Active Citizen Participation in E-Government: A Global Perspective 9781466601161, 9781466601178, 9781466601185, 2011046465

Citation preview

Active Citizen Participation in E-Government: A Global Perspective Aroon Manoharan Kent State University, USA Marc Holzer Rutgers University-Campus at Newark, USA

Managing Director: Senior Editorial Director: Book Production Manager: Development Manager: Development Editor: Acquisitions Editor: Typesetter: Cover Design:

Lindsay Johnston Heather Probst Sean Woznicki Joel Gamon Michael Killian Erika Gallagher Lisandro Gonzalez Nick Newcomer, Lisandro Gonzalez

Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2012 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Active citizen participation in e-government: a global perspective / Aroon Manoharan and Marc Holzer, editors. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “This book focuses on the issues and challenges involving adoption and implementation of online civic engagement initiatives globally and will serve as a valuable guide to governments in their efforts to enable active citizen participation”--Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-4666-0116-1 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-0117-8 (ebook) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-0118-5 (print & perpetual access) 1. Public administration--Citizen participation--Technological innovations. 2. Political participation--Technological innovations. 3. Internet in public administration. I. Manoharan, Aroon, 1979- II. Holzer, Marc. JF1525.A8A34 2012 323’.04202854678--dc23 2011046465

British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

Editorial Advisory Board Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko, University of Tampere, Finland Daniel Bromberg, Western Carolina University, USA Donald J. Calista, Marist College, USA Tony J. Carrizales, Marist College, USA Yu-Che Chen, Northern Illinois University, USA Amit Das, Qatar University, Qatar Kelvin Joseph Bwalya, University of Botswana, Botswana Chan-Gon Kim, Seoul Metropolitan Government, South Korea Patrick Kim Cheng Low, University of South Australia, Australia & Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Younhee Kim, East Carolina University, USA Seung-Yong Rho, Seoul Women’s University, South Korea Alan R. Shark, Public Technology Institute, USA & Rutgers University, USA Genie Stowers, San Francisco State University, USA Hua Xu, Auburn University - Montgomery, USA Kaifeng Yang, Florida State University, USA Wenxuan Yu, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Table of Contents

Preface.................................................................................................................................................. xiv Chapter 1 Reconfiguring Performance Information Linking with Accountability: Reporting and Internal Management....................................................................................................... 1 Étienne Charbonneau, École Nationale D’administration Publique, Canada Younhee Kim, East Carolina University, USA Chapter 2 E-Gov and Transparency in NJ Counties: Providing Information to Citizens....................................... 20 Deborah Mohammed-Spigner, NJ Common Cause, USA Daniel Bromberg, Western Carolina University, USA Marc Fudge, California State University, San Bernardino, USA Neil Coleman, New Jersey Taxpayers’ Association, USA Chapter 3 Transparency Issues in E-Governance and Civic Engagement............................................................. 44 Sherri Greenberg, The University of Texas at Austin, USA Angela Newell, The University of Texas at Austin, USA Chapter 4 Measuring and Improving Information-Based Government Websites: A Suggested Framework........................................................................................................................ 65 Laura Wesley, Industry Canada, Canada Chapter 5 Online Political Participation in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election: Examining the Democratic Divide......................................................................................................... 85 Taewoo Nam, University at Albany, State University of New York, USA Djoko Sigit Sayogo, University at Albany, State University of New York, USA

Chapter 6 Power and Identity among Citizens in Networked Societies: Towards a Critical Study of Cultural E-Governance.......................................................................................................... 109 Jakob Svensson, Karlstad University, Sweden Chapter 7 A Systems Theory Approach to Electronic Voting Complexity........................................................... 128 Dimitrios Zissis, University of the Aegean, Syros, Greece Dimitrios Lekkas, University of the Aegean, Syros, Greece Argyris Arnellos, University of the Aegean, Syros, Greece Chapter 8 Educational and Democratic Potential of Digital Games in e-Government........................................ 152 Erkki Patokorpi, IAMSR, Åbo Akademi University, Finland Sami Leppimäki, IAMSR, Åbo Akademi University, Finland Franck Tétard, IAMSR, Åbo Akademi University, Finland Chapter 9 Managing Interactional Performance in E-Government...................................................................... 167 Françoise Simon, Research Center on Mediations, University of Haute-Alsace, France Chapter 10 Social Networks, Civic Participation, and Young People: A Literature Review and Summary of the Educational Challenges...................................................................................... 187 Sonia Lara, University of Navarra, Spain Concepción Naval, University of Navarra, Spain Chapter 11 Innovative Processes and Managerial Effectiveness of e-Procurement in Healthcare........................ 206 Ubaldo Comite, University of Calabria, Italy Chapter 12 European Public E-Procurement: The Italian Experience................................................................... 230 Pietro Previtali, University of Pavia, Italy Chapter 13 Civic Engagement and E-Governance in Gauteng: Grounds for Universal Household Broadband Internet Service.................................................................................................................. 250 Lucienne Abrahams, LINK Centre, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa Mark Burke, LINK Centre, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa Lauri Elliott, Conceptualee, Inc., USA Warren Hero, Gauteng Provincial Government, South Africa

Chapter 14 Implications of e-Government in Botswana in the Realm of e-Participation: Case of Francistown............................................................................................................................. 276 Vako Mbako, University of Botswana, Botswana Kelvin Joseph Bwalya, University of Johannesburg, Center of Knowledge & Information Management, South Africa Tanya Du Plessis, University of Johannesburg, Center of Knowledge & Information Management, South Africa Chris Rensleigh, University of Johannesburg, Center of Knowledge & Information Management, South Africa Chapter 15 Impact of Internet Use on Civic Engagement in Chinese Rural Areas: A Preliminary Research....................................................................................................................... 296 Jian-Chuan Zhang, Northern Illinois University, USA Ying Qin, China Internet Network Information Center, China Chapter 16 Rural E-Governance through the “Panchayati Raj” Institutions in India: Prospects and Challenges..................................................................................................................... 314 Malathi Subramanian, Amity University, India Chapter 17 E-Engaging India: E-Democracy Strategies for Empowerment and Civic Participation.................... 334 Kavita Karan, Southern Illinois University, USA Chapter 18 E-Government Policy Implementation in Brunei: Lessons Learnt from Singapore............................ 359 Mohammad Habibur Rahman, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Patrick Kim Cheng Low, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Mohammad Nabil Almunawar, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Fadzliwati Mohiddin, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Sik-Liong Ang, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Chapter 19 Elucidating Online Structure for Democratic Legitimacy: Case of Local Government Online Structure in Java-Indonesia...................................................................................................... 378 Djoko Sigit Sayogo, University at Albany, State University of New York, USA Taewoo Nam, University at Albany, State University of New York, USA Chapter 20 Citizen Participation through Municipal Websites: A Global Scorecard............................................. 403 Alicia Schatteman, Northern Illinois University, USA Deborah Mohammed-Spigner, NJ Common Cause, USA George Poluse, Kent State University, USA

Chapter 21 Stepwise E-Participation: Good Practice from the Regional Level in Europe.................................... 415 Francesco Molinari, University of Siena, Italy Mateja Kunstelj, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Ljupčo Todorovski, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Chapter 22 Open Governance, Civic Engagement, and New Digital Media......................................................... 437 Eleni-Revekka Staiou, University of Athens, Greece Dimitris Gouscos, University of Athens, Greece Chapter 23 Social Media Corporate Policies for Government Organizations: Lessons Learnt from the United Arab Emirates............................................................................................................ 458 Salem Al Shair Al Suwaidi, Emirates eGovernment, United Arab Emirates Ibrahim Ahmed Elbadawi, Emirates eGovernment, United Arab Emirates Chapter 24 TT Connect: The Gateway to Enhanced Service Delivery.................................................................. 475 Charlene M. L. Roach, The University of the West Indies, Trinidad & Tobago Chapter 25 A Glimmer of Hope for Mass Media in Liberal Democracy: istanbulrumazinligi.com...................... 497 Vildan Mahmutoğlu, Galatasaray University, Turkey Chapter 26 Debate on E-Debate: Between Acceptance and Refusal...................................................................... 510 Ewa Krzątała-Jaworska CRPS-CESSP, University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France Chapter 27 Conceptualization of Trust in the e-Government Context: A Qualitative Analysis............................. 528 Hisham Alsaghier, Griffith University, Australia Rahim Hussain, University of Dubai, United Arab Emirates Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 558 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 615 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 626

Detailed Table of Contents

Preface.................................................................................................................................................. xiv Chapter 1 Reconfiguring Performance Information Linking with Accountability: Reporting and Internal Management....................................................................................................... 1 Étienne Charbonneau, École Nationale D’administration Publique, Canada Younhee Kim, East Carolina University, USA The chapter discusses different approaches to present complicated performance information to citizens and reviews various cases to understand connections between performance measurement and information. Chapter 2 E-Gov and Transparency in NJ Counties: Providing Information to Citizens....................................... 20 Deborah Mohammed-Spigner, NJ Common Cause, USA Daniel Bromberg, Western Carolina University, USA Marc Fudge, California State University, San Bernardino, USA Neil Coleman, New Jersey Taxpayers’ Association, USA The chapter examines the levels of transparency on New Jersey county government websites, and addresses specific issues related to access to information and service delivery. Chapter 3 Transparency Issues in E-Governance and Civic Engagement............................................................. 44 Sherri Greenberg, The University of Texas at Austin, USA Angela Newell, The University of Texas at Austin, USA The chapter discusses the definition of transparency related to e-governance and the implementation of transparency initiatives. Chapter 4 Measuring and Improving Information-Based Government Websites: A Suggested Framework........................................................................................................................ 65 Laura Wesley, Industry Canada, Canada The chapter introduces a framework for measuring efficiency, effectiveness, and citizen satisfaction with public sector websites.

Chapter 5 Online Political Participation in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election: Examining the Democratic Divide......................................................................................................... 85 Taewoo Nam, University at Albany, State University of New York, USA Djoko Sigit Sayogo, University at Albany, State University of New York, USA The chapter examines the link between the democratic divide and socioeconomic/demographic characteristics, based on data from the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Chapter 6 Power and Identity among Citizens in Networked Societies: Towards a Critical Study of Cultural E-Governance.......................................................................................................... 109 Jakob Svensson, Karlstad University, Sweden The chapter examines how people enter into citizenship through online political participation and the factors governing these processes Chapter 7 A Systems Theory Approach to Electronic Voting Complexity........................................................... 128 Dimitrios Zissis, University of the Aegean, Syros, Greece Dimitrios Lekkas, University of the Aegean, Syros, Greece Argyris Arnellos, University of the Aegean, Syros, Greece The chapter contributes to the existing body of knowledge on electronic voting, based on Soft System Methodology (SSM). Chapter 8 Educational and Democratic Potential of Digital Games in e-Government........................................ 152 Erkki Patokorpi, IAMSR, Åbo Akademi University, Finland Sami Leppimäki, IAMSR, Åbo Akademi University, Finland Franck Tétard, IAMSR, Åbo Akademi University, Finland The chapter explores the potential of digital games for education, communication, and the promotion of civic skills in e-government. Chapter 9 Managing Interactional Performance in E-Government...................................................................... 167 Françoise Simon, University of Haute-Alsace, France The chapter discusses the issue of interactional performance in public e-service delivery, based on a conceptual framework of media choice and the theory of perceived justice. Chapter 10 Social Networks, Civic Participation, and Young People: A Literature Review and Summary of the Educational Challenges...................................................................................... 187 Sonia Lara, University of Navarra, Spain Concepción Naval, University of Navarra, Spain

The chapter examines the contribution of social networks to citizen participation and examines the differences between offline and online civic participation. Chapter 11 Innovative Processes and Managerial Effectiveness of e-Procurement in Healthcare........................ 206 Ubaldo Comite, University of Calabria, Italy The chapter discusses the functioning of new models of e-procurement and explores its potential in reducing expenses and achieving efficiency. Chapter 12 European Public E-Procurement: The Italian Experience................................................................... 230 Pietro Previtali, University of Pavia, Italy The chapter discusses the role of e-procurement platforms, both from an organizational and economic perspective and presents various European central procurement models from the public sector. Chapter 13 Civic Engagement and E-Governance in Gauteng: Grounds for Universal Household Broadband Internet Service.................................................................................................................. 250 Lucienne Abrahams, LINK Centre, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa Mark Burke, LINK Centre, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa Lauri Elliott, Conceptualee, Inc., USA Warren Hero, Gauteng Provincial Government, South Africa The chapter presents insights into the state of e-development in Gauteng, South Africa, with particular focus on policies that push universal household broadband service. Chapter 14 Implications of e-Government in Botswana in the Realm of e-Participation: Case of Francistown............................................................................................................................. 276 Vako Mbako, University of Botswana, Botswana Kelvin Joseph Bwalya, University of Johannesburg, Center of Knowledge & Information Management, South Africa Tanya Du Plessis, University of Johannesburg, Center of Knowledge & Information Management, South Africa Chris Rensleigh, University of Johannesburg, Center of Knowledge & Information Management, South Africa The chapter analyses the state of e-government preparedness and adoption in Botswana, and analyzes the intervention strategies towards robust e-government development. Chapter 15 Impact of Internet Use on Civic Engagement in Chinese Rural Areas: A Preliminary Research....................................................................................................................... 296 Jian-Chuan Zhang, Northern Illinois University, USA Ying Qin, China Internet Network Information Center, China

The chapter explores the relationship between Internet usage and civic engagement among rural users in China, and its potential to enable active citizen engagement in public affairs. Chapter 16 Rural E-Governance through the “Panchayati Raj” Institutions in India: Prospects and Challenges..................................................................................................................... 314 Malathi Subramanian, Amity University, India The chapter attempts to examine the challenges to and dimensions of the task of electronic delivery of government services through the local self-government institutions called “Panchayati Raj” in India. Chapter 17 E-Engaging India: E-Democracy Strategies for Empowerment and Civic Participation.................... 334 Kavita Karan, Southern Illinois University, USA The chapter examines the e-democracy strategies and new media technologies used by political parties, industrial corporations, and other organizations in the recent elections in India. Chapter 18 E-Government Policy Implementation in Brunei: Lessons Learnt from Singapore............................ 359 Mohammad Habibur Rahman, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Patrick Kim Cheng Low, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Mohammad Nabil Almunawar, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Fadzliwati Mohiddin, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Sik-Liong Ang, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei The chapter highlights the factors that have enabled e-government policies to be successfully implemented in Singapore and propose similar strategies in Brunei. Chapter 19 Elucidating Online Structure for Democratic Legitimacy: Case of Local Government Online Structure in Java-Indonesia...................................................................................................... 378 Djoko Sigit Sayogo, University at Albany, State University of New York, USA Taewoo Nam, University at Albany, State University of New York, USA The chapter explores the potential of e-government implementation in transforming the communication structure between local governments and citizens in Java, Indonesia. Chapter 20 Citizen Participation through Municipal Websites: A Global Scorecard............................................. 403 Alicia Schatteman, Northern Illinois University, USA Deborah Mohammed-Spigner, NJ Common Cause, USA George Poluse, Kent State University, USA The chapter introduces a model to explain why some countries provide better online citizen participation opportunities than others, based on a global study of municipal websites.

Chapter 21 Stepwise E-Participation: Good Practice from the Regional Level in Europe.................................... 415 Francesco Molinari, University of Siena, Italy Mateja Kunstelj, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Ljupčo Todorovski, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia The chapter discusses the results of the IDEAL-EU project, which involves citizen participation and deliberation on the priorities of the new climate change agenda of the European Parliament. Chapter 22 Open Governance, Civic Engagement, and New Digital Media......................................................... 437 Eleni-Revekka Staiou, University of Athens, Greece Dimitris Gouscos, University of Athens, Greece The chapter highlights and discusses the concepts of e-governance, open governance, and civic engagement enabled by technologies such as Web 2.0, social media, and user-generated content. Chapter 23 Social Media Corporate Policies for Government Organizations: Lessons Learnt from the United Arab Emirates............................................................................................................ 458 Salem Al Shair Al Suwaidi, Emirates eGovernment, United Arab Emirates Ibrahim Ahmed Elbadawi, Emirates eGovernment, United Arab Emirates The chapter presents the key lessons learnt from the process of formulating a government-wide social media policy in the United Arab Emirates, along with providing recommendations for future research. Chapter 24 TT Connect: The Gateway to Enhanced Service Delivery.................................................................. 475 Charlene M. L. Roach, The University of the West Indies, Trinidad & Tobago The chapter examines The Trinidad and Tobago (TT) Pilot Portal site, also known as ttconnect, which provides a gateway to access the services of the twenty-two TT government ministries. Chapter 25 A Glimmer of Hope for Mass Media in Liberal Democracy: istanbulrumazinligi.com...................... 497 Vildan Mahmutoğlu, Galatasaray University, Turkey The chapter examines how the new media provides solutions for the problems of national integrated public sphere through opening new spaces in Turkey. Chapter 26 Debate on E-Debate: Between Acceptance and Refusal...................................................................... 510 Ewa Krzątała-Jaworska CRPS-CESSP, University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France The chapter examines the factors that influence the acceptance or refusal of e-participation tools by local government stakeholders, based on a case study of French municipalities.

Chapter 27 Conceptualization of Trust in the e-Government Context: A Qualitative Analysis............................. 528 Hisham Alsaghier, Griffith University, Australia Rahim Hussain, University of Dubai, United Arab Emirates The chapter provides an in-depth understanding of the citizen’s perception of e-government adoption based on a qualitative approach using focus groups. Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 558 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 615 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 626

xiv

Preface

As governments across the world increasingly adopt information and communication technology to improve their efficiency and effectiveness, they are gradually providing opportunities for citizen participation and engagement online. The use of Internet technologies raises the possibility for large-scale e-democracy and enhances the degree and quality of public participation in government. Initially, eparticipation was largely passive, with mostly one-way communication and information dissemination. Nowadays, online participation is highlighted by two-way communication and the active participation of citizens, along with the increasing accessibility of computers and the ever-increasing prevalence of social media. In light of these various possibilities for citizens to actively participate in governance and decision-making, this book details the efforts of governments and public agencies in providing proper channels for engaging their citizens. This book presents a wide range of research on approaches undertaken by governments across the world in facilitating active citizen participation online. The chapters also highlight the unique determinants and challenges surrounding its implementation in different global regions. Focusing on the issues and challenges involving adoption and implementation of online civic engagement initiatives globally, the book should serve as a valuable guide to governments in their efforts to enable active citizen participation. In Chapter 1, Reconfiguring Performance Information Linking with Accountability: Reporting and Internal Management, Étienne Charbonneau and Younhee Kim suggest innovative approaches to present complicated performance information to citizens. The chapter reviews various cases to understand the link between performance measurement and performance information in order to promote communication between citizens and government. According to the authors, performance reporting should be constructed in modernized, innovative, and user-focused ways to stimulate the use of performance information by external stakeholders, which can promote government accountability. In Chapter 2, E-Gov and Transparency in NJ Counties: Providing Information to Citizens, Deborah Mohammed-Spigner, Daniel Bromberg, Marc Fudge, and Neil Coleman examine the levels of transparency on New Jersey county government websites, and addresses specific issues related to access to information and service delivery. The research demonstrates that counties are utilizing information and communication technologies to increase transparency in a range of modes. However, the use of such technologies continues to remain in its infancy at the county-government level. In Chapter 3, Transparency Issues in E-Governance and Civic Engagement, Sherri Greenberg and Angela Newell discuss the definition of transparency related to e-governance and the implementation of transparency initiatives. Transparency is important in the transition from e-government to e-governance, and President Obama has made transparency a prominent issue in the federal government with his directive to use online resources to promote transparency. This chapter outlines the necessary political, policy, and technology and transparency issues in e-governance,

xv

along with recommendations for best practices in policy development and implementation. In Chapter 4, Measuring and Improving Information-based Government Websites: A Suggested Framework, Laura Wesley introduces a framework for measuring efficiency, effectiveness, and citizen satisfaction with public sector websites. The framework uses research methods that measure the extent to which online information advances organizational objectives, reaches its target audience, and meets users’ expectations for service and quality. In Chapter 5, Online Political Participation in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election: Examining the Democratic Divide, Taewoo Nam and Djoko Sigit Sayogo examine how the democratic divide (the gap in political activities via the Internet) is linked to socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, based on the data from the Pew Research Center’s survey conducted during the campaign season of the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The study compares five different types of online political activity - communication, mobilization, information consumption, information production, and involvement in social networking websites. In Chapter 6, Power and Identity among Citizens in Networked Societies: Towards a Critical Study of Cultural E-Governance, Jakob Svensson discusses the issues of political participation, citizenship practices and power. Based on social theory and transdisciplinarity, the chapter examines how people enter into citizenship through political participation online and the factors governing these processes. In Chapter 7, A Systems Theory Approach to Electronic Voting Complexity, Dimitrios Zissis, Dimitrios Lekkas, and Argyris Arnellos contribute to the existing body of knowledge on electronic voting, based on Soft System Methodology (SSM). Electronic voting is often identified as a soft, ill-structured human activity system, and soft systems thinking is applied to resolve complex issues and provide a clearer perspective of related interdependencies. In Chapter 8, Educational and Democratic Potential of Digital Games in E-Government, Erkki Patokorpi, Sami Leppimäki and Franck Tétard discuss the potential of digital games for education, communication and the promotion of civic skills in e-government. According to the authors, learning by games promotes the understanding of complex social issues and their mutual relationships, and consequently, learning by playing serious games is best understood as reasoned practical action in a virtual world. Presenting a social and cultural rationale for the use of games by citizens in terms of social capital, the chapter discusses worldwide examples of existing game applications for e-government. In Chapter 9, Managing Interactional Performance in E-Government, Françoise Simon discusses the issue of interactional performance in public e-service delivery, based on a conceptual framework of media choice and the theory of perceived justice. The chapter examines the interplay of service complexity, media richness, and social cues on individual media preferences. Additionally, it discusses key factors that lead citizen-users to the perception of a sense of equity through electronic communication. In Chapter 10, Social Networks, Civic Participation and Young People: A Literature Review and Summary of the Educational Challenges, Sonia Lara and Concepción Naval examine the contribution of social networks to citizen participation. The key questions discussed in the chapter are - How does the use of social networks affect civic behaviour and attitudes among citizens? Does such use foster real civic participation or, in contrast, does it lead to isolation from the real world as a result of engagement in online activities? Also, are there generic, quantitative and/or qualitative differences between offline and online social and civic participation? In Chapter 11, Innovative Processes and Managerial Effectiveness of E-Procurement in Healthcare, Ubaldo Comite discusses the functioning of new models of e-procurement and explores its potential in achieving efficiency, based on the reorganization of the acquiring procedures of goods and services. In Chapter 12, European Public E-Procurement: The Italian Experience, Pietro Previtali discusses the role of e-procurement and presents various European central procurement models

xvi

from the public sector. Based on an e-transaction survey in the Italian Central Procurement Department, the chapter discusses the category of goods and services compliant with e-procurement tools, along with the implications of the legislative framework for e-procurement transactions. In Chapter 13, Civic Engagement and E-Governance in Gauteng: Grounds for Universal Household Broadband Internet Service, Lucienne Abrahams, Mark Burke, Lauri Elliott, and Warren Hero present insights into the state of e-development in Gauteng, South Africa. The achievement of universal suffrage in 1994 created the foundations for greater civic engagement. However, as social interaction and societal governance become increasingly electronically mediated, a large proportion of the population is excluded from these new forms of on-Net interaction. This chapter argues that policies that push universal household broadband service can contribute to reducing social exclusion through creating the foundation for households to operate as units of production and overcome economic deprivation, thus laying a stronger basis for civic engagement. In Chapter 14, Implications of E-Government in Botswana in the Realm of E-Particpation: Case of Francistown, Mbako Vako, Bwalya Kelvin Joseph, Tanya Du Plessis, and Chris Rensleigh present the intervention strategies towards robust e-government development in Botswana where e-government is still at the very initial stages. Many of the e-government strategies being planned in Botswana have often inadequately considered the e-participation component and this is negatively impacting the overall anticipated value prepositions for e-government implementation. Based on an exploratory and empirical study of Francistown and surrounding rural areas, the chapter presents a critical analysis of the state of e-government preparedness and the current status of e-government adoption in Botswana. In Chapter 15, Impact of Internet Use on Civic Engagement in Chinese Rural Areas: A Preliminary Research, Jian-Chuan Zhang and Ying Qin explore the relationship between Internet usage and civic engagement in rural China. Based on the surveys implemented by the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), the authors find that Internet does enhance the level of civic engagement among rural users and has the potential to enable active engagement in public affairs in the future. In Chapter 16, Rural E-Governance through the ‘Panchayat Raj’ Institutions in India: Prospects and Challenges, Malathi Subramanian examines the role of local self-government Institutions (Panchayats) in rural egovernance in India. The Panchayats are particularly helpful in simplifying civic governance, by making government more democratic, inclusive, and more accessible to the citizens at the local village level. In Chapter 17, E-Engaging India: E-Democracy Strategies for Empowerment and Civic Participation, Kavita Karan examines the e-governance and e-democracy strategies, and new media technologies used by political parties, industrial corporations, and other organizations in India. The chapter particularly examines the recent elections that witnessed a surge in the use of new Internet technologies, social networking and mobile technologies, along with the traditional forms of electioneering. In Chapter 18, E-Government Policy Implementation in Brunei: Lessons Learnt from Singapore, Mohammad Habibur Rahman, Patrick Kim Cheng Low, Mohammad Nabil Almunawar, Fadzliwati Mohiddin, and Sik-Liong Ang examine e-government strategies in Brunei in the light of policy success in Singapore. Based on their empirical research in these two South-East Asian nations, this chapter highlights the factors that have enabled e-government policies to be successfully implemented in Singapore and proposes potential success ingredients for the implementation of similar strategies in Brunei. In Chapter 19, Elucidating Online Structure for Democratic Legitimacy: Case of Local Government Online Structure in Java-Indonesia, Djoko Sigit Sayogo and Taewoo Nam explore the online communicative structures among local governments in Java, Indonesia. Based on an analysis of local government websites, the study reveals that the levels of democratized Internet mediated human interactions through

xvii

local government online structures are restricted. The questions specifically addressed in this study are: to what extent would e-government implementation change the communication structure between local government and the citizens of Indonesia? Are citizens able to generate opinions and attitudes that will affirm or challenge the affairs of state? Is the local government able to promote democratic legitimacy in Indonesia through the design, control, and filter of their online structure? In Chapter 20, Citizen Participation Through Municipal Websites: A Global Scorecard, Alicia Schatteman, Deborah Mohammed-Spigner and George Poluse introduce a model to explain why some countries provide better online citizen participation opportunities than others. Based on the global study of municipal websites, the chapter specifically addresses two primary questions: 1. What are the opportunities for online participation in the most populous cities globally? 2. What factors are associated with opportunities for online citizen participation through municipal websites? In Chapter 21, Stepwise E-Participation: Good Practice from the Regional Level in Europe, Francesco Molinari, Mateja Kunstelj and Ljupčo Todorovski discuss the results of the IDEAL-EU project, in which three European Regions - iTuscany, Catalonia, and Poitou-Charentes - have involved citizens (and particularly young people) in discussing and deliberating on the priorities of the new climate change agenda of the European Parliament. These deliberations are supported by two distinct ICT instruments - a social networking platform and a pan-European virtual town meeting. In Chapter 22, Open Governance, Civic Engagement and New Digital Media, Eleni-Revekka Staiou and Dimitris Gouscos highlight and discuss the concepts of e-governance, open governance, and civic engagement enabled by technologies such as Web 2.0, social media, and user-generated content. The focus of discussion is placed on common founding premises and adoption factors that are reproduced at multiple levels, from that of the underlying technology up to end services and interaction patterns. A number of governance initiatives and services are used as working examples, with a view to providing readers with an improved understanding of technological principles and functional capabilities that can attract citizen participation and encourage civic engagement. In Chapter 23, Social Media Corporate Policies for Government Organizations: Lessons Learnt from the United Arab Emirates, Al Shair, Salem and Ibrahim Elbadawi, present the key lessons learnt from the process of formulating a government-wide social media policy in the United Arab Emirates. The chapter discusses the main barriers to the successful adoption of social media along with providing recommendations for future research. In Chapter 24, TT Connect – The Gateway to Enhanced Service Delivery, Charlene M. L. Roach examines the Trinidad and Tobago (TT) Pilot Portal site, also known as ttconnect, which provides a gateway to access the services of the twenty-two TT government ministries. The chapter explains that in using the portal design, TT’s government is attempting to shift to a new paradigm in its service delivery, improving public outreach and citizens’ responsiveness. The chapter also reviews TT government’s macro policies, called Vision 2020 and Fastforward, the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) strategy, which are being used as policy instruments to enable TT to reach developed nation status by the year 2020. In Chapter 25, A Glimmer of Hope in Mass Media in Liberal Democracy: istanbulrumazinligi.com, Vildan Mahmutoğlu examines a website launched by the Greek minority in İstanbul istanbulrumazinligi.com. The chapter examines how a minority group can find a place in national public sphere? Particulary, how does the new media provide solutions for the problems of national integrated public sphere through opening new spaces? The findings are analyzed by the terms of engagement to democracy, public sphere, minority culture and e-democracy, and e-deliberation. In Chapter 26, Debate on E-Debate: Between Acceptance and Refusal, Ewa Krzątała-Jaworska examines the factors that influence the acceptance or refusal of e-participation tools by local government stakeholders. Based on a

xviii

case study of a French Municipality of 50,000 inhabitants, the findings show that the attitude towards e-participation by local councilors depends largely on the degree of control they have over the vision of local democracy. The hypothesis of this study is that the decision of local officials to involve citizens in the policy process via the Internet depends not only on the rational balance between gains and costs, but also on the beliefs of the local councilors. In Chapter 27, Conceptualization of Trust in the e-Government Context: A Qualitative Analysis, Hisham Alsaghier and Rahim Hussain provide an in-depth understanding of the citizens’ perception of e-government adoption based on a qualitative approach using focus groups. The study identifies the critical factors that affect citizens’ trust in e-government and provide a comprehensive guide to governments on how to improve citizens’ trust and enhance their engagement in the e-government initiatives. Aroon Manoharan Kent State University, USA Marc Holzer Rutgers University-Campus at Newark, USA

1

Chapter 1

Reconfiguring Performance Information Linking with Accountability: Reporting and Internal Management Étienne Charbonneau École Nationale D’administration Publique, Canada Younhee Kim East Carolina University, USA

ABSTRACT Over the past decade, performance information has been widely available to citizens along with the expansion of e-government, which has magnified communications between citizens and government as well as citizen direct participation in government business. If citizens are informed more about government performance, citizen trust in government should improve. However, there is, in effect, little use of performance information by citizens, since availability to citizens is not very visible. To disseminate the results of performance measurement effectively, government should pay attention to the improvement of performance measurement systems and performance reporting systems with citizen-centered approaches. User-friendly reporting should not just simplify the multi-layers of performance measurement for improving performance itself. Rather, this chapter suggests applying different approaches to present complicated performance information to citizens. Performance reporting should be constructed in modernized, innovative, and user-focused ways to stimulate the use of performance information by external stakeholders, which can promote government accountability.

INTRODUCTION In the past two decades, information dissemination through an e-government platform has offered tremendous opportunities for agencies to improve trust in government and for citizens to engage in

government business. E-government has become the most effective channel for government to communicate with citizens. The magnitude of public reporting has been further expanded by e-government in not only performance improvement but also performance accountability after the Government Accounting Standards Board (1987)

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-0116-1.ch001

Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Reconfiguring Performance Information Linking with Accountability

established a connection between performance and accountability. The more citizens are informed about government performance information, the more they can actively participate in democratic processes using such information. Public reporting, thus, should be a proactive government action to present performance information to citizens in an approachable manner. As Coy and Dixon (2004) asserted, the reporting of comprehensive government information to citizens mirrors public accountability. Substantial reporting systems should help public agencies to improve their accountability. The emphasis of performance management linking with accountability has been changed from controlling internal functions to improving the quality of government services. The concept of performance measurement has been expanded to improve not only effectiveness and efficiency but also accountability (Ammons, 1996; Kelly, 2002; Wholey & Newcomer, 1997). Performance measurement is a pragmatic information-based management tool used to simplify complex administrative reality into a tangible dimension. The importance of such measured performance information is able to disseminate rapidly to outside government by the expansion of e-government. E-government initiatives stimulate innovative delivery of public reporting responsibilities to build trust in government. This chapter reviews various cases to understand connections between performance measurement and performance information in order to promote communication between citizens and government.

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT LINKING WITH ACCOUNTABILITY Do citizens care about what their government does? Performance information can fill the gap between government and citizens since it brings citizens’ attention and interest to government. It is often taken for granted that once performance

2

measures are available in a report, accountability is largely achieved. When citizens are aware of performance information at large, accountability can be optimized (Simon & Ridley, 1938). Behn (2008) asserted the importance of performance reporting to citizens through analysis of the Baltimore CitiStat performance measurement initiative. He found that citizens pay less attention to government managerial strategies. Instead, they care about the results of those strategies. Berman (2006) reconfirmed the interests of citizens is in knowing more about their government. “Managing for results” information, however, is hard to obtain in a way that can be understood by citizens. The general public has neither the time nor the background to interpret statistical tables in an intelligent manner. Reporting performance measurement to citizens should be tailored using an explanatory method.

Understanding Performance Measurement Performance measurement is widely credited with improving performance and increasing accountability. The timely flux of information is key to understanding performance measurement, since performance measurement is the “regular and careful monitoring of program implementation and outcomes,” which regularity is a different requirement comparing to program evaluation (de Lancer-Julnes, 2006, p.223). Since government agencies often find themselves in monopolistic positions, performance indicators would carry information, in similar ways as prices do in the private sector (Johnsen, 2005). Performance measurement would be an outcome-based management tool that could at times complement, and at times compete, with more process based management tools like budgets. Based on the findings of previous studies, the central argument of this chapter is that performance measurement, especially if it is to rise up to budgets, could gain to be more complex. Added complexity would

Reconfiguring Performance Information Linking with Accountability

provide public managers with sophisticated information needed to enable an improvement of performance. At present, a number of performance initiatives are kept purposefully simplistic because they are aimed at accountability to citizens and not performance improvement. In the United States, managers would like to see performance-based management tools disappear (Behn, 2008), as management by objectives, zero-based budgeting, performance-based budgeting, total quality management, the balanced scorecard and the organizational dashboards have either dissolved, or are spottily applied and used (Moynihan, 2008; Poister & Streib, 1999; Steinhardt, 2008). At the municipal level, budgets were no longer resisted as complex management tools in the beginning of the twentieth century (Bruère, 1915). Almost a hundred years later, the same could not be said for municipal performance measurement (e.g., Schatteman, 2009; Charbonneau, 2010). Contrary to budgets, the complexity of performance measurement has not increased substantively in the last century. What changed most is the way in which reports are disseminated. Early calls for more complexity, like the inadequacy of per capita indicators (Kilpatrick, 1936; Ridley, 1927), adjusting measures for local characteristics (Ridley, 1927), or establishing minimal standards (Kilpatrick, 1936) have generally not yet been implemented.

Benefits of Performance Measurement The benefits of performance measurement include helping public agencies to monitor, penalize, and reward contractors (Page & Malinowski, 2004). According to these authors, “good measurement systems help break the cycle of low-bid/low-quality procurement by rewarding high-performing contractors with contractor extensions and other preferences” (Page & Malinowski, 2004, p. 32). Benefits like ‘overtly prioritizing tasks’ have also been uncovered by deductive reasoning on the

part of practitioners, for example Chief Police Inspectors (Rogerson, 1995). From the public sector performance literature, de Bruijin (2002, pp. 580-581) finds three recurrent benefits of performance measurement that are identified: performance measurement brings transparency; performance measurement is an incentive for output; performance measurement is an elegant way of shaping accountability. Without discrediting the bases used to identify the benefits of performance measurement altogether, one has to acknowledge that benefits found with deductive reasoning are more convincing to performance measurement proponents than opponents. McGowan and Poister (1985) examined the impacts of performance measurement using International City/County Management Association survey data, which collected the nationwide surveys from 460 of 1,062 public managers in municipal and county governments. They found that managers felt that performance measurement had some influence in “modifying program objectives (51%), altering work standards (53%), and setting individual performance targets (49%)” (McGowan & Poister, 1985, p. 537). The study also explained that 61% of respondents found that the benefits of performance measurement outweighed the cost of collecting data, while only less than 1% of county managers felt inexpensive data collection (McGowan & Poister, 1985). Recently, Poister and Steib (1999) found that most managers indicated that their performance measures improved decisions at least moderately and reported at least moderate changes in budget allocations. Berman and Wang (2000), using 209 surveys from county managers in the US, identified the extent to which managers found the following benefits to be present in their county as a result of the use of performance measurement. In general, performance measurement received limited credits for variations of program outcomes. The results of public managers’ opinions on the potential benefits of performance measurement are summarized in Table 1.

3

Reconfiguring Performance Information Linking with Accountability

Table 1. Summary for the benefits of performance measurement Category

Benefit

Response rate

Accountability & commitment

- Increased awareness about the need for accountability - Improved accountability of program performance - Increased commitment to excellence

48.0% 35.6% 31.5%

Goal & objective

- Established performance target levels for programs/services - Clarified agency or program goals and objectives

40.0% 37.2%

Capacity & decision making

- Achieving improvements despite resource constraints - Improving group decision-making capabilities - Determined long-term budget needs - Elimination of no longer needed services - Improved timeliness of management decisions

32.5% 26.6% 23.6% 16.1% 15.5%

Service delivery

- Increased ability to determine service efficiency - Increased ability to determine service effectiveness -Increased ability to determine service effectiveness

45.0% 43.0% 40.0%

Source: Berman & Wang (2000), p.417

Accountability and Performance Improvement

•

Reporting is not only an essential pillar of performance management, it is also one of the functions of the chief executive, as identified in 1937 by Gulick’s POSDCORB. Reporting is the vehicle through which public accountability is made possible. This heightened accountability, would be one of the main benefits of performance measurement (Berman & Wang, 2000; Carvalho et al., 2006; de Bruijin, 2002), alongside performance improvement. The shortcomings of transparency in reporting received less coverage. Transparency and performance improvement are two expected benefits of performance measurement that are often mentioned and included in official policies (e.g., Wilson, 2004, pp. 37-38). Some question if transparency and performance improvement can be achieved simultaneously (Trosa & Williams, 1996). An argument is made in many cases, that a single set of performance measures could not be often used for both objectives. One reason is that transparency/accountability is conceptually opposed to performance/productivity. Halachmi (2005) proposed incompatibility of accountability and performance improvement for measurement:

•

4

• •

•

•

•

Accountability is living up to performance standards that existed when the use of resources/authority was authorized. Accountability is primarily about relationships: Who is superior to whom? Who is answerable to whom? What must be reported and who decides it? Productivity is more than keeping with past trends or marginally improving on them. Productivity relates to progress, innovation, and change, preferably moving to a higher curve rather than moving to a higher point on the same productivity curve. Productivity is about management, adaptation, creativity, and breaking away from the past or from the group, while accountability is about staying within the four corners of the contract. Productivity results from thinking outside the box, while from an accountability point of view, all such activities suggest deviation and a disregard for the rules. Productivity involves feeling good about alleged results and having a sense of achievement, whereas accountability is about feeling right, safe, and capable of defending an official (formal) record.

Reconfiguring Performance Information Linking with Accountability

•

Productivity has to do with a continuous free-form process of self-examination and an internal search for new insight, whereas accountability involves external scrutiny and a relatively rigid use of pre-established legal or professional standards. (Halachmi, 2005, pp. 261-262)

PERFORMANCE REPORTING LINKING WITH PERFORMANCE INFORMATION A recent study on Dutch public schools and hospitals found that citizens had little interests in the use of electronic performance data to facilitate choice of schools and hospitals (Meijer, 2007). Citizens simply accessed the information on the Internet without utilizing such information for actual decisions. Meijer (2007) suggested educating citizens to improve the use of performance information in making decisions. Table 2 presents key features of each performance information and performance reporting. In general, performance information is prepared largely to control operations and measure activities for internal stakeholders, while performance reporting focuses on enhancing accountability for citizens.

The use of Performance Information Managers, elected officials, and citizens have different needs when it comes to performance information (Smith, 2005; Wisniewski & Stewart, 2004). Jansen (2008) examined the difference between the needs and the use of performance

information for politicians and managers. Using the case study method for three local social services departments in Utrecht, Eindhoven, and Groningen, all located in the Netherlands, the author tried to explain the low level of usage of performance measurement. Jansen (2008) found that in the three cases, the needs of managers and politicians are so different that they received separate performance reports. Even within management, Managing Directors of the municipality’s Social Services Department hardly use the performance report prepared by their department: the reports contain too many details and are tailored to the information needs of the production managers. The result of having performance reports with a single set of precise measures geared internally for performance improvement meant that managing directors and politicians had limited use of the performance reports (Jansen, 2008). Managing directors would palliate this situation by collecting their own performance information on an ad hoc basis, as a replacement of the information provided by the performance report. All in all, politicians and directors, because of their need to be accountable, wanted to know the extent to which the organization has succeeded in meeting its plans. Melkers and Willoughby (2005) were able to conclude that “measures that are included in documentation simply to support reporting protocols may not prove useful or effective for decision making” (p.188). To that regard, Ammons and Rivenbark (2008) went further to state that, according to their observations in North Carolina, performance management initiatives geared toward reporting are unlikely to foster performance improvement. The same conclusion

Table 2. Key features of performance information and reporting Performance Information

Performance Reporting

Priority

Internal management, external oversight

Accountability

Target stakeholder

Elected officials, legislators

Citizens

Operational focus

Data collection

Information presentation

5

Reconfiguring Performance Information Linking with Accountability

was reached in the context of police and health services in England (Micheli & Neely, 2010). A possible response to the gap between measures that are internally and externally relevant to an organization, compounded by the cost of collecting data, incorporates the development of a generic set of performance measures intended to satisfy different groups (managers, elected officials, and citizens) and their differing requirements. The danger of such an approach, according to Wisniewski and Stewart’s (2004) study of local authorities in Scotland, is that such generic measures will satisfy no one, as the measures will not accommodate anyone’s proper needs. A second alternative is to overtly choose a set of performance measures for either a goal of performance improvement or a goal of accountability. However, what can come of it is the unofficial implementation of a parallel measurement system to cover the other function, which would bring confusion and resource strain on organizations (Moxham, 2009). A third alternative considered by Snohomish County, Washington is to operate a dashboard of performance measures for collecting two sets of data: the first dataset is about the public’s interests for information, and the second dataset is about performance and managing to outcomes (Stein, 2007). A fourth alternative is to collect only one set of data, but to present data in different formats for different users (Smith, 2005). However, it is not clear if pursuing this strategy will not end up facing the same dangers of offering a generic set of measures. Studies on the actual use of performance information by citizens in North America exist in the health care sector. Schneider and Epstein (1998) studied the influence of performance measurement in the choice of a cardiac surgeon in the state of Pennsylvania. The main difference between the Meijer study (2007) and the Schneider and Epstein study (1998) is the nature of the sample in both countries: public healthcare in the Netherlands, and private health care in the United States. Schneider and Epstein (1998) analyzed the use

6

of information by patients who underwent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Given the dramatic nature of CABG, one would expect that a patient planning such a surgery would be particularly motivated to use available information in the Consumer Guide to Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: a risk-adjusted guide that received extensive media coverage. Schneider and Epstein (1998) described this guide as being a widely distributed, disseminated among hospitals, surgeons, public libraries, business groups, and the media. Individuals could, at the time of their study, freely order one of the 15,000 available copies. Schneider and Epstein (1998) interviewed 474 Pennsylvanians who underwent a CABG surgery. The results of this study are similar to Meijer’s study in which service users did not use available performance information to make their choices. The major findings are that about 80% of the patients did not know about the existence of available performance information and only 2% of the patients were influenced by performance information in the choice of hospitals (Schneider & Epstein, 1998). Contrary to many public services that are paid for indirectly through taxes and dispensed to a limited portion of the population, cardiac surgeries concern one individual, and in the US, are paid for through individual insurance. Only one percent of post-surgery patients could accurately recall performance information for such a service.

Accessibility of Performance Information Proponents of transparency are often quick to offer syllogisms about the virtues of transparency on performance or ethics. While the argument that performance would be improved as a result of increased scrutiny might appear convincing at face value, it is difficult to assess it empirically. A methodologically convincing way to test this hypothesis requires comparative data of agreedupon measures of performance among units of gov-

Reconfiguring Performance Information Linking with Accountability

ernment. At the macro-level, Hauner and Kyobe (2008) compiled the first large cross-country panel dataset of public sector performance and efficiency. Their sample includes 114 countries on all income levels from 1980 to 2006. The authors used a sample of about 1,800 countryyear observations for education, and about 900 observations for health. Openness was not among the factors that explained achieved performance levels. Hauner and Kyobe (2008) found that there is no tested significance between openness and performance in trade liberalization, while openness can be expected to promote performance and efficiency through stimulating competition. Numerous studies questioning if transparency and openness promote better performance at the micro level exist in the healthcare sector. A systematic review of forty-five healthcare studies on transparency and performance published from 1986 to 2006 found scant evidence supporting the transparency-performance link at the hospital and health system-level (Fung et al., 2008).

Barriers for Measuring Performance Information Performance measures would need to be fine adjusted for managers to be able to act upon them. However, when it comes to measuring the performance of complex operations in the public sector, there is considerable pressure on public organizations to use a few simple measures that can be easily reported to politicians and citizens. A common way to make performance information accessible for reporting to lay people is to assess performance in a holistic manner, and/or report data with easily categorical interpretations of what the results mean. The latter often takes the form of arrows, traffic lights and smiling faces; the former results in aggregating multiple measures into indices. Again, this form of performance measures designed for external accountability makes it difficult, if not impossible for managers to act on this information to improve performance. Bird

et al. (2005) offered that “complexity or difficulty of public understanding should never be an excuse for insufficiency of analysis” (p. 19). This includes having performance measures that take into account the socio-economic characteristics that are outside of public managers’ control. This lack of acknowledgement of complexity can ultimately doom a performance measurement initiative, as managers will not use simplistic performance measures. A recent study of local managers in the province of Quebec, Canada, found that one frequent comment from managers is that they do not use and use only seldom, performance information (Charbonneau, 2010). Perceived simplistic performance measures were one of the reasons for the demise of the (defunct) Law Enforcement Assistance Administration’s Standards and Goals Program that occurred in the 1970’s American criminal justice system (Zedlewski, 1979). The lack of recognition in complexity of performance measures by incorporating performance measures is also problematic. The most extreme case is the report card-type assessme