fi
data security
to which customers can refer the customer if
category,
needed. The most common problems include
Service is active
2006
starting up and viruses and other computer
malware. The Citizen’s computer support
provides its customers with a diagnosis form.
Special award
AddictionLink: Has grown from an information http://www.
(general),
source into the most popular service on
paihdelinkki.fi
fi
2006
substance abuse in Finland. The service reaches
a large segment of substance users. The idea
Service is active
underlying AddictionLink is to provide a set of
services that support citizens and complement
each other.
Information
SMS Tickets in the Public Transport: The fir
fi st in http://www.plusdial.
society in
the world to off
ffer the opportunity to buy metro
com
everyday life,
and tram tickets via SMS.
2004
Service is active
(continued)
Examining Successful Public Sector Electronic Services 103
Table 8.1 (continued)
Reward
category
and year
Service and short description
Current condition
Education and Virtual craft and design classes: A nationwide
Service no
Learning,
network community that connects pupils,
longer available
2004
students, teachers and researchers. The website
distributes connects pupils, students, teachers
and researchers. The website distributes
eWork, 2004
New businesses and jobs through strategic
development: Long term development area.
Has created in six diff erent call centres or
ff
customer service centres. www.naturepolis.fi
fi
Project has ended, thematic continues
Cooperation
Journey Planner: The Helsinki Regional
www.reittiopas.fi
fi
projects,
Transport Authority (HSL) door-to-door
2004
Journey Planner provides information on the
Service is active
best public transport connection within the
Helsinki region at any specifie
fi d time.
eBusiness,
ProCountor: An online fi nancial administration
fi
www.procountor.
2004
service that makes it possible for all fin
fi ancial
com
and accounting activities to be carried out at
any time and anywhere.
Service is active
NOTES
1.
The policy programs were organized as attempts to overcome problems in
sector government structures that often led to competition and collisions
between ministries on cross-administrative issues. For example, the minis-
tries of labour and industry may share development issues that overlap each
other. The policy programs concerned important topics that were considered
elemental in society. The fi
first four original programs were labeled the “infor-
mation society” (lead by the prime minister), “labour” (lead by the minister of
employment), “entrepreneurship” (lead by the minister of industry and trade)
and “citizen participation” (lead by the minister of justice) policy programs.
Thus, information society was considered of major importance in the Finnish
administration. These policy programs functioned during 2003–2007. The
policy programs were redesigned in 2008–2011 to include only three pro-
grams, with the “information society” program being discontinued. (Finnish
Government, 2011).
REFERENCES
Bang, H. (2007). Governing the governance. Public Administration, 85(1),
227–231.
Baqir, M. N. & Iyer, L. (2010). E-government maturity over 10 years: A compara-
tive analysis of e-government maturity in select countries around the world. In
104 Tommi
Inkinen
Reddick, C.G. (Ed.), Comparative e-government, Integrated Series in Information Systems 25 (pp. 3–22). New York: Springer.
Bélanger, F. & Hiller, J. S. (2006). A framework for e-government: Privacy implications. Business Process Management Journal, 12(1), 48–60.
Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (2004). Achieving advanced electronic govern-
ment services: Opposing environmental constraints. Public Performance &
Management Review, 28(1), 96–114.
Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identifica-
tion and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21–53.
Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5–25.
Chadwick, A. & Howard, P. (Eds.). (2008). Routledge handbook of Internet poli-
tics. New York: Routledge.
Chan, H. S., & Chow, K. W. (2007). Public management policy and practice in West-
ern China: Metapolicy, tacit knowledge, and implications for management innova-
tion transfer. American Review of Public Administration, 37(4), 479–497.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Sage: Thousand Oaks.
Dobransky, K. & Hargittai, E. (2006). The disability divide in Internet access and use. Information, Communication and Society, 9(3), 313–334.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public manage-
ment is dead-long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494.
European Commission (2010). The European eGovernment action plan 2011–2015.
Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable & innovative Government. Brus-
sels: European Commission. Retrieved August 19, 2011, from http://ec.europa.
eu/information_society/activities/egovernment/ action_plan_2011_2015/docs/
action_plan_en_act_part1_v2.pdf
Felix, B. T., & Sutherland, P. (2004). Online consumer trust: A multi-dimensional
model. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 2(3), 40–58.
Finnish Government (2011). Government Policy Programs. Retrieved December 23,
2011, from www.valtioneuvosto.fi /tietoarkisto/politiikkaohjelmat-2007–2011/
en.jsp
Gauld, R., Graya, A., & McComba, S. (2009). How responsive is e-government?
Evidence from Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quar-
terly, 26(1), 69–74.
Graham, S. (1998). The end of geography or the explosion of place? Conceptual-
izing space, place and information technology. Progress in Human Geography,
22(2), 165–185.
Graham, S. (2002). Bridging urban digital divides? Urban Polarisation and infor-
mation and communications technologies (ICTs). Urban Studies, 39(1), 33–56.
Grant, G., & Derek, C. (2005). Developing a generic framework for e-government.
Journal of Global Information Management, 13(1), 1–30.
Heeks, R. (2003). Achieving success/avoidin
g failure in e-Government projects.
IDPM, University of Manchester. Retrieved August 16, 2011, from http://www.
egov4dev.org/success/sfdefinitions.shtml
Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives,
philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quar-
terly, 24(2), 243–265.
Heintze, T., & Bretscheinder, S. (2000). Information technology and restructuring
in public organizations: Does adoption of information technology aff e
ff ct orga-
nizational structures, communications and decision making. Journal of Public
Administration Research & Theory, 10(4), 778–812.
Examining Successful Public Sector Electronic Services 105
Hood, C. (1995). The new public management in the 1980s: Variations on a theme.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2), 93–109.
HSL (2010). Ticket sales in different types of transportation. [In Finnish.]
Retrieved August 9, 2011, from http://www.hsl.fi /FI/mikaonhsl/julkaisut/
Documents/2010/Matkalippujen_myynti_liikennevalineissa_34_2010.pdf
Inkinen, T. (2011). The Internet in three Finnish cities: Accessing global networks.
In Brunn, S. (Ed.), Engineering earth. The impacts of megaengineering projects
(pp. 131–143). New York: Springer.
Inkinen, T. (2012). Best Practices of the Finnish Government Information Soci-
ety Policy Programme: Technology, provision, and impact scale. Transforming
Government. People, Process and Policy, 6(2), 167–187.
James, J. (2008). Digital divide complacency: Misconceptions and dangers. Infor-
mation Society, 24(1), 54–61.
Kellerman, A. (2002). Internet on earth. A geography of information. London:
Wiley.
Kooiman, J. (2005). Governing as governance. London: Sage.
Langford, J., & Roy, J. (2009). Building shared accountability into service transformation partnerships. International Journal of Public Policy, 4(3/4), 232–250.
Lean, O., Zailani, K., Ramayah, S. & Fernando, Y. (2009). Factors infl uenc
fl
ing
intention to use e-government services among citizens in Malaysia. Interna-
tional Journal of Information Management, 29(6), 458–475.
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.
Martins, M. R. (1995). Size of municipalities, effi
fficiency, and citizens’ participation:
A cross-European perspective. Environment and Planning C: Government and
Policy, 13(4), 441–458.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ministry of Finance. (2009). SADe Services and Project Report 2009. [In Finn-
ish.] Retrieved August 10, 2011, from http://www.vm.fi /vm/fi /04_julkaisut_
ja_asiakirjat/01_julkaisut/04_hallinnon_kehittaminen/20100107SADepa/
SADe_palvelu-_ja_hankeselvitys_2009.pdf
Osborne, D. (1993). Reinventing government. Public Productivity and Manage-
ment Review, 16(4), 349–356.
Reddick, C. G. (2004). A two stages model of e-government growth: Theories and
empirical evidence for U.S. cities. Government Information Quarterly, 21(1),
51–64.
Reddick, C. G. (Eds.). (2010 ). Comparative e-government. Integrated Series in Information Systems 25. New York: Springer.
Saxena, K. B. C. (2005). Towards excellence in e-governance. International Jour-
nal of Public Sector Management, 18(6), 498–513.
Taylor, J., Lips, M., & Organ, J. (2007). Information-intensive government and the layering and sorting of citizenship. Public Money and Management, 27(2), 161–164.
Thomas, J. C., & Streib, G. (2003). The new face of government: Citizen-initiated
contacts in the era of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 13(1), 83–102.
Tolbert, C. J. & Mossberger, K. (2006). The eff e
ff cts of e-government on trust and
confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354–369.
UN (2010). E-Government Survey 2010. Leveraging e-government at a time of
financial and economic crisis. New York: United Nations.
WEF (2010). The global competitiveness report 2010–2011. Geneva: World Eco-
nomic Forum.
106 Tommi
Inkinen
Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction
with e-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 15(3), 371–391.
West, D. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and
citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27.
West, D. M. (2005). Digital government: Technology and public sector perfor-
mance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Williams, W., & Lewis, D. (2008). Strategic management tools and public sector
management. Public Management Review, 10(5), 653–671.
Wimmer, M., & Traunmuller, R. (2000). Trends in electronic government: Man-
aging distributed knowledge. New York: Springer.
Yescombe, E. R. (2007). Public-private partnerships. Principles of policy and
finance. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Yvrande-Billon, A., & Ménard, C. (2004). Institutional constraints and organiza-
tional changes: The case of the British rail reform. Journal of Economic Behav-
ior & Organization, 56(4), 675–699.
9 Identifying Online Citizens
Understanding the Trust Problem
Ruth Halperin and James Backhouse
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
The chapter begins by showing why online identity and identification are
essential to the future development of e-government. With a focus on the
European Union context, it highlights the ways in which combining and
sharing new types of personal data aff
fford new forms of e-government pro-
vision. The chapter then shows the current problem of the lack of citizens’
trust in those public authorities responsible for online identification. We
report on an empirical research that examined citizens’ perceptions on
the rollout of electronic identity systems in Europe. Drawing on grounded
research using open coding content analysis, the authors examine over 700
respondents from Germany and the United Kingdom. The analysis sug-
gests that the hostile attitudes of citizens derive specifi c
fi ally from perceived
negative past experiences at the hands of the public authorities. The study
relates three emerging themes in particular: IT failures, function creep, and
political history of oppression to three aspects of the trustworthiness of
public authorities, namely competence, integrity, and benevolence. Stress-
ing the need to remedy the situation, the authors discuss how governments
might set about repairing and enhancing institutional trust. Suggestions are
made on how improved governance and regard for transparency in respect
of public sector identity management systems can address the negative per-
ceptions and pave the way for greater public acceptance of e-ID.
1 E-IDENTIFICATION,
INTEROPERABILITY,
AND E-GOVERNMENT
An important characteristic of e-government applications is their depen-
/> dence on technologies for managing identity. For e-government to succeed
means must be provided for citizens and businesses to engage electronically
with government via secure networks that maximize user confidence and
respect data protection standards. A system of authentication of electronic
documents must also be planned and developed (Saxby, 2006, p. 1).
108 Ruth Halperin and James Backhouse
Identity management is, therefore, the sine qua non of e-government,
where projects involve large-scale sharing of personal data and requiring
the identifi
fication of citizens as they interact with the state. Major plans
for digital identity management are being developed as part of the future
development of e-government around the world. This research focuses
specifi
fically on the electronic ID (eID) plans in Europe (Kubicek & Noack,
2010) . In 2005 the eEurope Action Plan called on the European Com-
mission to issue an agreed interoperability framework to support the
delivery of pan-European e-government services to citizens and enter-
prises (IDABC, 2005). This plan of action encompassed an abundance
of services aiming to harmonize tax, social security systems, educational
systems, jurisdiction for divorce and family law, driving risks and benefit
and welfare regimes across Europe (Kinder, 2003). The i2010 Strategic
Plan highlighted interoperability as one of its four main challenges for the
creation of a single European information space and essential for ICT-
enabled public services. As part of the plan, the Interoperability Solu-
tion for Public Administration proposed a pragmatic approach to identity
management and refers explicitly to the idea of an EU-wide eID system.1
Along the same lines, the EU Digital Agenda 2020 defi n
fi ed interoperabil-
ity as one of its key initiatives.2
While the interoperability agenda for Europe smacks of transformative
promise, a number of challenges clearly emerge. First, technical challenges
relating to data homogeneity and system interoperability for proper and
effi
fficient metadata exchange (Recordon & Reed, 2006). Second, challenges
within the policy realm of the creation, communication and diffusion of
commonly accepted standards3 (Otjacques, Hitzelberger, & Feltz, 2007).
Third, that challenges interact with these two: politics, culture and behav-
iour (Scholl, 2005). A crucial aspect of the third challenge involves citizens
Public Sector Transformation Through E-Government Page 19
