Abstract
To what extent the shift to Gov 2.0 technologies required by the latest EU strategies is changing public service delivery in practice? This chapter presents an overview of the consequences that Gov 2.0 technologies, embedded in European governments’ strategies, have on public service delivery at a practical stage. The research draws upon an in-depth study of the Gov 2.0 strategies of the European Union and the four major European economies, namely, Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom. We aim at assessing the extent of the shift from Gov 1.0 to Gov 2.0 technologies in the declared strategies of the analyzed countries, and ascertaining alignment among declared strategies and actual practices put in place to foster public sector democracy in service delivery.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Accenture. (2009). Web 2.0 and the next generation of public service. Retrieved from http://www.accenture.com.
Baumgarten, J., & Chui, M. (2009). E-government 2.0. McKinsey on Government, Summer (4). Retrieved from www.mckinseyquarterly.com/E-government_20_2408.
Chang, M., & Kannan, P. (2008). Leveraging Web 2.0 in government. IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved from www.businessofgovernment.ort/pdfs/ChangReport2.pdf.
Council and the European Commission, eEurope 2002: An Information Society For All, 14.6.2000, Brussels.
Drapeau, M., & Wells, L. (2009). Social software and national security: An initial net assessment. Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University. Retrieved from http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/Def_Tech/DTP61.
European Commission, A Digital Agenda for Europe, 26.8.2010, COM(2010) 245 final/2, Brussels.
European Commission, Directorate General, Information Society and Media (2010) ‘Digitising Public Services in Europe: Putting ambition into action–9th Benchmark Measurement’, December.
European Commission, eEurope 2005: An Information Society For All, 28.5.2002, COM(2002) 263 final, Brussels.
European Commission, i2010—An European information society for growth and employment, 1.6.2005, COM(2005) 229 final, Brussels.
European Commission, i2010 eGovernment Action Plan: Accelerating eGovernment in Europe for the Benefit of All, 25.04.2006, COM(2006) 173 final, Brussels.
European Commission, The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011–2015: Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable & innovative Government, 15 December 2010, COM(2010) 743, Brussels.
French eGovernment Factsheets, Ed. 10.0, 13.1, 14.0, from June 2008 to January 2011. Retrieved from www.epractice.eu/en/factsheets.
French eInclusion Factsheets, Ed. 1.0, October 2010. Retrieved from www.epractice.eu/en/factsheets.
German eGovernment Factsheets, Ed. 10.0, 13.0, 14.0, from July 2008 to January 2011. Retrieved from www.epractice.eu/en/factsheets.
German eInclusion Factsheets, Ed. 2.0, October 2010. Retrieved from www.epractice.eu/en/factsheets.
Italian eGovernment Factsheets, Ed. 9.1, 13.1, 14.0, from June 2008 to March 2011. Retrieved from www.epractice.eu/en/factsheets.
Italian eInclusion Factsheets, Ed. 2.0, April 2010. Retrieved from www.epractice.eu/en/factsheets.
McKinsey Global Survey Results. (2008). Building the Web 2.0 enterprise. Retrieved from http://McKinseyquarterly.com.
O’Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software? Communications & Strategies, 65(1), 17–36.
Orelli R.L., Padovani E., Scorsone E., (2010a), “Information Systems, Accountability, and Performance in the Public Sector: A Cross-Country Comparison”, in Garson D., Shea C. (eds.), Handbook of Public Information Systems, CRC Press/Routledge, pp. 453–78.
Orelli R.L., Padovani E., Scorsone E., (2010b), “E-Government, Accountability, and Performance: Best-In-Class Governments in European Union Countries”, in C. G. Reddick (ed.), Comparative E-Government: An Examination of E-Government Adoption across Countries, Springer, New York, pp. 561–86.
Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). (2003). OECD. The e-government imperative. Paris: OECD e-government studies.
Rogers, E. M. with Shoemaker, F. (1971). Communication of innovation: A cross-cultural approach (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
UK eGovernment Factsheets, Ed. 10.0, 13.0, 14.0, from October 2008 to July 2010 (retrieved from www.epractice.eu/en/factsheets).
UK eInclusion Factsheets, Ed. 2.0, July 2010 (retrieved from www.epractice.eu/en/factsheets).
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Wigand F. D. L., (2010), ‘Adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and US Governments’, in C. G. Reddick ed., Comparative E-Government: An Examination of E-Government Adoption across Countries, Springer, New York. 161–82.
Wigand, R. T. (2007). Web 2.0: Disruptive technology or is everything miscellaneous? In A. Huizing & E. J. de Vries (Eds.), Information management: Setting the scene (pp. 269–284). Oxford, England and Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Scientific Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gardini, S., Mattei, M.M., Orelli, R.L. (2012). Toward a Gov 2.0 Society for All: European Strategies for Public Service Delivery. In: Reddick, C., Aikins, S. (eds) Web 2.0 Technologies and Democratic Governance. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 1. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1448-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1448-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-1447-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-1448-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)