Advertisement

Web 2.0 as a Technological Driver of Democratic, Transparent, and Participatory Government

  • Nataša VeljkovićEmail author
  • Sanja Bogdanović-Dinić
  • Leonid Stoimenov
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 1)

Abstract

The new technological era is imposing new rules and challenges in e-society, dramatically changing the structure and organization of e-communication. These challenges are not meant to be an obstacle but a way for introducing new and better environment for the involvement of citizens and their participation in diverse areas of public interest, including government. With the rise of Web 2.0 set of technologies, governments gained an opportunity to provide better services to their users. Web 2.0 has implied many changes not only in the ways of communication between governments and users, but also in governmental concepts. It can be said that Web 2.0 technological impact initiated changes in the core e-government features and resulted in defining a new focus area and a new concept known as the Open Government. Transparency, accountability, collaboration, and user participation are the main characteristics of this newly introduced concept. This chapter primarily deals with technological impact, Web 2.0 particularly, on e-government development. It gives a historical overview of e-government models with special attention to the Open Government model. By explaining its main characteristics, throughout the worldwide examples, the authors hope to bring more light on the Open Government initiative and explain its national and international dimension.

Keywords

Government Employee User Participation Government Information Governmental Data Patent Examiner 
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.

References

  1. Ackerman, J., & Sandoval-Ballesteros, I. (2006). The Global Explosion of Freedom of Information Laws. Administrative Law Review, 58(1), 86.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch, 7–12.Google Scholar
  3. Anthopoulos, L., Siozos, P., Nanopoulos, A., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2007). Applying participatory design and collaboration in digital public services for discovering and re-designing e-Government services. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 353–376.Google Scholar
  4. Bekkers, V., & Moody, R (2009) Visual Culture and Electronic Government: Exploring a New Generation of E-Government. In M.A. Wimmer et al. (Eds.), EGOV 2009 Proceedings (pp. 257–269), LNCS 5693. Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  5. Baum, C. H., & Di Maio, A. (2000). Gartner’s Four Phases of E-government Model. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com
  6. Centre for Technology Policy Research. (May, 2010). Open Government some next steps for the UK. London.Google Scholar
  7. Chun, H., & Kim, D. (2010). Web 2.0 Applications and Citizen Relations through E-Government Websites. In E. Downey, C. Ekstrom & M. Jones (Eds.), E-Government Website Development: Future Trends and Strategic Models (pp. 266–283).Google Scholar
  8. Crook, C., Fisher, T., Graber, R., Harrison, C., Lewin, C., Logan, C., Luckin, R., Oliver, M., & Sharples, M. (2008). Web 2.0 technologies for learning: The current landscape–opportunities, challenges and tensions. BECTA Research Report. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1474/1/becta_2008_web2_currentlandscape_litrev.pdf
  9. Di Maio, A (2009) Government 2.0: Gartner Definition. Industry Research. Retrieved from http://dc.gov/DC/OCTO/Publication%20Files/government2_0_Gartner_Definition_G00172423.pdf
  10. Di Maio, A. (2010). How Do Open Government and Government 2.0 Relate to Each Other?, Gartner Blog, Retrieved from http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2010/09/03/how-do-open-government-and-government-2-0-relate-to-each-other
  11. EU Member States Ministers (2009) Ministerial Declaration on eGovernment. Retrieved from http://www.egov2009.se/wp-content/uploads/Ministerial-Declaration-on-eGovernment.pdf
  12. European Commission. (2003). The role of eGovernment for Europe’s Future, COM(2003) 567, Brussels.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2010a). A Digital Agenda for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2010) 245, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission. (2010b). The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011–2015. Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable & innovative Government, COM(2010) 743, Brussels.Google Scholar
  15. Fund for an Open Society. (2006). Implementation of the Law on free access to information of public importance, Monitoring Report, Belgrade, Retrieved from http://www.fosserbia.org/view_file.php?file_id=104
  16. Gant, J., & Turner-Lee, N (2011) Government transparency: Six strategies for more open and participatory government. Washington, D.C: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  17. Gustetic, J. (2010). E-Gov versus Open Gov: The Evolution of E-democracy, Retrieved from http://www.phaseonecg.com/docs/egov-opengov-whitepaper.pdf
  18. Ho, A. T. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 434−444.Google Scholar
  19. Huijboom, N., van den Broek, T., Frissen, V., Kool, L., Kotterink, B., Nielsen, M. M., et al. (2009) Public Services 2.0: The Impact of Social Computing on Public Services. Luxembourg. European Commission, Joint Research Centre.Google Scholar
  20. Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M (2011) The early bird catches the news: Nine things you should know about micro-blogging. Business Horizons, 54, 105–113.Google Scholar
  21. Kovač, P., & Dečman, M (2009), Implementation and change of processual administrative legislation through an innovative web 2.0 solution. Transilvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 28, 65–86.Google Scholar
  22. Mergel, I., Schweik, C., & Fountain, J (2009) The Transformational Effect of Web 2.0 Technologies on Government, Social Science Research Network, Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1412796.
  23. Microsoft. (2010). U.S. Government white paper: Democratizing data for open government Meeting the goals of the Open Government Directive: The national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy skills, Microsoft Corporation.Google Scholar
  24. Murugesan, S. (2007). Understanding Web 2.0. IT Professional, 9(4), 34–41.Google Scholar
  25. Obama, B (2009) Memorandum for the Heads of executive Departments and Agencies: Transparency and Open Government, White House, Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government.
  26. Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation—OECD (2009) Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy and Services, OECD Studies on Public Engagement, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. O’Reilly, T. (2010). Government as a platform. In D. Lathrop & L. Ruma (Eds.), Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice (pp. 11–39). O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
  28. Orszag, P. (2009) December 8 Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies, Open Government Directive, Executive Office of the President, M-10-06, Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf
  29. Osimo, D (2008) Web 2.0 in GovernmentWhy and How?. JRC Scientific Technical Reports, Seville.Google Scholar
  30. Pascu, C. (2008). An Empirical Analysis of the Creation, Use and Adoption of Social Computing Applications. JRC Scientific and Technical Report. Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC46431.pdf.
  31. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).Google Scholar
  32. Seifert, J. (2003). A primer on e-government: Sectors, stages, opportunities, and challenges of online governance. Washington, DC.: Congressional search Service, Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31057.pdf.
  33. Savino, M (2011) The Right to Open Public Administrations in Europe: Emerging Legal Standards, SIGMA Papers No. 46.Google Scholar
  34. Silcock, R (2001) What is e-government?. Parliamentary Affairs, 54(1), 88–101.Google Scholar
  35. Tapscott, D (1998) Growing up digital: The rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.Google Scholar
  36. United Nations (2011) The Millennium Development Goals Report, Retrieved from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/(2011_E)%20MDG%20Report%202011_Book%20LR.pdf
  37. UNPAN. (2005). Global e-Government Readiness Report: from e-Government to E-inclusion, Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021888.pdf
  38. Vleugels, R. (2010). Overview of all FOI laws. Fringe Special.Google Scholar
  39. Wauters, P., & Lorincz, B. (2008). User satisfaction and administrative simplification within the perspective of eGovernment impact: Two faces of the same coin?. European Journal of ePractice, 4, 1–10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nataša Veljković
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sanja Bogdanović-Dinić
    • 1
  • Leonid Stoimenov
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Niš, Faculty of Electronic EngineeringNišSerbia

Personalised recommendations