From Governance to e-Governance

  • Amita Singh


e-Governance is rapidly influencing the architecture of governance. The difference between the two is embedded in the understanding of governance itself. While the origin of governance goes deep into the constitutional and political framework of the country, e-governance originates in a technological regime formulated and controlled by the mega information technology labs in the USA and which would continue to control its anatomy at least for many years to come. Therefore, the greatest caution in adopting e-governance is to prevent policymakers from sinking into technological determinism and building up a system of decentralised management, control and information data storage capacity. e-Governance is possible because of the ICT or Internet technology. Looking into the nature and origin of the Internet, one gets an idea that this technology is rooted into a number of other subsidiary technologies which demonstrate a decentralising tendency of the Internet which e-governance needs to imbibe and reinvent itself accordingly. This chapter has highlighted the enormous potential of e-governance in poverty reduction and improving well-being of people as it overcomes distance and time besides making the society more interactive. However, this is possible only when nations are more forthcoming to collaborate, form partnerships and seek mutual sharing of successful practices as mentioned in the MDG 8 both within their country as well as with other countries in the neighbourhood. A large number of e-governance projects have been failing, bringing a huge loss to public exchequer and the taxpayers’ money. The government is expected to make efforts to fulfil preconditions of e-governance implementation, the most important of which is to implement inclusive governance reforms. As in India where the laboriously prepared 15 Administrative Commission Reforms Reports are accumulating dust so has been the experience with many Asian countries. If ever e-governance fails, it would be due to government’s inability to collaborate and set for itself a direction and a plan of action more appropriate and suitable to peoples’ requirements.


Internet User Human Development Index Asia Pacific Region Domain Name System Governance Reform 
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. Barber B (1995) Jihad vs. McWorld: how globalism and tribalism are reshaping the world. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhagwati J, Panagariya A, Srinivasan TN (2004) Muddles over outsourcing. J Econ Perspect 18(4, Fall):93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blindenbacher R, Nashat B, World Bank (2010) The black box of governmental learning: the learning spiral – a concept to organize learning in governments. World Bank, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bozeman B (2000) Bureaucracy and red tape. University of Michigan, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruce B (1983) Cyberpunk. Amazing Science Fiction Stories 57(4)Google Scholar
  6. Brundtland Commission Report of 1987 (OUP 1987)Google Scholar
  7. Butt D, Sarkar P (2009–2010) ICT for development in Asia Pacific: emerging themes in a diverse region. In: Digital Review of Asia Pacific. Sage, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  8. Castles S, Miller MJ (2009) Migration in the Asia Pacific Region. July. Accessed 31 Mar 2013
  9. Chandy KT (2011) Agricultural & Environmental Education, GATT, Dunkal Draft and WTO: (Introduction to General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, Dunkal Draft and World Trade Organization), Booklet No. 476, Agricultural Planning and Policies: APPS-1). Retrieved 26 Nov 2011
  10. Chen S, Ravallion M (2008, August 1) The developing world is poorer than we thought, but no less successful in the fight against poverty. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series. Available at SSRN:
  11. Clement A, Shade LR (2000) The access rainbow: conceptualizing universal communications technology. In: Gurstein M (ed) Community informatics: enabling communities with information and communication technologies. Idea Group, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  12. D’Monte L (2013, April 27) Governments Break Internet to stay in power, HT Business, Hindustan Times, p 25Google Scholar
  13. Daily Times (2009) ‘Pakistan the worst hit country by brain drain’, Sunday, July 5, IslamabadGoogle Scholar
  14. Deepak L (2004) In praise of empires, globalization and order. Palgrave Macmillan, London, p 5Google Scholar
  15. Drucker P (1994) The age of social transformation. The Atlantic Monthly 274(5):53–80Google Scholar
  16. Feenberg A (1987) The bias of technology. In: Pippen R, Feenberg A, Webel R (eds) Marcuse: critical theory and the promise of utopia. Bergin & Garvey Press, South Hadley, pp 225–254Google Scholar
  17. Felix S, Pradeep K, Vijay Kumar N (2011) e-Government projects: exploring the way to success, vol 9, No. 2. SETLabs BriefingsGoogle Scholar
  18. Garcelon M (2006) p. 57, The ‘Indymedia’ experiment, Internet as a movement facilitator against institutional control. In: Convergence: the international journal of research into media technologies. Sage, London, pp 55–68Google Scholar
  19. Gibson W (1984) Neuromancer. Ace Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Giddens A (2002) ‘Public policy changes in a globalised world’ in BertucciGoogle Scholar
  21. Grossman E (2006) High tech trash: digital devices, hidden toxics, and human health. Island Press/Shearwater Books, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. Gurstein M (2000) Community informatics: enabling communities with information and communications technologies. Idea Group, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  23. Hassler DM (2008) New boundaries in political science fiction. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, pp 75–76Google Scholar
  24. Hauben M, Hauben R (1997) Netizens on the history and impact of Usenet and the Internet. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los AlamitosGoogle Scholar
  25. Heeks RB (1999) ICTs, poverty and development, i-Development paper no. 5. IDPM, University of Manchester.
  26. Heeks R (2002) i-development not e-development: special issue on ICT’s and development. J Int Dev 14(1):1–11, Indianapolis: John Wiley and SonsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heeks (2005) ICTs and the MDGs: on the wrong track? Retrieved at, p 4
  28. Heeks R (2008) ICT4D 2.0: The next phase of applying ICT for international development. Computer 41(6):26–33, Washington, DC: IEEECrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hobsbawm E (1995) Age of extremes, the short twentieth century 1914–1991. Abacus, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahn RE, Kleinrock L, Lynch DC, Postel J, Roberts LG, Wolff S (2012) Brief history of the Internet. Internet Society, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
  31. Keohane RO, Nye JS (2000) Introduction. In: Nye JS, Donahue JD (eds) Governance in a globalization world. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Kettl DF (2002) The transformation of governance. John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  33. Kluver R (2006) Globalization, informatization and intercultural communication. UNPAN, New York. Retrieved from
  34. Krueger A (1974) The political economy of the rent-seeking society. Am Econ Rev 64(3):291–303Google Scholar
  35. Leftwich A (1994) Governance, the state and the politics of development. Development and Change 25(2):363–386Google Scholar
  36. Leiner BM, Cerf VG, Clark DD, Kahn RE, Kleinrock L, Lynch DC, Postel J, Roberts LG, Wolff S (2009) Computer communication review. October, Retrieved at
  37. Manandhar S (2010) Who pays the price for Nepal’s Brain Drain? The Himalayan Times. 2010-09-18, 8:59. Kathmandu
  38. McLuhan’s M (1989) The global village: transformations in world life and media in the 21st Century (Communication & Society)Google Scholar
  39. Michaels E (1990) A model of teleported texts (with reference to Aboriginal television). Continuum 3(2):8–31Google Scholar
  40. Mossberger K, Tolbert CJ, Franko WW (2013) Digital cities: the internet and the geography of opportunity. Oxford University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  41. Niskanen W, Niskanen WA Jr (1971) Bureaucracy and representative government. Aldine Atherton, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  42. Norris P (2001) Digital divide: civic engagement, information poverty and the Internet World Wide. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peters BG, Pierre AJ (2004) Politicization of the civil service: the quest for control. Routledge, London, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  44. Rahman S (2010) Brain gain in Bangladesh: what makes it possible? Int J Innov Manage Technol 1(2):152–157Google Scholar
  45. Rennie J (1996) Key technologies for the 21st century. In: Scientific American. W. H. Freeman & Co, New York, p xiGoogle Scholar
  46. Sachdeva S (2006) Twenty Five Steps towards e-governance failure. Available at
  47. Sachs JD (2005) The end of poverty: economic possibilities for our time. Penguin Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Singh A (2012) Book review. Governance 25(1):158–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tung L (2009) Queensland Government ICT lobbyists exposed. April 1., 04:26 GMT. Accessed 28 Mar 2010
  50. UNCTAD (2004) World Investment Report. In: The shift towards services. UN Publication, New York/GenevaGoogle Scholar
  51. UNDP (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration. Retrieved at (Para III.11.)
  52. UNDP (2001) Making new technologies work for human beings. Human Development Report. Oxford University Press, New York. Retrieved at
  53. UNDP (2003) Millennium development goals: a compact among nations to end human poverty. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. UNDP (2012) The MDG Gap Task Force Report. In: The global partnership for development: making rhetoric a reality. United Nations Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. United Nations (1998, March 24) Secretary General says communications technology has great democratizing power waiting to be harnessed to global struggle for peace and development. United Nations Press Release SG/SM/6502 SAG/4. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Urwick L, Gulik L (eds) (1937) Papers on the science of administration. Institute of Public Administration, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Viniegra C (2012) The digital governance challenge: the role of government in the digital age, cutter consortium. Business Technical Strategies, Executive Update 15(14)Google Scholar
  58. World Development Report (2004) Making services work for the poor. Oxford University Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amita Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Law and GovernanceJawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations