Design and Implementation of Open-Government Initiatives at the Sub-National Level: Lessons from Italian Cases

  • Benedetta TrivellatoEmail author
  • Roberto Boselli
  • Dario Cavenago
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 4)


This chapter provides a picture of some issues that should be considered during the design and implementation of open-government initiatives, based on the analysis of four Italian case studies at the sub-national level. Specific attention is given to the contextual rigidities which may jeopardise the implementation process, in contrast to the opportunities provided by the use of ICTs. The study suggests that the availability of open data may allow greater autonomy to the public institution wishing to develop a certain tool to support policy-making or public services provision. Where the relevant data are ‘non-open’, the institution needs to foster cooperation with the subjects, be they public or private, who hold the data. Open data therefore reduce the coordination costs of these initiatives. On the other hand, whenever implementation requires cooperation among different administrations, the willingness to collaborate needs to be verified and promoted, and not taken for granted. The commitment of the individuals at the apex of the leading organisations is also confirmed as critical for the overall success of the initiative. These cases also suggest that open government may support higher effectiveness of public services provision through a better understanding of citizens’ needs. This can lead to the co-definition of such needs, and not only—as in most forms of current public engagement—of the answers to those needs. An additional benefit relates to the possibility of enhancing also the effectiveness of these answers, as they become more modular.


Policy design Governance Public engagement Decision-making processes Open data Decision support systems 


  1. Balducci, A. (1999). Pianificazione strategica e politiche di sviluppo locale. Una relazione necessaria? Archivio di studi urbani e regionali, 64, 181–189.Google Scholar
  2. Bassoli, M. (2012). Participatory budgeting in Italy: An analysis of (almost democratic) participatory governance arrangements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36, 1183–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berners-Lee, T. (2006). Linked Data–Design Issues. Accessed April 8, 2013.
  4. Boselli, R., Cesarini, M., & Mezzanzanica, M. (2008). Customer knowledge and service development, the web 2.0 role in co-production. Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 30, ISSN:1307-6884, pp. 600–606, Paris, France, 4–6 July.Google Scholar
  5. Boselli, R., Cesarini, M., Mercorio, F., & Mezzanzanica, M., (2013). Improving data cleansing techniques on administrative databases. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on eGovernment—ECEG 2013, 13–14 June, Como, Italy.Google Scholar
  6. Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67, 846–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavenago, D. (Ed.). (2000). Istituzione pubblica e cambiamento aziendale. Padova: CedamGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavenago, D. (2004). Città e piano strategico. Percorsi di governance del territorio, esperienze italiane e internazionali. Milano: il Sole 24 Ore.Google Scholar
  9. Cavenago, D., & Trivellato, B. (2010). Organising strategic spatial planning: Experiences from Italian cities. Space and Polity, 14(2), 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eggers, W. D. (Ed.). (2005). Government 2.0: Using technology to improve education, cut red tape, reduce gridlock, and enhance democracy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  11. Fugini, M., Maggiolini, P., Nanini, K., Boselli, R., Cesarini, M., & Mezzanzanica, M. (2008). Why is true E-government still difficult to be achieved? WCCEGov08, Milan, 08 September.Google Scholar
  12. Haufler, V. (2003). Globalization and industry self-regulation. In M. Kahler & D. A. Lake (Eds.), Governance in a global economy. Political authority in transition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jakobsen, M. (2013). Can government initiatives increase citizen coproduction? Results of a randomized field experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kooiman, J. (Ed.). (1993). Modern governance: New government-society interactions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Le Grand, J., & Bartlett, W. (Eds.). (1993). Quasi-markets and social policy. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leadbeater, C., & Cottam, H. (2008). The User Generated State: Public Services 2.0. Accessed April 10, 2013.
  17. Löffler, E. (2009). Public governance in a networked society. In T. Bovaird & E. Löffler (Eds.), Public management and governance (pp. 215–232). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Mariani, L., & Cavenago, D. (2013). Redesigning welfare services for policies effectiveness. Public Management Review. doi:10.1080/14719037.2012.758307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, S. (2009). Engaging with citizens and other stakeholders. In T. Bovaird & E. Löffler (Eds.), Public management and governance (pp. 279–296). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Mayntz, R. (2003). New challenges to governance theory. In H. Bang (Ed.), Governance as social and political communication (pp. 27–40). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mele, V. (Ed.). (2006). La gestione dei flussi informativi tra l’azienda pubblica e il suo ambiente. Torino: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
  22. Mele, V. (2009). New public management e il passaggio da government a governance. In E. Borgonovi, G. Fattore, & F. Longo (Eds.), Management delle istituzioni pubbliche. Milano: Egea.Google Scholar
  23. Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. (Eds.). (1992). Networks and organizations: Structures, forms, and action. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  24. OECD (2001). Citizens as partners: OECD handbook on information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264195578-enGoogle Scholar
  25. Osborne, S. P. (2006). The New Public Governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Osborne, S. P. (2010). The (New) public governance: A suitable case for treatment? In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How? JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.Google Scholar
  28. Osimo, D. (2010). Government 2.0—Hype, hope, or reality? European Journal of ePractice, 9, 2–4.Google Scholar
  29. Ouchi, W. (1979). Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research In Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.Google Scholar
  31. Powell, W. W., & Di Maggio, P. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rhodes, R. A. W. (Ed.). (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Scharpf, F. W. (1978). Interorganizational policy studies: Issues, concepts and perspectives. In K. I. Hanf & F. W. Scharpf (Eds.), Interorganizational policy-making: Limits to coordination and central control. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Scharpf, F. W. (1993). Coordination in hierarchies and networks. In F. W. Scharpf (Ed.), Games in hierarchies and networks (pp. 125–165). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, M., Engler, N. J., Christian, G., Diga, K., Rashid, A., & Flynn-Dapaah, K. (2008). Open ICT4D. Accessed April 10, 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benedetta Trivellato
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Roberto Boselli
    • 2
    • 4
  • Dario Cavenago
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Social ResearchUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Statistics and Quantitative MethodsUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly
  3. 3.Department of Sociology and Social ResearchUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly
  4. 4.CRISP–Interuniversity Research Centre on Public ServicesUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations