Index

A

Note: Page numbers followed by “f” and “t” refer to figures and tables respectively. Appendix isgiven with the word “app” after the page number.

“Accordi di Programma,” 192Accountability, 563–564

and performancee-government affecting, 565–567influence of e-government on, 570–575

systems, types of, 553fAccountability, performance and

e-government: EuropeanUnion countries government,561–562

accountability, 563–564accountability and performance,

e-government affecting, 565–567influence of e-government on

accountability and performance,570–575

performance in public sector,564–565

public sector, e-government developmentin, 567

e-government European outputs,569–570

EU’s strategies and actors fore-government, 568–569

evolution of e-government in EuropeanUnion, 567–568

Achievements, 565ADELE program, 579 appAdministrative culture and countries, 596tAdoption of e-government: India, 371–372

e-government, 373–374research methodology, 377

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA),379–383

regression analysis, 384–385reliability and multicollinearity

assessment, 383–384

sample selection and data collection,377–378

statistical analysis, 379results and discussion, 385–386theoretical framework, 374–377

Adoption of e-government by disadvantagedgroups, US/UK, 201–203

accessiblility of government web sites, 208UK, 209US, 209–210

barriers to internet use, 205internet and e-government usage by

disadvantaged groupsUK, 203–204US, 204–205

legal requirements and policy guidance onweb accessibility, 206

UK, 206–207US, 207–208web content accessibility guidelines,

207policies and initiatives

UK, 210–213US, 213–216

Advanced Research Projects Agency Network(ARPANET), 166

Africae-government maturity over 10 years,

10–11top-ten internet countries, 269f

population of, 268f“Aire urbaine,” 224Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], 1988,

208Analysis, 624Anglo-leasing scandal, 263–264Argentina, e-government maturity over 10

years, 18

C.G. Reddick (ed.), Comparative E-Government, Integrated Series in InformationSystems 25, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-6536-3,C© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

663

664 Index

Asia, e-government maturity over 10 years,12–13

ATI laws, developing nations with/withoute-government readiness, political rights,

and civil liberties in, 533fe-participation in, 534fhuman capital in, 535ftelecommunication infrastructure

in, 536fweb measure in, 533f

Australia, e-government maturity over 10years, 13–14

Austrian Federal Government, federal ICTstrategy, milestones, 576–577 app

“Avanza2,” 582 app

BBahrain, e-participation in, 80–81Balkans, impact and adoption of e-government

services in, 92–95basket of e-services, 97defuzzification methods, 99–100e-government adoption across Balkans

business services, 109citizen services, 109discussion, 109–111sophistication stage of services,

106–108evaluation metrics, 103

average gained time I, 103–104average gained time II, 104–105average gained time III, 105–106defuzzification, 106

expressing time with fuzzy numbers,100–101

forming time matrices, 102–103fuzzy numbers, 98–99

linguistics and fuzzy set theory, 98sophistication of e-government services,

95–96Bangladesh

citizen/e-government interaction, localgovernment level, 30

e-government strategies of, 27–28tBangladesh Computer Council (BCC), 30Barbados

e-government development in, 322tstatus of enabling environment for ICTs

in, 321tBarriers for e-government interactions, 293tBasket of services

for businesses, 97tfor citizens, 97t

Beijing’s business e-park, success of, 121–122vs. Nanhai, 121–122

Belgian federated approach, 185Bhoomi (India)

e-government recommendations for,131–132t

objectives, 126success of, 125–126

Bisector of Area (BOA), 100Blogs (Web 2.0), 168“Bobby 5.0,” 209Brazil

e-government maturity over 10 years, 18technological adoption of privatised

e-government, 299–301privatisation of telecommunications,

305–307“relationships improvement” agenda,

307–309“services improvement” agenda,

301–305Budget transparency, 588“BundOnline 2005,” 222“Business meets government,” 228–229

CCanada

compared to Mexico and US, 146digital government in, 144–145e-government and federalism

co-ordinating e-government acrossjurisdictions, 189–191

political and fiscal federalism in Canadaand Italy, 186–187

e-government maturity over 10 years, 17five themes, digital government, 157tunderstanding priorities in, 146

comparing countries, 148objectives, 146–148projects, 150–152strategies, 149–150

understanding priorities in Mexico/USand, 146

comparing the countries, 148objectives, 146–148projects, 150–152strategies, 149–150

Canadian government, Web 2.0 adoption by,161–164

adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and USgovernments, 174–175

frequency of use of, 171tmethodology, 166

Index 665

comparable Web 2.0 technologies,rationale and definitions, 168–170

evolution of web 2.0, 166–167Web 2.0/Web 1.0, differences between,

167–168results, 170

government agencies adopting Web 2.0,170–171

US government agencies adopting Web2.0, 171–174

theoretical overview, 164–166Center of Gravity (COG), 99CFA, factor loading for, 380–381Challenges of effective e-governance: Kenya,

259–260background, 260–262

anglo-leasing scandal and Kibaki’sreform, 263–264

history, 262–263e-governance in Kenya, 264–265

discussions and recommendations, 270infrastructure, penetration, and

connectivity, 268–269M-PESA—mobile money transfer,

267–268seeking transparency, 266–267

research directions, 270–271Challenges of e-governance in small,

developing society:Trinidad/Tobago, 313

background, 313–314digital access, 327–328fragmentation of ICT Units and lethargy of

public sector, 324–325funding, 322–324introducing e-government, 317–319introduction of policy, 319–322private-sector partnerships, 325–326reform of public sector in Trinidad/Tobago

and public management, 314–316Challenging e-journey along silk road,

115–117China: case studies

comparative analysis of Beijing andNanhai, 123–124

Nanhai’s district-level e-government,123

success of Beijing’s business e-park,121–122

factors for successful e-government,118–119

Heeks’ design-reality gap model, 120

infoDev and e-government indeveloping countries, 119

India: case studiesanalysis and comparison, 129–130failure of Gyandoot, 126–128impact, analysis, and comparison,

128–129success of Bhoomi, 125–126

role in development, 117–118Chief Information Officer Branch (CIOB), 154China, e-government (case studies)

comparative analysis of Beijing andNanhai, 123–124

Nanhai’s district-level e-government, 123success of Beijing’s business e-park,

121–122China, e-governments, compared to Heeks’

ITPOSMO Model, 133–135tCINTEC, 35Cities’ internet sites according to population

and geographical segments,frequencies and percentages of,623t

“Citizen-centric projects,” 11Citizen/e-government interaction, local

government level, 26–36Bangladesh, 30India, 31Korea, republic of, 32Pakistan, 33Sri Lanka, 35–36

Citizen Service Center (KEP), 94City of Helsinki project, 85Closed cycle process renovation of South

Korean e-government strategy, 29f“Collaborative” political federalism, 186–187Collective intelligence (CI) theory,

164–165CompraNet, 151Connecting the UK: the Digital Strategy, 210Construct reliability and variance, 383t“Cross-Government Enterprise Architecture

(xGEA),” 357Crossroads Bank for Social Security (CBSS),

185Current e-government system to future

e-government system, paradigmshift of, 43f

“Cyber Korea 21,” 32

DDeclaranet, 151DeclaraSat, 151

666 Index

Defuzzification, 106methods, 99–100

Demographic information, descriptive statisticsof, 379

Department of Electronics (DoE), 31“Design-Reality Gap” model, 115Developing country: e-government

interoperability framework,639–641

analysis of ICT initiatives in Mozambique,646

e-GIF4M, 646–647interoperability frameworks, 641–644interoperability in developing countries,

644–645organizational implementation, 651

E-GIF4M interoperability maturitymodel, 652–654

keeping E-GIF4M healthy, 655–656supporting development

of interoperability framework,651–652

plan, 656–657integration in E-GIF4M platform,

657–658systemic actions, 658–659

technical implementation, 647e-GIF4M service delivery architecture,

647–648technical standards, 649–651

Developing nationsdefinied, 530e-government and political indicators in,

525–526data and findings, 529–537discussion, 537–538literature review, 527–529

online services, accessible publications,searchable databases, and foreignlanguages on government Web sitesin, 536t

Developing nations with/without ATI lawse-government readiness, political rights,

and civil liberties in, 532fe-participation in, 534fhuman capital in, 535ftelecommunication infrastructure in, 536fweb measure in, 533f

Developing society, e-governance in:Trinidad/Tobago, 313

background, 313–314digital access, 327–328

fragmentation of ICT Units and lethargy ofpublic sector, 324–325

funding, 322–324introducing e-government, 317–319introduction of policy, 319–322private-sector partnerships, 325–326reform of public sector in Trinidad/Tobago

and public management, 314–316Dichotomous and scale additive index

components, website usability, 486t“Digital Bangladesh,” 26Digital Britain, 203Digital Britain Report, 210Digital government, 141

understanding, 140–142Digital government in North America, 140

budget priorities, 153–154country overviews, 143

Canada, 144–145comparing three countries, 146Mexico, 143–144US, 145

IT governance, 154–155research design and methods, 142–143understanding digital government, 140–142understanding priorities in Canada, Mexico

and US, 146comparing the countries, 148objectives, 146–148projects, 150–152strategies, 149–150

Diplopedia (US foreign affairs agencies withinthe State Department), 173

Disability equality duty, 206–207Disadvantaged groups using e-government,

US/UK, 201–203accessiblility of government web sites, 208

UK, 209US, 209–210

barriers to internet use, 205internet and e-government usage by

disadvantaged groupsUK, 203–204US, 204–205

legal requirements and policy guidance onweb accessibility, 206

UK, 206–207US, 207–208web content accessibility guidelines,

207policies and initiatives

UK, 210–213US, 213–216

Index 667

E“EASSY,” 269Economic Management and Technical

Assistance Program (EMTAP), 30E-GIF initiatives, selected, 643tE-GIF4M, 646–647

interoperability maturity model, 654–656,654f–655f

keeping, healthy, 655–656organizational structure, 653fplan, 657fplatform, integration in, 657–658service delivery architecture, 649–650,

648fstandards, 649f

E-governancechallenges in, see Challenges of effective

e-governance: Kenya; Challenges ofe-governance in small, developingsociety: Trinidad/Tobago;Challenging e-journey along silkroad

in developing countries, see Developingcountry: e-governmentinteroperability framework;Developing nations; Developingsociety, e-governance in:Trinidad/Tobago

factors affecting, and their source, 75tsee also Digital government

E-governance/e-participation, social media foradvent and potential of social media,

551–552gathering citizens’ views and concerns,

555–556participatory budgeting, 554problem reporting and follow-up, 554–555uncovering public sector information,

556–557E-government

accountability and performance, 571–573taccountability mechanisms for

implementation of strategies,575t

adoption, 355advantages, 118defenition, 5, 162–163, 410development in Trinidad and Tobago,

Barbados, and Jamaica, 322telements of, 333tfive levels of sophistication in, 96tfocus on efficiency or effectiveness by

e-government strategies, 576t

framework, four-dimensional, 42fimplementation strategies, integrating

different, 234fin improving services, potential of, 404tindex values for MENA countries, 65tand information and communication

technologies (ICTs), 72initiatives, advantages and challenges

related to, 8treadiness, political rights, and civil

liberties in developing countrieswith/without ATI law, 532f

readiness index 2008, 343tservices, reasons impeding use of, 348stages of, vertical and horizontal

integration, 6fstrategic plans, 366–367t, appstrategies of selected countries of study,

27–28tE-government adoption by governments:

Greece, 353–355background, 356–358greek case, 358–360investigating e-government adoption,

360–364E-government Adoption-Citizen Intention

Model, 377frevised model, 386f

E-government adoption landscape Zambia,241–244

adoption model in Zambia, 253fconceptual framework of e-government

e-government maturity models, 244issues and challenges for e-government

implementation, 244–247e-government adoption models, 247–249issues status of citizen, 249–251regulatory and institutional frameworks,

251–254E-government and federalism in Italy and

Canada, 183–185comparative assessment, 195–197co-ordinating e-government across

jurisdictions, 189Canada, 189–191Italy, 192–195

political and fiscal federalism in Canadaand Italy, 186

Canada, 186–187Italy, 188–189

“E-government code,” 192E-government Handbook for Developing

Countries, 119

668 Index

E-government in India, conceptualizing/implementation, 391–393

analysis and status, 401–402barriers to e-government, 402–403conceptualization of e-government,

393–394familiarity factors, 395infrastructural factors, 394–395political factors, 394

e-government plan, 396key components, 396–398mission mode projects, 398–399

impact assessment, 403–404implementing e-government plan, 399

funding plan, 399institutional setup for implementation,

399–400role of private sector, 400–401

method, 393recommendations for Bhoomi and

Gyandoot, 131–132tsignificant perceived barriers to, 405t

E-government in New Zealand, 505–506digital divides, local governments and

marginalised people, 519–520elderly (case), 518homeless (case), 518intellectually impaired (case), 517local government websites, 515–516marginalised New Zealanders, 510–511

digital divide, 511user issues, 511–512

multiple disabilities (case), 516–517New Zealand’s national digital strategy,

506–510research method, 514–516theoretical framework, 512

boundary conditions andmarginalisation, 512–513

e-readiness maturity model for localgovernments in New Zealand,513–514

social informatics, 512uncertainty, 513

E-government interoperability framework:developing country, 639–641

analysis of ICT initiatives in Mozambique,646

e-GIF4M, 646–647interoperability frameworks, 641–644interoperability in developing countries,

644–645organizational implementation, 651

E-GIF4M interoperability maturitymodel, 652–654

keeping E-GIF4M healthy, 655–656supporting development of

interoperability framework,651–652

plan, 656–657integration in E-GIF4M platform,

657–658systemic actions, 658–659

technical implementation, 647e-GIF4M service delivery architecture,

647–648technical standards, 649–651

E-government in Turkish Republic of NorthernCyprus, 409–410

challenges and future issues, 420–421country background information, 411–412e-government in Cyprus, 413–415importance of e-government concept,

410–411organization of e-government in Northern

Cyprus, 416legal infrastructure for e-government,

417–418organizational structure, 417Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

government websites, 418–420reasons for considering case of Northern

Cyprus, 412–413reasons for e-government adoption,

415–416E-government maturity model (2001), 9f

update, 10fE-government maturity over 10 years, 3–5

background, 5–6stages of e-government, 6–8

challenges for e-government, 19–20country comparison, 8–10

Africa, 10–11Asia, 12–13Australia, 13–14Europe, 14–16North America, 16–17South America, 17–18

emerging trends in e-government, 18–19“E-Government 2.0 programme,” 581 appE-government services in Balkans, impact and

adoption of, 92–95basket of e-services, 97defuzzification methods, 99–100e-government adoption across Balkans

business services, 109

Index 669

citizen services, 109discussion, 109–111sophistication stage of services,

106–108evaluation metrics, 103

average gained time I, 103–104average gained time II, 104–105average gained time III, 105–106defuzzification, 106

expressing time with fuzzy numbers,100–101

forming time matrices, 102–103fuzzy numbers, 98–99

linguistics and fuzzy set theory, 98sophistication of e-government services,

95–96E-government transformation in Turkey,

331–332concept of e-government, 332–334e-government, 334–336

e-government’s problems, 348–350studies and project in Turkey’s local

governments, 342–343studies and projects in Turkey’s

ministries, 336–342Turkish e-government analyses with

statistics, 343–347E-government websites

by body/institution responsible for theircontents, distribution of, 59f

categorized into four levels ofe-government development,percentage of, 64f

comparative study of contents of, 50–52e-government challenges faced by

MENA nations, 54–55e-government for better governance in

MENA nations, 53–54e-government indices for MENA

nations, 64features available on e-government

websites, 62–63ICT in MENA nations, 52–53methods, 57–58online executable services, 63public private partnerships (PPP) in

MENA nations for e-government,55–56

results and discussion, 58role of comparative research in MENA

countries’ e-government adoption,56–57

service types, 61–62

stages of development ofe-government services,63–64

types of e-government websites, 58–61undesired outcome of widespread ICTs

in MENA nations, 53features available on, 62–63of MENA countries, features available on,

60fonline executable services, 63sample of, 57service types, 61–62stages of development of services, 63–64types of, 58–61

EGov online service developments, stages of,436

EGov services, standardisation of, 435–437Egypt

e-participation in, 77–79population and internet users, 268f

E-participationin developing nations with/without ATI

laws, 534fe-government

in Bahrain, 80–81in Egypt, 77–79in Estonia, 81–83in Finland, 83–85

initiatives, recommendations for, 550tlandscape of

barriers to e-participation, 547–549citizen participation and e-participation

taxonomies, 544–545citizen participation/e-participation,

543–544critical factors for e-participation,

546–547e-participation state of play, 545–546synthesis of key recommendations for

e-participation projects, 549–551in Middle East and Northern Europe,

71–72background, 72–77e-participation in Bahrain, 80–81e-participation in Egypt, 77–79e-participation in Estonia, 81–83e-participation in Finland, 83–85

Epractice.eu, survey of, 443fE-readiness

maturity, 508tE-readiness

index evolution within European Unioncountries (2003–2008), 289t

670 Index

E-readiness (cont.)maturity model for local governments in

New Zealand, 513–514E-service projects, tenders for, 364“E-Sri Lanka” project, 35Estonia, e-participation in, 81–83Europe, 14–16

e-government maturity over 10 years,221–235

electronic public services for citizens andbusinesses in, 570t

metropolitan area Rhine-Neckar, locale-government, 14–16

Europeanization, 283–284European metropolitan area Rhine-Neckar,

228flocal e-government, 221–224

definition PF (European) metropolitanareas, 224–226

interpretations and limitations ofresults, 232–234

results, 230–232setup and research methodology,

227–229European metropolitan areas in Germany, 227tEuropean Union

comparison of sophistication and fullonline availability, 569t

e-government factsheet, 568te-readiness index evolution within, 289tevolution e-government, 567–568

European Union countries, OECD budgetarytransparency, 587–589

differences in public administration stylesin Europe, 589–592

empirical researchdescription of research methodology,

594–596results analysis, 597–601study sample, 596

international experiences for fiscal andbudget transparency, 592–594

European Union countries government:performance, accountability ande-government, 561–562

accountability, 563–564accountability and performance,

e-government affecting, 565–567influence of e-government on accountabil-

ity and performance, 570–575performance in public sector, 564–565public sector, e-government development

in, 567

e-government European outputs,569–570

EU’s strategies and actors fore-government, 568–569

evolution of e-government in EuropeanUnion, 567–568

Evaluation metrics for selected countriesbusiness services, 109tcitizen services, 109t

FFederalism in Italy and Canada, e-government

and, 183–185comparative assessment, 195–197co-ordinating e-government across

jurisdictions, 189Canada, 189–191Italy, 192–195

political and fiscal federalism in Canadaand Italy, 186

Canada, 186–187Italy, 188–189

“Federated architectures,” 183, 189“Federation,” 183Finnish local government services on internet,

615–616broad and narrow issues in e-service

provision, 616–620content framework and questions,

620–624empirical evidence

context, data and methods, 624–626results, 626–630

e-participation, 83–85Five-tier local e-government organizational

structure, 37fFour-dimensional e-government framework,

42fFour-layer e-government operational strategies,

42tFrench e-government strategy, 579 appFuzzy and crisp values of evaluation metrics

for case of Sloveniabusiness services, 109tcitizen services, 108t

Fuzzy numbers, 98–99expressing time with, 100–101

forming time matrices, 102–103linguistics and

relations between, 101tuzzy set theory, 98

Fuzzy set theory, 98Fuzzy triangular number, 99f

Index 671

GGCPEDIA, 170, 174Germany

e-government implementation, 581 appe-government maturity over 10 years,

15–16European metropolitan areas in, 227t

GIS, evolutionary waves of, 454fGIS-based monitors, learning with, 480tGIS-based monitors (learning): Netherlands,

467–468empirical findings, 472

case-studies, 472–473current functions of GIS-based

monitors, 473–474learning barriers, 475–477learning conditions, 474–475learning levels, 477–478

functions of GIS-based monitors, 478GIS-based monitoring, 468–470theoretical framework, 470

cultural approach, 471–472political approach, 471rational approach, 470–471research strategy, 472

GOL initiative, 151GovBenefits.gov, 215Government agencies, IT expenditures, 303tGovernmental agencies to interact with using

digital means (preferred), 291tGovernment ministry websites, usability of

Trinidad and Tobago, 483–484findings, 490

accessibility accommodations, 496–497information architecture, 496legitimacy, 495navigation, 494–495overview, 490–494

methodology, 485–486other divide and website usability, 484–485usability distributions of pilot portal site,

497–499website usability: dimensions and

variables, 487–488Government On-Line (GOL), 17, 153Government web sites, accessiblility of, 208

barriers to internet use, 205legal requirements and policy guidance on,

206web content accessibility guidelines, 207

Greece, e-government adoption bygovernments, 353–355

background, 356–358

greek case, 358–360investigating e-government adoption,

360–364Gyandoot (India)

e-government recommendations for,131–132t

failure of, 126–128objectives of, 127

HHeeks’ design-reality gap model, 120Heeks’ ITPOSMO Model, e-governments

in China and India compared to,133–135t

Helsinki at Your Service vision for 2013, 85Human capital in developing nations

with/without ATI laws, 535f

I“I2010—A European Information Society for

growth and employment,” 92ICTs

densities in 2007, 254tevolution of

investment as a percentage of totalbudget, 278f

personnel, 279finitiatives in Mozambique, analysis of, 646in MENA nations, 52–53

profile of, 51tundesired outcome of widespread, 53

in Trinidad and Tobagoallocations for implementation and

strengthening of, 323tstatus of enabling environment for, 321t

Indiacitizen/e-government interaction, local

government level, 31e-government maturity over 10 years, 12e-governments, compared to Heeks’

ITPOSMO Model, 133–135te-government strategies of, 27–28t

India, conceptualizing and implementation ofe-government in, 391–393

analysis and status, 401–402barriers to e-government, 402–403conceptualization of e-government,

393–394familiarity factors, 395infrastructural factors, 394–395political factors, 394

e-government plan, 396key components, 396–398mission mode projects, 398–399

672 Index

India, conceptualizing (cont.)impact assessment, 403–404implementing e-government plan, 399

funding plan, 399institutional setup for implementation,

399–400role of private sector, 400–401

method, 393India, e-government (case studies)

analysis and comparison, 129–130failure of Gyandoot, 126–128framework of, 38impact, analysis, and comparison, 128–129success of Bhoomi, 125–126

InfoDev and e-government in developingcountries, 119

Information society and e-government inSpain, strategic action plans for,281t

“Innovation Directive,” 192Institutional factors affecting online

governance, 73f“Integrative continuum,” 184Intellipedia (US intelligence community), 173Internally focused communication, 176Internet

cities’according to population and

geographical segments, frequenciesand percentages of, 621t

score averages for different municipalgroups according to contentanalysis, 623t

probability to interact with governmentusing, 294t

types of interactions with public agenciesusing, 292t

use of, Turkey, 345fusers of social networks as percentage of

using, 553fusers of Web 2.0 services as percentage of

using, 553fusing for administrative interactions

benefits, 290tinconveniences, 291t

using percentage anywhere, by age andincome

UK, 204fUS, 204f

Investment climate, 326tItaly

e-government and federalism

co-ordinating e-government acrossjurisdictions, 192–195

political and fiscal federalism in Canadaand Italy, 188–189

e-government strategy, 584 appIT governance, 154–155ITPOSMO framework, 120

e-governments in China and Indiacompared to Heeks’, 133–135

JJamaica

e-government development in, 322tstatus of enabling environment for ICTs in,

321t

K“KamuNet” (Public Network), 417Kenya

e-government maturity over 10 years, 11population and internet users, 268f

Kenya, challenges of effective e-governance,259–260

background, 260–262anglo-leasing scandal and Kibaki’s

reform, 263–264history, 262–263

e-governance in Kenya, 264–265discussions and recommendations, 270infrastructure, penetration, and

connectivity, 268–269M-PESA—mobile money transfer,

267–268seeking transparency, 266–267

research directions, 270–271Kibaki’s reform, 263–264Kiosks, 127Korea, republic of

citizen/e-government interaction, localgovernment level, 32

LLandscape of e-participation

barriers to e-participation, 547–549citizen participation and e-participation

taxonomies, 544–545citizen participation/e-participation,

543–544critical factors for e-participation, 546–547e-participation state of play, 545–546synthesis of key recommendations for

e-participation projects, 549–551Latent constructs, model fit indices of, 382t

Index 673

Learning with GIS-based monitors:Netherlands, 467–468

empirical findings, 472case-studies, 472–473current functions of GIS-based

monitors, 473–474learning barriers, 475–477learning conditions, 474–475learning levels, 477–478

functions of GIS-based monitors, 478GIS-based monitoring, 468–470theoretical framework, 470

cultural approach, 471–472political approach, 471rational approach, 470–471research strategy, 472

Linguisticsfuzzy numbers and

fuzzy set theory, 98trelations between, 101t

Local government, 24concept of, 39fimplementation: European metropolitan

area Rhine-Neckar, 221–224definition PF (European) metropolitan

areas, 224–226interpretations and limitations of

results, 232–234results, 230–232setup and research methodology,

227–229level, framework of e-governance at,

23–24background, 24–26citizen/e-government interaction, 26–36recommendations, 39–41

services on internet, Finnish, 615–616broad and narrow issues in e-service

provision, 616–620content framework and questions,

620–624context, data and methods, 624–626results, 626–630

websites (New Zealande), 515–516Local level incorporating all stakeholders,

increased partnership at, 40f

MMapping e-GIF4M standards onto architecture,

650fMashups (Web 2.0), 169MENA, see Middle East and North Africa

(MENA)

MENA nationse-government

better governance, 53–54challenges faced by, 54–55indices for, 64public private partnerships (PPP) in,

55–56role of comparative research in,

56–57undesired outcome of widespread ICTs

in, 53e-government index values for, 65tfeatures available on e-government

websites of, 60fICT profile of, 51t

Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas,225

Metropolitan area, 224Metropolitan area networks (MAN) projects,

tenders concerning, 363“Metropolitan statistical area” (MSA), 225Mexico

compared to Canada and US, 146digital government in, 143–144five themes, digital government, 155tunderstanding priorities in Canada and US,

146comparing the countries, 148objectives, 146–148projects, 150–152strategies, 149–150

Microblogs (Web 2.0), 169Middle East, e-participation in, 71–72

background, 72–77e-participation in Bahrain, 80–81e-participation in Egypt, 77–79

Middle East and North Africa (MENA), 49Ministry and pilot portal sites, overall number

of usability variables for, 498tModel fit indices of latent constructs, 382tModernising Government, 202Monitoring, 469M-PESA—mobile money transfer, 267–268Myguide, 211

NNanhai’s district-level e-government, 123

vs. Beijing, 123National Computer Policy of 1983 (COMPOL),

35National E-governance Plan of India, priority

projects under, 403tNational Implementation Programme (NUP),

583t

674 Index

National Telecommunications and InformationAdministration (NTIA)/BroadbandTechnology Opportunities Program(BTOP), 152

Natural Resources, Energy and ScienceAuthority of Sri Lanka(NARESA), 35

Netherlandsempirical findings, 472

case-studies, 472–473current functions of GIS-based

monitors, 473–474learning barriers, 475–477learning conditions, 474–475learning levels, 477–478

functions of GIS-based monitors, 478GIS-based monitoring, 467–470government’s action program, 583 apptheoretical framework, 470

cultural approach, 471–472political approach, 471rational approach, 470–471research strategy, 472

New Zealand, e-government in, 505–506digital divides, local governments and

marginalised people, 519–520elderly (case), 518government digital strategy targets,

507–508thomeless (case), 518intellectually impaired (case), 517local government websites, 515–516marginalised New Zealanders, 510–511

digital divide, 511user issues, 511–512

maturity over 10 years, 13–14multiple disabilities (case), 516–517national digital strategy, 506–510New Zealand’s national digital strategy,

506–510research method, 514–516theoretical framework, 512

boundary conditions andmarginalisation, 512–513

e-readiness maturity model for localgovernments in New Zealand,513–514

social informatics, 512uncertainty, 513

Nigeriae-government maturity over 10 years, 11population and internet users, 268f

North America, digital government in, 140

budget priorities, 153–154country overviews, 143

Canada, 144–145comparing three countries, 146Mexico, 143–144US, 145

e-government maturity over 10 years,16–17

IT governance, 154–155research design and methods, 142–143understanding digital government, 140–142understanding priorities in Canada, Mexico

and US, 146comparing the countries, 148objectives, 146–148projects, 150–152strategies, 149–150

Northern Europe, e-participation ine-participation in Estonia, 81–83e-participation in Finland, 83–85

Norway, white Paper on ICT-policy, 581 app

OOECD budgetary transparency: European

Union countries, 587–589best practices for, budget reports in, 593fdifferences in public administration styles

in Europe, 589–592empirical research

description of research methodology,594–596

results analysis, 597–601study sample, 596

first-level report coincidence: the onlinedisclosure mean of budgetaryreports, 598f

first-level section coincidence: onlinedisclosure percentage of budgetaryreports, 597f

international experiences for fiscal andbudget transparency, 592–594

second-level report coincidence: the onlinecontent of budgetary reports, 600f

second-level section coincidence: onlinecontent of budgetary reports, 599f

OECD countries, drivers for information anddata-sharing, 344t

OECD detail about budget reports on internet,availability of information, 604–612app

OMB MAX Federal Community (ExecutiveBranch personnel to collaborate onbudget issues), 173

Index 675

OMB USAspending.gov RequirementsCommunity, 173

Online governancefactors affecting

radar plot of scaled values forinstitutional, 76f

institutional factors affecting, 73fOnline services

accessibility accommodation usabilityscores for websites, 496t

accessible publications, searchabledatabases, and foreign languages ongovernment Web sites in developingnations, 536t

information architecture usability scoresfor websites, 496t

legitimacy usability scores for websites,495t

navigation usability scores for websites,494t

operational definitionsvariables for, 487tvariables for accessibility

accommodations, 490tvariables for information architecture,

489tvariables for legitimacy, 489tvariables for navigation, 488tvariables for user-help, 488t

overall number of usability variables forbest practice sites, 492t

usability scores for websites, 493t

P“Pact for E-Government Development,” 195Pakistan

e-government maturity over 10 years,12–13

e-government strategies of, 27–28tPakistan Telecommunications

(Re-organization) Act, 33Participatory budgeting, 554PCs 70 diffusion in governmental settings,

evolution of, 280fPerceived usefulness, 165Performance, accountability and e-government:

European Union countriesgovernment, 561–562

accountability, 563–564accountability and performance,

e-government affecting, 565–567influence of e-government on accountabil-

ity and performance, 570–575

performance in public sector, 564–565public sector, e-government development

in, 567e-government European outputs,

569–570EU’s strategies and actors for

e-government, 568–569evolution of e-government in European

Union, 567–568Performance expectancy, 248Podcasts (Web 2.0), 169Political indicators in developing nations,

e-government and, 525–526data and findings, 529–537discussion, 537–538literature review, 527–529

Politics of e-government in Spain, 275–277basic attributes, 280

electronic certification and identifica-tion policy, 288

Europeanization, 283–284ICTs management norms and

regulation, 286–287organizational structure, 284–285people, 285–286strategy, 281–283

first steps of computerization in Spanishcentral government, 277–280

social demand for e-services and publicopinion about e-government,288–294

Portuguese e-government strategy, 578 appPPGIS themes for local e-government,

implications of, 462tPrivatised e-government, technological

adoption of: Brazil, 299–301privatisation of telecommunications,

305–307“relationships improvement” agenda,

307–309“services improvement” agenda,

301–305Public participation geographic information

systems, 449–450evolution of technology, 452

traditional desktop-based GIS, 452Web GIS, 452–454

overview, 450–452PPGIS themes, 454

empowerment, 460–461institutional structure of participatory

decision-making processes,458–459

676 Index

Public participation geographic (cont.)significance of context,

455–456technical GIS concerns, 456–458

Public private partnerships (PPP) in MENAnations, 55–56

Public sectore-government development in, 567

e-government European outputs,569–570

EU’s strategies and actors fore-government, 568–569

evolution of e-government in EuropeanUnion, 567–568

performance in, 564–565

RReally Simple Syndication (RSS) (Web 2.0),

169Rhine-Neckar, European metropolitan area,

228f

SSCRAN, web-services, 441fSCRAN’s development of Trans-national

Comparator, 425–426academic networking of SmartCities, 426

configuring smartcities triple helix, 429inverting normal representation and

“turning things upside down,”431–433

SCRAN as three-way partnership, 426SCRAN’s take on triple helix, 428–429step-wise logic, 429–431triple helix, 426–428

network, 438–439main areas of site, 442–443shared enterprise and joint venture, 439web-services, 440–442workspaces, 440

reaching above baseline, 433measurement, 433–434standardisation of eGov services,

435–437transformative business-to-citizen

applications across north sea,437–438

trans-national comparator, 434–435“SEACOM,” 269Section 508 Legislation (US), 207–208Service orientation, 358Singapore

citizen/e-government interaction, localgovernment level, 34

e-government strategies of, 27–28tSingapore’s National Computer Board

(NCB), 34SmartCities, 425

partner(s), academic organisation of, 427ftriple helix of, 430fWiki, 442f

SmartCities, academic networking of, 426configuring smartcities triple helix, 429inverting normal representation and

“turning things upside down,”431–433

SCRAN as three-way partnership, 426SCRAN’s take on triple helix, 428–429step-wise logic, 429–431triple helix, 426–428

SmartCities 2, triple helix of, 432fSocializing e-governance, 543

landscape of e-participationbarriers to e-participation, 547–549citizen participation and e-participation

taxonomies, 544–545citizen participation/e-participation,

543–544critical factors for e-participation,

546–547e-participation state of play, 545–546synthesis of key recommendations for

e-participation projects, 549–551social media for e-governance/

e-participationadvent and potential of social media,

551–552gathering citizens’ views and concerns,

555–556participatory budgeting, 554problem reporting and follow-up,

554–555uncovering public sector information,

556–557Social media for e-governance/e-participation

advent and potential of social media,551–552

gathering citizens’ views and concerns,555–556

participatory budgeting, 554problem reporting and follow-up, 554–555uncovering public sector information,

556–557Social networking sites (Web 2.0), 169Soochana Kosh, 128Soochanalayas, see Kiosks

Index 677

Sophistication in e-government, five levels of,96t

Sophistication stageutilization percentage per

business services, 108tcitizen services, 107t

Sophistication stage for five countriesbusiness services, 107tcitizen services, 107t

South America, e-government maturity over 10years, 17–18

South Koreae-government framework of, 38fe-government strategies of, 27–28t

closed cycle process renovation of, 29fSpain, politics of e-government in, 275–277

basic attributes, 280electronic certification and

identification policy, 288Europeanization, 283–284ICTs management norms and

regulation, 286–287organizational structure, 284–285people, 285–286strategy, 281–283

e-government strategy, 582 appfirst steps of computerization in Spanish

central government, 277–280social demand for e-services and public

opinion about e-government,288–294

strategic action plans for, informationsociety, 281t

Sri Lankacitizen/e-government interaction, local

government level, 35–36e-government strategies of, 27–28t, 29f

“Standard metropolitan statistical area”(SMSA), 225

Strategic plan, implementation method of, 354Successful e-government, factors for, 118–119

Heeks’ design-reality gap model, 120infoDev and e-government in developing

countries, 119Sweden, action plan for e-government,

579–580 app

TTC1 index, 595TC2 index, 596“TEAMS,” 269Technological adoption of privatised

e-government: Brazil, 299–301

privatisation of telecommunications,305–307

“relationships improvement” agenda,307–309

“services improvement” agenda, 301–305Technology acceptance model (TAM),

164–165Telecommunication infrastructure in

developing nations with/withoutATI laws, 536f

Time matrixfor businesses, 103tfor citizens, 102tforming, 102–103

Tobagoallocations for implementation and

strengthening of ICTs in, 323te-government development in, 322tgovernment ministries, 502t appgovernment ministry websites, see

Trinidad/Tobago governmentministry websites, usability of

status of enabling environment for ICTs in,321t

“Today I Decide plus” (TID+), 81–82“Today I Decide” (TID) project, 81Traditional desktop-based GIS, 452Trans-national comparator, 434–435

academic networking of SmartCities, 426configuring smartcities triple helix, 429inverting normal representation and

“turning things upside down,”431–433

SCRAN as three-way partnership, 426SCRAN’s take on triple helix,

428–429step-wise logic, 429–431triple helix, 426–428

network, 438–439main areas of site, 442–443shared enterprise and joint venture, 439web-services, 440–442workspaces, 440

reaching above baseline, 433measurement, 433–434standardisation of eGov services,

435–437transformative business-to-citizen

applications across north sea,437–438

trans-national comparator, 434–435SCRAN’s development of, 425–426

Transparency, 266

678 Index

Trinidadallocations for implementation and

strengthening of ICTs in, 323te-government development in, 322tgovernment ministries, 502t appstatus of enabling environment for ICTs in,

321tTrinidad/Tobago government ministry

websites, usability of,483–484

findings, 490accessibility accommodations,

496–497information architecture, 496legitimacy, 495navigation, 494–495overview, 490–494

methodology, 485–486other divide and website usability, 484–485usability distributions of pilot portal site,

497–499website usability: dimensions and

variables, 487–488Triple helix of SmartCities, 430fTT government

benchmark websites for usabilitydimensions, 500t

ministry and portal websites, usabilityindex for, 493t

portal scale variables raw scores andusability performance, 499t

Turkeyattaining computing course, 346finternet, using, 345f

activities of enterprises, 347factivities of household individuals,

347fTurkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,

e-government in, 409–410challenges and future issues, 420–421country background information, 411–412e-government in Cyprus, 413–415importance of e-government concept,

410–411organization of e-government in Northern

Cyprus, 416legal infrastructure for e-government,

417–418organizational structure, 417Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

government websites, 418–420reasons for considering case of Northern

Cyprus, 412–413

reasons for e-government adoption,415–416

technology ownership in, 414tURLs of central government ministries and

agencies, 419tURLs of local government units and their

unions, 420t“Tweeple,” 171Twitter, 171

UUK

adoption of e-government by disadvantagedgroups

accessiblility of government web sites,209

internet and e-government usage bydisadvantaged groups, 203–204

legal requirements and policy guidanceon web accessibility, 206–207

policies and initiatives, 210–213community projects, 212–213digital literacy, 213e-government maturity over

10 years, 15e-government strategy, 578 apphome internet access, 212improving web usability, 213Myguide, 211online centres, 211–212percentages using Internet anywhere, by

age and income, 204fUnited Kingdom, see UKUnited nations e-readiness index evolution

within European Union countries(2003–2008), 289t

United States, see USUS

adoption of e-government by disadvantagedgroups

accessiblility of government web sites,209–210

city-wide broadband and digitalinclusion strategies,214–215

improving web usability,215–216

internet and e-government usage bydisadvantaged groups, 204–205

legal requirements and policy guidanceon web accessibility, 207–208

policies and initiatives, 213–216public libraries, role in using

e-government, 214

Index 679

compared to Canada and Mexico, 146digital government in, 145e-government maturity over 10 years,

16–17five themes, digital government, 157tgovernments, frequency of use of, Web 2.0

tools for levels of, 172tpercentages using Internet anywhere, by

age and income, 204funderstanding priorities in Canada/Mexico

and, 146comparing the countries, 148objectives, 146–148projects, 150–152strategies, 149–150

US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit,Practitioner’s Handbook, 173

User-help usability scores for websites, 493tUS governments, Web 2.0 adoption by,

161–164adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and US

governments, 174–175methodology, 166

comparable Web 2.0 technologies,rationale and definitions, 168–170

evolution of web 2.0, 166–167Web 2.0/Web 1.0, differences between,

167–168results, 170

government agencies adopting Web 2.0,170–171

US government agencies adopting Web2.0, 171–174

theoretical overview, 164–166USGSA’s USA Services Intergovernmental

Collaborative Work Environ-ment (incubator space for 20intergovernmental communities),173

VVideo sharing (Web 2.0), 169“Virtual dustbin,” 309

WWeb 2.0, 162, 167

adoption by US cities, counties, and states,174t

framework, 176technologies in government, framework for

adoption of, 177–178ttools

for levels of Canadian governments,frequency of use of, 171t

for levels of US governments, frequencyof use of, 172t

vs. Web 1.0, differences between, 167–168Wikis, 169

Web 2.0 adoption by Canadian and USgovernments, 161–164

adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and USgovernments, 174–175

methodology, 166comparable Web 2.0 technologies,

rationale and definitions, 168–170evolution of web 2.0, 166–167Web 2.0/Web 1.0, differences between,

167–168results, 170

government agencies adopting Web 2.0,170–171

US government agencies adopting Web2.0, 171–174

theoretical overview, 164–166Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG),

206–207Web GIS, 452–454Web measure in developing nations

with/without ATI laws, 533fWeb measure index, phases of, 7Websites (e-government)

accessibility accommodation usabilityscores for, 496t

in developing nations, online services,accessible publications, searchabledatabases, and foreign languages ongovernment, 536t

features available on, 62–63information architecture usability scores

for, 496tlegitimacy usability scores for, 495tministry and pilot portal sites, overall

number of usability variables for,498t

navigation usability scores for, 494tonline executable services, 63online services usability scores for, 493tsample of, 57service types, 61–62stages of development of services,

63–64types of, 58–61usability dichotomous and scale additive

index components, 486tuser-help usability scores for, 493tsee also Government web sites,

accessiblility of

680 Index

Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0, 168Wikis, government agencies using, 173Wired-up communities [WuC] project,

212

ZZambia, e-government adoption landscape,

241–244conceptual framework of e-government

e-government maturity models, 244

issues and challenges for e-governmentimplementation, 244–247

e-government adoption model in, 253fe-government adoption models, 247–249ICT densities in 2007, 254tinternet penetration in, and neighboring

countries region, 250tissues status of citizen, 249–251regulatory and institutional frameworks,

251–254Zhongguancun E-park, 122