Open Data Politics in Estonia: Advancing Open Government in the Context of Ubiquitous Digital State

  • Maxat KassenEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Political Science book series (BRIEFSPOLITICAL)


Being a poster child of digital state, Estonia is a truly right place to find answers to the question on how it should be done first when it comes to achieving a real progress in modernizing governance through the use of information and communication technologies. It seems interesting to research how this nation promotes one of the latest trends in the development of the e-government concept—open data. In this regard, the chapter aims to understand what kind of political and socioeconomic drivers and challenges Estonia faces today in the diffusion of the open data concept among various stakeholders, namely government officials, developers, businesses, journalists, academia, and non-governmental organizations and how overcomes them, especially in areas that are related to the publication and, more importantly, to the reuse of datasets by third parties in various collaborative projects and civic engagement platforms.


Open data Estonia Open government Freedom of information E-government Civic engagement E-democracy Transparency Drivers Challenges 


  1. Abu-Shanab, E. A., & Bataineh, L. Q. (2014). Challenges facing e-government projects: how to avoid failure? International Journal of Emerging Sciences, 4(4), 207–218.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmad, S. Z., & Khalid, K. (2017). The adoption of M-government services from the user’s perspectives: Empirical evidence from the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Information Management, 37(5), 367–379.Google Scholar
  3. Anthes, G. (2015). Estonia: A model for e-government. Communications of the ACM, 58(6), 18–20.Google Scholar
  4. Åström, J., Jonsson, M., Hinsberg, H., & Karlsson, M. (2013). Case studies on e-participation policy. Sweden, Estonia and Iceland: Praxis Policy Center.Google Scholar
  5. Bakunzibake, P., Grönlund, Å., & Klein, G. O. (2016, September). E-Government implementation in developing countries: Enterprise content management in Rwanda. In 15th IFIP Electronic Government (EGOV)/8th Electronic Participation (ePart) Conference, Univ Minho, Guimaraes, Portugal, September 5–8, 2016 (pp. 251–259). IOS Press.Google Scholar
  6. Basu, S. (2004). E-government and developing countries: An overview. International Review of Law Computers & Technology, 18(1), 109–132.Google Scholar
  7. Bataineh, L., & Abu-Shanab, E. (2016). How perceptions of E-participation levels influence the intention to use E-government websites. Transforming Government: People Process and Policy, 10(2), 315–334.Google Scholar
  8. Baum, S., & Mahizhnan, A. (2015). Government-with-you: e-government in Singapore. In Public affairs and administration: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 711–725). IGI Global.Google Scholar
  9. Björklund, F. (2016). E-government and moral citizenship: The case of Estonia. Citizenship Studies, 20(6–7), 914–931.Google Scholar
  10. Boughzala, I., Janssen, M., & Assar, S. (2015). E-government 2.0: Back to reality, a 2.0 application to vet. In Case studies in e-Government 2.0 (pp. 1–14). Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, A., & Huang, W. (2015). China’s E-Government. In Managing organizational complexities with digital enablement in China: A casebook (pp. 97–106).Google Scholar
  12. Chen, A. J., Pan, S. L., Zhang, J., Huang, W. W., & Zhu, S. (2009). Managing e-government implementation in China: A process perspective. Information & Management, 46(4), 203–212.Google Scholar
  13. Cornwell, A. (2015, October 20). Why Dubai is looking to Estonia to develop a digital city. The Gulf News. Accessed on: June 10, 2017.
  14. Crusoe, J., & Melin, U. (2018, September). Investigating open government data barriers. In International Conference on Electronic Government (pp. 169–183). Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
  15. Czosseck, C., Ottis, R., & Talihärm, A. M. (2013). Estonia after the 2007 cyber attacks: Legal, strategic and organisational changes in cyber security. Case studies in information warfare and security: For researchers, teachers and students, 72.Google Scholar
  16. Dada, D. (2006). The failure of E-government in developing countries: A literature review. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 26(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  17. Drechsler, W. (1995). Estonia in transition. World Affairs, 157(3), 111–117.Google Scholar
  18. Drechsler, W., & Madise, Ü. (2004). Electronic voting in Estonia. In Electronic voting and democracy (pp. 97–108). Palgrave Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  19. Dyson, L. (Ed.). (2013). Beyond transparency: Open data and the future of civic innovation. Code for America Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ebbers, W. E., Jansen, M. G., & van Deursen, A. J. (2016). Impact of the digital divide on e-government: Expanding from channel choice to channel usage. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 685–692.Google Scholar
  21. EE. (2015). The enterprise Estonia Project. Accessed on: January 25, 2016.
  22. e-Estonia. (2016). The e-Estonia media Project. Accessed on: July 27, 2016.
  23. e-Estonia. (2018). The Estonian Education Information System. Accessed on: November 24, 2018.
  24. EGA. (2018). The e-Government Academy. Accessed on: October 2, 2018.
  25. EISA. (2018). The Estonian Information System Authority. Accessed on: November 24, 2018.
  26. ePSI. (2014). The European Public Sector information platform. Estonia opens up local government financial data via a new dedicated site. Accessed on: January 25, 2016.
  27. ERR. (2012). The Estonian Public Broadcasting (ERR). New system puts local government spending under virtual microscope.–05b8-43c9-b60b-38eb0cffc2dd. Accessed on: January 25, 2016.
  28. ERR. (2016). The Estonian Public Broadcasting Corporation. Accessed on: December 5, 2016.
  29. EULISA. (2018). The European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT Systems in the area of freedom, Security and Justice.
  30. Eurostat. (2014). Gross domestic expenditure on R&D Accessed on: February 15, 2016.
  31. EVM. (2016). The Estonian Village Movement Accessed on: July 12, 2017.
  32. EW. (2016). The Estonian World Project. Accessed on: August 17, 2016.
  33. Gao, X., & Lee, J. (2017). E-government services and social media adoption: Experience of small local governments in Nebraska state. Government Information Quarterly, 34(4), 627–634.Google Scholar
  34. Helbig, N., Gil-García, J. R., & Ferro, E. (2009). Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 89–97.Google Scholar
  35. Hui, G., & Hayllar, M. R. (2010). Creating public value in e-Government: A public-private-citizen collaboration framework in Web 2.0. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69, 120–131.Google Scholar
  36. IBS. (2015). The Institute of Baltic Studies. Accessed on: December 9, 2015.
  37. ICDS. (2015). The International Centre for Defense and Security. Accessed on: July 12, 2017.
  38. Information Age. (2011). EU open data strategy promises €40 billion boost. Accessed on: December 24, 2015.
  39. Internet Live Stats. (2017a). Estonia Internet Users. Accessed on: December 2, 2018.
  40. Jõgi, A. (2014). Estonia launches OpenData application for municipalities. Accessed on: January 25, 2016.
  41. Johnson, P., & Robinson, P. (2014). Civic Hackathons: Innovation, procurement, or civic engagement? Review of Policy Research, 31(4), 349–357.Google Scholar
  42. Kalja, A. (2002). The X-road project. A project to modernize Estonia’s national databases. Baltic IT&T Review, 24, 47–48.Google Scholar
  43. Kalja, A., Põld, J., Robal, T., & Vallner, U. (2011, July). Modernization of the e-government in Estonia. In 2011 Proceedings of PICMET’11 Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET) (pp. 1–7). IEEE.Google Scholar
  44. Kalvet, T. (2004). The Estonian ICT manufacturing and software industry: Current state and future outlook. Tallinn: Poliitikauuringute Keskus Praxis.Google Scholar
  45. Kalvet, T. (2007). The Estonian information society developments since the 1990s. PRAXIS.Google Scholar
  46. Kalvet, T. (2012). Innovation: A factor explaining e-government success in Estonia. Electronic Government, an International Journal, 9(2), 142–157.Google Scholar
  47. Kalvet, T., & Lember, V. (2010). Risk management in public procurement for innovation: the case of Nordic–Baltic Sea cities. Innovation–The European Journal of Social Science Research, 23(3), 241–262.Google Scholar
  48. Kamińska-Korolczuk, K., & Kijewska, B. (2017). Internet in Estonia and Poland. The Routledge companion to global internet histories, 135.Google Scholar
  49. Karkin, N. (2014). Barriers for sustainable e-participation process: The case of Turkey. In Government e-strategic planning and management (pp. 227–243). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Kassen, M. (2015). Understanding systems of e-government: e-Federalism and e-Centralism in the United States and Kazakhstan. Lexington books.Google Scholar
  51. Khan, G. F. (2015). The Government 2.0 utilization model and implementation scenarios. Information Development, 31(2), 135–149.Google Scholar
  52. Kirillov, Z., Shmorgun, I., & Lamas, D. (2011, September). Towards the design of Estonia’s m-government services. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 61–66). ACM.Google Scholar
  53. Kitsing, M. (2008, May). Explaining the e-government success in Estonia. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 429–430). Digital Government Society of North America.Google Scholar
  54. Kitsing, M. (2011). Success without strategy: E-Government development in Estonia. Policy & Internet, 3(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  55. Klischewski, R. (2003). Top down or bottom up? How to establish a common ground for semantic interoperability within e-government communities. In Proceedings of 1st International Workshop on E-Government at ICAIL E-Government: Modelling Norms and Concepts as Key Issues (pp. 17–26).Google Scholar
  56. Kotka, T., & Liiv, I. (2015, September). Concept of Estonian Government cloud and data embassies. In International Conference on Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective (pp. 149–162). Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
  57. Kotka, T., Vargas, C. I., & Korjus, K. (2015). Estonian e-Residency: Redefining the nation-state in the digital era. University of Oxford, Working Paper Series, 3, 1–16.Google Scholar
  58. Krimmer, R., Duenas-Cid, D., Krivonosova, I., Vinkel, P., & Koitmae, A. (2018, October). How much does an e-Vote cost? Cost comparison per vote in multichannel elections in Estonia. In International Joint Conference on Electronic Voting (pp. 117–131). Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
  59. Krimmer, R., Triessnig, S., & Volkamer, M. (2007, October). The development of remote e-voting around the world: A review of roads and directions. In International Conference on E-Voting and Identity (pp. 1–15). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Krull, A. (2003). ICT Infrastructure and E-readiness Assessment Report: Estonia (Vol. 5). PRAXIS.Google Scholar
  61. Kund, O., & Pau, A. (2018). New ID-card fault could have been intentional. Postimees. Accessed on: December 1, 2018.
  62. Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (2010). Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google Scholar
  63. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136.Google Scholar
  64. Lee, M., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2015). Open data and civic apps: First-generation failures, second-generation improvements. Communications of the ACM, 59(1), 82–89.Google Scholar
  65. Lember, V., Kattel, R., & Tõnurist, P. (2018). Technological capacity in the public sector: The case of Estonia. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(2), 214–230.Google Scholar
  66. Liiv, I. (2017). Welcome to E-Estonia, the tiny nation that’s leading Europe in digital innovation. The Conversation, e7446.Google Scholar
  67. Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454.Google Scholar
  68. Loit, U., & Harro-Loit, H. (2012). Media policy in Estonia: Small market paradoxes. Understanding Media Policies: A European Perspective, 85.Google Scholar
  69. Madise, Û., & Priit, V. (2011). Constitutionality of remote internet voting: The Estonian perspective. Juridica Int’l, 18, 4.Google Scholar
  70. Martens, T. (2010). Electronic identity management in Estonia between market and state governance. Identity in the Information Society, 3(1), 213–233.Google Scholar
  71. McBride, K., Matheus, R., Toots, M., Kalvet, T., & Krimmer, R. (2018, April). The role of linked open statistical data in public service co-creation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 679–681). ACM.Google Scholar
  72. MEAC. (2018). The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. Accessed on: November 24, 2018.
  73. Meftah, M., Gharleghi, B., & Samadi, B. (2015). Adoption of E-government among Bahraini citizens. Asian Social Science, 11(4), 141.Google Scholar
  74. Mergel, I. (2018). Open innovation in the public sector: Drivers and barriers for the adoption of Challenge. gov. Public Management Review, 20(5), 726–745.Google Scholar
  75. Mergel, I., Kleibrink, A., & Sörvik, J. (2018). Open data outcomes: US cities between product and process innovation. Government Information Quarterly.Google Scholar
  76. Moon, M. J., & Welch, E. W. (2005). Same bed, different dreams? A comparative analysis of citizen and bureaucrat perspectives on e-government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(3), 243–264.Google Scholar
  77. NENO. (2016). The network of Estonian Nonprofit Organizations. Accessed on: July 12, 2017.
  78. NFCS. (2015). The National Foundation of Civil Society. Accessed on: January 25, 2016.
  79. Nielsen, M. M. (2017, June). eGovernance and online service delivery in Estonia. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 300–309). ACM.Google Scholar
  80. Nielsen, M. M., & Krimmer, R. (2015, May). Reuse of data for personal and proactive service: An opportunity not yet utilised. In CeDEM15: Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (Vol. 273). MV-Verlag.Google Scholar
  81. ODC. (2018). The Open Data Community.
  82. ODP. (2015). The Open Data Portal of Estonia. Accessed on: May 30, 2016.
  83. OECD. (2015). OECD public governance reviews: Estonia and Finland: Fostering strategic capacity across government and digital services across borders. OECD Publishing Paris.Google Scholar
  84. OEF. (2015). The open Estonia Foundation Project. Accessed on: January 25, 2016.
  85. OGP. (2012). The open government partnership. Accessed on: October 28, 2015.
  86. OGP. (2015). The open government partnership. Accessed on: March 25, 2018.
  87. Oll, M. (2015). Estonia starts to export its budget visualization tool. The Estonian Public Broadcasting—ERR.–43f7-b56b-318b26f485fd/estonia-starts-to-export-its-budget-visualization-tool. Accessed on: February 15, 2016.
  88. Paide, K., Pappel, I., Vainsalu, H., & Draheim, D. (2018, April). On the systematic exploitation of the Estonian data exchange layer X-road for strengthening public-private partnerships. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 34–41). ACM.Google Scholar
  89. Pappel, I., Pappel, I., Tepandi, J., & Draheim, D. (2017). Systematic digital signing in Estonian e-Government processes. In Transactions on large-scale data-and knowledge-centered systems XXXVI (pp. 31–51). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  90. Peedu, G., & Lamas, D. (2011, September). Minu Viljandi: A case study on the effects of introducing web 2.0 features in e-government services on the overall user experience perception. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 305–308). ACM.Google Scholar
  91. Polat, R. K. (2012). Digital exclusion in Turkey: A policy perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 589–596.Google Scholar
  92. Prause, G. (2016). E-Residency: A business platform for Industry 4.0? Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 3(3), 216–227.Google Scholar
  93. Praxis. (2018). The Praxis Think Tank. Accessed on: November 24, 2018.
  94. Puussaar, A., Johnson, I. G., Montague, K., James, P., & Wright, P. (2018). Making open data work for civic advocacy. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 143.Google Scholar
  95. Reporters Without Borders. (2018). Accessed on: October 2, 2018.
  96. Robinson, N., & Martin, K. (2017). Distributed denial of government: The Estonian data embassy initiative. Network Security, 2017(9), 13–16.Google Scholar
  97. Schnurer, E. B. (2015). E-Stonia and the future of the cyberstate. Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar
  98. SEI (2015). The Stockholm Environment Institute. Accessed on: July 12, 2017.
  99. Smith, D. (2013b). Estonia: Independence and European integration. Routledge.Google Scholar
  100. Soe, R. M., & Drechsler, W. (2018). Agile local governments: Experimentation before implementation. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 323–335.Google Scholar
  101. Taagepera, R. (2018). Estonia: Return to independence. Routledge.Google Scholar
  102. Tanel, K., & Sandra, S. (2015). Legal impediments in the EU to new technologies in the example of E-Residency. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 8(2), 71–90.Google Scholar
  103. Tehnopol. (2018). The technological business incubator. Accessed on: November 24, 2018.
  104. Temiz, S., & Brown, T. (2017). Open data project for e-government: Case study of Stockholm open data project. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 9(1–2), 55–84.Google Scholar
  105. The community tools project. (2015). Accessed on: December 25, 2015.
  106. The Freedom House. (2018). Accessed on: October 2, 2018.
  107. The Garage48 Project. (2018). Accessed on: December 1, 2018.
  108. The Meieraha project. (2015). Accessed on: December 9, 2015.
  109. The Office of the Kazakh Prime Minister. (2018). Kazakh-Estonian forum: Bakytzhan Sagintayev invites Estonian business to active cooperation and implementation of joint projects. Accessed on: November 24, 2018.
  110. The Public Information Act. (2000). Accessed on: November 24, 2018.
  111. The Riigiraha project. (2015). Accessed on: November 18, 2015.
  112. The Statistical Agency of Estonia. (2014). Accessed on: February 15, 2016.
  113. The Valitsemise Valvurid Project. (2015). Accessed on: November 24, 2016.
  114. Townsend, A. M. (2013). Smart cities: Big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new Utopia. WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  115. TUT. (2018). The Tallinn University of Technology. The e-Governance technologies and services master´s program. Accessed on: October 2, 2018.
  116. University of Tartu. (2015). What happens to IT education in Estonia? Accessed on: February 24, 2018.
  117. UNPAN. (2018). The global E-Government survey: Gearing E-Government to support transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies Accessed on: November 18, 2018.
  118. Vahtra-Hellat, A. (2015, February 17). 26 countries show interest in Estonia’s e-state solutions. The Estonian World.Google Scholar
  119. Varblane, U., & Varblane, U. (2018). The economic crisis and North Estonia: A case study of rapid recovery. In Economic crisis and the resilience of regions. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  120. Vinkel, P., & Krimmer, R. (2016, October). The how and why to internet voting an attempt to explain E-Stonia. In International Joint Conference on Electronic Voting (pp. 178–191). Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
  121. Wirtz, B. W., & Birkmeyer, S. (2015). Open government: Origin, development, and conceptual perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(5), 381–396.Google Scholar
  122. Wirtz, B. W., Piehler, R., Thomas, M. J., & Daiser, P. (2016). Resistance of public personnel to open government: A cognitive theory view of implementation barriers towards open government data. Public Management Review, 18(9), 1335–1364.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eurasian Humanities InstituteAstanaKazakhstan

Personalised recommendations