Barriers for Sustainable e-Participation Process: The Case of Turkey

Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 3)

Abstract

This chapter aims to evaluate what could be some possible barriers for a sustainable e-participation process in a developing country case. Sustainability refers to the provision of uninterrupted and successfully implemented programs in related to e-participation in terms of expectations and gained results. For such purpose(s), it is of utmost importance that regarding infrastructures are provided, and related precautions are ensured before enrolling in. It is argued that sustainable e-participation is kept consistent if possible barriers are successfully considered. In this context, possible and potential barriers for sustainable e-participation process are derived from the literature, but confined to five types in drawing the framework. As a country case, Turkey is evaluated in terms of some current indicators presenting an overview of information and communication technologies’ (ICTs) infrastructure and its use before discussing about barriers. Administrative, legal, institutional, and cultural dimensions that produce and feed the barriers are described next. After addressing these dimensions, it is concluded that there are some potential barriers before e-participation process. Resistance from bureaucracy for sharing their monopoly over policy making, the lack of expertise in designing methods for e-participation, privacy concerns in data sharing, a big accumulation of legal and administrative arrangement burden, and potential inertia at citizens’ side toward policy-making issues are among threat-posing features for a sustainable e-participation process in Turkey.

Keywords

e-Participation Public administration Barriers Sustainability Turkey 

References

  1. Alican, F. (2007). Experts without expertise: E-society projects in developing countries — the case of Turkey. Information Polity, 12(4), 255–263.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, K. V., Henriksen, H. Z., Secher, C., & Medaglia, R. (2007). Costs of e-participation: The management challenges. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1(1), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angelopoulos, S., Kitsios, F., Kofakis, P., & Papadopoulos, T. (2010). Emerging barriers in e-government implementation. In M. A. Wimmer et al. (Eds.), EGOV 2010 (pp. 216–225), LNCS 6228. Google Scholar
  4. Åström, J., Karlsson, M., Linde, J., & Pirannejad, A. (2012). Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: Domestic and international factors. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 142–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azad, B., & Faraj, S. (2009). E-Government institutionalizing practices of a land registration mapping system. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Badouard, R. (2010). Pathways and obstacles to eParticipation at the European level. Journal of eDemocracy, 2(2), 99–110.Google Scholar
  7. Barnes, M., Newman, J., Knops, A., & Sullivan, H. (2003). Constituting ‘the public’ in public participation. Public Administration, 81(2), 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Basu, S. (2004). E-government and developing countries: an overview. International Review of Law Computers & Technology, 18(1), 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bedford, T., Clark, J., & Harrison, C. (2002). Limits to new public participation practices in local land use planning. Town Planning Review, 73(3), 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bimber, B. (2001). Information and political engagement in America: The search for effects of information technology at the individual level. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 53–67.Google Scholar
  11. Braa, J., Monteiro, E., & Sahay, S. (2004). Networks of action: Sustainable health information systems across developing countries. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 337–362.Google Scholar
  12. BTK (2012). Transparency Arrangements in Broadband Services and Service Quality Applications. Ankara: BTK Publications (In Turkish).Google Scholar
  13. Ciborra, C., & Navarra, D. D. (2005). Good governance, development theory, and aid policy: Risks and challenges of e-government in Jordan. Information Technology for Development, 11(2), 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cleland, B., Mulvenna, M., Galbraith, B., Wallace, J. G., & Martin, S. (2012). Innovation of eParticipation strategies using living labs as intermediaries. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 10(2), 120–132.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, J. E. (2006). Citizen satisfaction with contacting government on the internet. Information Polity, 11(1), 51–65.Google Scholar
  16. Conroy, M. M., & Evans-Cowley, J. (2006). E-participation in planning: An analysis of cities adopting on-line citizen participation tools. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24(3), 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coursey, D., & Norris, D. F. (2008). Models of e-government: Are they correct? An Empirical Assessment, Public Administration Review, 68(3), 523–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cunningham, J. V. (1972). Citizen participation in public affairs. Public Administration Review, 32(SI), 589–602.Google Scholar
  19. Dawes, S. S. (2008). The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance. Public Administration Review, 68(S1), S86–S102.Google Scholar
  20. De Juana-Espinosa, S., Claver-Cortés, E., & Tarí, J. J. (2012). Barriers and facilitators to egovernment in spanish municipalities: A study before and after the recession. In Mila Gascó (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on eGovernment (pp. 176–185), Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  21. Fedorowicz, J., Gogan, J. L., & Culnan, M. J. (2010). Barriers to interorganizational information sharing in e-government: A stakeholder analysis. The Information Society, 26(5), 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feeney, M. K., & Welch, E. W. (2012). Electronic participation technologies and perceived outcomes for local government managers. Public Management Review, 14(6), 815–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. French, S., & Bayley, C. (2011). Public participation: Comparing approaches. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fu, Y., & Xiao, K. (2012). Promoting sustainable e-government with multichannel service delivery: A case study. IEEE 3rd International Conference on Software Engineering and Service Science (ICSESS), (pp. 694–697). Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  25. Fuchs, C. (2008). The implications of new information and communication technologies for sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10(3), 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fuchs, C. (2010). Theoretical foundations of defining the participatory. Co-Operative, Sustainable Information Society, Information, Communication & Society, 13(1), 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Furuholt, B. & Wahid, F. (2008). E-government challenges and the role of political leadership in Indonesia: The case of Sragen. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS ’08) (pp. 1–10). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Galbraith, B., Cleland, B., Martin, S., Wallace, J., Mulvenna, M., & McAdam, R. (2013). Engaging user communities with eParticipation technology: Findings from a European project. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(3), 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gauld, R. (2005). Health care information and communications technology: Promises and challenges for government and health services. Journal of E-Government, 2(1), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gokmen, A. (2012). Virtual business operations, e-commerce & its significance and the case of Turkey: Current situation and its potential. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(1), 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grönlund, Å., & Susha, I. (2012). A communication genre perspective on e-petitioning: The case of the citizens’ initiative. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, and Øystein Sæbø (Eds.), ePart 2012 (pp. 37–48), LNCS 7444.Google Scholar
  32. Gulati, G. J. “Jeff”, Yates, D. J., & Tawileh, A. (2010). Towards E-participation in the Middle East and Northern Europe. In C. G. Reddick (Ed.), Comparative E-Government. Integrated Series in Information Systems (vol. 25, pp. 71–90). Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Heeks, R. (2002a). Information systems and developing countries: Failure, success, and local improvisations. The Information Society, 18(2), 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heeks, R. (2002b). e-Government in Africa: Promise and practice. Information Polity, 7(2–3), 97–114.Google Scholar
  35. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from https://www.nic.tr.
  36. ICTA. (2012). Annual Report 2011, Information and Communication Technologies Authority. Retrieved February, 15, 2013 from http://www.tk.gov.tr/kutuphane_ve_veribankasi/raporlar/faaliyet_raporlari/ar2011.pdf.
  37. ITU. (2012). Measuring the Information Society 2012, International Communication Union, Geneva. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/material/2012/MIS2012_without_Annex_4.pdf.
  38. Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaisara, G., & Pather, S. (2011). The e-government evaluation challenge: A South African batho pele-aligned service quality approach. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Karakaya Polat, R. (2012). Digital exclusion in Turkey: A policy perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 589–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Karkın, N., & Çalhan, H. S. (2012). An interactive e-participation model for the public administration system in Turkey: SIBIYO. Ege Acad Rev, 12(1), 105–123.Google Scholar
  42. Kassen, M. (2013). Globalization of e-government: open government as a global agenda; benefits, limitations and ways forward. Information Development 30 Jan 2013. doi:  10.1177/0266666912473620.
  43. Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E-Participation transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819–828.Google Scholar
  44. Koussouris, S., Charalabidis, Y., & Askounis, D. (2011). A review of the European union e-Participation action pilot projects. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5(1), 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kraemer, K., & King, J. L. (2006). Information technology and administrative reform: will e-government be different? International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 2(1), 1–20. doi: 10.4018/jegr.200601010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kumar, R., & Best, M. L. (2006). Impact and sustainability of e-government services in developing countries: Lessons learned from Tamil Nadu, India. The Information Society: An International Journal, 22(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lam, W. (2005). Barriers to e-government integration. The Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 511–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lane, M. B. (2005). Public participation in planning: An intellectual history. Australian Geographer, 36(3), 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Löfgren, K. (2007). The governance of e-government : A governance perspective on the swedish e-government strategy. Public Policy and Administration, 22(3), 335–352.Google Scholar
  50. Lombardi, P., Huovila, P., & Sunikka-Blank, M. (2010). The potential of e-participation in sustainable development evaluation: Evidence from case studies. In C. Reddick (Ed.), Politics, Democracy and E-Government: Participation and Service Delivery (pp. 1–16). Hershey: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Macintosh, A. (2008). E-democracy and e-participation research in Europe. In H. Chen et al. (Eds.), Digital Government: E-Government Research, Case Studies, and Implementation, Integrated Series in Information Systems (vol. 17, pp. 85–102). New York, US: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., & Schneeberger, A. (2009). eParticipation: The research gaps. In A. Macintosh & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Electronic Participation (ePart 2009) (vol. 5694, pp. 1–11), LNCS.Google Scholar
  53. Maier, E., & Reimer, U. (2010). Process support for increasing participation in eparticipation. Journal of eDemocracy, 2(1), 46–55.Google Scholar
  54. Maier-Rabler, U., & Huber, S. (2010). Sustainable e-participation through participatory experiences in education. Journal of eDemocracy, 2(2), 131–144.Google Scholar
  55. Mbako, V., Bwalya, K. J., Du Plessis, T., & Rensleigh, C. (2012). Implications of e-Government in Botswana in the realm of e-participation: Case of Francistown. In I. Management Association (Ed.), Digital Democracy: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1070–1089). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
  56. Medaglia, R. (2007). Measuring the diffusion of eparticipation: A survey on Italian local government. Information Polity, 12(4), 265–280.Google Scholar
  57. Medaglia, R. (2012). eparticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 346–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mergel, I. (2010). The use of social media to dissolve knowledge silos in government. In O’Leary, R., Kim, S. and Van Slyke, D. M. (Eds.) The Future of Public Administration, Public Management and Public Service around the World: The Minnowbrook Perspective (pp. 177–187), Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Milewa, T., Valentine, J., & Calnan, M. (1999). Community participation and citizenship in British health care planning: Narratives of power and involvement in the changing welfare state. Sociology of Health & Illness, 21(4), 445–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Molinari, F. (2010). On sustainable eparticipation. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & O. Glassey (Eds.), ePart 2010 (vol. 6229, pp. 126–139), LNCS.Google Scholar
  61. Norris, D. F., & Reddick, C. G. (2012). local e-government in the United States: Transformation or incremental change? Public Administration Review, 73(1), 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. OECD. (2012). OECD Economic Surveys: Turkey 2012, OECD Publishing. Retrieved February, 15 2013 from doi:  10.1787/eco_surveys-tur-2012-en.
  63. Parlak, B., & Sobaci, Z. (2010). A comparative analysis of local agenda 21 websites in turkey in terms of e-participation. In Reddick, C. (Ed.), Politics, Democracy and E-Government: Participation and Service Delivery (75–93).Google Scholar
  64. Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K. A. (2010). eparticipation initiatives in Europe: Learning from practitioners. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & O. Glassey (Eds.), Electronic Participation (ePart 2010) (pp. 54–65), LNCS 6229. Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., Sanchez-Nielsen, E., Zotou, M., & Tarabanis, K. (2011). Learning from eparticipation initiatives of regional and local level authorities in Greece and Spain. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 13(1), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Paskaleva-Shapira, K., Azorín, J., & Chiabai, A. (2008). Enhancing digital access to local cultural heritage through e-governance: Innovations in theory and practice from Genoa, Italy, Innovation. The European Journal of Social Science Research, 21(4), 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rahm, D. (1997). The role of information technology in building public administration theory. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 10(3), 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Roeder, S., Poppenborg, A., Michaelis, S., Märker, O., & Salz, S. R. (2005). “Public budget dialogue”—an innovative approach to e-participation. In M. Böhlen, J. Gamper, W. Polasek, & M. A. Wimmer (Eds.), E-Government: Towards Electronic Democracy (pp. 48–56), LNCS 3416. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  69. Rose, W. R., & Grant, G. G. (2010). Critical issues pertaining to the planning and implementation of e-government initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 27(1), 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Royo, S., Yetano, A., & Acerete, B. (2012). E-participation and climate change: are local governments actively promoting responsible behaviors and offering opportunities for citizen involvement?. 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS), (pp. 2462–2471).Google Scholar
  71. Sæbø, Ø., Flak, L. S., & Sein, M. K. (2011). Understanding the dynamics in e-participation initiatives: Looking through the genre and stakeholder lenses. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 416–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. (2008). The shape of eparticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sanford, C., & Rose, J. (2008). Designing the e-participation artefact. International Journal of Electronic Business, 6(6), 572–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schuppan, T. (2009). E-government in developing countries: Experiences from sub-Saharan Africa. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 118–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schwester, R. W. (2009). Examining the barriers to e-government adoption. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 7(1), 113–122.Google Scholar
  76. Scott, J. K. (2006). “E” the people: Do U.S. municipal government web sites support public involvement? Public Administration Review, 66(3), 341–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sideridis, A. B., Pimenidis, E., Protopappas, L., & Koukouli, M. (2012). An evaluation of the initiatives and the progress madeon e-government services in the EU. In H. Jahankhani et al. (Eds.), ICGS3/e-Democracy 2011, LNICST 99 (pp. 263–270).Google Scholar
  78. Sommer, L., & Cullen, R. (2009). Participation 2.0: A case study of e-participation within the New Zealand government. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). Los Alamitos: IEEE Press (5–8 Jan 2009).Google Scholar
  79. Söyler, Y. (2009). Transition of e-government legal framework. Türk İdare Dergisi, 465, 151–176. (In Turkish).Google Scholar
  80. SPO. (2011), Information Society Statistics of Turkey 2011, retrieved from http://www.bilgitoplumu.gov.tr/Documents/1/Yayinlar/Turkish_Information_Society_ Statistics_2011.pdf [access date: February 10, 2013].
  81. Torres, L., Pina, V., & Royo, S. (2005). E-government and the transformation of public administrations in EU countries: Beyond NPM or just a second wave of reforms? Online Information Review, 29(5), 531–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. UN. (2012). United Nations e-Government Survey 2012: e-Government for the People, New York, Retrieved February 15, 2013 from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan048065.pdf.
  83. Wigand, F. D. L. (2010). Adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and US governments. In C. G. Reddick (Ed.), Comparative E-Government. Integrated Series in Information Systems 25 (pp. 161–181). Springer. Google Scholar
  84. Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Yıldız, M. (2010). Digital divide in Turkey: A general assessment. In E. Ferro, Y. K. Dwivedi, J. R. Gil-Garcia, D. M. D. Williams (Eds.), Overcoming Digital Divides: Constructing an Equitable and Competitive Information Society (pp. 75–89), Hershey, PA.: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Administrative SciencesPamukkale University, KinikliDenizliTurkey

Personalised recommendations