Open data: European ambitions and local efforts. Experiences from Austria

Open Government: Opportunities and Challenges for Public Governance

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 137-154

  Egger Peitler, Isabell ^a   Polzer, Tobias ^a  

^a VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85014722352     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-9563-5_9     Document Type: Chapter

References (43)

1. Brunsson, N. (2002). The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions, actions in organizations. Oslo: Abstrackt/Liber.
2. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). Beyond NPM? some development features. In T. Christensen & P. Laegreid (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to new public management (pp. 391-403). Farnham: Ashgate.
3. Derlien, H.-U. (2003). German public administration: Weberian despite "Modernization". In K. K. Tummala (Ed.), Comparative bureaucratic systems (pp. 97-122). Lanham: Lexington Books.
4. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage revisited. Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
5. Donau-Universität Krems. (2012). Evaluation der Open Data Umsetzung der Stadt Wien. Krems:Donau-Universität Krems.
6. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead. Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 467-494.
7. European Commission. (1998). Public Sector Information: A Key Resource for Europe. Green Paper on Public Sector Information in the Information Society. Brussels: European Commission.
8. European Commission. (2001). eEurope 2002: Creating a EU framework for the exploitation of public sector information. Brussels: European Commission.
9. European Commission. (2009). Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of regions. Re-use of public sector information. Review of Directive 2003/98/EC. Brussels: European Commission.
10. European Commission. (2010a). Europe 2020. A Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels: European Commission.
11. European Commission. (2010b). Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. A digital agenda for Europe. Brussels: European Commission.
12. European Commission. (2010c). The European eGovernment action plan 2011-2015. Harnessing ICT to Promote Smart, Sustainable & Innovative Government. Brussels: European Commission.
13. European Commission. (2010d). Digitizing public services in Europe: Putting ambition into action. 9th Benchmark Measurement. Brussels: European Commission.
14. European Commission. (2011a). Open data. An engine for innovation, growth and transparent governance. Brussels: European Commission.
15. European Commission. (2011b). Impact assessment accompanying the document proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council amending European Parliament and Council directive 2003/98/ec on the re-use of public sector information. Brussels: European Commission.
16. European Commission. (2011c). Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending directive 2003/98/EC on re-use of public sector information. Brussels:European Commission.
17. European Commission. (2011d). Digital agenda: Turning government data into gold-IP/11/1524. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1524_en.htm. Accessed 12 Aug 2013.
18. European Commission. (2011e). Pricing of public sector information study. Summary report. Brussels: European Commission.
19. Fraunhofer IAIS. (2012). Fraunhofer-Studie Open Government Data für Kommunen im Kontext von INSPIRE und Linked Open Data. http://www.iais.fraunhofer.de/ogd4kommunen.html. Accessed 12 Aug 2013.
20. Hammerschmid, G., & Meyer, R. E. (2005). Public management dynamics in a federal Rechtsstaat system. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18, 629-640.
21. Hammerschmid, G., Meyer, R. E., & Demmke, C. (2007). Public administration modernization:Common reform trends or different paths and national understandings in the EU countries. In K. Schedler & I. Proeller (Eds.), Cultural aspects of public management reforms (pp. 145-170). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
22. Hechtner, E. (2011). Public Management-der Wiener Weg. Erfahrungen und Ausblicke. In H. Bauer, P. Biwald & E. Dearing (Eds.), Gutes Regieren. Konzepte-Realisierungen-Perspektiven (pp. 621-627). Vienna and Graz: Neuer Wissenschaftlicher.
23. Hood, C. (1991). A Public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3-19.
24. Janssen, K. (2011). The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: An overview of recent developments. Government Information Quarterly, 28, 446-456.
25. Krabina, B., Prorok, T., & Lutz, B. (2012). Open government implementation model. Implementation of open government. Vienna: KDZ, Centre for Public Administration Research and Office of the CIO, Chief Executive Office of the City of Vienna.
26. Kuhlmann, S. (2010). New public management for the "Classical continental European administration":Modernization at the local level in Germany, France, and Italy. Public Administration, 88, 1116-1130.
27. Lapsley, I. (2009). New public management: The cruellest invention of the human spirit? Abacus, 45, 1-21.
28. Lee, G., & Kwak, Y. H. (2011). An open government implementation model. Moving to increased public engagement. Washington, D.C: IBM Center for The Business of Government.
29. McKinsey. (2011). Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. http:// www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/dotcom/Insights%20and%20pubs/MGI/Research/Technology%20and%20Innovation/Big%20Data/MGI_big_data_full_report.ashx. Accessed 12 Aug 2013.
30. Meyer, R. E., Brandtner, C., Kornberger, M., & Höllerer, M. A. (2012). Urban strategies in lifestyle cities. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Identitäten und Strategien der Städte Wien, Sydney und Kopenhagen. Vienna: Vienna University of Economics and Business, Research Institute for Urban Management and Governance.
31. Meyer, R. E., Egger-Peitler, I., Hammerschmid, G., & Höllerer, M. A. (2013). Of bureaucrats and passionate public managers: institutional logics, executive identities, and public service motivation. Public Administration. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02105.x.
32. Meyer, R. E., & Hammerschmid, G. (2006). Public management reform: An identity project. Public Policy and Administration, 21, 99-115.
33. Meyer, R. E., & Hollerer, M. A. (2010). Meaning structures in a contested issue field: A topographic map of shareholder value in Austria. The Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1241-1262.
34. Official Journal of the European Union. (2011). Commission decision of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of commission documents (2011/833/EU). Brussels: European Union.
35. Official Journal of the European Union. (2013). Directive 2013/37/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 26 June 2013 amending directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information. Brussels: European Union.
36. Osborne, S. P. (2010). Introduction. The (new) public governance: A suitable case for treatment? In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance? emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance (pp. 1-16). London: Routledge.
37. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform. A comparative analysis. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
38. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform. A comparative analysis: New public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Sassen, S. (2005). The global city: Introducing a concept. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 11, 27-43.
40. Sunlight Foundation. (2011). Ten principles for opening up government information. http://assets. sunlightfoundation.com.s3.amazonaws.com/policy/papers/Ten%20Principles%20for%20Opening%20Up%20Government%20Data.pdf. Accessed 12 Aug 2013.
41. Theimer, E. (2004). Der Weg zum Bürger - Verwaltungsmodernisierung in Wien. Der Stand der Dinge. In Handbuch der Stadt Wien, ed Magistratsdirektion der Stadt Wien, 111-116. Vienna:City of Vienna.
42. United Nations. (2012). E-Government survey 2012. E-Government for the people. New York:United Nations.
43. Wutscher, W., & Hammerschmid, G. (2005). Status der Verwaltungsreform in Österreich. Österreich auf dem Weg zu einem vorsichtigen Modernisierer. Verwaltung & Management, 11, 116-122.