to a new, increasingly global,
environment. Today’s role of the New Information and Communication
Technologies (NICTs), we claim, cannot be properly understood if not placed
within such broader State transformation. Rather, we see the NICTs as coming
on top of these pre-existing trends of State transformation, while enhancing
in particular some of these trends. Indeed, the role these NICTs already are
playing and increasingly will come to play, will inevitably influence the
way the State will transform and evolve in the future. So far, we can only
speculate about the outcome.
This paper is thus structured into the
following five sections. In a first section, we will analyse the past
process of State transformation and identify its main dimensions in the
areas of policy-making, regulation, and operations. In a second section, we
will define the precise role the NICTs already have come to play in such
State transformation, identifying in particular the changes they introduce
in the State’s everyday operations. In a third section, which will be more
speculative in nature, we will outline the implications of the NICTs on
future State transformation. This will lead us, in a fourth section, to
developing a model of e-governance, against which we will briefly assess, in
a fifth section, current definitions and conceptualisations of e-governance
and e-government.
Key past
dimensions of State transformation
In this section, we
want to identify the main dynamics and dimensions of State transformation
over the past 20 years. In order to do so, it is necessary to better
understand the reasons for such transformation. As a matter of fact, the
recent transformation of the State has to be placed within the larger
context of globalisation. And, in this context, State transformation has
essentially been synonymous with the modernisation of the State’s
operational activities. At the same time, as we will develop below, such
modernisation of the operational activities has led to the separation of the
State’s main three functions (e.g., operations, policy-making, and
regulation), leading to the redefinition of these functions at local,
regional, global, and national levels.
Given the
limited space available, we would like to introduce the main challenges the
State is confronted to in the age of globalisation in graphic form:
In short
and as a result of globalisation and simultaneous localization, the State is
confronted to three structural challenges, namely financial and legitimation
challenges, as well as the challenge to face competition from other States.
The State has adapted to these challenges, so far, mainly by improving upon
its operational, as opposed to its regulatory or its policy-making
functions. In particular, the State has sought to reduce financial pressure
by having the citizens pay for the services, it has sought to increase its
legitimacy by improving the quality of its services, and it has sought to
become more competitive by modernising service delivery. As a result of what
we call “operators’ modernisation”, public services are increasingly being
delivered in a very similar way than private operators would deliver them,
if they are not directly delivered by private or third sector operators. As
a matter of fact, potentially, all public services not only can, but most
likely will be modernised, and probably ultimately operated by private or
third sector actors. Such involvement of non-State actors in service
delivery is likely to further accelerate the above-identified trends towards
simultaneous globalisation and localisation, and by doing so to contribute
to even bigger pressure on the State.
Also, and
as we will see below, this modernisation of the State’s operational
functions is likely to be strongly affected by the NICTs, as NICTs are a
significant factor in improving productivity, efficiency, but also
transparency of services. On the one hand, this will contribute to easing
the financial, the competition and even, though to a lesser extent, the
legitimation pressures on the State. But on the other hand, NICTs will also
further accelerate operators’ modernisation. As a matter of fact, most of
what has been labelled e-government so far is in fact not much else than the
“digitalisation” of the State’s operational functions. In this sense,
e-Government perfectly fits into the current public sector reform efforts.
Obviously,
the modernisation of the State’s operational functions is not without
consequences for the State itself. We have already seen, above, that the
State is increasingly torn apart between the global and the local, and this
on all relevant dimensions, be they commercial, technological, financial,
social, ecological, or cultural. As a result of this evolution, the State is
increasingly challenged to accept that its core functions – which are (1)
service delivery, (2) policy-making, and (3) regulation – also take place at
below and above national levels. This is particularly the case of the
service delivery and the policy-making functions. Service delivery is indeed
more and more taking place below and above nation-state levels, mainly
because the (private or Third sector) operators delivering such services are
in the process of restructuring at supra- and infra-national levels. This
up- and downward trend is, though to a lesser extent, also observable when
it comes to policy-making. This is because both global constraints and local
demands push for a growing involvement of non-state actors in policy-making
at the levels the non-state actors are most active, namely precisely above
(regional) and below (regional and local) the nation-state. The following
graphic summarises this evolution:
Yet
another implication of such operator’s modernisation is the fact that, in
order to keep the so triggered dynamics (e.g., privatisation) under control,
the State has to significantly develop its regulatory activities and this in
especially at the national level. Furthermore, governments keep a close eye
(and control) over such regulatory activities, mainly for reasons of
effectiveness, but also for reasons of not wanting to lose further power
vis-à-vis non-state actors.
This
evolution leads to the fact that both policy-making and service delivery are
increasingly going to take place, besides at a national, also at
supranational (regional, global) and infra-national levels (regional,
local), while regulation will remain, at least for the time being, mainly
national. This also means that non-state actors will increasingly become
involved in decision-making, especially at the supra- and the infra-national
levels, a phenomenon which has come to be called “governance”. To recall,
the involvement of non-state actors in service delivery, instead, has come
to be called “public-private-partnerships”.
The role of the
NICTs in the modernisation of the State’s operational activities
We have
presented, so far, essentially a certain conceptualisation of the State
transformation, which is currently taking place both in industrialised and
developing countries. Our hypothesis is that the NICTs will, at first,
simply “fit” into the above trends and dynamics of State transformation,
while probably enhancing – and perhaps to a certain extent also re-directing
- them. To recall, so far these dynamics have mainly been characterised by
operators’ modernisation, i.e., by the fact that the State’s operational
activities have been made more efficient and more effective. It is therefore
only logical that the role of the NICTs has been observed, until now, almost
exclusively in this operational area.
Indeed,
the NICTs already significantly do and in our opinion increasingly will play
a crucial role in improving the State’s operational activities. As proof one
may take the numerous e-portals, e-taxes, e-forms, e-voting, and others
more. All these pertain, in some way or another to improving operations.
This is the case even of e-voting, as nothing is altered in the democratic
process, and only the act of voting is somewhat digitalised and made more
“efficient”. We may even say that what is called today “e-government” is
basically synonymous with the digitalisation of some of the State’s
operational activities, even though one must admit that the consequences and
implications of such digitalisation may not yet be predictable.
Some
authors have tried to classify the various uses of the NICTs by the State,
and have distinguished three levels of interaction between the
customers/citizens and the administration (Enquête mondiale sur la
gouvernance en ligne, 2000). In particular, they distinguish between one-way
information (e.g., information portals), interaction (e.g., filling out
forms and submitting them via internet), and transaction (e.g., advice or
consultations via internet). In reality, however, all three levels still do
not change the way the services are being produced, and basically only alter
the medium by which the citizen/customer interacts with the administration,
not to mention the fact that we are mainly talking so far only about
operational services delivered by the administration.
But, in
our view, this is in fact only a very first step along the way of NICTs’
coming to play a role in the modernisation of the State’s operations. We can
label this first step “substitution”, as traditional paper or interactive
services are simply being digitalised or substituted by an electronic
interface, without however changing the way the services are produced. In
other words, the NICTs have, so far, somewhat changed the interface with the
citizen, i.e., the way services are delivered, but so far they have not
changed the way the services are being produced. One has to look at the
transformation of current production or logistics chains in order to fully
understand how the NICTs are going to further affect the way public services
are being produced (and delivered). Indeed, beyond substitution, we can
identify three additional steps in the way State operations are going to be
transformed by the NICTs. These are: (1) mirroring, (2) new digital
products, and (3) total outsourcing of production. Let us briefly comment on
each of these three steps (four if one includes substitution):
§
Substitution: as
said, the first step in using the NICTs in the transformation of operations
simply pertains to the digitalisation of the interface with the customer,
thus substituting the traditional interface with a digitalised one. So far,
and in our opinion, most of what has been done in terms of e-government
pertains to such substitution.
§
Mirroring: the
next step in the use of the NICTs in the modernisation of the State’s
operational activities pertain however to substantial changes in the way the
services are being produced. At first, the NICTs will merely be used to
improve the production process, while simultaneously improving customer
service. This is for example the case when the customer is able to follow a
file through the maze of the administration by means of some tracking and
tracing function.
§
New services: in a
third step, then, new services are being created thanks to the management of
the information about the production process and the customers. Most of
these services will of course be distributed via the internet or other
technology based interfaces (SMS, etc.). As an example one may take
statistical information on administrative performance (e.g., time it takes
in average to receive a permit). At this point, it will no longer be obvious
that all these new services will be produced by the State. It might well be
that private operators become much more innovative than the State when it
comes to developing such new services.
§
Efficient management
of the outsourced or privatized services will become the next (and may be
final) step in the transformation of the State’s operational activities.
Indeed, the NICTs allow for a much more efficient management of the
principal-agent relationship, thus leading to the fact that most operational
activities can be steered and controlled by means of managing the
information only. This, as we will see below, constitutes actually a
significant step towards a regulatory role of the State.
The following graphic summarises these
four steps in modernising the State’s operational activities by means of the
NICTs:
Implications of
the new role of the NICTs on future State transformation
This transformation of
the operational activities– a process, as argued above, significantly
enhanced and accelerated by the NICTs – carries serious consequences for the
State. Indeed, from a provider of services, the State increasingly
transforms into a regulator of outsourced or privatized services, or more
generally into an “information manager”. In parallel, its third function,
i.e., policy-making, does not remain unaffected by these changes either. In
other words, the issue we would like to highlight here is how the State
reacts to the transformation of its operational activities, and how the
NICTs will (or may) play a significant role in this reaction.
The following graphic
summarises this evolution
Indeed, in a first and
immediate step, the State must ask itself the question of how to ensure and
control the provision of the (outsourced or otherwise autonomised) services.
To recall, here, – as argued above, and thanks to the NICTs – the State no
longer produces the services, but manages the providers of the services,
including the new services that the private providers increasingly develop.
From now on, the State has to monitor the provision and the providers of the
services, along with their quality, their prices, as well as citizens’
accessibility to them. In other words, once the operational functions have
become autonomised, the State’s particular role will be to guarantee the
provision of these autonomised services. We think that this supervisory – or
rather regulatory -function can be significantly enhanced by the NICTs. As a
matter of fact, one may even ask whether the use of the NICTs in monitoring
autonomised services and service providers is not, to a certain extent, a
prerequisite for ensuring their quality and even their delivery. We would
like to label this new function “e-regulation”, by which we mean the
use and application of the NICTs to supervising – or rather regulating - the
autonomised services.
But, as we have seen
above, there is – parallel to the growing role of the NICTs – an evolution
taking place towards involving more and more non-state actors into the main
State activities, in particular in decision-making and policy-formulation, a
phenomenon which has come to be called «governance». Simultaneously, we
witness a movement towards globalisation and localisation, whereby State
power (as well as decision-making and managerial autonomy) is increasingly
shifted upwards (global, regional) and downwards (local, regional). Not
astonishingly, new governance mechanisms and practice can therefore first be
found above and below the nation-state level (e.g., global governance, local
governance). Again, one may ask whether and to what extent the State and the
new political entities above and below the Nation-State level will make use
of the NICTs in order to improve decision-making and policy formulation.
This is the phenomenon or practice we would like to call “e-policy-making”
or “e-democracy”. But unlike e-regulation, e-policy-making will occur
primarily above and below the nation-state level.
The following graphic summarises the
potential role the NICTs can play in the three evolving State functions,
i.e., service delivery, the monitoring thereof (e.g., e-regulation), and
policy making:
`
In short, the main
questions now are: (1) how and to what extent does the State make use of the
NICTs in order to provide better services, often in partnership with the
private sector and civil, society organisations?(e-Government) (2) How and
to what extent does the State make use of the NICTs in order to better
regulate, and by doing so ensure public service (price, quality,
accessibility)?(e-regulation) (3) And finally how and to what extent does
the State make use of the NICTs in order to improve its rule-making
function, i.e., by better involving the various societal actors into
decision-making (e-democracy). In other words, e-Governance is composed of
the three above elements, namely e-Government, e-regulation and e-democracy,
yet is more than the simple addition of these three elements.
Our model of
e-governance derives entirely from the above considerations. In other words,
it distinguishes between three different policy-levels, between three
different types of actors involved, between three different policy
functions, and between three different degrees of making use of the NICTs.
§
Levels:
as we saw above, parallel to globalisation do arise other policy levels, in
particular a global and simultaneously a local level, as well as
intermediate regional levels (above and below the nation-state). If the
State is not simply bypassed by these new policy levels, it at least has to
find ways to articulate its actions (e.g., decision-making, operations, and
regulation) with the actions going on at these various levels. Also,
parallel to these levels, new actors emerge, who are in turn particularly
active at the different levels.
§
Actors:
indeed, and in parallel to the emergence of different policy levels, there
emerge new actors, who become increasingly involved in policy-making,
service delivery, and to a lesser extent regulation. One must mention here
in particular private actors, as well as actors from civil society,
including consumer organisations, especially when it comes to services.
§
Functions:
the above transformations lead, as we have seen, to a much clearer
distinction of the State’s three main functions, namely operations,
policy-making, and regulation. Even though the State has always assumed
these three functions, globalisation and especially liberalisation force it
to separate more clearly each of these three functions. The policy-making
function, for example is increasingly being split between the global, the
regional, the national, and to a lesser extent the local levels, involving
each time actors from civil society and the private sector. More or less the
same can be said of the operational function, from which the State is
increasingly withdrawing. The regulatory function, instead, remains mainly
at the nation-state level and involves non-state actors (e.g. consumer
organisations) only to a very limited degree. However, more recently one can
also observe the shifting of the regulatory function upwards, for example,
in the European Union.
§
Use of the NICTs:
as said above, it is generally distinguished between three different degrees
to which the NICTs can be used as part of current State transformation,
namely information, interaction, and transaction (GCSI 2000). Information is
certainly the lowest level of interfacing between the citizens and the
State. Generally, such information has an educational dimension and can
mostly be found on governmental websites. Interaction defines a use of NICTs,
whereby citizens or other actors can also communicate with the State, be it
in policy-making or regulation. Transaction, finally, is an even deeper use
of the NICTs, whereby the citizens participate more actively in the State,
mostly in the function of policy-making. While this distinction between
information, interaction, and transaction is certainly useful, it does not,
in our view, fully cover all the potential uses of the NICTs along the
process of current State transformation. However, we will use this
distinction for the time being and for lack of better concepts.
For us, therefore,
e-governance is the combination of all four above aspects. In other
words, it is a dynamic concept, which implies the growing use of the NICTs
for the three State’s main functions (e.g. e-Government, e-regulation and
e-democracy), increasingly involving non-state actors at levels other than
the national one. The following graphic summarises this view:
Comparison of our
model with current definitions and conceptualisations of e-Governance
In this section, we
want to confront our above developed model of e-governance to the currently
prevalent definitions and conceptualisations of e-governance. As a matter of
fact, and when looking at current literature, one can identify three main
conceptualisations of e-governance, namely (1) e-governance as customer
satisfaction, (2) e-governance as processes and interactions, and (3)
e-governance as tools.
e-Governance as
customer satisfaction
The first and
probably most widespread conceptualisation refers, in our view, to customer
satisfaction. Indeed, the term e-governance is not only used here as being
synonymous of e-government, it is moreover synonymous with satisfying the
citizen/customer by means of delivering the services through the internet.
This is for example the case
of the “rapport de l’enquête mondiale sur la gouvernance en ligne” (2000),
which tells us that
«la gouvernance en ligne
recouvre les initiatives prises sous l’égide de l’Etat pour assurer par des
moyens électronique la prestation de services d’information et la
participation des citoyens à la gestion des affaires publiques. Elle désigne
également le fait d’offrir aux citoyens la possibilité d’accéder par
l’informatique à une information, à un service en ligne ou un dialogue avec
l’administration à tous les niveaux».
More generally, this is the view of
promoters of new public management, who see in the NICTs a significant
contribution to and next step in improving service delivery, and especially
customer satisfaction (e.g., Kuno Schedler et al. 2003).
For this conceptualisation, the main
unit of analysis is the government or rather the administration, whose
interface with the citizens the NICTs are said to be going to improve. As a
matter of fact, citizens are seen here as more or less passive recipients of
digitalised information and services, i.e., as customers. Quite logically,
the third sector, for example, is not mentioned, and the private sector is
merely seen as another recipient of government services. In other words, at
the heart of this conceptualisation it is not the process to which the NICTs
are being applied, but merely the delivery of information and sometimes
services. Needless to say that this conceptualisation also does not take
into account the possible other policy levels that the State may need to
cope with. Besides, this conceptualisation does not mention the emergence of
non-state actors who become increasingly involved in policy-making, service
delivery and to a lesser extend regulation. Finally, it does not provide
either for the different functions of the State, limited as it is to the
service delivery or operational function. Finally, this conceptualisation
limits its analysis to the first two steps where the NICTs may play in State
transformation, namely substitution and communication.
e-Governance as processes and
interactions
In the second conceptualisation
e-governance is seen as a decisional process. Says, for example, the
International Centre of e-governance (www.icegov.org):
“Governance is not
government, nor is it the act of governing. It is more usefully seen as a
process: the process by which institutions, organisations, companies and
societies 'guide' themselves. It is also about how these bodies interact
with each other, with their 'clients' and with the public. At its most basic
level, it is about how society organises itself for collective decision
making, and also provides transparent mechanisms for seeing those decisions
through. E-governance is a shorthand term for the use and impact of
technology, in particular information and communications technology (ICT),
in governance systems.”
Similarly, the
E-governance Institute of Rutgers University states (www.newark.rutgers.edu):
“E-governance involves
new channels for accessing government, new styles of leadership, new methods
of transacting business, and new systems for organising and delivering
information and services. Its potential for enhancing the governing process
is immeasurable.”
Here, the focus is
clearly on processes and interactions, which the NICTs are said to foster or
at least to facilitate. Potentially, the conceptualisation could also be
extended to transactions. However, the view of the State remains quite
traditional: indeed, it is interactions between the citizens and the private
sector on the one hand and the State on the other. However, the State
remains always at the centre, be it as an actor or as a level. In terms of
policy functions, this view is broader than the previous one, as it sees
interactions both in policy-making and in service delivery. We think that
this conceptualisation has certainly the biggest potential when it comes to
taking into account future evolutions of both governance and technologies.
e-Governance as
tools for government
The third
conceptualisation sees e-governance as a set of tools in the hands of
government, or rather in the hands of the administration. In other words,
the starting point here is not the State or its transformation, but the
possibilities the NICTs offer. Says the Commonwealth Centre for Electronic
Governance (www.electronicgov.net/pubs/research_papers/eged/chapter1
pp11-12-17:
“e-governance is a tool.
And like any other tool, no matter how powerful, it has limited value and
relevance in itself. Its value arises from its application to specific goals
and objectives. E-governance is really about choice. It is about providing
citizens with the ability to choose the manner in which they wish to
interact with their governments.” … “E-governance is the commitment to
utilise appropriate technologies to enhance governmental relationships, both
internal and external, in order to advance democratic expression, human
dignity and autonomy, support economic development and encourage the fair
and efficient delivery of services.”
Not astonishingly,
e-governance is not structured along concepts of State transformation, but
rather along technological possibilities. Says Perri, one of the
representatives of this conceptualisation of e-governance (Perri 6 (2002).
P8):
“one way to classify e-governance systems is
roughly according to the main tool for which they are used. There are tools
for (1) generating understanding simple data, (2) collecting data or
observations through search agents, (3) organising and analysing data on
events, conditions, problems and processes, (4) supporting communication and
transaction e-mail, electronic conferencing, video-conferencing systems, (5)
modeling decisions and advising on possible consequences spreadsheets, (6)
and environments that provide integration and storage for the other
categories.”
Roger W’O Okot-Uma from the Commonwealth
Secretariat, another key proponent of this conceptualisation goes even
further by introducing the normative concept of “good governance”. Indeed,
he says (www.electronicgov.net/pubs/index.shtml
p5)
“e-governance seeks to
realise processes and structures for harnessing the potentialities of
information and communication technologies at various levels of government
and at the public sector and beyond, for the purpose of enhancing good
governance”.
Better governance,
thanks to the NICTs, would improve, according to W’O Okot-Uma, democracy and
ultimately peoples’ lives.
In other words, this conceptualisation
is characterised by an eclectic combination of quite unreflected uses of the
NICTs on the one hand and visionary (or even normative) statements on
democracy and “good governance” on the other. It clearly puts the NICTs
before the State, and actually operates with a quite simplistic, in our view
old-fashioned, and in any case naïve vision of the State. In particular, it
is not dynamic, as it does not see the implications of the NICTs on
operations, nor on State transformation. We think that this
conceptualisation of e-governance is certainly useful for promotional
purposes, but it does not help us when t comes to analysis and research.
Conclusion
We have tried to
summarise, in this section, the main three currently prevalent
conceptualisations of e-governance and confront them to our own model. This
confrontation shows, in particular that we still have quite different
understandings of what e-governance is, ranging from naïve and promotional
views (e-governance as tools for democracy) to simplistic and unambitious
ideas of using the NICTs for enhancing service delivery only (e-governance
as customer satisfaction). The most promising conceptualisation is without
doubt the one, which sees e-governance as dynamic process, i.e., mainly as
an enhancement of interactions between actors (citizens, consumers,
administration, private sector, third sector). This conceptualisation also
comes closest to our model, which however goes further, as we are not
limited to interaction but go beyond (e.g., transactions), and as we would
also like to see transactions between levels (local, regional, State,
global), as well as between functions (operations, policy-making, and
regulation).
The following graphic
summarises these three conceptualisations and confronts them to our model.
Conclusion
In this paper, we
have first outlined our view of how the State transforms in the age of
globalisation and then made the assumption that the NICTs will not only fit
into this overall process, but moreover enhance it and probably drive it
further. This is indeed the underlying bias of our model of NICTs’ enhanced
State transformation presented in section 4. In section 5, then, we
confronted this model to the three currently dominant approaches one finds
when analysing the literature on e-governance. More precisely:
§
we have identified a first conceptualisation,
which sees e-governance mainly as the continuation of new public management
efforts, in particular when it comes to the aspect of service delivery and
customer satisfaction;
§
a second conceptualisation, which sees
e-governance mainly as the further development of all kind of processes and
interactions, but especially the interactions between the citizens and the
State; and
§
a third conceptualisation, which is mainly
technologically focused, and thus sees all kinds of optimistic future
possibilities for technologically enhanced democracy.
Regrettably, all
three conceptualisation still operate with a quite traditional and mostly
static view of the State, focused as they are on national and to a lesser
extent on local government. In terms of actors, all conceptualisation do not
go much beyond the fact that besides citizens the State now also needs to
take into account consumers and the private sector. No mention, for example,
is made of the third sector, and civil society organisations more generally.
In terms of functions, the first conceptualisation is exclusively focused on
operations and service delivery, while the other two conceptualisations also
include policy-making. However, no mention is made of regulation, and the
new role the NICTs could play here. Finally, and when it comes to the uses
of the NICTs, one can say that the first and the third conceptualisation are
mainly limited to substitution and communication, while the second
conceptualisation is essentially focused on interactions. However, no
mention is yet made of transactions. Overall, one can say that all
conceptualisation display little understanding of how the NICTs fit into
current processes of State transformation, even though the second
conceptualisation is certainly the most dynamic one and thus the one best
suited to take current State transformation into account.
A final question
pertains to the distinction between empirical description on the one hand
and normative statements on the other. If the third conceptualisation is
essentially normative and thus, in our view, naïve and optimistic, the other
two conceptualisations are empirical in nature. As such, they do indeed
describe certain empirically observable phenomena of “e-governance”, and
thus can lead to research projects studying the emergence and evolution of
e-governance. However, we think that these two conceptualisations –
especially the first one – capture only a very narrow aspect of the
potential use (and to a certain extent already practices) of the NICTs in
current State transformation, limited as they are to operations and
policy-making (excluding regulation), to the public and the private sectors
(excluding the third sector and civil society more generally), to the
national and local levels (excluding the regional and global levels), and to
substitution, communication, and interaction (excluding so far
transactions).
We thus think that our model – while
building on the first and second conceptualisation – could significantly
enlarge and innovate the research agenda in the field of e-governance, by
putting research on e-governance into the broader context of State
transformation and the future of the State more generally. In its most
abstract sense, the underlying research question this paper leads to is thus
how the NICTs will (or will not) contribute to redefining the practice of
governance in the future. To recall, we understand governance in dynamic
terms as well as in a broad sense, encompassing policy-making, operations,
and regulation at all levels of society, i.e., from local to global, and
involving all stakeholders in one form or another.
References
Berner
Fachhochschule, Institut für Wirtschaft und Verwaltung IWV, eGovernment
Glossar: http://glossar.iwv.ch/
The Commonwealth
Centre for Electronic Governance, Electronic Governance and Electronic
Democracy: living and working in the connected world, Chapter one: http://www.electronicgov.net/pubs/research_papers/eged/contents.shtml
Commonwealth Network
of Information Technology for Development Foundation (COMNET-IT). (2000)
Enquête mondiale sur la gouvernance en ligne, rapport final, Paris.
Criado Grande I., C.
Ramilo Araujo and S.M. Serna. (2002) Research on E-Government : A Proposal
of Theoretical Framework Paper presented to the European Group of Public
Administration Conference, Postdam, 4-7 September 2002, p.5.
E-governance
Institute from the State University of New Jersey Rutgers Newark. http://www.newark.rutgers.edu/
Groupe de
coordination Société de l’information (GCSI) (2000) Analyse sommaire:
e-Europe – Une société de l’information pour tous” – Analyse et comparaison
avec la stratégie du Conseil fédéral pour une société de l’information ,
Bienne.
International Centre
of e-governance from the Scottish Council Foundation,
www.icegov.org
Perri 6 (2002)
E-governance. Do Digital Aids Make a Difference in Policy Making? in
Designing E-Government, J.E.J Prins (Ed), Kluwer Law International, The
Netherlands, p.8.
Schedler, K., B.
Schmidt & L. Summermattter. (2003) Electoinc Government einfuhren und
entwickeln. Von der Idee Zur Praxis. Haupt
R. W’O Okot-Uma
Electronic Governance: Re-inventing Good Governance, [online],
http://www.electronicgov.net/pubs/index.shtml |
