Prospects and limitations of the e-government initiative in korea

International Review of Public Administration

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 45-53

  Joon Song, Hee ^a  

^a Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012432202     PISSN: 12294659     EISSN: 2331795     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/12294659.2002.10805005     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Dawes, Sharon S. 1996. “Interagency Information Sharing: Expected Benefits, Manageable Risks.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15(3): 377-394.
2. Earl, Michael. 1996. Information Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Globerman, S. and Vining, A.R. 1988. A Framework for Evaluating the Government Contracting-out Decision With an Application to Information Technology, Public Administration Review 56(6): 577-586.
4. Heeks, Richard. 1999. Reinventing Government in the Information Age: International Practice in IT-Enabled Public Sector Reform. London. Routledge.
5. Hirschheim, Rudy, Klein, Heinz K. and Lyytinen, Kalle. 1996. Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations. Cambridge University Press.
6. Kim, Yong-Mi and Song, Hee Joon. 2001, “Determinants of Information Systems (IS) Outsourcing in City Government,” International Review of Public Administration 6(2): 103-113.
7. Lacity, M. C. and Hirschheim. 1993. “The Information Systems Outsourcing Bandwagon.” Sloan Man -agement Review Fall, 73-87.
8. Landsbergen, Jr., David and Wolken, Jr., George. 2001. “Realizing the Promise: Government Information Systems and the Fourth Generation of Information Technology.” Public Administration Review March/April, 61(2): 206-220.
9. Leigh, Andrew and Robert D. Atkinson. 2001. Breaking Down Bureaucratic Barriers: The Next Phase of Digital Government. Progressive Policy Institute Technology & New Economy Project. Accenture. 2002. eGovernment Leadership: Realizing the Vision.
10. NCA. 2000. National Informatization White Paper. Seoul, Korea.
11. NCA. 2002. E-Government in Korea. Seoul, Korea.
12. NCA. 2002. 2002KoreaInternet WhitePaper. Seoul, Korea.
13. OECD. 1995. Governance in Transition: Public ManagementReforms in OECD Countries. OECD.
14. OECD. 1998. Information Technology as an Instrument of Public Management Reform: A Study of Five OECD Countries. PUMA (98) 14.
15. OECD. 1999. ImpactoftheEmergingInformation Society on the Policy Development Process and Democratic Quality. PUMA OECD (98) 15.
16. OECD. 2001. The Hidden Threat to E-Government: Avoiding Large Government IT Failures. PUMA Policy Brief, No. 8.
17. OECD. 2002. E-Government:AnalysisFramework and Methodology. PUMA (2001) 16.
18. U.K. CITU. 2000. Information Age Government: Benchmarking Electronic Service Delivery.
19. U.K. Office of the e-Envoy. 2001. E-Government: Benchmarking Electronic Service Delivery.
20. UNDPEPA/ASPA. 2002. Benchmarking E-Government: A Global Perspective, Assessing the Progress of the UN Members.
21. U.S. OMB. 2002. E-Government Strategy Report: Implementing the President’s Management Agenda for E-Government.
22. U.S. Office of the President. 1999. Electronic Government. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies.