Advertisement

Can Open-Government Models Contribute to More Collaborative Ways of Governance?

An Assessment of the Greek OpenGov Initiative
  • Evika KaramagioliEmail author
  • Eleni-Revekka Staiou
  • Dimitris Gouscos
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 4)

Abstract

The Greek political landscape and the way public administration and political procedures are performed is an ideal field of study of the enabling potential of the Internet to foster new, dynamic forms of democracy, introducing open and “citizen-friendly” forms of government mainly by functioning as a horizontal communication channel allowing polyphonic discussions as well as one-to-one dialogues.

As Greece is facing the most intense social, political and economic crisis of her history, a series of political issues over the last decade have caused widespread public mistrust, civic disengagement and finally a deep feeling of disappointment for the inefficiencies of public administration while corruption is a major problem in the country. In order to face this credibility deficit, and following European Union’s recommendations and worldwide trends, the Greek government has initiated a series of open government initiatives in an effort to address the lack of accountable leadership.

The objective of this chapter is to present the Greek OpenGov.gr case and its results as a top-down eParticipation effort. In parallel, this analysis intends to identify and discuss similarities, complementarities and differences between the concepts of eParticipation and open government in the sense that one of the major challenges for open government is to integrate a “deliberative-participatory element” into existing political structures and procedures.

Keywords

eParticipation Open government Transparency Accountability Trust Openness Democratic process 

References

  1. Allison, B. (2010). My data can’t tell you that. In D. Lathrop & L. Ruma (Eds.), Open government. collaboration, transparency and participation in practice (pp. 257–265). Sebastopol: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  2. Castells, M. (2010). The information age: Economy, society and culture volume 1: The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Chrissafis, T., & Rohen, M. (2010). European eParticipation developments: From ad hoc experiences towards mass engagement. eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 2(2), 89–98.Google Scholar
  4. Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. (2009). The internet and democratic citizenship—Theory, practice and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dahlberg, L. (2007). Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation. New Media and Society, 9(5), 827–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deligiaouri, A. (2010). Open governance and e-rulemaking. Online deliberation and policy-making in contemporary Greek politics. http://microsites.oii.ox.ac.uk/ipp2010/system/files/IPP2010_Deligiaouri_Paper.pdf. Accessed 15th September 2013.
  7. DiMaio, A. (2010). eParticipation in Europe: living in a bubble? http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2010/09/24/eparticipation-in-europe-living-in-a-bubble. Accessed 15th September 2013.
  8. European Commission. (2011). Eurobarometer 76.1: Financial and economic crisis, financial services, corruption, development aid, and gender equality, September 2011. ICPSR34552-v1.Google Scholar
  9. Goulandris, V. (2010). Opengov.gr: The first 120 days of e-deliberation. http://onlinepolitics.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/opengovgr-first-120-days-e-deliberation/. Accessed 15th September 2013.
  10. Gouscos, D., & Staiou, E. (2010). Evaluation of the operational development of opengov.gr. http://old.media.uoa.gr/sas/issues/24_issue/07.html. Accessed 15th September 2013.
  11. Greek Government. (2010). Greek action plan for open partnership. http://www.opengovpartnership.org/countries/greece. Accessed July 2013.
  12. Hacker, K., & Van Dijk, J. (2000). Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Heckmann, D. (2011). Open government—Retooling democracy for the 21st century. 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).Google Scholar
  14. Internet World Statistics. (2013). http://www.internetworldstats.com/. Accessed 15th September 2013.
  15. Itamo, N. (2010). Greek prime minister fights “credibility deficit”. http://ypepth.opengov.gr/panaretos/?p=519. Accessed July 2013.
  16. Jouët, J. (2009). The Internet as a new civic form. The hybridization of popular and civic web uses in France. Javnost—The Public, 16(1), 59–72.Google Scholar
  17. Karamagioli, E. (2013). Transparency in the OpenGov era: Friends or foes. In C. Akrivopoulou & N. Garipidis (Eds.), Digital democracy and the impact of technology on governance and politics: New globalized practices (pp. 1–9). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  18. Kloby, K., & D’Agostino, M. J. (2012). Citizen 2.0: Public and governmental interaction through Web 2.0 technologies. Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (2010). Open government: Transparency, collaboration and participation in practice. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  20. Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. (2008). Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2(1), 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Obama, B. (2009). Transparency and Open Government The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government. Accessed 15th September 2013.
  22. OECD. (2003). Promise and problems of eDemocracy challenges of online citizen engagement. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. OECD. (2005). Modernizing government: The way forward. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. OECD. (2011). Civic engagement and governance in how’s life?: Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. OECD. (2012). Public governance review 2012. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. OECD (2013). Openness and transparency—Pillars for democracy, trust and progress—Speech of Angel Gurría, OECD Secretary-General. http://www.oecd.org/about/secretary-general/opennessandtransparency-pillarsfordemocracytrustandprogress.htm. Accessed 15th September 2013.
  27. Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2010). eParticipation initiatives in Europe: Learning from practitioners. Proceedings of Electronic Participation: 2nd IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference (Vol. 6229, pp. 54–65), Lausanne, Switzerland, August/September 2010. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Pateli, K. (2010). The narration on open government and Opengov.gr. http://old.media.uoa.gr/sas/issues/24_issue/08.html. Accessed 15th September 2013.
  29. Rigou, M. (2010). Open governance: the implementation of Opengov.gr. http://old.media.uoa.gr/sas/issues/24_issue/06.html. Accessed 15th September 2013.
  30. Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. S. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shulman, S., Zavestoski, S., Schlosberg, D., & Courard-Hauri, D. (2003). Electronic rulemaking: A public participation research agenda for the social sciences. Social Science Computer Review, 21(2), 162–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Swartz, A. (2010). When is transparency useful? In D. Lathrop & L. Ruma (Eds.), Open government. Collaboration, transparency and participation in practice (pp. 267–272). Sebastopol: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  33. Tambouris, E., & Macintosh, A. (2009). Electronic participation: Proceedings of Ongoing Research, General Development Issues and Projects of ePart 2009; 1st International Conference, Linz, Austria, September 1–3, 2009. Linz: Trauner.Google Scholar
  34. Transparency International. (2012) Corruption perception index 2012. http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results. Accessed 15th September 2013.
  35. United Nations. (2012). eGovernment Survey. Blue Ridge Summit: UN Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Veenstra, A. F., Janssen, M., & Boon, A. (2011). Measure to improve: A study of eParticipation in frontrunner Dutch municipalities. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh & H. Bruijn (Eds.), Electronic Participation (Vol. 6847, pp. 157–168). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weber, L. M., Loumakis, A., & Bergman, J. (2003). Who participates and why?: An analysis of citizens on the internet and the mass public. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yannopoulos, D. (2010). The dawn of a new era. http://www.athensnews.gr/articles/13372/10/01/2010/24631. Accessed 15th September 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evika Karamagioli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eleni-Revekka Staiou
    • 1
  • Dimitris Gouscos
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of New Technologies in Communication, Education and the Mass Media, Faculty of Communication and Media StudiesUniversity of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations