Digital Government in North America: A Comparative Analysis of Policy and Program Priorities in Canada, Mexico, and the United States

  • Luis F. Luna-Reyes
  • Theresa A. Pardo
  • J. Ramon Gil-Garcia
  • Celene Navarrete
  • Jing Zhang
  • Sehl Mellouli
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 25)


International digital government research has increased in the last 10 years. However, international research comparing or analyzing relevant problems for the North American region is scarce. In an effort to lay the foundation for new research in the context of North America, this chapter presents a comparative analysis of policy and program priorities of digital government in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Common themes in the agendas of the three countries include services to the citizen, improved government operations, transparency, connectivity, and economic development. Main differences can be explained on the basis of differences in development. In general, we could say that the US government is renewing its e-government agenda, as a component of a wider innovation system. The government of Canada is also in a refreshing process, but more directed to consolidate a digital architecture for government services and operations, and Mexico is in the process of consolidating a digital government program.


Federal Government Governance Structure World Economic Forum Government Operation Chief Information Officer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was partially supported by the Inter-Institutional Program of Studies about the Region of North America (PIERAN), Mexico, the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT-Mexico), Grant No. I0110/127/08, and the US National Science Foundation (NSF), Grant No. 37656. Any opinions expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF, CONACYT, or PIERAN.


  1. AMIPCI. (2009). Estudio AMIPCI 2009 de Hábitos de los usuarios de Internet en México. Retrieved September, 2009, from
  2. AMITI, CANIETI, & FMD. (2004). Vision Mexico 2020. Retrieved June, 2009, from
  3. Andersen, D. F., Belardo, S., & Dawes, S. S. (1994). Strategic information management: Conceptual frameworks for the public sector. Public Productivity and Management Review, 17(4), 335–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (2004). Achieving advanced electronic government services: Opposing environmental constraints. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(1), 96–114.Google Scholar
  5. Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carbo, T., & Williams, J. G. (2004). Models and metrics for evaluating local electronic government systems and services. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 2(2), 95–104.Google Scholar
  7. Dawes, S. S. (2002). Government and technology: User, not regulator. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 627–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2000). Making strategy: The journey of strategic management. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Edmiston, K. D. (2003). State and local e-government: Prospects and challenges. American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 20–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eglene, O., & Dawes, S. S. (2006). Challenges and strategies for conducting international public management research. Administration & Society, 38(5), 596–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. E-government Act of 2002, 116 STAT. 2899, Pub. L. No. PUBLIC LAW 107–347 (2002).Google Scholar
  12. Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget. (2002). E-government strategy: Implementing the president’s management agenda for e-government. Retrieved from
  13. Federal Chief Information Officers Council. from
  14. Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office. (2007). FEA practice guidance. Retrieved from
  15. Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Helbig, N. (2006). Exploring e-government benefits and success factors. In A. V. Anttiroiko & M. Malkia (Eds.), Encyclopedia of digital government. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2006). Integrating conceptual approaches to e-government. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of e-commerce, e-government, and mobile commerce (pp. 636–643). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference.Google Scholar
  18. Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2009). Fostering the information society through collaborative e-government: Digital community centers and the e-learning program in Mexico. In A. Meijer, K. Boersma & P. Wagenaar (Eds.), ICTs, citizens & governance: After the hype (pp. 99–118). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mariscal, J., & Ramírez, F. (2008). Gobierno electrónico en México. In Working papers. Mexico: Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas.Google Scholar
  20. Helbig, N., Dawes, S. S., Mulki, F. H., Hrdinová, J. L., & Cook, M. E. (2009). International digital government research: A reconnaissance study (1994–2008) (p. 63). Albany, NY: Center for Technology in Government.Google Scholar
  21. Hiller, J. S., & Bélanger, F. (2001). Privacy strategies for electronic government. In M. A. Abramson & G. E. Means (Eds.), E-government 2001 (pp. 162–198). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Homburg, V. (2008). Information systems in public administration: understanding e-government (1st ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Interagency Management Council. from https://
  24. Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. The American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lim, J. H., & Tang, S. Y. (2008). Urban e-government initiatives and environmental decision performance in Korea. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(1), 109–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Luna-Reyes, L. F., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Cruz, C. B. (2007). Collaborative digital government in Mexico: Some lessons from federal web-based interorganizational information integration initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 808–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mahoney, J. (2007). Qualitative methodology and comparative politics. Comparative Political Studies, 40(2), 122–144.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Munck, G. L., & Snyder, R. (2005). Debating the direction of comparative politics: An analysis of leading journals. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  29. Navarrete, C., Mellouli, S., Pardo, T. A., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2009). Information sharing at national borders: Extending the utility of border theory. Paper presented at the Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences-42, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  30. Presidencia de la República. (2006). Decreto que establece las medidas de austeridad y disciplina del gasto de la Administración Pública Federal. Mexico: Diario Oficial de la Federación.Google Scholar
  31. Rocheleau, B. (2003). Politics, accountability, and governmental information systems. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Public information technology: Policy and management issues (pp. 20–52). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Roy, J. (2003). The relational dynamics of e-governance: A case study of the city of Ottawa. Public Performance and Management Review, 26(4), 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roy, J. (2007). E-government in Canada: Transition or transformation? In D. F. Norris (Ed.), Current issues and trends in e-government research (pp. 44–67). Hershey, PA: CyberTech Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Scholl, H. J. (2007). Central research questions in e-government, or which trajectory should the study domain take? Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1(1), 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Secretaría de la Función Pública. (2005). Acuerdo que tiene por objeto crear en forma permanente la Comisión Intersecretarial para el Desarrollo del Gobierno Electrónico. Mexico: Diario Oficial de la Federación.Google Scholar
  36. Secretaría de la Función Pública. (2009). Agenda de gobierno digital. Mexico: Diario Oficial de la Federación.Google Scholar
  37. Seifert, J. W. (2008). Federal enterprise architecture and e-government: Issues for information technology management. Retrieved from
  38. The White House. (2009). Technology. Retrieved from
  39. The White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2009). Memorandum for the heads of executive department and agencies. Retrieved from
  40. West, D. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad de las Americas PueblaCholulaMexico
  2. 2.Center for Technology in GovernmentUniversity at Albany, SUNYAlbanyUSA
  3. 3.Centro de Investigacion y Docencia EconomicasMexicoMexico
  4. 4.California State UniversityCarsonUSA
  5. 5.Clark UniversityWorcesterUSA
  6. 6.Laval UniversityQuebecCanada

Personalised recommendations