1. law, govt and politics
2. government

2012 EGPA Annual Conference
Permanent Study Group I: Information and Communications Technologies in Public Administration
Valeria Pignato
PhD in “Sociology of Innovation and Development”
Faculty of Human and Social Sciences
University of Enna “Kore” - Sicily (Italy)
e-mail: valeria.pignato@unikore.it
How to read development lines of e-government in the Public
Administrations?
Towards the construction of an interpretative model
Introduction
On 15th February 2010, Neelie Kroes, European Commissioner for “Digital Agenda”, during his
first official public event, spoke thus: «many of you may be asking what exactly does she mean
by the Digital Agenda? […] In the broader sense, we are referring to a cross-cutting and very
ambitious agenda for action that will keep Europe at the forefront of 21st century economic and
social developments» (Kroes 2010). This is one of the initiatives of “Europe 2020”, which sets
targets for growth in the European Union (EU) to be reached by 2020. The Digital Agenda aims
to exploit the full potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to foster
innovation, economic growth and progress. Among dimensions used by European Commission
which illustrate the key elements of the European information society, there is e-government.
Technological innovations, therefore, are placed at the center of this change process and when
they begin to influence the performance of public administration, we witness a radical change in
the management of public affairs: “the transition of the industrial society is an emerging society
of information” (Holmes 2001: 19). Today there are those who speak of “public communication
2.0” (Lovari and Masini 2008) and the birth of a context of “cyberdemocracy” (Lévy 2008), to
describe the innovation that involved the public administration both in its relationship with the
user - whether it be himself, the citizen or the business - and in internal relations within the
structure itself, all thanks to technology and the revolutionary process that wants to bet on the
active participation and new forms of listening and language.
Holmes (2001: 13) writes that e-gov, in other words “the technologies applied to the complex
sphere of the relations between citizens and institutions”, represents “a double challenge,
because it involves the government getting closer to technology, intended as a tool of efficiency,
savings and greater transparency and closeness to the needs of the citizen; but also a
contemporary closeness of the technologies to the government, meaning a definite awareness of
the necessities to not invade and regulate, but to go forth in an intelligent way in the role that
technology can and should play in society”. Miani expresses himself in similar terms (2005: 30),
appealing to some articles of the Italian Constitution - among all art. 2 and art. 21 - he states that
“e-government and e-democracy are terms of the same equation that sees the application of new
technologies in the public sphere. [...] The new technologies must be put at the service of
building a relationship between state and citizen that is focused on the citizen, as expected from
the spirit of the same Constitution”.
E-government is the focus of many recent reflections that allow you to identify the advances and
limitations for promoting administrative modernization, focusing on the actors, on the strategies
and on the tools - from electronic identity and from digital signature to the checklist for
accessibility and usability - that make it possible (Andersen 2005; Marasso 2005).
1
Technology is a fundamental tool able to meet the needs of various kinds, economical, judicial,
military, communicative, taxes, administrative, therefore, it is known as Diderot in the mideighteenth century defined it in his “Encyclopedia”, in other words, as a positive and rational
development in support of the “arts”. But not only. Innovation technology, for the man of our
times, is also linked to the needs of daily life (Iacono 2003).
A fundamental space, within this innovative and technological context, that embraces our lives,
is occupied, therefore, by the use of ICT (Holmes 2001), of which we may serve to improve the
interaction between different stakeholders and enrich the exchange of information.
1 - Research objective
The objective this paper want to reach is prepare a roadmap in order to consistently organize a
multidimensional phenomenon such as e-government.
This paper, therefore, describes the construction process of this map on e-gov. Starting from
some more recent studies on electronic government, it intends to represent a macro-synthesis that
breaks down the phenomenon in question in dimensions, indicators and variables.
This work of methodological-organizational nature constitutes the first step of a search on e-gov.
It represents, better, a propaedeutic phase, which will be followed by a second phase: the
rigorously interpretative phase. The map, in other words, becomes a tool in order to monitor the
development lines of e-gov, regulated in the Public Administrations of individual European
countries. The most common trends, slower developments, lacking processes would be recorded
within this map. The methodological effort described in this paper has the ultimate goal of
mapping the European experiences on e-gov, in order to fully understand contents, times and
places of these technological processes offered to citizen-users: through which tools edemocracy is declined today; which countries offer the best examples of e-gov and which, on the
contrary, are behind and technological backward; what is the time dimension through which it
realizes a “wikicrazia” experience.
Europe is investing so much on the digitization theme of public services. And this path of
research, here in the primary stage, aims to become a sort of “thermometer of e-gov 2.0” in all its
dimensions identified in the map; a compass which orients experts to explore the entire
phenomenon. Unbeaten or overflowing roads could emerge.
But two things must be clarified from now.
This work of synthesis is too ambitious and long to be exhausted and completed in about ten
pages. Time and more efforts are necessary. Therefore the map, drawn below, is in its primary
stage and all advice is most welcome.
Secondly, it is not an abstract theoretical framework, but analytical and flexible, adaptable to
empirical research and its future implications.
2 - Methodology
From a methodological point of view, two aspects must be distinguished with regard to the
construction of the map. It is a development model that emerges from below, through the
grounded theory (GT) methodology, but it needs to be systematically organized in a theoreticalinterpretative model provided by James Thompson work, “Organizations in Action” (1967).
The use of GT is due to the inductive nature of this methodology, which goes well with the
research operation of this paper. The GT offers the possibility to create a theoretical framework
through the analysis of data. It allows you to make the leap from available documents reading to
the creation of a theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967). The “theoretical sensitivity” (Glaser 1978) of
this approach is its strong point. It is particularly suitable to explore a wide phenomenon and its
underlying processes, which would otherwise remain hidden. In this work, which follows the
logic of discovery, the GT approach becomes essential. The mapping operation of the e-gov
starts without the presence of pre-existing theories. The only available evidence are the empirical
researches accomplished by scholars community until now. They, therefore, have to lead to the
2
explanation of the investigation object. GT, thus, allows you to query data and categories,
gradually identified, in order to formulate a response to the research question (Charmaz 2006).
Specifically, the initial question that guided this work was generally: how can we read
development lines of e-government in Public Administration?
Around it, an operation of “rational interpretation” of the most recent researches on egovernment issue has been accomplished.Therefore, the data on which this analysis was based
are international requirements, research experiences available online and papers presented in the
last three years (from 2009 to 2011) during EGPA annual conferences.
After being collected, the data were coded, based on salient themes and basic categories. At first,
the data were collected and, then, codified through salient themes and basic categories. This
intrepretative operation begin from a fundamental piece of work in the history of organized
thought: “Organizations in Action” by James Thompson (1967). The categorization process,
better, was driven by the organizational model developed by Thompson.
The researcher believed that organizations were places dominated by coexisting dishomogeneity,
where it was not possible to separate rational and natural dynamics (Gouldner 1970), which, on
the contrary, are found to act simultaneously according to the bounded rationality criteria
identified by Simon (1947). In organizations, “the principles of closure and openness, of
rationality and activity, of mechanistic and organic co-exist and feed off each other [...]. The
organizations, says Thompson, are like oxymorons lowered into reality, and the logic of what
governs them consists in the continuous reconciliation of opposing characters (Bonazzi 1989:
396)”. Thompson (1967), in fact, in his most famous work describes the organizational reality
outlining three levels: micro, meso and macro. The micro level is the innermost level of the
organized apparatuses, dominated by rational logic and characterized by the regular and
systematic function of the organizations that operate in a closed and routine context, which
allows to operate in stable situations free of uncertainty. The macro level is that which concerns
the relationship between organizations and the external environment, bearer of uncertain
circumstances and difficult to dominate or coordinate itself following the logic dictated by
limited rationality. The meso level is the intermediate level that must find a meeting point
between the first closed and rational level and the opened and natural level, allowing you to
adjust to the challenges received from the outside world and to introduce the necessary changes
to the solid core of the organizations.
In order to obtain a first code map these three levels, through which public action of the
administrative institutions articulates itself, have been used. Each of these has become a macrocategory that contain all the issues related to e-gov, that is:
- the infra-governmental performances and the means that form and characterize the policies put
into effect from the public administrations (micro level);
- new challenges directed at the e-government should the local and national governments
respond (livello macro);
- mediations or o le ways in which the actors, that operate in the public government offices,
respond to the challenges coming from the hyper-technological external environments and adapt
to them revolutionizing their business policies? (meso level).
Identified these macro-categories, the encoding operation becomes more and more analytical and
detailed, and dat analysis can start. It interprets the categories all together and aims to understand
how the codes relate among them. In this way, the map is woven, the theory begins to take
shape.
We emphasize, once again, that advice and future discussion are needed to remedy any
wrongdoing and inaccuracies that this methodology inevitably carries: according to Glaser and
Strass (1967) the GT methodology for the study of a phenomenon produces a theoretical work
on multiple levels. The theoretical model here presented set in a primary stage. It can be
considered a substantive theory (ibid.) that does not exhaust the interpretation of the
phenomenon of e-gov
3
3 - Towards a roadmap
The construction process of the roadmap on e-gov uses “Organizations in Action” by Thompson
(1967) and the three levels by him identified - micro, macro, meso - as a lens through which to
view e-government and divide it into its main themes. At each level, based on theoretical
literature and having as a reference the document prepared by the OECD in 2003 entitled “The egovernment imperative: main findings”1 correspond specific variables and factors which are
intended to describe e-gov. The final outcome is the construction of an explorative map about
digital government.
3.1 - The e-gov micro system
At the micro level (Thompson 1967), that of the assets, we want to monitor the intrinsic
initiative brought forth by the organizations, when they are dominated by rational logical and
characterized by a regular and systematic function, typical of a closed and routine environment.
Part of this perspective, then, are the internal activities and tools (table 1) used by the public
administrations in recent years in which the digital revolution has taken more speed.
Table 1- The e-gov micro level: Assets
Internal
activities
Tools
MICRO LEVEL
- equipment of ICT
- strategic plan and monitoring plan
- interconnection network among governments and
the back office
- formation and electronic training
- provision of online services
In reference to the internal activities, they regard the creation of an administrative system that
already internally has:
- technological and ICT resources, avoiding at the same time a sterile technological determinism;
- pre-determined objectives in a strategic plan, where one can realize a check and a programmed
in time monitoring;
- a network that connects both the different sectors in which a PA is divided both the institutions
distributed over distinct territories and institutional levels (local, regional, national): in this
direction, an important role is played by the presence of a robust and organized back-office;
- a continuous process of formation and electronic training of the staff (Miani 2005: 50-54).
Regarding the tools used, as Holmes writes (2001: 22-23), the operational strategies of e-gov
consist in “putting everything (information and services) online and ensure easy and universal
access to the information and to the services on-line”. And again, looking at the Italian
legislation 2000 regarding e-gov, and also the plan of action of legislature 2002, in view of a
public administration increasingly more digitalized, they have already included among their
priorities the technological of services for citizens. Consider, for example, electronic
identification cards, digital signatures, to e-procurement, to online payments (Miani, 2005: 5354), to e-health and to databases.
It is through these elements, discussed in this first part of monitoring, that we want to outline egov.
3.1.1 - Equipment of ICT
The first point of the analysis concerning the allocation of ICT, represents the necessary
condition in order to start speaking about electronic e-gov. Belisario (2009: 17) writes, “it
constitutes anyway a generally accepted principle that the use of the computer and of
information technology and of communication are one of the main solutions to emerge from the
1
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/60/2502539.pdf
4
great crisis of results and credibility that the Italian administration faces”. E-government is
explained by all the researchers (Andersen 2005; Belisario 2009; Borgonovi 2005; Faccioli
2000; Fici 2002; Grandi 2001; Iacono 2003; Lévy 2008) as using ICT by the public
organizations. The provision of ICT, therefore, represents a key element for the success of digital
government (OECD 2003)2. “Open government”, in fact, must inevitably hinge on ICT
provisions. In this direction, it might be useful to know: the technological areas, investments in
Research & Development, expenses for ICT, the adoption and use of ICT. In the latter two cases,
it is necessary to make a semantic clarification: the concept of “adoption” indicates possession,
by an organization, of a specific ICT at a given time; the concept of “use” implicates that the
institution makes it its own, in line with the potentials offered by technology itself. For example,
owning a website qualifies an organization as an “adopter”, while its frequent updating or
interactive use of the web site with the users, defines it as “user”. The need for this distinction
comes from numerous empirical evidence that shows how many businesses in the district are
involved in innovative projects without then being able to take advantage of the potentials
associated with ICT. In other words, use of ICT must be strategic, supporting processes such as
R&D, purchases, production and logistics, sales and marketing, strategic planning, internal
communications, corporate communications, customer satisfaction.
At the same time, one must pay careful attention because digitalization, of legislation and
national origin and not only - makes us think of the many UE laws on e-gov - that must not be
misinterpreted and handled by the administrations. E-government must not be reduced to a group
of mere technical and automated procedures; it involves “the use of information and
communication technologies (ICT), and particularly the Internet, as a tool to achieve better
government” (OECD 2003)3. Here it is explained that in the end e-gov is not the technological
progress in itself, but the efficiency of governmental practices and the users satisfaction that one
accomplished through technology. The latter, therefore, is not an end, but a means of the
electronic government.
3.1.2 - The strategic plan and the monitoring plan
The second part of the analysis concerns elaborating a strategic plan by the Governments that
has evaluates the objectives to be pursued (OECD 2003)4.
The level of performance in Italy, for example, is what is written in the decree law 150/2009. In
fact, art. 10 of Chapter II on the “management reform” states that the public administrations
must develop a “Plan for performance and a Report on performance”, two pragmatic documents
which respectively identify, “the strategic and operational objectives” and “in reference to the
previous year, the organizational and individual results achieved in relation to individual
objectives planned and resources, with the count of possible deviations, and the budget
achieved”. We are speaking of an element that fixes its responsibility on the administrative
offices and it binds them to a need for transparent monitoring.
2
ICT spending, where appropriate, needs to be treated as an investment, with consideration of projected streams of
returns. E-government requires a level of certainty of future funding to provide sustainability to projects, avoid
wasting resources and gain maximum benefit from given funding levels. A central funding programme could help
foster innovation and allow for key demonstration projects” (OECD, 2003, The e-government imperative: main
findings, p. 3).
3
OECD, 2003, The e-government imperative: main findings, pg. 1.
4
“E-government implementers should articulate the impacts and benefits of a programme, in order to justify
continued political and public support. Assessment should be realistic and done within time frames that are useful to
decision-makers. Priority should be given to the assessment of demand, benefits and service quality. Assessing
demand remains a major weakness in OECD countries’ e-government programmes. As services become more
complex and expensive, it is increasingly important to assess this demand and incorporate user feedback” (OECD,
2003, The e-government imperative: main findings, pg. 6).
5
3.1.3 - The interconnection network among governments and the back office
The connection of different information systems through computer networks, interoperability
and coordination between the different government departments is another fundamental element
for the realization of e-gov. The integration and interconnection of public networks, based on
practice and infrastructure of a well operating back office, represents an important organizational
element not only for the administrative offices and their internal management efficiency, but also
for users to whom you guarantee the right to access administrative documents (OECD 2003)5.
The management of information and data, therefore, is at the base of the process of
interconnection among the governments. In Italy, for example, an ICT infrastructure was
established in 2005 to ensure this coordination: it is known as the Public Connectivity System
(SPC). It, in turn, is part of the International Network of Public Administration (RIPA)6.
This process of interconnection and interoperability of governments represents a possible
solution that can help state organizations to connect among themselves, being able to easily
collection, research and data transmission. Data management by state authorities appears to be
an internal challenge for the future of public administration. Through the development of the
integration process between the central, regional and local authorities, through the creation of a
“one-stop shop”, this is how a quality jump in the organization is made: from closed and self
operated offices, control and processing if information and services given to the open
administrative offices that are geared towards accessing the information. The inter and intra
organizational coordination represents a great test for the current structure of e-gov. Several
factors come into play. These include centralized or decentralized structure of state organizations
and interaction between all governments. This is not a simple passage of data transfer from one
unity to another. It’s not enough. It is important to create a network of common and uniform data
in which each user gives his own data report. The benefits retrieved would be: the speed and
efficiency of public services towards citizens and businesses, the simplification of work
processes, the effective use of information technology, the streamlining data management. On
the other hand, however, some obstacles may arise for the success of sharing data, like, as to
quote the most important: laws on privacy, lack of trust, lack of resources, incompatible
hardware.
3.1.4 - Formation and electronic training
In addition, e-gov requires, that the public administrators at all levels, from leadership to
employees, are skilled and experienced users of information and communication technologies.
The skills required for e-government are not simply technical but also managerial. These require
computer literacy and continuous updating (OECD 2003)7. It should be noted from the start, that
this process of acquiring technological skills is for employees as well as the public
administration. The digital services should be well mastered by those who offer them as well as
5
“Seamless government services require different agencies to work closely together. Their collaboration cannot be
merely technical, but must involve a deeper engagement in terms of shared customers. As services become more
complex (and expensive), collaboration will also be driven by the need for efficiency. E-government co-ordinators
should facilitate planning for seamless services, fund catalytic projects, clarify data-sharing arrangements and
address accountability issues. When current ways of working make it difficult for agencies to collaborate, barriers to
co-operation need to be overcome.Yet co-ordinators must resolve a central dilemma – how can systems and
information be shared with agencies still maintaining responsibility for results and operations? Approaches adopted
to deal with this issue include peer reviews, a whole of government approach, standards and frameworks,
interoperability, shared infrastructure and evaluated pilot projects” (OECD, 2003, The e-government imperative:
main findings, pg. 5).
6
www.digitpa.gov.it
7
“E-government increases the need for ICT-related skills in government. The skills required for e-government are
not simply technical, as general managers also need broad skills to engage in the ICT decision-making process.
Necessary skills include a basic technical understanding (IT literacy), but also an understanding of information
management and the information society. […] Furthermore, traditional management skills need to be updated and
strengthened to deal with the impact of e-government” (OECD, 2003, The e-government imperative: main findings,
pg. 5).
6
those who ask for them. In this first-level of micro-analysis, however, we need to pay most
attention to the actors who organized all this. There is a need for “smart” human capital.
3.1.5 - The provision of online services
As mentioned up until this time, the e-government represents a model of government potentially
better thanks to the role played by ICTs. The technologies contribute, in fact, to the transfer from
the bureaucratic-weberian model to the business model, marked by the values of effectiveness,
efficiency and economy. The transformation of the citizen from inactive to an active and
satisfied user, is the element necessary for the fulfillment of this change. The tool that makes this
strategic change possible is represented by the provision of services, which today will improve
thanks to info-telematic technologies. These allow, on one hand, to reduce costs to the
administration, to rationalize resources, especially human resources, and to increase efficiency;
on the other hand, it makes it possible for the citizens to enjoy higher quality services, to interact
with the administrative offices in an easier way and to improve the quality of their lives. Public
services may relate to not only “simple services, which are informative services”, but also
“complex services” (Belisario 2009: 138). When we refer to “simple services” we are referring
to: “tourist information, consulting catalogs of a library, consulting calendars, sports events or
cultural events, information on the organization and functioning of the offices, publications and
notices of competitions” (op. cit.). When we refer to “complex services” we are referring to “a
particular administrative practice” as, to cite some: “enrollments in schools and universities,
reservations and purchasing of tickets, consulting databases, making payments, forwarding
requests/petitions” (op. cit.). The OECD (2003), in this regard says: “e-gov improves services”8.
One must look at the services offered to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of egovernment in both countries. In the first case we must refer to the structural dimension of the
government; in the second case, to the procedural dimension. Thus, considering the first
terminology we can talk about great changes and transformations. According to some scholars,
in fact, the digitalization process has permitted to carry out governmental applications in new
and easier ways than before; think, for example, on the information on the laws and regulations
that are now available on-line or to the possibility that some forms can be downloaded from the
Internet. Examining the second term, “complex services”, from a governments point of view, it
seems that nothing has changed. E-government finds all in agreement when it states that it has
resulted as an improvement at the application level, however, e-gov did not alter the essence of
the governmental process. For scholars governance always remained the same: it has not
suffered automation or dehumanization. For this reason, the provision of online services should
be traced back to governmental activities, and not governance: such offer of services on line has
changed the structural organization of the governments; it has not changed however, the existing
processes.
Even though the results of the opening of state offices are not always positive, due to the fact the
citizens remain unwilling and demotivated, the interest in the computerized information in favor
of the citizens finds great interest in the studies on the recent transformations of the PA.
The instrument “par excellence” on which you can draw attention in order to test and give
feedback in regards to the services offered on line is the “website”. This represents a
fundamental service to offer to the citizen. It is “a true and real virtual window that users can
turn to, electronically, to obtain information of a general nature […] or to be updated on the
status of ones own files, but also to take advantage of the services that individual administrations
makes available on-line” (Belisarius 2009: 69).
8
“Adopting a customer focus is a core element of member countries’ reform agendas. Successful services are built
on an understanding of user requirements, and online services are no different. A customer focus means that a user
should not have to understand complex government structures and relationships. The Internet can help achieve this
goal, by enabling governments to appear as a unified organisation and provide seamless online service. As with all
services, e-government services must be developed in the light of demand and user value, as part of an overall
service channel strategy” (OECD, 2003, The e-government imperative: main findings, pg. 2).
7
3.2 - The e-gov macro system
With regard to the macro level (Thompson 1967), related to challenges, here we want to
investigate the relationship between organizations, that go into the network, and the external
environment, bearer of conflicting and uncertain circumstances to dominate or to coordinate,
following the logic dictated by the limited rationality (Simon 1947). Once the digital government
has an internal structure, that contemplates, as read in paragraph 3.1, the need to adopt
technologies and a plan of strategic goals to which the action is directed, to create a network of
intra and inter governmental coordination, and a competent and prepared environment and
guarantee range of services to offer to the user, now, we want to take it one step further and
understand what the digital government need to face, specifically when it comes in contact with
the external environment. Internal activities and tools provided on the basis of a rigorous action
scheme, now, must deal with the uncertainties that inevitably occur to the organizations when
these finally relate to the outside, fully realizing their mission, as did the paradigms of New
Public Management (NPM) and above all of Public Governance (PG) had already foreseen by
the end of the ‘90’s. Closed and rational organizations do not exist, as the classic weberian
schools wanted. You cannot ignore the role that the external environment has on them and the
impulses of individuals. This generates unexpected consequences, limits and uncertainties, in
which we cannot help but to treat, as Barnard (1938) and the school of Human Relations had
believed. The formal elements, those that we read about in the previous paragraph, have been
described and included in the micro-level, they are relentlessly interwoven with informal
elements (Barnard 1938). Thus, the organizations cannot reach full rationality, because critical
situations and tension are generated and arise frequently in front of them. They can hope to
create a rational and satisfying, but not optimal, atmosphere (Simon 1947).
Wanting to put order, the major challenges that the government finds itself facing, when it
relates with the stakeholders of the off and on-line world are: transparency, privacy and trust;
responsibility; the digital divide, accessibility and e-participation; hackering (table 2).
Table 2 - The e-gov macro level: Challenges
MACRO LEVEL
- transparency, privacy and trust
- responsibility
- digital divides, accessibility, e-participation
- (C)hacker and digital squatter
3.2.1 - A fundamental question
The relation between Government and citizens insists on facing in a prior instance the
fundamental question on the State-society relationship. The beneficial power, or not, of the State
was a source of a debate never closed which has ancient origins, since the time of the oratory and
of classical and philosophical speculation.
Plato in the Republic builds already his political theory according to which the State must aim to
satisfy the natural needs of man and of the community; things get worse, however, with the
increase of the population and, therefore, of the needs, when the management of public affairs
collides with wars and internal instability. According to the philosopher, these should be dealt
with in the right way: the State interest has to coincide with the interest of the individual. This
task can be only carry out by the philosopher, in other words, of “he who knows”. The State,
then, for the founder of the Academy, is of ethical type. This link between ethics and politics is
also found in Aristotle, who asserted that human nature is that of being a “political animal”,
destined to live in the polis.
Much later, this ethical and divine dimension of the State is replaced by a more scientific one.
The State is no longer a natural entity, but an artificial body, built by the will of men. According
to Hobbes, who studies the State through a deductive method, for example, man has to choose
8
whether he wants to live in a “state of nature”, dominated by quality criteria and conditions of
freedom, on one side, or, in a state dominated by deregulation and selfish impulses, which push
towards the necessity to find in the State authority - interpreted by the scholar as sovereign and
tyrannical - an occasion to control his own instincts, on the other side. The idea of reciprocity
between State and civil society is still far away, when Rousseau theorizes the need of “social
contract”, the only possibility for the individual to have an efficient organization, which places
limits to an authoritative and repressive state apparatus and allows happy occasions, that,
contradicting Hobbes, only the state of nature could have guaranteed. With Locke, we approach,
however, the idea of society as a place where we can make possible human relationships and
bonds of reciprocity between individuals, before becoming members of the State. It is seen, in
fact, as the guarantor of this society order already constituted and self-regulated (D’Addio 1992).
The debate on the centrality of the state offices continues with Hegel and Marx, who develope
opposing thoughts (Abbagnano and Fornero 1999). The idealist philosopher identifies the State
with a “divine” body, because it is a holder of supreme social morality in pursuit of the common
good and guarantor of individual rights, in the absolutist sense, because State sovereignty derives
from the State itself, which has in itself its own reason for being. This means that the Hegelian
State is not based on individuals but on the idea of the State, in other words, on the concept of
universal good. Against the liberal thinking of Locke and Kant and the democratic idea of
Rousseuian origin, it is the State that “builds” the individuals and it is in no way tyrannical, but
an ethical and constitutional State, founded on the respect of its laws and on the defence of
freedom, thanks to its bureaucracy which aims to find the right combination between individual
interest and collective interest. The philosopher of historical materialism reverses the Hegelian
thought. Marx accuses Hegel of “mystical logic”, because he has inverted the relationship with
reality ascending from the concrete to the abstract. Such logical mysticism makes Hegel a
“conservative” (Bobbio 1981: 189) politically, because he is leaded to always legitimize reality,
ending up with a generalized and uncritical approval of the existing institutions, that could not be
modified because they are intrinsically rational and positive. For the author of “The Capital”, in
fact, there is no mediator and peacemaker function that can be recognized in the bureaucratic
system which, however, thinks of the interests of only one part, to the point that it wants its own
demolition in view of the constitution of a socialist State (Gallino 2006).
Contrary to Marx’s theory, Jürgen Habermas, great philosopher and our coeval sociologist,
stresses in his most important work, the Theorie des kommunikative Handelns (1981), the
primary role of the public sphere, whose main characters, that is individuals of civil society, need
to identify and express issues of general interest that, following bidirectional logic, reach the
administrative levels. Comparing himself with the weberian theory, in fact, he stresses the need
for a “substantial rationality” to which opposes a technological “instrumental rationality”.
Starting from this reflection, he arouses a criticism to those producing facilities of alienation and
forms of coercive powers and defines a global theory of action and of social systems
concentrating on “communicative action”, unlimited and not authoritarian, which may be the
solution to the problematic aspects of the current society. The act of communication, post to
protect reciprocate understanding in human interaction and based on sharing values, norms and
culture that free it from the logic of technique, becomes for the philosopher the antidote against
any form of domination exercised by the economy, by politics, by bureaucracy and by
technology with instrumental purposes. The intent of Habermas’ speech was not intended to go
against the power constituted at any cost, rather to contrast the excessive bureaucratization of
this same power that hinders the critical freedom of the individual and of “public opinion”.
Following the enlightenment approach, the sociologist aims to emphasize that the strength of the
public sphere is in the drawing of its own legitimacy from the rational society that goes and
detaches itself from state authority. And it is this language that allows to criticize the ideology.
Habermas admits that, recalling himself to Adorno’s critical theory, the risk today lies in
minimizing this autonomy of public opinion, which ends up becoming subject to intrigue and
contradictions of this era: the citizen, in fact, is in danger of being constantly transformed into
9
“company client” and being overwhelmed by economic and mass-media logic, that from time to
time they maneuver him. To jeopardize the mutual understanding among the individuals, much
desired by the scholar is, therefore, the collapse of the economical and political-administrative
sphere - the so-called “social systems” - in different areas of man’s social sphere - the so-called
“worlds of life” -. A possible solution can be found in the “principle of universalization” of the
norm and in the “democratic principle” of rights (Abbagnano and Fornero 1999). This bitter note
must not, however, make us forget that Habermas’ work formulates, in a surprising way, notions
of transparency, access and advertising on which the current legislation is based, and it does so
still, in the speech on the duties of public administration towards citizens. The habermasian idea
of a public sphere, rationally active and democratic, can be realized through the use of conscious
and correct communicative skills.
At this point, we must try to understand if the State offices of the XXI century and the ICT can
really encourage a progress of organizations in a democratic sense, what opportunities can be
provided by means of virtual environments to the development of alternative forms of sociability
and identity, what occasions are granted to the “cives” in their relationship with the State
authority. To do this, however, first we must identify the main challenges that arise between
Governments and citizens.
3.2.2 - Transparency, privacy and trust
The key element upon which the administrative performance is based is the information. The
public offices deal with an enormous amount of data - that is, documents, records, forms, files,
etc. - in their daily work, off e on-line. About this data or information, the national and
international judiciary expressed themselves by enacting some fundamental rights. To be more
clear, referring to the Italian legislation, some of these rights are: availability of public data, even
in a digital form, the right to access, the right to confidentiality of personal data or privacy,
usability data. The ultimate goal of these rights and principles on the data is of greater
responsibility by the Governments and the fulfillment of transparency in administrative action
and consequently the possibility for these institutions to obtain the confidence of the
stakeholders. Use of technology, then, must help to protect and make real and effective such
actions. To summarize, data accessibility, privacy, transparency and trust are the major
challenges, closely interrelated with each other, that even more today, e-gov is facing.
If the initial condition was, therefore, the guarantee of Government transparency, the outcome
could be double. On one hand, when people are put in a position to closely view public actions,
this could lead to demystify and desecrate the government. To such political cynicism inevitable
corresponds a lowering of public confidence by part of the citizens. On the other hand,
transparency is known as the panacea for the realization of a good government that will inspire
confidence instead.
Moreover, a policy focused on transparency can clash with problems such as: compliance and
power issues, inability to interpret information, threats to privacy, security risks in delicate
operations which have to do with personal data and identity, such as payments, transactions and
authentification of documents. There are, however, factors on which Governments can invest to
increase the levels of confidence; for example: clear writing of politics on privacy, targeted use
of Internet cookies, access to hardware and software is checked with the use of passwords, the
adoption of special procedures for transferring data such as cryptography.
3.2.3 - Responsibility
Each Public Administration needs to move and work cultivating a strong sense of responsibility,
according to which it must fulfill all the duties conferred upon it: in view of all internal activities
and challenges with the environment discussed so far, all the governmental authorities must
motivate and account for its own conduct (OECD 2003)9.
9
“E-government can open up government and policy processes and enhance accountability. Accountability
arrangements should ensure that it is clear who is responsible for shared projects and initiatives. Similarly, the use of
10
The study conducted by Orelli et al. (2009) provides a significant bibliographical reconnaissance
in the field of responsibility in which, among other things, one can define the main elements on
which scholars have aimed to define responsibility. The administrations holds a responsible
conduct if they clarify the way in which resources are used (Roberts and Scapens 1985; op. cit.
in Orelli et al. 2009); if one measures its own performance and standards (Hood 1991; op. cit. in
Orelli et al. 2009); if one define the principles of accounting and reporting (Patton 1992; op. cit.
in Orelli et al. 2009); if one can find an ethical dimension (Pallot 1992; op. cit. in Orelli et al.
2009); if one gives space to the needs of contradictions (Hoek et al. 2005; op. cit. in Orelli et al.
2009).
3.2.4 - Digital divide, accessibility, e-participation
The mission on which Governments build their own performance regards, as was said many
times, increasing customer satisfaction, therefore, the improvement of democratic and
participatory processes. However, the introduction of technology and Internet could contribute in
producing forms of discrimination among users who are able to use the digital means available
to them and many others, on the contrary, do not have this ability. This phenomenon is known as
“digital divide” (Norris 2001). The European Union, in pursuit of the Lisbon strategy, very
sensitive to this issue, has planned a series of politics and activities aimed at seizing the new
opportunities offered by knowledge society and aimed at reducing the risks of exclusion that this
society may involve. To ensure integration to knowledge society means to ensure that
disadvantaged people, because of the geographical position, of level of education and
willingness, are not left out of technological development, avoiding the emergence of new forms
of exclusion linked to lack of computer preparation or of Internet access. Already in 2002 the
European Commission, with the Action Plan eEurope, has provided specific measures for
integration to the so-called knowledge-based society, as to: extend the Internet connections in
Europe, open all communications networks to the adversary, stimulate the use of the Internet by
putting the emphasis on training and consumer protection, expansion of the wide-band
infrastructures secure and widely available. In the 2003 OECD document on the imperatives of
e-government, the digital divide is defined as an obstacle for the full realization of electronic
government and a slope on which national and international policies must work to improve the
accessibility of ICT and the Internet10.
3.2.5 - (C)hacker and digital squatter
Internet possesses strategic and innovative resources that could offer an important contribution to
democracies: speed, which makes sure that the communication offered on the net reaches in realtime almost all individuals involved; the absence of borders, which allows to develop global
communication flows; interactivity, which gives the opportunity to develop a direct relation topdown and bottom-up; cheapness, in terms of time, effort and money; the lack of intermediation.
It often happens, however, that the network potential is are abused to implement criminal actions
aiming at demonstrations and not instrumental, for example: interference not agreed on in a
system, production of virus, decipherments not consented of bank transactions via the web or
messages sent via email, netstrike, homography, etc. These practices of dispute and protest are
typical of the hacker world, or better, according to the clarification of Fici (2004), “cracker”:
private sector partnerships must not reduce accountability” (OECD, 2003, The e-government imperative: main
findings, pg. 3).
10
“The digital divide impedes the benefits of e-government: Online access has advantages that are impossible to
replicate offline, such as the drawing together of information, independent search capacity and interactive policy
consultation. Within OECD countries, however, there are significant differences in access to ICTs and the Internet.
Generally the most disadvantaged have the lowest levels of access, yet they also often have high levels of interaction
with government. If these individuals cannot access e-government services, they will miss out on the benefits of egovernment. Improved online access will increase the pool of potential users of e-government services. This plainly
justifies that policies to reduce the digital divide be pursued” (OECD, 2003, The e-government imperative: main
findings, pg. 4).
11
within the last year, common people took the unhealthy habit of using the term hacker to indicate
he who performs computer crimes […]. Besides being a linguistical error (one uses a basically
positive term to indicate something of the opposite), it is a very serious form of defamation
towards all the true hacker who, as mentioned, give too much free time to common users […]”
(op. cit.: 35-34). The hackers, in fact, are individuals who often operate in anonymity and
through an individualist logic and use their info-telematic skills to promote cooperative actions
of activism and social disapproval for the protection and promotion of values and civil rights or
digital.
From pirates to paladins or from anarchists to rebels of the web, this dual aspect represents,
however, a great challenge for constituting an “open government”.
3.3 - The e-gov meso system
Continuing to map the empirical characterization of e-gov, we finally find out in what way and
by what means internal activities (Assets) and dares (Challenges) launched to e-governments can
find agreements (Mediations). According to Thompson (1967), who bases his own idea on
Barnard e Simon’ thought, the organizations must inevitably stipulate a contract between them
and the external environment with individuals and their habits. Above all Thompson inherets
Gouldner’s theory (1970), who already stated that there are multiple alternative of bureaucratic
models, for example, the “rational” model, closed, disciplined in a prescriptive way and with a
rational strumentalization, and the “natural” model, organic and interactive. The incompatibility
of these two models is resolved by Thompson, who, by following Simon’s hypothesis, theorizes
the need for their merger. The rational model is entered in the natural model. Thompson states
the organizations are like oximorons soaked into reality, and the logic that governs them consists
precisely in continuous conciliation of antithetical character (Bonazzi 1989: 396). The meso
level and mediations put into the field are the object of interest in this part of the work. This, on
one side, straighten the irregularities that come from external sources and, on the other side, it
presses on the technical core in order to receive modifications to changing external conditions
(op. cit.: 397).
Carefully analyzing what is happening in the relationship between e-govenment and web 2.0, the
operation of mediation more effective today may be grasped in the potentials of social media
(table 3), that is, the tools that pave the way towards a participatory e-government according to a
bottom-up logic.
Table 3 - The e-gov meso level: Mediations
MESO LEVEL
Social media
3.3.1 - Social media and public administrations
For social media we intend the new communication technologies at low cost and able to be
reached by everyone as they are not subject to state or private property and do not require skills
and competencies for their usability, in respects to the traditional media or mass media as
newspapers, radio and television (Barney 2004; Castells 2006). Examples of social media are:
forums, blogs, video blog, music-sharing, newsgroups, etc. Among their main recent
achievements there are: Wikipedia, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube.
Around these tools and the application principles of web 2.0, it is necessary to ask whether the
relationship between citizens and public administration might really suffer resolutive changes
and innovation. We can distinguish, in this regard, two possible scenarios: the first recognizes
the potentials of the net and of social media with great conviction and optimism, given that these
tools can finally: activate a major form of participation from below and two-way
communication; become the preferred center to activate mediation strategies and can resolve the
conflicts and uncertainties identified in the previous paragraph; regain the asymmetry in the
communication between Government and citizens, improve the public's trust and mediate
12
uncertainties of transparency, responsibility, accessibility and digital participation. The second
scenario, on the contrary, slows down the enthusiasms, admitting typical criticalities of the socalled principle of “learning by doing”.
Conclusion
The final result of this paper is a scheme that means to sum up and to put in order a multifaceted
phenomenon: the e-government. It comes out by the concept to order and systematize researches
on the digital government theme, which often eludes a precise definition. So, it proceeds at
describing its inter-organizational, extra-organizational and intra-organizational policies.
Now, next effort will be to use this methodological tools as a thermometer in order to monitor
the development lines of e-gov, put in place by the Public Administrations of individual
European countries. Contents, times and places of these digitization processes claim to be
measured. It’s necessary to take stock of the situation.
This paper tries to draft or, better, to hint at a roadmap on e-government policies. In this way, it
set itself as a starting point for e-gov scholars community. The work is long and in progress.
References
Abbagnano, N. e Fornero, G. (1999), Protagonisti e testi della filosofia, Paravia, Milano.
Andersen, K. V. (2005), E-government in azione. Tecnologie e cambiamento organizzativo nel
settore pubblico, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Barnard, C. (1938), The Functions of the Executive, Harvard College, Mass.
Barney, D. (2004), The Network Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Belisario, E. (2009), La nuova pubblica amministrazione digitale. Guida al codice
dell'amministrazione digitale dopo la Legge n. 69/2009, Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di
Romagna (RN).
Bobbio, N. (1981), Studi hegeliani, Einaudi, Torino.
Bonazzi, G. (1989), Storia del pensiero organizzativo, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Borgonovi, E. (2005), Principi e sistemi aziendali per le amministrazioni pubbliche, Egea,
Milano.
Castells, M. (2006), The rise of Network Society. The Information Age: Economy, Society and
Culture, Blackwell Publisher, Oxford-Malden.
Charmaz K, (2006), Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative
analysis, London: Sage.
D’Addio, M. (1992), Storia delle dottrine politiche, Ecig, Genova.
Faccioli, F. (2000), Comunicazione pubblica e cultura del servizio. Modelli, attori, percorsi,
Carocci, Roma.
Fici, A. (2004), Mondo hacker e logica dell’azione collettiva, FrancoAngeli, Milano.
Fici, A. (2002), Internet e le nuove forme della partecipazione politica, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Gallino, L. (2006), Il dizionario di sociologia, Utet, Torino.
Glaser B. (1978)¸ Theoretical sensitivity, Mill Valley Ca., Sociology Press.
Glaser B.G. & Strauss A. L. (1967), The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research, Chicago - NewYork, Aldine de Gruyter.
13
Gouldner, A.W. (1970), Modelli di burocrazia aziendale, Etas, Milano.
Grandi, R. (2001), La comunicazione pubblica. Teorie, casi, profili normativi, Carocci, Roma.
Habermas, J. (1981), Theorie des kommunikative Handelns, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.
Holmes, D. (2001), E-gov: e-business strategies for government, Nicholas Brealey Publishing,
London.
Iacono, G. (2003), Verso l'ecologia digitale delle organizzazioni. Come governare il
cambiamento: la visione di medio termine e l'equilibrio sostenibile, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Kroes N., The Digital Agenda: challenges for Europe and the mobile industry, Mobile World
Congress,
Barcelona,
15th
February
2010
(http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/28&format=HTML&age
d=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en).
Lévy, P. (2008), Cyberdemocrazia. Saggio di filosofia politica, Mimesis, Sesto San Giovanni
(MI).
Lovari, A. e Masini, M. (ed.) (2008), Comunicazione pubblica 2.0. Tecnologie, linguaggi,
formati, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Marasso, L. (2005), Manuale dell'e-government. Attori, strategie e strumenti di innovazione
nella pubblica amministrazione locale, Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di Romagna (RN).
Miani, M. (2005), Comunicazione pubblica e nuove tecnologie. La pubblica amministrazione
dall’e-democracy all’e-government, il Mulino, Bologna.
Norris P. (2001), Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information, Poverty and the Internet
worldwide, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Orelli, R. L., Padovani, E., Scorsone, E. (2009), E-Government, Accountability, and
Performance: A Comparative Analysis Between European Governments, EGPA 2009
Conference, Malta September 2-4, 2009.
OECD,
(2003),
The
e-government
(www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/60/2502539.pdf).
imperative:
main
findings
Simon, H. (1947), Administrative behavior, MacMillan, New York.
Thompson, J. (1967), Organizations in Action, McGraw Hill, New York.
14
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)