Abstract
To what extent do e-government influence accountability and performance in the public sector? Given the growing importance of performance and accountability in government, discussion has not been as robust as it should be regarding the role of e-government in understanding these challenges. Much has been claimed and written about the influence of e-government on the modernization and growth of public sector initiatives in Europe. Little is known, however, about how e-government influences the accountability and performance of governments. The view of e-government proposed in the chapter suggests policy makers to a more careful consideration of performance and accountability pressures that different e-government strategies bring with them. Particularly, the chapter presents a view of both challenges and advantages of implementing e-government strategies, by examining how closely and critically intertwined e-government, performance and accountability are in ten European Union (EU) countries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Achterkamp, M. C., & Vos, J. F. J. (2007). Critically identifying stakeholders. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24(1), 3–14.
Anthony, R. N., & Young, D. W. (2003). Management control in nonprofit organizations (7th ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance, international comparisons. London: Routledge.
Bouckaert, G., & Pollitt, C. (2005). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Bruijn, H. (2002). Managing performance in the public sector. London, UK: Routledge.
Dubnick, M. J., & Romzek, B. S. (1991). American public administration: Politics and the management of expectations. New York: Macmillan.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. New York: Oxford University Press.
EIPA (2003). eGovernment in Europe: The state of affairs. Belgium: Publishing Atlanta.
EuropeanCommission (1993). Growth, competitiveness and employment: The challenges and courses for entering into the XXIst century.
EuropeanCommission (1994). Europe and the Global Information Society: Recommendations to the European Council (Also known as the Bangemann Report). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
EuropeanCommission (1999). eEurope: An information society for us all. Retrieved from europa.eu.int
EuropeanCommission (2000). eEurope Action Plan. Retrieved from europa.eu.int
EuropeanCommission (2007a). i2010 – Annual Information Society Report 2007.
EuropeanCommission (2007b). The user challenge benchmarking the supply of online public services. Belgium: Capgemini.
Farneti, G., Mazzara, L., & Savioli, G. (1996). Il sistema degli indicatori negli enti locali [Performance measurement indicators in local governments]. Torino: Giappichelli.
Garson, G. D., & Shea, C. M. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of Public Information Systems (3rd ed.). New York, London: CRC Press.
Guthrie, J., Humphrey, C., Jones, L. R., & Olson, O. (Eds.). (2005). International public financial management reform. Progress, contradictions, and challenges. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hammers Specht, P. (2000). The Impact of IT on organization performance in the public sector. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems (pp. 141–151). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hammers Specht, P., & Hoff, G. (2005). Information technology investment and organizational performance in the public sector. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems (pp. 127–142). New York, London: CRC Press.
Hatry, P. H. (1999). Performance measurement. Getting results. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Heeks, R. (2001). Understanding e-governance for development. IDPM i-Government Working Paper, (11).
Heeks, R. (2006). Benchmarking eGovernment: Improving the National and International Measurement, Evaluation and Comparison of eGovernment. IDPM i-Government Working Paper, (18).
Hoek, F., van Montfort, C., & Vermeer, C. (2005). Enhancing public accountability in the Netherlands. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(2), 69–86.
Hood, C. (1983). The tools of government in the digital age. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1–31.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading MA: Adison Wesley.
Poister, T. H. (2003). Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Pollitt, C., Van Thiel, S., & Homburg, V. (Eds.). (2007). The new public management in Europe: Adaptation and alternatives. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238.
Romzek, B., & Dubnick, M. (1991). Accountability, professionalism and leadership: The Los Angeles Police Department and the Rodney King Beating. Paper presented at the national public management conference, The Maxwell School, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
Talbot, C. (2006). Performance regimes and institutional context: Comparing Japan, UK and USA. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Policy Evaluation.
Talbot, C., Wiggan, J., & Johnson, C. (2005). Exploring performance regimes – a new approach to understanding public sector performance [A report for the National Audit Office] (Vol. 4).
Willmott, H. (1996). Thinking accountability: accounting for the disciplined production of self. In M. R. & M. J. (Eds.), Accountability: Power, ethos and the technologies of managing. London: International Thomas Business Press.
Worral, L., Remenyi, D., & Money, A. (2000). A methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of delivery of IT services. A comparative study of six british local authorities. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems (pp. 501–520). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Austria [1]
In 2005, the Austrian Federal Government introduced the actual federal ICT strategy, based on the following milestones.
The responsibility for Austria’s e-government strategy lies with the State Secretary in the Federal Chancellery. “Digital Austria,” the strategic Platform that ensures the active participation of all levels of government. It is headed by the Chief Information Officer and supported by the ICT Strategy Unit based in the Federal Chancellery. Regional and local responsibilities for implementation lie with individual State and Municipal Governments. The open participation enables Federal administration, regions, the Austrian Association of Cities and Towns and the Austrian Association of Municipalities to develop joint solutions for legal, technical, and organizational issues. The Court of Audit is an organ of Parliament, and its jurisdiction extends to the Federal Government, regional and local governments.
1.2 Portugal [4]
The Portuguese e-government strategy is exposed in the e-government Action Plan for the Information Society. This strategic vision is to be implemented through the following strategies.
Strategy | Description |
|---|---|
1. Citizen satisfaction | Increase citizen satisfaction with public services (24/7 services) |
2. Efficiency | Increase efficiency while reducing costs for both government and taxpayers |
3. Transparency | Increase the transparency of the bureaucratic structure |
4. Citizen participation | Promote citizen participation in the democratic processes |
5. Development | Promote the development of the information and knowledge society |
6. International recognition | Achieve international recognition of the quality of Portuguese e-government |
The responsibility for e-government strategy lies with the Secretary of State for Administrative Modernisation and the AMA—Agency for the Public Services Modernisation, which are placed under the authority of the Minister for the Presidency. The AMA is a public institute that took over the attributions of the Presidency of the Council of the Ministers in the area of e-government. Individual Government Ministries and Agencies carry out projects within the framework of their competences. Regions and municipalities are in charge of e-government strategies and implementations within the framework of their competences, with the support of The National Association of Portuguese Municipalities (ANMP). The Court of Auditors is in charge of auditing public funds, public revenue, and expenditure, as well as public assets.
1.3 The United Kingdom [5]
The UK’s e-government strategy is set in the document Transformational Government—Enabled by Technology. The four key points of the document are shown below.
Strategy | Description |
|---|---|
1. Services around citizens and businesses | Services designed around citizens and businesses to ensure effectiveness of delivery to the customer |
2. Shared services approach | A shared service approach is needed to release efficiencies across the system and support delivery more focused on customer needs |
3. A step-change in the professionalism | Government’s ambition for technology is accompanied by a step-change in the professionalism with which it is delivered |
4. Coherent, joined-up leadership, and governance | Coherent, joined-up leadership and governance across government to ensure the vision and programs set out in this strategy are achieved and that the opportunities to be identified, communicated, managed, and delivered effectively |
In the UK the Cabinet Office holds political responsibility for e-government policy. Within the Cabinet Office, the Transformational Government Group is in charge of driving the e-government agenda forward and of formulating IT strategy and policy. The Chief Information Officer (CIO) Council brings together CIOs from across all parts of the public sector, and is in charge of working with the Transformational Government Group to produce a new IT strategy for government. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has a powerful remit to promote community cohesion and equality. The Audit Commission, an independent non-departmental public body sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, with the Department of Health and the National Assembly for Wales, is responsible for ensuring that public money is used economically, efficiently and effectively.
1.4 France [6]
The French e-government strategy (see the following table) was laid down in the ADELE program (ADministration ELEctronique, namely “e-government”).
Strategy | Description |
|---|---|
1. Enabling all citizens to access all digital networks and services | The development and the availability of the infrastructure for everyone, over the entire territory |
2. Develop the production and supply of digital contents | The transition to digital TV will allow for the sharing of quality frequencies through which new Internet services will be made available |
3. Increasing and diversifying the use of digital services by companies, public administrations, and citizens | A continuous development of e-government applications and services, and the enhancement of digital trust stands |
4. Modernizing the governance of the digital economy | To establish an inter ministerial delegation bringing together the respective human and financial means |
Political responsibility for e-government lies with the Minister for the Budget, Public Accounts and Civil Service. The State Secretary responsible for Forward Planning and the Development of the Digital Economy prepares the Government’s Digital Economy policy in cooperation with the concerned ministries. The Council for the Modernisation of Public Policies is intended to control and streamline the use of public funds while improving the quality of public policies. The Directorate-General for State Modernisation (DGME), placed under the authority of the Minister for the Budget, Public Accounts and Civil Service provides support services for some regional projects of national interest. Regional and local government bodies devise and implement their respective e-government policy in compliance with the national e-government policy. The responsibilities of the French Court of Accounts cover mandatory and optional examinations of the use of public funds. The Regional Courts of Accounts are tasked with examining the use of public funds by public authorities.
1.5 Sweden [7]
The Action Plan for e-government, with the subtitle of “New grounds for IT-based business in Public Administration,” highlights the prioritized policy areas until 2010 (see table below).
Strategy | Description |
|---|---|
1. The world’s simplest administration | It should be as simple as possible for as many as possible to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations |
2. Public administration from the needs of citizens and entrepreneurs | Government intends to create a public administration that emanates from the needs of users, and to reduce administrative costs by at least 25% |
3. IT standardization | A public information systems communicating in a standardized way without needing to be connected |
4. Strengthening coordination | To strengthen the coordination of the strategic e-government work carried out by public authorities |
5. Improving legal, technical, and economic conditions | To improve the legal, technical, and economic conditions for the public authorities’ interaction |
6. More efficient and secure information | The information handling of the public authorities will be made more efficient |
The Ministry of Finance holds political responsibility for e-government. The e-government delegation will contribute to the implementation of the Action Plan by leading and coordinating the development of e-government in the country. In line with the local self-government principle, regional and local e-government initiatives are led and coordinated by the respective regional and local county councils and municipalities. The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and the Federation of Swedish County Councils have formed a joint federation—the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. The Swedish National Audit Office carries out annual audits of Government agencies’ accounts and administration (financial audit) and audits the effectiveness and efficiency of Government operations (performance audit).
1.6 Norway [9]
Through the White Paper on ICT-policy “An Information Society for All,” the government presented a strategy for ICT-development. The strategy enlightens two focused areas, as shown in the table below.
Strategy | Description |
|---|---|
Digital inclusion | 1. Digital access is above all a question of ensuring everyone of good provisions for high-speed Internet access 2. Universal design of ICT solutions is a precondition for participation by everyone 3. Digital skills throughout the nation |
Round-the-clock electronic public administration improves services | 4. The users should be offered an open, accessible, and coherent public sector featuring integrated and fully digital services via sound electronic self-service solutions 5. Resources should be freed up and used more effectively through ICT in order to strengthen public welfare provisions, while reducing administrative burdens 6. The Government will make provisions for round-the-clock electronic public administration entailing far more extensive inter-organizational cooperation |
The general approach to e-government in Norway is decentralized. At the political level, the Ministry of Government Administration and Reform (FAD) is responsible for the development and coordination of the use of information technology. The Department of ICT and renewal within the Ministry of Government Administration and Reform fulfills the Ministry’s overall responsibility for management and restoration of the public sector, and for ICT policy. The Government Administration Services (GAS) is a government agency aiming at providing synergy for the ministries with cost effective and common tasks. The Agency for Public Management and e-government (DIFI) is a government agency with the aim to assist the Public Sector in achieving efficiency, improving user-orientation and ensuring transparency. The Office of the Auditor General shall ensure that the community’s resources and assets are used and administered in compliance with the decisions of the Norwegian Parliament. Regional and local authorities carry out projects within the framework of their competences. The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities (KS) aims to contribute to ICT development in several directions.
1.7 Germany [10]
In January 2009, the Federal Government approved the Implementation Plan 2009 of e-government strategy the “E-Government 2.0 programme.” There are four strategies identified in the document (see below).
Strategy | Description |
|---|---|
1. Portfolio | Enhancement of the federal e-government services in terms of quantity and quality |
2. Process chains | Establishing of electronic collaboration between the public administration and the business community utilizing common business process chains |
3. Identification | Introduction of an electronic identity card (e-ID Card) and development of electronic identification concepts |
4. Communication | Development of secure communication infrastructure for citizens, businesses, and public administrations |
The responsibility for Germany’s e-government strategy lies with the Federal Ministry of the Interior. Better coordination of implementation is achieved through the IT Management at Federal Level and the IT Director and Chief Information Officer. The Office of the Federal Government Commissioner for Information Technology (Commissioner) is the key contact person of the Federal Government for cooperating with Federal States, municipalities and all relevant national and international stakeholders on IT-related questions. It brings together the unit responsible for the coordination of the “Information Society,” the main IT Strategy of German Federal Administration and the Office of the Task Force “Deutschland Online” as well as the unit responsible for the operative trans-departmental ITSteering. All government departments have set up a Chief Information Officer (CIO). All of the Federal States (Länder) and local authorities are working in parallel on the further expansion of their own e-government services. Political coordination of the implementation of Deutschland-Online is carried out by a Conference of State Secretaries in Federal and State governments. Each German State (Land) has its own audit body, which liaises and works on equal terms with the Federal Court of Accounts in areas where there is dual responsibility for the provision and delivery of public services.
1.8 Spain [11]
The current Spanish e-government strategy results from: (1) the Avanza Plan for the development of the Information Society; the plan entered its second phase, “Avanza2,” which will run from 2009 to 2012; (2) the Action Plan for the Implementation of the so-called “Law on e-administration.” Avanza2 is structured around the five following action lines (see below).
Strategy | Description |
|---|---|
1. Development of the ICT sector | To develop new ICT products, processes, applications, contents, and services and participating in the establishment of the future Internet and of digital contents |
2. ICT training | To massively include citizens and companies in the information society |
3. Public e-services | To improve the quality of public services delivered by the networked public administration |
4. Infrastructure and trust | This action line will further boost the development and establishment of the information society at local level |
5. Security and accessibility | To foster citizens’ and businesses’ trust in ICT and to improve the accessibility of e-services |
Avanza is placed under the responsibility of the Ministry for Industry, Tourism and Trade, as the competent authority for Information Society Development. Certain of its areas of action imply a close cooperation with the Ministry of the Presidency responsible for the development of e-government, and the Autonomous Communities (regions) and Local Governments. A part of the State Secretariat for Public Function, the Directorate General promotes e-government by conducting relevant studies, and ensuring cooperation among all levels of Government. The Higher Council for Electronic Administration tasked with the preparation and development of the e-government strategy. Regional e-government initiatives are led and coordinated by the respective Autonomous Communities. Local e-government initiatives are led and coordinated by local authorities. The Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces is in charge of maintaining and promoting the “Avanza Local Solutions Platforms.” The Court of Audit is tasked with controlling the collection and use of public funds. The Autonomous Communities (Regional Governments) have their own Audit Offices.
1.9 The Netherlands [12]
The Government’s action program is known as National Implementation Programme (NUP). The activities required to implement ICT facilities which will realize the electronic government fall into seven “domains” (see below).
Strategy | Description |
|---|---|
1. Electronic access to the government | By linking the various types of information and services, it will be possible to create a single, all-embracing government information point |
2. Electronic authentication | The aim is to allow certain types of transaction to be completed “on line” |
3. Uniform numbers for companies and citizens | If data is to be stored, managed and retrieved efficiently, all users must have a unique identifying reference number |
4. Key registers | Centralized storage and management of data will rely on so-called key registers |
5. Electronic information exchange | Attention must also be devoted to data transport |
6. Fast connections between government organizations | To realize a broadband network for the cluster of government offices in The Hague and to interconnect other public sector organizations |
The State Secretary of the Interior and Kingdom Relations has the political responsibility for the coordination of the e-government policy. Government-wide consultation takes place in the Services and e-government Management Committee, and the Ministerial Burden of Regulations Steering Group and the Committee of Secretaries General on Burden of Regulations are involved. ICTU foundation, established to coordinate ICT developments in Government, and GBO. Overheid, an agency founded in order to manage the developed basic facilities. Municipalities are in charge of strategy and implementation within the framework of their competencies. In the provinces, the consultations are organized by the Interprovincial Information Consultative Group. The Court of Audit determines whether central government uses funds from the public purse correctly and effectively.
1.10 Italy [16]
The current Italian e-government strategy is embodied in the document toward the national e-government system: strategic lines, where seven strategic objectives are identified (see below).
Strategy | Description |
|---|---|
1. Improvements in the efficiency | Improving the efficiency of the administration requires the simplification of administrative processes |
2. Interoperability and full cooperation | The simplification process requires a global revision of the administration’s work processes |
3. Efficiency and transparency of public expenditure | The computerization of payments within the administration and to the attention of the administration shall be fully ensured |
4. E-citizenship by promoting e-democracy and overcoming the digital divide | The first step to implement e-democracy is the overtaking of the digital divide and the promotion of e-inclusion |
5. Systematic quality and efficiency measurement approaches | Each action of the public administration shall be measurable both in quality and in quantity |
6. Competitive environment for businesses and ICT industry | The administration shall become an “intelligent customer,” interoperable, inclusive, and transparent |
7. A more active part in the European administrative innovation process | This implies taking a greater part in the exchange of experience and good practice at the European and international levels |
The Minister for Public Administration and Innovation is in charge of the definition of the Italian e-government strategy. The Committee of Ministers for the Information Society is charged with devising and/or endorsing the strategic action lines pertaining to Information Society in Italy. The Standing Committee on Technological Innovation has the function of advising the Minister responsible for the development and implementation of technological innovation. The regional and local authorities are responsible for the implementation of regional and local e-government projects falling within their respective areas of competence.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Orelli, R.L., Padovani, E., Scorsone, E. (2010). E-government, Accountability, and Performance: Best-in-Class Governments in European Union Countries. In: Reddick, C. (eds) Comparative E-Government. Integrated Series in Information Systems, vol 25. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6536-3_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6536-3_29
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-6535-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-6536-3
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)