Advertisement

Developing an Analytical Framework for Analyzing and Comparing National E-Government Strategies

Conference paper
  • 979 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12219)

Abstract

Across the world, e-government strategies are developed for the effective digitalization of the public sector. They offer governments a framework for dealing with challenges such as technical and legal interoperability and collaboration between public and private sector stakeholders, and for promoting a future vision for a digital public sector. Since e-government strategies are policy document and, thus, likely to convey biased perspectives, analyses of these strategies can yield insights into these biases and different perspectives on public sector digitalization. Until now, there has been no widely recognized framework for systematically analyzing e-government strategies. Based on literature and by applying our findings to the Danish and German e-government strategies, we have developed a novel analytical framework for comprehensively analyzing and comparing national e-government strategies. The framework focuses on the strategies’ role, their function, and their specific content, such as strategic goals and measures to implement e-government. Analyzing and comparing both countries as a proof of concept shows fundamental differences in the level of digitalization and the implementation of e-government. This article contributes to both research and practice by presenting a comprehensive framework for analyzing national e-government strategies and by discussing their context-sensitivity.

Keywords

E-government strategy Digital government strategy Policy analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was funded by the German National Centre for E-Government (NEGZ). Christian Ø. Madsen’s research is funded by the Research Centre for Government IT, which is a collaboration between the IT University of Copenhagen, the Danish Agency for Digitisation, and the self-owned institution ATP. The Research Centre’s external funding partners were not involved in the development of the research questions presented herein, nor the analysis, discussion, or presentation of the study’s results.

References

  1. 1.
    Lindgren, I., Madsen, C.Ø., Hofmann, S., Melin, U.: Close encounters of the digital kind: a research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Gov. Inf. Q. 36(3), 427–436 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chadwick, A., May, C.: Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the internet: “e-government” in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance-an Int. J. Policy Adm. 16, 271–300 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sandoval-Almazán, R., et al.: Building Digital Government Strategies. PAIT, vol. 16. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60348-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Niehaves, B.: Iceberg ahead: on electronic government research and societal aging. Gov. Inf. Q. 28, 310–319 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertot, J.C., Gorham, U., Jaeger, P.T., et al.: Big data, open government and e-government: Issues, policies and recommendations. Inf. Polity 19, 5–16 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heitmueller, A., Henderson, S., Warburton, W., et al.: Developing public policy to advance the use of big data in health care. Health Aff. 33, 1523–1530 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T.: The e-government paradox: better customer service doesn’t necessarily cost less. Gov. Inf. Q. 25, 149–154 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bryman, A.: Social Research Methods, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Commission: The digital economy and society index (DESI) (2019)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ayanso, A., Chatterjee, D., Cho, D.I.: E-government readiness index: a methodology and analysis. Gov. Inf. Q. 28, 522–532 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Codagnone, C., Misuraca, G., Savoldelli, A., Lupianez-Villanueva, F.: Institutional isomorphism, policy networks, and the analytical depreciation of measurement indicators: the case of the EU e-government benchmarking. Telecommun. Policy 39, 305–319 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rose, J., Persson, J.S., Heeager, L.T., Irani, Z.: Managing e-government: value positions and relationships. Inf. Syst. J. 25, 531–571 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Persson, J.S., Reinwald, A., Skorve, E., Nielsen, P.A.: Value positions in e-government strategies: something is (not) changing in the state of Denmark. In: Proceedings 25th European Conference Information System ECIS, pp. 904–917 (2017) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sundberg, L.: Value positions and relationships in the Swedish digital government. Adm. Sci. 9, 1–16 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Toll, D., Lindgren, I., Melin, U., Madsen, C.Ø.: Artificial intelligence in Swedish policies: values, benefits, considerations and risks. In: Lindgren, I. (ed.) EGOV 2019. LNCS, vol. 11685, pp. 301–310. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27325-5_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deakins, E., Dillon, S., Chen, W.: A comparison between e-government practices in Taiwan and New Zealand. Commun. ICISA 1, 1–24 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weerakkody, V., Jones, S., Olsen, E.: E-government: a comparison of strategies in local authorities in the UK and Norway. In: 3rd European Mediterranean Middle East Conference Information System (EMCIS 2006), pp. 1–15 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rodousakis, N., Mendes, A.: The development of inclusive e-government in Austria and Portugal: a comparison of two success stories. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 21, 283–316 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    He, W., Sun, L.: Comparison of e-government strategy between Chinese and foreign nations: content, model and characteristics. In: 2011 International Conference on Business Management and Electronic Information, vol. 2, pp. 186–190 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bannister, F.: The curse of the benchmark: an assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisons. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 73, 171–188 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blaikie N.: Designing Social Research. Polity (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    The Danish Government: The digital strategy - a stronger and more secure digital Denmark (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    IT-Planungsrat: National e-government strategy update (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jæger, B., Löfgren, K.: The history of the future: changes in Danish e-government strategies 1994–2010. Inf. Polity Int. J. Gov. Democr. Inf. Age 15, 253–269 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scupola, A.: A case study of digital transformation of Danish public services : actors and policies. In: 2018 11th CMI International Conference: Prospects and Challenges Towards Developing a Digital Economy within the EU, pp. 14–18 (2018)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meyerhoff, M., Yasuoka, M.: An analysis of the Danish approach to eGovernment benefit realisation. In: Internet Technologies Society 2014 Conference Proceedings, pp. 47–58 (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jansen, A., Berger, J.B., Goldkuhl, G.: First choice, free choice or no choice - differences in secure digital post in the Scandinavian countries. Electronic Government Electron Participation Joint Proceeding Ongoing Research Project IFIP WG 8.5 EGOV ePart vol.23, pp. 135–143 (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Joseph, S., Avdic, A.: Where do the nordic nations’ strategies take e-government? Electron. J. e-Government 14, 2–16 (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jannick, S., Hjelholt, M.: Digitalizing the welfare state: citizenship discourses in Danish digitalization strategies from 2002 to 2015. Crit. Policy Stud. (2017)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hjelholt, M., Schou, J.: Digital lifestyles between solidarity, discipline and neoliberalism: on the historical transformations of the Danish it political field from 1994 to 2016. TripleC 15, 370–389 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hjelholt, M., Schou, J.: Digital citizenship and neoliberalization: governing digital citizens in Denmark. Citizsh. Stud. 22, 507–522 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hsieh, H.-F., Shannon, S.E.: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 15, 1277–1288 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mayring, P.: Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Beltz, Weinheim; Basel, Grundlagen und Techniken (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    OECD recommendation of the council on digital government strategies (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Heeks, R.: e-Government as a carrier of context. J. Public Policy 25, 51–74 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AgderKristiansandNorway
  2. 2.IT University CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.University of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations