Reshaping eGovernment Through Institutional Agents

  • Maddalena SorrentinoEmail author
  • Luca Solari
Conference paper


The eGovernment stage is being populated by a cast of intermediary actors from both the private and the not-for-profit sectors, as a result of the multichannel strategies with which many countries are seeking to give new impulse to their eGovernment plans. This paper claims that a fuller understanding of these players’ role is crucial in developing socially-aware eGovernment policies and suggests the usefulness of adopting an institutional perspective to place the intermediaries in an adequate frame of reference. In particular, it suggests that it might be fruitful to slot the intermediaries into the “institutional agent” category. Some implications ensuing from this study are proposed and discussed.


Public Administration Institutional Agent European Commission Joint Research European Commission Directorate General Street Level Bureaucracy 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Frissen V, Millard J, Huijboom N (2007) The future of eGovernment, SevilleGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burt B, Taylor J (2003) Constructing new ways of living together: government relationships with the voluntary sector in the information polity. Inf Polity 8:181–192Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    European i2010 initiative (2007) To be part of the information society, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    OECD (2004) The e-Government imperative. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scott WR (1998) Organizations. Rational, natural and open systems. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zinnbauer D (2007) What can social capital and ICT do for inclusion. European Commission Joint Research Centre, SevilleGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pasic A, Sassen AM, Garcia A (2004)e-Government Intermediation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3183: 88-92Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    e-Envoy (2003) Policy framework for a mixed economy in the supply of e-Government services. Implementation Guidelines 1 LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hill R, Beynon-Davies P, Williams MD (2008) Older people and internet engagement. Inf Technol People 21(3):244–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liou KT:(2008) E-Government development and China’s administrative reform. Int J Public Adm 31(1):76–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lowe C (2003) Ten steps to massive take-up of eGovernment in Europe. Int J Commun Law Policy 8:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rajalekshmi K (2007) E-Governance services through telecenters: the role of human intermediary and issues of trust. Inf Technol Int Dev 4(1):19–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De', R (2006) E-Government systems in developing countries: issues and concerns. IIMB Manage Rev 18(4):277–288Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Millard J (2006) User attitudes to e-government citizen services in Europe. Int J Electronic Gov Res 2(2):49–58Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ebbers WE, Pieterson WJ, Noordman HN (2008) Electronic government: rethinking channel management strategies. Gov Inf Q 25(2):181–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gibson A, Bertot JC, McLure C (2009) Emerging role of public librarians as e-Government providers. In: HICSS-42 Hawaii international conference on systems science, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Akesson M, Skalén P, Edvardsson B (2008) E-Government and service orientation: gaps between theory and practice. Int J Public Sector Manage 21(1):74–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Millard J (2006) eGovernance and eParticipation: lessons from Europe in promoting inclusion and empowerment, CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klecun E (2008) Bringing lost sheep into the fold: questioning the discourse of the digital divide. Inf Technol People 21(3):267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    IPTS (2006) Towards the eGovernment Vision for the EU in 2010: research policy challenges. European Commission Directorate GeneralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scott WR (2008) Lords of the dance: professionals as institutional agents. Organ Stud 29(2):219–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scott WR (2003) Institutional carriers: reviewing modes of transporting ideas over time and space and considering their consequences. Ind Corp Change 12(4):879–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Warner ME, Hefetz A (2008) Managing markets for public service: the role of mixed public-private delivery of city services. Public Adm Rev 68(1):155–166Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Avgerou C, Ciborra C, Cordella A, Kallinikos J (2006) e-Government and trust in the state: lessons from electronic tax systems in Chile and Brazil, LSE, pp 1–38Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carter L, Weerakkody V (2008) E-government adoption: a cultural comparison. Inf Syst Front 10(4):473–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bekkers V (2007) The governance of back-office integration. Public Manage Rev 9(3):388–400Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grimsley M, Meehan A (2007) e-Government information systems: evaluation-led design for public value and client trust. Eur J Inf Syst 16(2):134–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze economiche, aziendali e statisticheUniversità degli studi di MilanoMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Studi del lavoro e del welfareUniversità degli studi di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations