Barriers for Sustainable e-Participation Process: The Case of Turkey
This chapter aims to evaluate what could be some possible barriers for a sustainable e-participation process in a developing country case. Sustainability refers to the provision of uninterrupted and successfully implemented programs in related to e-participation in terms of expectations and gained results. For such purpose(s), it is of utmost importance that regarding infrastructures are provided, and related precautions are ensured before enrolling in. It is argued that sustainable e-participation is kept consistent if possible barriers are successfully considered. In this context, possible and potential barriers for sustainable e-participation process are derived from the literature, but confined to five types in drawing the framework. As a country case, Turkey is evaluated in terms of some current indicators presenting an overview of information and communication technologies’ (ICTs) infrastructure and its use before discussing about barriers. Administrative, legal, institutional, and cultural dimensions that produce and feed the barriers are described next. After addressing these dimensions, it is concluded that there are some potential barriers before e-participation process. Resistance from bureaucracy for sharing their monopoly over policy making, the lack of expertise in designing methods for e-participation, privacy concerns in data sharing, a big accumulation of legal and administrative arrangement burden, and potential inertia at citizens’ side toward policy-making issues are among threat-posing features for a sustainable e-participation process in Turkey.
Keywordse-Participation Public administration Barriers Sustainability Turkey
- Alican, F. (2007). Experts without expertise: E-society projects in developing countries — the case of Turkey. Information Polity, 12(4), 255–263.Google Scholar
- Angelopoulos, S., Kitsios, F., Kofakis, P., & Papadopoulos, T. (2010). Emerging barriers in e-government implementation. In M. A. Wimmer et al. (Eds.), EGOV 2010 (pp. 216–225), LNCS 6228. Google Scholar
- Badouard, R. (2010). Pathways and obstacles to eParticipation at the European level. Journal of eDemocracy, 2(2), 99–110.Google Scholar
- Bimber, B. (2001). Information and political engagement in America: The search for effects of information technology at the individual level. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 53–67.Google Scholar
- Braa, J., Monteiro, E., & Sahay, S. (2004). Networks of action: Sustainable health information systems across developing countries. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 337–362.Google Scholar
- BTK (2012). Transparency Arrangements in Broadband Services and Service Quality Applications. Ankara: BTK Publications (In Turkish).Google Scholar
- Cleland, B., Mulvenna, M., Galbraith, B., Wallace, J. G., & Martin, S. (2012). Innovation of eParticipation strategies using living labs as intermediaries. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 10(2), 120–132.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. E. (2006). Citizen satisfaction with contacting government on the internet. Information Polity, 11(1), 51–65.Google Scholar
- Cunningham, J. V. (1972). Citizen participation in public affairs. Public Administration Review, 32(SI), 589–602.Google Scholar
- Dawes, S. S. (2008). The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance. Public Administration Review, 68(S1), S86–S102.Google Scholar
- De Juana-Espinosa, S., Claver-Cortés, E., & Tarí, J. J. (2012). Barriers and facilitators to egovernment in spanish municipalities: A study before and after the recession. In Mila Gascó (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on eGovernment (pp. 176–185), Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
- Fu, Y., & Xiao, K. (2012). Promoting sustainable e-government with multichannel service delivery: A case study. IEEE 3rd International Conference on Software Engineering and Service Science (ICSESS), (pp. 694–697). Beijing, China.Google Scholar
- Furuholt, B. & Wahid, F. (2008). E-government challenges and the role of political leadership in Indonesia: The case of Sragen. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS ’08) (pp. 1–10). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
- Grönlund, Å., & Susha, I. (2012). A communication genre perspective on e-petitioning: The case of the citizens’ initiative. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, and Øystein Sæbø (Eds.), ePart 2012 (pp. 37–48), LNCS 7444.Google Scholar
- Gulati, G. J. “Jeff”, Yates, D. J., & Tawileh, A. (2010). Towards E-participation in the Middle East and Northern Europe. In C. G. Reddick (Ed.), Comparative E-Government. Integrated Series in Information Systems (vol. 25, pp. 71–90). Springer.Google Scholar
- Heeks, R. (2002b). e-Government in Africa: Promise and practice. Information Polity, 7(2–3), 97–114.Google Scholar
- Retrieved February 15, 2013 from https://www.nic.tr.
- ICTA. (2012). Annual Report 2011, Information and Communication Technologies Authority. Retrieved February, 15, 2013 from http://www.tk.gov.tr/kutuphane_ve_veribankasi/raporlar/faaliyet_raporlari/ar2011.pdf.
- ITU. (2012). Measuring the Information Society 2012, International Communication Union, Geneva. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/material/2012/MIS2012_without_Annex_4.pdf.
- Karkın, N., & Çalhan, H. S. (2012). An interactive e-participation model for the public administration system in Turkey: SIBIYO. Ege Acad Rev, 12(1), 105–123.Google Scholar
- Kassen, M. (2013). Globalization of e-government: open government as a global agenda; benefits, limitations and ways forward. Information Development 30 Jan 2013. doi: 10.1177/0266666912473620.
- Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E-Participation transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819–828.Google Scholar
- Löfgren, K. (2007). The governance of e-government : A governance perspective on the swedish e-government strategy. Public Policy and Administration, 22(3), 335–352.Google Scholar
- Lombardi, P., Huovila, P., & Sunikka-Blank, M. (2010). The potential of e-participation in sustainable development evaluation: Evidence from case studies. In C. Reddick (Ed.), Politics, Democracy and E-Government: Participation and Service Delivery (pp. 1–16). Hershey: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Macintosh, A. (2008). E-democracy and e-participation research in Europe. In H. Chen et al. (Eds.), Digital Government: E-Government Research, Case Studies, and Implementation, Integrated Series in Information Systems (vol. 17, pp. 85–102). New York, US: Springer.Google Scholar
- Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., & Schneeberger, A. (2009). eParticipation: The research gaps. In A. Macintosh & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Electronic Participation (ePart 2009) (vol. 5694, pp. 1–11), LNCS.Google Scholar
- Maier, E., & Reimer, U. (2010). Process support for increasing participation in eparticipation. Journal of eDemocracy, 2(1), 46–55.Google Scholar
- Maier-Rabler, U., & Huber, S. (2010). Sustainable e-participation through participatory experiences in education. Journal of eDemocracy, 2(2), 131–144.Google Scholar
- Mbako, V., Bwalya, K. J., Du Plessis, T., & Rensleigh, C. (2012). Implications of e-Government in Botswana in the realm of e-participation: Case of Francistown. In I. Management Association (Ed.), Digital Democracy: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1070–1089). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
- Medaglia, R. (2007). Measuring the diffusion of eparticipation: A survey on Italian local government. Information Polity, 12(4), 265–280.Google Scholar
- Mergel, I. (2010). The use of social media to dissolve knowledge silos in government. In O’Leary, R., Kim, S. and Van Slyke, D. M. (Eds.) The Future of Public Administration, Public Management and Public Service around the World: The Minnowbrook Perspective (pp. 177–187), Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
- Molinari, F. (2010). On sustainable eparticipation. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & O. Glassey (Eds.), ePart 2010 (vol. 6229, pp. 126–139), LNCS.Google Scholar
- OECD. (2012). OECD Economic Surveys: Turkey 2012, OECD Publishing. Retrieved February, 15 2013 from doi: 10.1787/eco_surveys-tur-2012-en.
- Parlak, B., & Sobaci, Z. (2010). A comparative analysis of local agenda 21 websites in turkey in terms of e-participation. In Reddick, C. (Ed.), Politics, Democracy and E-Government: Participation and Service Delivery (75–93).Google Scholar
- Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K. A. (2010). eparticipation initiatives in Europe: Learning from practitioners. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & O. Glassey (Eds.), Electronic Participation (ePart 2010) (pp. 54–65), LNCS 6229. Springer.Google Scholar
- Roeder, S., Poppenborg, A., Michaelis, S., Märker, O., & Salz, S. R. (2005). “Public budget dialogue”—an innovative approach to e-participation. In M. Böhlen, J. Gamper, W. Polasek, & M. A. Wimmer (Eds.), E-Government: Towards Electronic Democracy (pp. 48–56), LNCS 3416. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Royo, S., Yetano, A., & Acerete, B. (2012). E-participation and climate change: are local governments actively promoting responsible behaviors and offering opportunities for citizen involvement?. 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS), (pp. 2462–2471).Google Scholar
- Schwester, R. W. (2009). Examining the barriers to e-government adoption. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 7(1), 113–122.Google Scholar
- Sideridis, A. B., Pimenidis, E., Protopappas, L., & Koukouli, M. (2012). An evaluation of the initiatives and the progress madeon e-government services in the EU. In H. Jahankhani et al. (Eds.), ICGS3/e-Democracy 2011, LNICST 99 (pp. 263–270).Google Scholar
- Sommer, L., & Cullen, R. (2009). Participation 2.0: A case study of e-participation within the New Zealand government. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). Los Alamitos: IEEE Press (5–8 Jan 2009).Google Scholar
- Söyler, Y. (2009). Transition of e-government legal framework. Türk İdare Dergisi, 465, 151–176. (In Turkish).Google Scholar
- SPO. (2011), Information Society Statistics of Turkey 2011, retrieved from http://www.bilgitoplumu.gov.tr/Documents/1/Yayinlar/Turkish_Information_Society_ Statistics_2011.pdf [access date: February 10, 2013].
- UN. (2012). United Nations e-Government Survey 2012: e-Government for the People, New York, Retrieved February 15, 2013 from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan048065.pdf.
- Wigand, F. D. L. (2010). Adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and US governments. In C. G. Reddick (Ed.), Comparative E-Government. Integrated Series in Information Systems 25 (pp. 161–181). Springer. Google Scholar
- Yıldız, M. (2010). Digital divide in Turkey: A general assessment. In E. Ferro, Y. K. Dwivedi, J. R. Gil-Garcia, D. M. D. Williams (Eds.), Overcoming Digital Divides: Constructing an Equitable and Competitive Information Society (pp. 75–89), Hershey, PA.: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar