The Use of Web 2.0 to Transform Public Services Delivery: The Case of Spain

  • Carmen Caba PérezEmail author
  • Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar
  • Antonio Manuel López Hernández
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 1)


In almost all countries, one of the main goals of e-Strategies has been to enable the provision of interactive online services. The development of new technologies, using Web 2.0 technology, is transforming the delivery of public sector services and better meeting citizens’ expectations. Web 2.0 applications have brought about a dramatic change in the role played by users, who can now participate much more proactively in the field of service delivery by the public sector. The European Union in general and Spain’s public administration in particular are formulating public policies and legal frameworks to introduce Web 2.0 technologies into the area of public sector service delivery, in order to personalize and to improve access to and the quality of public sector services. This chapter gives an overview of public policies and legal frameworks at a regional public administration level in Spain, analyzing how regional governments are applying these policies to the provision of public sector services. Our fundamental aim is to present the current state of the introduction and use of Web 2.0 technologies in the public sector in Spain. In addition, we analyze the main determinants of the use of Web 2.0. tools in this respect, and investigate the particularities of Web 2.0 administration as a new strategy for innovation in the management of public sector services, in terms of improving efficiency and the capacity for interaction between citizens and the administration, in a framework of ongoing modernization of the public sector in Spain.


Social Network Public Service Regional Government Public Administration Independent Agency 
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.


  1. Accenture (2009). Web 2.0 and the Next Generation of Public Service. Driving high performance through more engaging, accountable and citizen-focused service.Google Scholar
  2. Bastida, F. J. & Benito, B. (2006). Financial Reports and decentralization in municipal governments. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72(2): 223–238.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgarten, J. & Chui, M. (2009). E-government 2.0. Mc-Kinsey on Government, 4: 26–31.Google Scholar
  4. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T. & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Crowd-sourcing transparency: ICTs, social media, and government transparency initiatives. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Pueblo, Mexico, May 17–20.Google Scholar
  5. Bonsón, E. & Flores, F. (2011). Social media and corporate dialogue: the response of the global financial institutions. Online Information Review, 35(1), 34–49.Google Scholar
  6. Capgemini (2009). Benchmark Measurement of European eGovernment services. Available at
  7. Capgemini (2011). Estudio Comparativo 2011 de los Servicios Públicos online en los 20 mayores Ayuntamientos españoles. Available at
  8. Cavoukian, A. (2009). Privacy and Government 2.0: The Implications of an Open World. Ontario: Information & Privacy Commissioner.Google Scholar
  9. Celaya, J., Vázquez, J.A., Saldaña, I. & García, Y. (2009). Visibilidad de las ciudades en la Web 2.0. Grupo BPMO.Google Scholar
  10. Chan, H. S. & Chow, K. W. (2007). Public Management Policy and Practice in Western China: Metapolicy, Tacit Knowledge, and implications for Management Innovation Transfer. American Review of Public Administration, 37 (4): 479–497.Google Scholar
  11. Commonwealth Network of Information Technology for Development Foundation (COMNET-IT) (2002). Country profiles of E-governance. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  12. Deloitte (2008). Change your world or the world will change you. The future of collaborative government and Web 2.0. Quebec: Deloitte & Touche LLP and affiliated entities.Google Scholar
  13. E-Government Academy (2006). E-Government actions in Europe. Best European e-practices. Project part-financed by the European Union. Estonia: Tallinn.Google Scholar
  14. e-Government Action Plan (2006). eGovernment Action Plan 2006, COM 2006/173 of 25.04.2006. Available at index_en.htm
  15. European Commission (2009). Public services 2.0. Web 2.0 from the periphery to the centre of public service delivery. Report from the ePractice workshop. Brussels: European Commision.Google Scholar
  16. Gallego, R &Barzelay, M. (2010). Public Management policymaking in Spain: The Politics of Legislative Reform of Administrative Structure, 1991–1997. Governance, 23(2): 277–296.Google Scholar
  17. Goldsmith, S. & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  18. Government 2.0 taskforce (2009). Engage Getting on with Government 2.0. Report of the Government 2.0 Taskforce. Canberra: Australian Government Information Management Office.Google Scholar
  19. Huijboom, N.; Van den Broek, T.; Frissen, V.; Kool, L.; Kotterink, B.; Nielsen, M. & Millard, J. (2009). Public Services 2.0: The Impact of Social Computing on Public Services. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  20. ICT PSP from PIC (2011). ICT Policy Support Programme. Available at information_ society/activities/egovernment/implementation/ict_psp/index_en.htm
  21. International Development Association (IDA) (2011). Information and Communication Technology Agency of Sri Lanka (ICTA). Volume 3, Colombo‐05: Sri Lanka.Google Scholar
  22. Orange Foundation (2011). eEspaña. Informe anual sobre el desarrollo de la sociedad de la información en España 2011. Madrid: Orange Foundation.Google Scholar
  23. Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in Government: Why? and How? Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  24. Peedu, G. (2011). Enhancing Public Service User Experience in Information Society. Master Thesis. Estonia: Tallinn University.Google Scholar
  25. Reggi, L. & Scicchitano, S. (2011). European Regions Financing Public e-Services: the Case of EU Structural Funds. Working Papers 1110, Rome: University of Urbino Carlo Bo.Google Scholar
  26. Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P., Caba Pérez, C. & López Hernández, A.M. (2007). E-government and public financial reporting. The case of Spanish Regional Governments. American Review of Public Administration, 37(2): 142–177.Google Scholar
  27. Secretaría de Estado de Cooperación Territorial (2009). Informe Económico-Financiero de las Administraciones Territoriales 2009. Madrid: Secretaría de Estado de Cooperación Territorial, Dirección General de Cooperación Autonómica.Google Scholar
  28. TNS Emor (2010). Konadike rahulolu riigi poolt pakutavate e-teenustega. Available at rahulolu_avalike_eteenustega_2010.pdf.
  29. United Nations (2010). E-Government Survey 2010. Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carmen Caba Pérez
    • 1
    Email author
  • Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar
    • 2
  • Antonio Manuel López Hernández
    • 2
  1. 1.Dtpo de Dirección y Gestión de EmpresasUniversity of AlmeríaAlmeríaSpain
  2. 2.Dpto de Economía Financiera y Contabilidad, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y EmpresarialesUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations