The endless wire: E-government as global phenomenon

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 323-331

  Jaeger, Paul T ^a  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346268914     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2003.08.003     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Roy, J. (2003). E-government. Social Science Computer Review, 21(1), 3-5.
2. Hernon, P., Reylea, H. C., Dugan, R. E., & Cheverie, J. F. (2002). United States government information: Policies and sources. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. p. 388.
3. Snellen, I. (2002). Electronic governance: Implications for citizens, politicians and public servants. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68, 183-198.
4. Strejcek, G. & Theil, M, (2002). Technology push, legislation pull? E-government in the European Union. Decision Support Systems, 34, 305-313. "Perhaps more than any other program of administrative reform in its history, the EU - especially the European Commission - has embraced the idea of e-govemment."
5. Chadwick, A. & May, C. (2003). Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the Internet: "E-government" in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 16(2 , 271-300. p. 290.
6. Terms that have been suggested for using various technologies to link citizens to government include teledemocracy, telepolitics, satellite politics, video democracy, cyberdemocracy, virtual polis, and couch-potato democracy.
7. Milward, H. B. & Snyder, O. (1996). Electronic government: Linking citizens to public organizations through technology. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(2), 261-275
8. Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kouzmin, A. (2003). Reinventing the democratic governance project through information technology? A growing agenda for debate. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 44-60.
9. Weber, L. M., Loumakis, A., & Bergmen, J. (2003). Who participates and why? Social Science Computer Review, 21(1), 26-42.
10. MacIntosh, A., Robson, E., Smith, E., & Whyte, A. (2003). Electronic democracy and young people. Social Science Computer Review, 21(1), 43-54.
11. The Economist. (2003). Government by computer: But some say drinking water should come first. March 22, 2003. pp. 38-39.
12. Aside from discussing e-government activities in terms of parties involved, e-government activities can also be examined in terms of types of interactions. One such approach is dividing e-government activities into managerial, consultative, and participatory interactions. Chadwick & May, note 4 above.
13. For example, a United States Department of Interior website allows users to apply for permission to acquire wild horses from the federal government and view photos of the available horses online. Available: http://www.adoptahorse.blm.gov.
14. Kakabadse, Kakabadse, & Kouzmin, note 5 above, p. 47.
15. Muir, A. & Oppenheim, C. (2002). National information policy developments worldwide I: Electronic government. Journal of Information Science, 28(3), 173-186. p. 175.
16. Larsen, E., & Rainie, L. (2002). The rise of the e-citizen: How people use government agencies' Web sites. Washington DC: Pew Internet & the American Life Project. An example of an e-government service offering a wide range of services to citizens is Washington DC's Web portal (http://www.dc.gov), which features over 100 interactive applications, more than 103,000 pages of information, and registration for services in up to ten languages.
17. See Sarkar, D. (2003). D.C. unveils third-generation portal. Federal Computer Week. Available: http://www.fcw.com.
18. Council for Excellence in Government. (2003). The new e-government equation: Ease, engagement, privacy and protection, Available: http://www.excelgov.org/displayContent.asp?Keyword=ppp041403.
19. Howard, M. (2001). E-government across the globe: How will "e" change government? Government Finance Review, 17(4), 6-9. p. 6.
20. Noveck, B. S. (2003). Designing deliberative democracy in cyberspace: The role of the cyber-lawyer. Boston University Journal of Science and Technology, 9, 1-91. p. 91.
21. For a complete description of this e-government project, see Seppalla, J. (2000). City of Tampere: Turning civic participation into reality via the Internet. Available: http://www.ici.ro/ici/revista/sic2000-4/index.html.
22. Willan, P. (2001, December 17). Site translation dents tech image of Italian feds. CNN.com. Available: http://www.cnn.com. In December 2001, these problematic translations resulted in some discomfort for the Italian Prime Minister who has pushed for technological innovation in his country. The site noted that one minister "had graduated in economy near the University of Mouthfuls of Milan" and asserted that another minister had studied "under the guide of prof. the Augusto Of the Walnut of which he will become assistant and friend and with which lasted intellectual society beyond vent' years will live." Another minister's activities included having been "National secretary of the Forehead of the Youth." These pages have been archived by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica at http://www.repubblica.it/online/politica/biografia/biografia.html.
23. Seifert, J.W. (2002). A primer on e-government: Sectors, stages, opportunities, and challenges of online governance. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service.
24. Reylea, H. C. (2002). E-gov: Introduction and overview. Government Information Quarterly 19(1), 9-35.
25. Jaeger, P. T., McClure, C. R., & Fraser, B. T. (2002). The structures of centralized governmental privacy protection: Approaches, models, and analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 19(3), p. 317-336.
26. Friedman, D. (2000). Privacy and technology. In A. F. Paul, F. D. Miller, and J. Paul (Eds.) The right to privacy (pp. 186-212). New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Jaeger, P. T., Bertot, J. C., & McClure, C. R. (2003). The impact of the USA Patriot Act on collection and analysis of personal information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Government Information Quarterly, 20(3), 295-314.
28. Bertot, J. C. (2003). The multiple dimensions of the digital divide: More than the technology "haves" and "have nots." Government Information Quarterly, 20(2), 185-191.
29. Bertot, J. C., McClure, C. R., & Owens, K. A. (1999). Universal service in a global networked environment: Selected issues and possible approaches. Government Information Quarterly, 16(4), 309-327.
30. European Union. (2001). E-inclusion: The Information Society's potential for social inclusion in Europe. Available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/ employment_social/soc-dial/info_soc/esdis/eincl_en.pdf
31. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). The e-government imperative: Main findings. Available: http://www.oecd.org/publications/Pol_brief. p. 4.
32. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and Internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 92.
33. Booz Allen Hamilton. (2002). International e-economy benchmarking: The world's most effective policies for the e-economy. Available: http://www.itis.gov.se/publikationer/eng/ukreport.pdf. p. 87.
34. Booz Allen Hamilton, note 29 above, p. 71.
35. Department of Commerce. (2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/index.html;
36. European Union, note 26 above.
37. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2000). Understanding the digital divide. Available: http://www.oecd.org.
38. Booz Allen Hamilton, note 29 above.
39. Department of Commerce, note 31 above
40. European Union, note 26 above.
41. Department of Justice. (2001). Information technology and people with disabilities: The current state of federal accessibility. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/report/content.htm. p. 1.
42. Nadler, D. M. & Furman, V. M. (2001). Access Board issues final standards for disabled access under Section 508 of Rehabilitation Act. Government Contract Litigation Reporter, 14(19), 14. p. 14.
43. West, D. M. (2001). WMRC global E-government survey. Available: http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt01.html
44. World Markets Research Centre. (2001). Global e-government survey. Providence, Rl: Author.
45. Jaeger, P. T. (in press). The social impact of an accessible e-democracy: Disability law in the development of the e-government. Journal of Disability Policy Studies.
46. The Economist, note 8.
47. Select Committee on Public Accounts, United Kingdom Parliament. (2002, Dec. 13). Sixty-sixth report: Progress in achieving government on the web. Available: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/ pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmpubacc/936/93603.htm
48. See also The Economist. (2003). No thanks, we prefer shopping. January 4, 2003, p. 23
49. Weardon, G. (2002, Aug. 28). British e-government: Not there yet. CNET News.com. Available: http://news.com.com/2100-1017-955736.html.
50. Aldrich, D., Bertot, J. C., & McClure, C. R. (Ed.). (2002). Exploring e-government: Considerations, issues, and strategies [Symposium issue]. Government Information Quarterly 19(4); Reylea, note 20 above.
51. Intergovernmental Advisory Board of the U.S. General Services Administration. (2003). High payoff in electronic government: Measuring the return on e-government investments. Available: http://www.gsa.gov/ Portal/content/pubs_content.jsp?contentOID=123881&contentType =1008&PMGZ=1
52. Borins, S. (2002). On the frontiers of electronic governance: A report on the United States and Canada. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68, 199-211. p. 205
53. See, for example, Accenture. (2003). Egovernment leadership: Engaging the customer. Available: http://www.accenture.com/xd/xd.asp? it=enweb&xd=industriesgovernmentgove_capa_egov.xml
54. Booz Allen Hamilton, note 29 above;
55. West, note 37 above
56. World Markets Research Centre, note 37 above.
57. Chadwick & May, note 4 above.
58. Reylea, note 20 above, p. 31.