Toward a Gov 2.0 Society for All: European Strategies for Public Service Delivery

  • Silvia Gardini
  • Marco Maria Mattei
  • Rebecca Levy OrelliEmail author
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 1)


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.


Public Service Social Networking Site Public Administration Strategic Priority Public Service Delivery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Accenture. (2009). Web 2.0 and the next generation of public service. Retrieved from
  2. Baumgarten, J., & Chui, M. (2009). E-government 2.0. McKinsey on Government, Summer (4). Retrieved from
  3. 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.
  4. Council and the European Commission, eEurope 2002: An Information Society For All, 14.6.2000, Brussels.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. European Commission, A Digital Agenda for Europe, 26.8.2010, COM(2010) 245 final/2, Brussels.Google Scholar
  7. European Commission, Directorate General, Information Society and Media (2010) ‘Digitising Public Services in Europe: Putting ambition into action–9th Benchmark Measurement’, December.Google Scholar
  8. European Commission, eEurope 2005: An Information Society For All, 28.5.2002, COM(2002) 263 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission, i2010—An European information society for growth and employment, 1.6.2005, COM(2005) 229 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission, i2010 eGovernment Action Plan: Accelerating eGovernment in Europe for the Benefit of All, 25.04.2006, COM(2006) 173 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission, The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011–2015: Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable & innovative Government, 15 December 2010, COM(2010) 743, Brussels.Google Scholar
  12. French eGovernment Factsheets, Ed. 10.0, 13.1, 14.0, from June 2008 to January 2011. Retrieved from
  13. French eInclusion Factsheets, Ed. 1.0, October 2010. Retrieved from
  14. German eGovernment Factsheets, Ed. 10.0, 13.0, 14.0, from July 2008 to January 2011. Retrieved from
  15. German eInclusion Factsheets, Ed. 2.0, October 2010. Retrieved from
  16. Italian eGovernment Factsheets, Ed. 9.1, 13.1, 14.0, from June 2008 to March 2011. Retrieved from
  17. Italian eInclusion Factsheets, Ed. 2.0, April 2010. Retrieved from
  18. McKinsey Global Survey Results. (2008). Building the Web 2.0 enterprise. Retrieved from
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). (2003). OECD. The e-government imperative. Paris: OECD e-government studies.Google Scholar
  23. Rogers, E. M. with Shoemaker, F. (1971). Communication of innovation: A cross-cultural approach (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  24. UK eGovernment Factsheets, Ed. 10.0, 13.0, 14.0, from October 2008 to July 2010 (retrieved from
  25. UK eInclusion Factsheets, Ed. 2.0, July 2010 (retrieved from
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvia Gardini
    • 1
  • Marco Maria Mattei
    • 2
  • Rebecca Levy Orelli
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of ManagementUniversity of BolognaForlìItaly
  2. 2.Department of ManagementUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations