Does Size or Geography Matter? Empirical Analysis of Finnish Local Government Services on the Internet

Chapter
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 25)

Abstract

This chapter provides an empirical assessment of the current availability of e-government services on the Internet provided by Finnish municipalities. Finland can be considered as an advanced Nordic information society. Moreover, service provision is steered and legitimized by national and local policies. Current e-government provision logic reflects broader social conditions and theories (e.g. new public management) together with issues of the social construction of technology, e-inclusion, accessibility and computer literacy. This chapter uses Internet data collected during the period March–June 2009 from all Finnish municipalities with local governments, a total of 348. I focus on interactive civic services and compare municipalities according to their size and location. Data have been collected according to content framework and will be analysed according to methods of content analysis. The analysis shows that municipalities have fully adopted the Internet as an important medium. The quality of service provision is dependent on municipality size; the smallest units have limited service provision and their Internet designs are less developed. Further, the service level decreases when municipalities have less than 10,000 inhabitants. Geographical location is also important with respect to the number of available languages together with specific information sources relevant to particular municipalities and local contexts.

Keywords

Economic Crisis Europe Transportation Arena Monopoly 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is part of Project 127213 funded by the Academy of Finland. We thank Kirsi Koskela, BSc, for collecting the data. We also thank the editor and the three anonymous referees for their constructive comments, thus improving the paper.

References

  1. Ahlqvist, T., & Inkinen, T. (2007). Technology foresight in multiscalar innovation systems. A spatiotemporal process perspective. Fennia. International Journal of Geography, 185(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
  2. Anttiroiko, A.-V., & Mälkiä, M. (Eds.). (2006). Encyclopedia of Digital Government. Hershey, PA: IGI.Google Scholar
  3. Al-Mashari, M. (2007). A benchmarking study of experiences with electronic government. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 14(2), 172–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bovaird, T. (2003). E-Government and e-governance: Organisational implications, options and dilemmas. Public Policy and Administration, 18(2), 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castells, M., & Himanen, P. (2002). The information society and the welfare state. The Finnish Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christou, G., & Simpson, S. (2006). The Internet and public–private governance in the European Union. Journal of Public Policy, 26(1), 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dutta, S., & Mia, I. (Eds.). (2009). The global information technology Report 2008–2009. Mobility in a Networked World. World Economic Forum, Geneva. Accessed July 28, 2009, from http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gitr/2009/gitr09fullreport.pdf
  8. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2005) New public management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2004). State of the art report. Volume I. Accessed August 18, 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/eprocurement/study_vol1_en.pdf
  10. Finnish government. (2006). A renewing, human-centric and competitive Finland. The national knowledge society strategy 2007–2015. Helsinki: Prime Minister’s Office, Information Society Programme, Edita.Google Scholar
  11. Gano, G.L., Crowley, J.E., & Guston, D. (2006). “Shielding” the knowledge transfer process in human service research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hall, P. (2002). Urban and regional planning (4th ed.) London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Heeks, R. (2003). ost eGovernment-for-development projects fail: How can risks be reduced? iGovernment Working Paper Series 14. University of Manchester: Institute for Development Policy and Management.Google Scholar
  14. Heeks, R. (2005). e-Government as a carrier of context. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. (2006). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hylland Eriksen, T. (2001). Tyranny of the moment. Fast and slow time in the information age. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  17. IMF. (2009). World Economy Outlook 2009. Geneva: IMF. Accessed September 17, 2009, from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/pdf/text.pdf
  18. Inkinen, T. (2003). Information society, citizens and everyday life: does the Internet make a difference in spatial practices? Fennia. International Journal of Geography, 181(1), 25–33.Google Scholar
  19. Inkinen, T. (2006). The social construction of the urban use of information technology: the case of Tampere, Finland. Journal of Urban Technology, 13(3), 49–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Inkinen, T. (2008). Gender and the social use of mobile technologies. From information society policies to everyday practices. In P. T. Uteng & T. Cresswell (Eds.), Gendered mobilities (pp. 213–228). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  21. Jaeger, P. T., & Thompson, K. M. (2003). E-government around the world: Lessons, challenges, and future directions. Government Information Quarterly, 20(2), 389–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Janssen, M., & Kuk, G. (2007). E-government business models for public service networks. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 3(3), 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jauhiainen, J. S., & Inkinen, T. (2009). E-governance and the information society in periphery. Case study from Northern Finland. In C. Reddick (Ed.), Handbook of research on strategies for local e-government adoption and implementation: comparative studies (pp. 496–513). Hershey, PA: IGI.Google Scholar
  24. Kooiman, J. (2005). Governing as governance, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four-stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van den Meer, A., & van Winden, W. (2003). E-governance in cities: a comparison of urban information and communication technology policies. Regional Studies, 37(4), 407–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide. Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet world wide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nurmela, J., Parjo, L., & Sirkiä, T. (2006). From citizen to eCitizen: Results from statistical survey about Finns’ use of ICT 1996–2005 (Reviews 3/2006). Helsinki: Statistics Finland.Google Scholar
  29. Polenske, K. R. (Eds.). (2007). The economic geography of innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rhodes, C. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Swyngedouw, E. (1997). Neither global nor local: “glocalization” and the politics of scale. In K. R. Cox (Ed.), Spaces of globalization. reasserting the power of the local (pp. 137–166). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Transparency International. (2009). Transparency international 2008 corruption perceptions index. Accessed September 17, 2009, from http://www.transparency.org/content/download/36508/574364.pdf
  33. UN. (2009). UN E-Government Survey 2008. From e-government to connected governance. Accessed August 30, 2009, from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan028607.pdf
  34. van Velsen, L., van der Geesta, T., ter Heddeb, M., & Derks, W. (2009). Requirements engineering for e-Government services: A citizen-centric approach and case study. Government Information Quarterly, 26(3), 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Welch, E. W., & Pandey, S. K. (2006). E-government and bureaucracy: Toward a better understanding of intranet implementation and its effect on red tape. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3), 379–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. West, D. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Westholm, H. (2005). Models of improving e-governance by back office re-organisation and integration. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 99–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilson, M., & Corey, K. (2006). Urban and regional technology planning: Planning practice in the global knowledge economy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Wilson III, E. J. (2005). What is Internet governance and where does it come from? Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wimmer, M. A. (2002). A European perspective towards online one-stop government: the eGOV project. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 1(1), 92–103.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zuurmond, A. (2005). Organisational transformation through the Internet. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geosciences and GeographyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations