E-Government Development and Implementation Patterns in Mexico

8/6/2019 E-Government Development and Implementation Patterns in Mexico

1/73

Copyright

by

Saretta Ramdial

2007


2/73

E-Government Development and Implementation Patterns in Mexico

by

Saretta Ramdial, B.A.

Report

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School

of The University of Texas at Austin

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Public Affairs

Master of Arts

The University of Texas at Austin

May 2007


3/73


APPROVED BY

SUPERVISING COMMITTEE:

__________________________

Joseph Straubhaar

__________________________

Gary Chapman


4/73

iv

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all my professors at the LBJ School who helped and advised

me through tough math problems, seemingly intractable policy case studies, and

everything in between. I am grateful to my professional report readers, Professor Joe

Straubhaar and Professor Gary Chapman, for their advice and guidance on my year-long

endeavor. Professor Sherri Greenberg was instrumental in my decision to focus on e-

government and I thank her for giving me the opportunity to work with her. I am

especially grateful to Professor Gary Chapman for his encouragement and support

throughout my career at the LBJ School and in my job search. Finally, I am indebted to

my classmates who brought true joy and laughter to all of my experiences at the LBJ

School.


5/73

v

Abstract


by

Saretta Ramdial, M.P.Aff, M.A.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2007

SUPERVISOR: Joseph Straubhaar

E-government in Mexico continues to be a contentious policy topic in terms of

development, implementation, funding, leadership, and oversight. Much of the research

focus has been on the implementation aspect of new programs, such as the E-Mexico

project, rather than on the underlying organizational motivations and norms often

founded in political, cultural, and bureaucratic history and attributes. In the course of e-

government development in Mexico, policy makers and e-government leaders have

arguably overlooked some of the most integral factors necessary for increased usage and

service levels. These include a lack of political will to link backend systems that could

spur interagency horizontal integration, a failure to address the extremely limited

competition in the telecommunications sector that maintains high service rates despite

privatization, and a lack of investment in the domestic information technology sector that

limits work opportunities for Mexican students and professionals. Additionally, the

foundation for e-government in Mexico is weak because formal measures such aslegislation and funding models have not adapted to digital services and new information

systems. In any e-government initiative, organizational culture and history must be

considered in planning e-government programs and policy makers must acknowledge that

e-government is a potential tool for reform, but does not cause government reform.


6/73

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction to E-Government in Mexico....................................................... 1

Chapter 2. The Definition and the Importance of E-Government ..................................... 3

Phases of E-Government ..................................................................................... 5

Can E-Government Transform the Public Sector?................................................ 7

Chapter 3. Barriers and Strategies to E-Government Development................................ 11

The Two-Systems Problem ............................................................................ 11

Factions within Bureaucracy.............................................................................. 13

Funding Constraints .......................................................................................... 14

Planning Conflicts, Outsourcing, and Domestic IT Capabilities ......................... 17

Leadership......................................................................................................... 20

Corruption......................................................................................................... 22

Chapter 4. E-Government Development and Implementation in Mexico ....................... 29

Key Players in Mexicos E-Government System................................................ 30

Challenges to E-Government Implementation in Mexico................................... 33

Chapter 5. The E-Mexico Project............................................................................... 41

Controversial Factors in the E-Mexico Project................................................... 42

Chapter 6. New Directions and Policy Recommendations ............................................. 52

New Directions.................................................................................................. 52

Policy Recommendations .................................................................................. 53

Bibliography................................................................................................................. 63

VITA............................................................................................................................ 67


7/73

1

Chapter 1. Introduction to E-Government in Mexico

E-government research studies have increased tremendously in the past few years

with the evolution of government information technology (IT) plans, international

organization participation and funding, and the general trend to integrate information and

communications technology (ICT) into government reform efforts. The overall trend is to

compare programs on municipal, state, national, and international levels based on a set of

criteria often including the number of online applications, facility of use for online

services, and feedback times for Internet inquiries to name just a few. However, researchon the development and implementation of e-government programs based on historical,

cultural, and political norms is lacking due to the disassociation of ICT integration in

government service provision and government reform in general.

Many countries have jumped on the e-government bandwagon so to speak before

actually planning and developing a roadmap for transforming the public sector through a

government reform process. Trends to develop e-government portals and establish online

service provision simply follow success stories in Asia, Europe, and North America.

However, the results vary significantly in these regions due to the capacity of the public

sector to incorporate new ICT into already established practices and routines. Moreover,

the link between institutional capacity and social and political norms often goes unstudied

and unevaluated leading to expensive projects that yield below average and unanticipated

results.

Given this scenario, it is essential for researchers, public administrators, and

politicians to understand and acknowledge the connection between culture and political

history and the capacity of e-government to genuinely influence public sector

transformation. Although ICT can undoubtedly be used as a mechanism for change, it is

limited to the level of institutional capacity within a given government. Thus, public

officials in many instances must be retrained and re-socialized in order to fully


8/73

2

incorporate ICT into their daily routines and processes. Social and political hurdles that

historically inhibit change must be overcome to facilitate the success and evolution of

ICT and e-government programs.

Due to Mexicos efforts to develop a countrywide e-government system in the

past ten years and its colonial history, the country provides insight into the problems that

arise during a period of great technological integration for many less developed countries.

For example, institutionalized corruption and political patronage among public officials

and politicians in the past has encouraged a deep mistrust among citizens towards

government and influences how the public interacts with government officials to this day.

Hence, a predisposition to focus on government-to-citizen (G2C) services in Mexico at

the onset of e-government planning comes as no surprise. Arguably, this tendency

undermines economic development efforts and the countrys ability to compete in the

global market. As a result, the governments response to the legacy of political patronage

and corruption has limited the impact of e-government efforts in Internet commerce and

stifled the growth of IT firms and e-businesses.

To overcome these challenges, common to many countries, policymakers must

identify the barriers to e-government development and implementation in their countries

and focus on solutions that are most appropriate given the political and historical reality

of their countries. Presenting Mexicos story of e-government development, which spans

all levels of government, allows for an analysis of programs on multiple levels including

government-to-government (G2G) and government-to-business (G2B) as well as

government-to-citizen (G2C). A focus on the e-Mexico program, specifically designed to

increase access to information among citizens, lays out the main issues in administering

and evaluating an ambitious nationwide e-government program in a country as large and

diverse as Mexico. Understanding e-Mexicos strengths and weaknesses gives

researchers perspective into the systemic problems found in many Latin American e-

government programs. Policy recommendations created to address these dynamic issues

must be realistic and take into account the historical and political factors inherent in many

Latin American political system.


9/73

3

Chapter 2. The Definition and the Importance of E-

Government

Prior to describing the benefits of e-government it is important to define the term

itself and understand the different phases involved in e-government development. There

are a multitude of definitions from different governments, non-governmental

organizations (NGOs), non-profit groups, private firms, and researchers. In this

discussion, the World Banks (WB) definition will be used because it is broad in nature

but reveals the transformative process of e-government. It is as follows:

E-Government refers to the use by government agencies of information

technologies (such as Wide Area Networks, the Internet, and mobile computing)that have the ability to transform relations with citizens, businesses, and otherarms of government.1

There are numerous technologies that are used for different purposes depending

on the country and the goal of the program. For most countries, the overarching theme for

e-government programs is improving service delivery for citizens. However, many

countries also consider e-government as a method for improving government interactions

with businesses and industries, empowering citizens with information, and enhancing

efficiencies within the public sector in terms of management.2

Many governments also espouse certain benefits resulting from e-government

programs such as more transparent processes, a decrease in corruption, increased

convenience for citizens and public sector employees, revenue growth, and a reduction in

costs compared to traditional service delivery systems.3 However, the benefits from e-

government investment are not set in stone. There are no guarantees that e-government

will decrease costs, increase revenue, and accomplish all of the aforementioned results. In

fact, many government agencies and countries find that e-government development and

implementation requires long-term investments in infrastructure, training, and community

awareness and marketing programs. It requires long-term vision because it is not simply


10/73

4

linked to technological advances but also to attitudinal and normative changes in how

people work, interact with one another, and receive and provide services.

E-government is important for social and economic development because it

allows people to access information, communicate with each other, and provide

knowledge and information to a broad community. An increase in communication and

information between individuals allows for collaboration and networking opportunities

among people who are otherwise disenfranchised from networks or simply do not have

access to information. Many e-government programs encompass every aspect of

government service provision such as education, healthcare, and social security

programs. Thus, every citizen is affected, though not always equally, by the

governments ability to develop and implement e-government.

E-government not only empowers individuals but also small and medium-sized

businesses (SMEs) that would otherwise have limited access to the market. E-government

and the Internet allow SMEs to develop web-based businesses and provide goods and

services globally thus enhancing their ability to carve out niche markets. Additionally,

business leaders and entrepreneurs can extract as well as provide information to their

counterparts increasing knowledge networks and broadening their markets. Moreover,

businesses can improve their own processes by interacting with other firms through email

or blogs thus increasing competition between firms. Historically in Mexico, SMEs have

lower access to the Internet hence they are less likely to come into contact with e-

government programs that can enhance their businesses.4

The ability of individuals and businesses to take advantage of e-government

programs depends on the marketing of certain programs, the facility of use for the

programs, and a certain level of training in using technology. However, underlying this

capacity to use e-government are commonly accepted business, government, social, andcommunication practices that can inhibit uptake of new programs. For example,

individuals and SMEs with limited access to the Internet in the past may not be able to

conceptualize new types of communication and information gathering technologies.

Someone who is accustomed to waiting in line at a government office to receive his or


11/73

5

her pension may be wary of receiving an online pension check. Other obstacles linked to

cultures and values include a fear of providing personal information online that may be

misused by public officials.

Phases of E-Government5

E-government programs are often categorized into different phases of

development. Programs are likely to develop in ways that reflect a countrys political and

economic history and circumstances. Although the tables below signal sequential phases,

it is not uncommon for programs to skip certain phases. Additionally, some e-government

programs may stay in a particular phase for a longer period due to funding constraints orpolitical pressure to maintain the status quo.6 A Gartner Group Report from 2000

describes four phases of e-government development and explains the service delivery

modes and examples of e-government services accompanying each phase.7 Table 2.1

offers a basic rubric for identifying the phases and accompanying services.

Table 2.18

Delivery of E-Services: Technologies and Examples by Stages of E-

Government Development

Stages of E-Government

Development

Service Delivery Modes Examples of E-Government

Services - Internet or Intranet

Presence Information access and delivery

Document access and download

Online mapping/ GIS

applications

Providing names and phone

numbers of government officials.

Allowing access to government

documents.

Interaction and Communication Communication with officialsMultimedia-streaming and

playback

Interactive discussions

Email forms to allow citizens tosend requests for services to

government officials.

Multimedia presentations.

Transaction Online databasesOnline formsE-commerce applications

E-commerce transactions such asthe purchasing of hunting orfishing licenses, renewal ordrivers licenses, and thepurchasing of government

documents.

Transformation Online mapping/ GIS

applications

Smart permitting involving online

request submissions, GIS,


12/73

6

E-permitting/ wireless

applications

document management, 3D

modeling of proposed projects,

and wireless applications.

The UN developed another way to evaluate different stages of development using

a 5-phase model. In a 2002 report, the UN distinguishes between the five different phases

by identifying e-government service capabilities in each phase. In Table 2.2, the UN

report describes the applications, services, and information associated with each phase

signaling the level of sophistication of e-government programs and websites.

Table 2.29

The Five Stages of E-Government

Stage of E-Government Description of GovernmentWebsites

Applications and Services

Emerging Limited and static information Website posts government

information online butinteractions and transactions are

not possible for government

inquiries and services.

Enhanced Regularly updated information The number of websites increases

and websites include frequently

updated information. Updated

information includes newsletters,

publications, new legislation,

search engines, and email

capabilities.

Interactive Downloading and communication

is possible

Many government service

interactions are possible

including message posting, email,document and data downloading,

and document submissions.

Transactional Payment of service is possible Passport, visa, birth/ death

certificates, and payments for

licenses, permits, fees, bills, and

taxes are available online.

Security measures and more

sophisticated functions are

available including digitalsignatures, encryption, and

passwords.

Seamless Total integration of all services All services can be accessed from


13/73

7

across administrative and

departmental boundaries

one portal without

differentiation between

government agencies.

Both the Gartner and the UN report deconstruct e-government development

phases and explain the accompanying technology, applications, services, and information

offered in each phase. Although the reports mention a transformative and seamless phase

(the last phase in both tables), there are few countries that have reached either phase for a

number of reasons. Social, cultural, and political trends and legacies can facilitate e-

government development but more often than not inhibit buy-in from e-government

stakeholders. For this reason, comparing national e-government programs in different

phases can empower policymakers to research and present innovative ideas andapproaches to their own governments based on international e-government experiences.

Can E-Government Transform the Public Sector?

There are a number of schools of thought in organizational theory addressing the

ability of e-government to transform or reform the public sector. When it comes to IT

projects in general, most experts usually fall into one of two camps. Where some

researchers believe IT can fundamentally change organizational behavior, others argue

that IT can only do so much given the intent of organizational leaders and the limitations

built into bureaucratic structures.

Information technology for reform is accepted to a certain degree when it comes

to changing procedural and routine-like work behaviors. For example, using email as a

legitimate form of communication between professional colleagues has, to a certain

degree, changed the way in which people in a work environment function. In this way, IT

can shape agency behavior and routine structures that can ultimately lead to significant

change. However, where some believe IT can change the fundamental nature of a

government agency or organization, others believe it cannot.


14/73

8

For the purposes of this report, the latter school of thought will be the basis for the

following arguments and research because it is backed by multiple scholars, practitioners,

and subject matter experts across the world, including people in Mexico and other parts

of Latin America. As is pointed out in much of the e-government literature, proponents of

IT for reform sake have little evidence to use in their defense because studies and

empirical evidence tend to not go beyond administrative and incremental change.

Thus, the transformational aspects of IT projects are not realized due to a number

of factors such as organizational culture, degree of political will, and citizen sentiment

toward government in different regions and countries. That is not to say that IT projects

should not be incorporated into reform processes. Rather, researchers argue that the

impetus for reform must precede the development of an IT project because IT itself is not

a catalyst.10 Thus, IT application does not cause reform.11

One common theme in e-government literature, in terms of government reform, is

the nature of government agencies to strive to maintain autonomy within government and

to secure power and funding through legislation. Many researchers argue that government

structures are inevitably embedded in IT projects regardless of the type of project. Thus,

developing a virtual state or a ubiquitous e-government system is not about

technological capability but about overcoming entrenched organizational, social, and

political institutions.12 For this reason, IT is considered to bring administrative and

incremental change but it is not a catalyst for institutional change today any more than it

was before the Internet came into use.13

Other arguments supporting the inability of IT to instill reform in the public sector

are based in case studies from the past four decades involving different types of

technology. In academic studies, researchers have found that IT applications bring little

change to organizational structures, and seem[s] to reinforce existing structures.14

Additionally, it is argued that those at the top of organizations define agency goals

leading to the unequal distribution of IT applications across the public sector. Thus, the

primary beneficiaries have been functions favored by the dominant political-


15/73

9

administrative coalitions in public administrations, and not those of technical elites,

middle managers, clerical staff, or ordinary citizens.15

Although there are many factors that affect the outcome of an IT project, management

and organizational interests are arguably the most important areas affecting any project.

In fact, some experts claim that IT projects could be more beneficial to the public and to

the organization if they were better managed and if organizational interests, rather than

the self-interests, were promoted by managers and leaders.

Many IT projects, especially in the case of e-government, are based on admirable

goals such as transparency and accountability of government agencies and officials.

However, poor management of these projects often leads to ineffective IT programs that

can often be traced to a lack of expertise and experience in project management.

Understanding the genesis of IT projects and their relationship to broader government

reform trends will help policy makers and implementers guide projects using IT not as a

panacea but as a tool that fits into a larger and longer reform process.

In the e-government planning process, policy makers often look to other

countries programs to identify strategies for overcoming obstacles linked to cultural

norms of an agency, funding models available for financing the program, and target

audiences that will be affected by the initiative. In the Latin American region, and for less

developed countries in general, there are a number of distinct challenges that should be

acknowledged prior to starting an e-government program. The next chapter focuses on

some of the more common hurdles in e-government development in less developed

countries with a focus on Latin American cultural, political, and historical attributes.

These obstacles are essential to understand for the case of Mexico because they have

been overlooked or underestimated in the development of the nationwide e-Mexico

project and the overall e-government program.


16/73

10

Notes

1World Bank, Definition of E-Government. Online. Available:http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTINFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIO

NANDTECHNOLOGIES/EXTEGOVERNMENT/0,,contentMDK:20507153~menuPK:702592~pagePK:1

48956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:702586,00.html. Accessed: November 15, 2006.2Ibid.3Ibid.4

Elizabeth Muller and Mariano Gutirrez, OECD e-Government Studies: Mexico. (Paris: OECD

Publishing, 2005), p. 71.5Saretta Ramdial,Phases of E-Government Development. In State E-Government Strategies:Identifying Best Practices and Applications, Congressional Research Service, p. 12-13. (Draft.)6

Saretta Ramdial,Phases of E-Government Development. In State E-Government Strategies:Identifying Best Practices and Applications, Congressional Research Service, p. 12. (Draft.)7R. Sood, The Four Phases of E-Government in the Public Sector Market, (Gartner Group Report, 2000).Resource ID:308459. InDigital Government: Principles and Best Practices, Alexei Pavlichev and David

Garson, (Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 2004), p. 173.8Adapted fromR. Sood, The Four Phases of E-Government in the Public Sector Market, (Gartner GroupReport, 2000). Resource ID:308459. InDigital Government: Principles and Best Practices, Alexei

Pavlichev and David Garson, (Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 2004), p. 173.9Adapted fromS.A.Ronaghan,Benchmarking e-government: A global perspective, assessing the progressof the UN member states. (New York: United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public

Administration and American Society for Public Administration, 2001). InDigital Government: Principles

and Best Practices, Alexei Pavlichev and David Garson, (Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 2004), p.

38-39.10Kenneth Kraemer and John King, Information Technology and Administrative Reform: Will the TimeAfter E-Government Be Different?(paper presented at the Heinrich Reinerman Schrift fest, Post Graduate

School of Administration, Speyer, Germany, September 29, 2003.) Online. Available:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:4OHGXfvGNWQJ:www.crito.uci.edu/publications/pdf/egovernment

.pdf+Information+Technology+and+Administrative+Reform:+Will+the+Time+After+E-

Government+Be+Different%3F&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari. Accessed: April 7, 2007.11Ibid.12Kaifeng Yang, Neoinstitutionalism and E-Government: Beyond Jane Fountain, Social ScienceComputer Review, vol. 21, no. 4, Winter 2003. pp. 432-442. Online. Available: Lexis-Nexis Academic

Universe, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/. Accessed: April 7, 2007.13Kraemer and King, Information Technology and Administrative Reform: Will the Time After E-Government Be Different? September 29, 2003.14

Ibid.15Ibid.


17/73

11

Chapter 3. Barriers and Strategies to E-Government

Development

The following challenges encompass difficulties all countries face in e-

government development and implementation.1 However, many of these areas are more

pronounced in the Latin American region because of low country GDPs, the historical

relationship between the public and private sector, and the relationship between

government and citizens.2 In the case of Mexico, many of these challenges affect the

development and implementation of e-government systems and should be considered by

policy-makers and researchers in the planning and evaluation of programs. Arguably,

many of these obstacles have been overlooked by policy makers in the past and need to

be revisited if Mexicos e-government program in to progress in the future. In addition to

these challenges are steps to resolving various problems linked to a fear of change in

employment, cultural barriers, and budget constraints.

The Two-Systems Problem

There is a clear digital divide in Mexico that places those with limited financialresources, those living in rural areas, and those with limited educational experience at a

disadvantage for digital access. In 2005, the Internet penetration rate in Mexico was

approximately 16.3% or 17.1 million people.3 This is a significant increase from 2.7% in

2000 and reveals a large shift in Internet use. In terms of teledensity, only 18% of

Mexicans have fixed land lines, which is in line with most Latin American countries, and

approximately 43% have mobile phones in 2007.4

However, despite the large increase in

Internet and mobile phone use, there are certain patterns that reveal large disparities

between rural and urban areas and high and low-income locations. Thus, there are two

competing parallel systems that cater to different populations with a variety of usage

patterns.


18/73

12

Politicians and supporters of e-government argue that it reduces costs and can

make public service provision more effective and efficient. However, this prediction does

not prove to be true until a substantial number of users start using e-government.5 In fact,

the sunk costs of developing and creating e-government programs are very high. Thus, if

there are any cost savings they are the result of a long-term investment in ICT. Not only

is starting a program very costly, but also maintaining multiple channels of information

such as face-to-face office time, mail, and telephone inquiries in addition to online help

can tax public agencies.6

Financial costs are only part of the problem because changes in organizational

functions can also create rifts between different groups within a department. There are

often many differences between the traditional workers in a public agency and workers

coming in to undertake and manage e-government programs. Generally, digital workers

tend to be more highly educated, used to working in informal settings, and tend to be paid

more than their traditional counterparts.7 There is a clash between the traditional

workers in an agency and new workers who are hired for technology integration.8 These

two sides, representing the old-economy and the new-economy, often jockey for

political position and budgetary resources.9 Friction between groups can hinder e-

government integration and limit ICT use in the public sector in general.

In Latin America, this two-systems problem is further compounded by cultural

expectations and education deficits. Many Latin Americans rely on government processes

for socializing and interacting with their community members.10 For example, waiting in

an office or line affords a person the opportunity to catch up on the happenings of the day

with their neighbors and friends as well as receive news and current events from other

towns and cities. Thus, running errands encompasses more than simply checking items

off a list. It affords community members a chance to interact with each other.

Education deficits in the form of qualified and experienced IT professionals also

hinder the ability for e-government programs to permeate government processes. It is

difficult to find professionals to develop, implement, and maintain e-government

programs because many public education systems are under-funded and lack an IT


19/73

13

focus.11 This problem stems from the low penetration of Internet and PC use in the region

and a lack of educational opportunities for students interested in IT areas. Thus,

governments in the process of developing domestic e-government programs must search

externally for IT expertise. Once experts are contributing to the system, the two-systems

clash can be aggravated because e-government expertise comes from a foreign source and

because the existing culture lacks the technical expertise to understand and analyze

recommendations.

Factions within Bureaucracy

It is hasty for an agency to assume that investing in e-government applicationsand promoting new programs will win over public officials and convince them that

change works to their advantage. In contrast, technology adoption can be very slow and

difficult depending on how accepting public officials are of the new product. Thus,

officials must be cognizant of making concrete choices to share knowledge, adopt

technology, and use technology to further their organizations goals.12 Public agencies

and bureaucrats are slow to accept changes in how they function and manage within their

workspace. This not only applies to e-government but to every aspect of organizational

change within an agency.

In the case of e-government, cross agency coordination is the optimal way to

share, disseminate, and coordinate data among different groups. However, this

perspective is not typically found among bureaucrats who strive to differentiate their

performance and functions from other agencies often in the hopes of receiving more

funding and organizational legitimacy. Thus, public agencies sometimes prefer to

perpetuate data silos or areas where only one or a limited number of agencies have

access to specific data. This can also cause turf wars during the data decentralization

process because certain agencies identify themselves with specific functions,

constituents, and missions of the government. Despite these bureaucratic attributes, there

are many government agencies that are able to overcome agency identity problems.


20/73

14

Instead of developing a lone agencies infrastructure and service delivery model, e-

government bureaucrats must work together across agency lines and build an

infrastructure that is not particular to a single agency.13 This goal proves to be extremely

difficult due to the historical and political attributes of bureaucratic systems.

In the case of resistance to e-government programs, leaders within agencies must

overcome the inertia typical in many offices and get people to think outside the box in

terms of new ways of delivering services to the general public and the business

community.14 This is admittedly a very difficult hurdle for public agency leaders and is

often the most complex barrier for agencies to overcome. However, one way to mitigate

the problems associated with technology adoption is to put external pressure on

bureaucrats to perform more efficiently and effectively.

In Latin America, politicians and political parties can influence agency leaders to

adopt e-government development as a new policy goal. The public sector is highly

politicized and many bureaucrats are linked to the party in power.15 Thus, enforcing the

party objectives can further ones political career. Other methods include altering

incentives within the organization and creat[ing] new mechanisms of organizational

accountability that change how workers think about and perform their job functions.16

Additionally, there are certain qualities associated with technological innovation and e-

government that aid in the adoption process. They include the ease of usage [of new

technologies], compatibility with agency mission, and existence of a relative advantage in

the use of the technology.17 If in the promotion of e-government agency leaders can

maximize these factors, new projects are likely to be more accepted and integrated in the

agencys culture on all levels.18

Funding Constraints

Funding for IT projects can potentially be very expensive due to high upfront

costs. Depending on the funding model, costs can be met by different agencies within

government that are enthusiastic about providing services and interacting in new ways.


21/73

15

National and state budget expenditures can be in the multi-million dollar range for

infrastructure development, training of personnel, development of software applications,

and security settings. For the most part, IT expenditures make up approximately one to

two percent of a national budget but this depends on the affairs of the state in the

specified year and whether or not there were budget cuts that affect IT programs.19 E-

government programs are usually planned with the goal of recouping costs over time as

they are amortized and spread over more users.20

E-government programs are normally financed through general tax revenue, user

fees, or commercial advertising. In addition, some governments may combine all three

methods depending on the public adoption rates and tax revenue cycles.21 In Latin

America, there are many countries with high foreign debt and extremely limited state

revenue that cuts into the IT spending budget. In these countries, such as Honduras and

Nicaragua, the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) has provided funding for

graphical information systems (GIS) and updating accounting systems to enable the

countries to maintain and improve their poverty reduction programs and debt reduction

accounting.22 The influence of international organizations is a major driving force

behind government Internet use in the [Latin American] region.23 For many international

organizations, e-government is seen as a method for combating corruption. For example,in El Salvador, various IADB funds were provided to allow the government to track

emergency aid funds following the corrupt activities during Hurricane Mitch relief

efforts.24

Funding constraints in the Latin American region can be more pervasive when

compared to the U.S. or East Asian countries because many countries lack basic

infrastructure that is the foundation for e-government programs.25

Internal government

information systems and security infrastructure may be non-existent or antiquated making

the purchasing of equipment, maintenance of qualified personnel, and capacity building

within the public sector an even greater fiscal constraint.26

International organizations

have put pressure on some Latin American countries to improve their IT capabilities.

These improvements are often seen as part of a larger scheme to modernize the public


22/73

16

sector, increase democratic mechanisms in the state, and provide for more interaction

between public, private, and civil society groups.

Given this scenario, it is difficult to gauge the level of enthusiasm among public

officials about e-government programs because the impetus for change does not stem

entirely from an internal realization that government needs to improve its communication

with citizens. The pressure from international organizations can curb internal discussions

about IT because projects may be seen as foreign rather than domestically developed

solutions to public sector problems. In contrast, a recent piece of legislation called the

Declaration of Santo Domingo signals a turn for the better in terms of multilateral support

for e-government development in Latin America. The declaration outlines e-government

goals and challenges in the region and was signed in June of 2006 by ministers from all

the Organization of American States (OAS) countries (a total of 34) indicating a public

political commitment to furthering IT goals in the participating countries.27

Another challenge particular to the region is the relatively new shift towards

social program improvement among governments, international organizations, and

academicians. The debt crisis of the 70s and 80s caused severe cuts in social program

spending that hurt poor and middle-class groups more than any other segment of the

population. Currently, the region is plagued by inequalities in income, a lack of access to

high quality public institutions, and the bifurcation of the economy in terms of education,

health care, and other publicly provided services. Unless public administrators stress that

e-government investment is part of a larger program to better disperse public services,

they will be hard pressed to find support within governing bodies to fund expensive IT

projects.28

E-government spending can go through different cycles depending on the overall

welfare of the country. For example, a country with a strong economy and abundantresources will find that budgetary trade-offs with other spending categories are less

intense.29 However, in countries with failing economies e-government spending

competes with public assistance programs, education, and healthcare spending.30 In a

weak economy, it is difficult to make the case that tax revenues should go to e-


23/73

17

government programs rather than education or healthcare especially when these programs

positively affect the population most vulnerable to economic downturns. Given the

instability of many Latin American economies, competition for funding e-government

programs can at times be overcome by strong leadership, an effective promotional and

marketing campaign, and internal funding and external expertise that supports IT

investment.

Planning Conflicts, Outsourcing, and Domestic IT Capabilities

The delegation of e-government service development, delivery, and evaluation is

a common conflict in all governments. Public agencies struggle to find economically andpolitically acceptable solutions that often include in-house development, outsourcing to

private firms, or public-private partnerships with non-profits such as universities or with

the private sector. Within public agencies, employees may fight over whether or not

technical development and IT services should be completed in-house or outsourced.

When governments resort to outsourcing, there is often conflict within the IT area as to

who is most capable and prepared to offer particular services whether it is website design

or program management. Winning a bid can depend on how much power a company has

in the IT field. In this case, power is interpreted as expertise, financial clout, or political

connections that gives one company an advantage over other bidding companies.31

For e-government development, the government often turns to creative and

knowledgeable organizations such as research institutions and universities. These

organizations are the part of society explicitly designed for knowledge creation and

technology transfer to other organizations.32 Additionally, these institutions are the

incubators that produce new inventions for government agencies.33 Public agencies do

not rely on bureaucrats to innovate new technologies for their agencies thus these

knowledge incubators are integral to the modernization of state processes in IT and

service delivery. As aforementioned, in Latin America there is an IT expertise deficit that

curbs the states ability to use universities and research institutes for e-government


24/73

18

programs. Thus, expertise often comes from foreign sources such as international

organizations.

Different projects require different types of expertise. Public agencies may rely on

in-house services for systems that are simple and straightforward. Employees would work

with their in-house technical staff and projects would be covered by their agency budget.

Likewise, the agency would retain control over the implementation of the project and the

complementary technology.34 However, for more complex e-government systems, public

agencies most likely rely on private sector firms. This involves some loss of control and

decline in autonomy on the part of the bureaucratic agency.35

In the case of more

complex e-government systems, the private sector is extremely important for

technological innovation.

In Latin America, the private sector may not choose to become involved in e-

government development because of the perceived limited use of new programs by

citizens and businesses. Some high revenue areas, such as customs and trade e-

government programs, may offer profit-generating opportunities that match common

business models.36 However, programs that are not based on revenue through foreign

trade are often not worthwhile business pursuits. Thus, it is difficult to find businesses

that will cover the upfront investment costs because adoption is slow and profits are

minimal.

Portal development or one-stop-shopping for government services is a common

trend in e-government. Portal development and maintenance can be very complex

because it involves multiple services, applications, and public agencies. Adding services

and maintaining the website portal can be very technical and time consuming so

governments often avoid putting more burden on in-house staff by outsourcing the entire

portal project. Private companies can have an edge over the public sector because theyhave the means to become very specialized in certain tasks. For example, a public agency

that is trying to develop a portal that is accessible to all citizens may hire an outside firm

to add services and sites that are more user friendly and accessible to the disabled.37


25/73

19

Thus, outsourcing projects depends on the level of complexity and the kind of expertise

needed for the project.

In terms of government contracts and outsourcing, Latin Americas history of

clientelism and political patronage does not offer a model relationship on which to base

future IT project development and management. Pursuing any type of government

contract or public-private partnership will require a new perspective among officials,

particularly among [governments in] emerging economies.38

In many Latin American

countries there is mistrust between the public and private sector not to mention between

citizens and the government. Maintaining high standards and transparent bidding

processes can help to reduce any misgivings civil servants and the public hold against

these partnerships or outsourcing.

The ICT sector in many Latin American countries is often weak. Thus,

government agencies can be role models for IT development and use by effectively using

ICT in government sponsored projects. Governments can enhance the capacities of local

ICT firms by encouraging capacity-building partnerships between local and

multinational companies.39 E-government planning should involve the ICT sector

regardless of the level of development and expertise because public agencies can create

important relationships with private companies and draw on business connections later on

when the companies have matured.40 The long-term development of the tech sector can

work to the governments advantage if businesses are aware of e-government projects,

hurdles, and future goals. The prospect of winning a large government contract can

encourage small IT companies to be more innovative and creative, many times finding

new ways to offer services. Proving themselves as viable IT companies can put them in

the running for more contracts and stronger relationships with multiple agencies. In the

short-term, contracts that partner small companies with multi-nationals not only offer

more comprehensive services, but also invest in future domestic IT capabilities.


26/73

20

Leadership

Political will among e-government leaders is necessary to uphold active political

leadership, the financial resources, inter-agency coordination, policy changes and human

effort required to plan and implement e-government.41 In order to be effective, e-

government leaders must be risk takers, have sufficient authority to undertake projects, be

able to make large time commitments, and have the clout to publicly endorse and

promote e-government projects. Officials must acknowledge the difficulty in undergoing

any type of IT project because all projects are bound to have bugs or problems in

system coding and implementation. Additionally, resistance within bureaucracies occurs

on multiple levels for a number of reasons including:

A fear of losing a job because it will be replaced by technological advancements; Fear that agency employees will lose power within the system by losing their turf

through a change in agency function or mission;

Fear of not understanding how new technologies work and appearing ignorant in frontof colleagues and supervisors;

Fear that new technology will mean more work such as answering constituent e-mail; Belief that there is nothing to gain in learning about new technology, thus there is

nothing to lose;

And a concern that automated processes will mean fewer opportunities to receiveunofficial payments of bribes in return for using their [government employee]discretion to help certain parties.42

Any combination of these fears adds to the difficulty of implementing new e-

government programs. However, there are ways to mitigate public employee and

constituent fears. The first is to present politicians with a way to sell e-government

initiatives. For example, using projects from within the region as templates for new

programs can bring a local sentiment to the project and provide hope for success if there

is substantial support. One laudable example is Chiles online application program for

affordable housing. This project enabled poor people to avoid the red tape of traveling a

long way to an office and waiting in line by providing 70 service centers with customer


27/73

21

support.43 In this way, housing vouchers and subsidies, part of a public assistance

program, were provided to people who have very little access to computers and the

Internet.44 The advantage of this program is that service centers are dispersed among

different communities offering people multiple location options for applying for

government assistance.

A second approach to increasing support among different parties is to start small

with a modest e-government project. It can be a new project or an application that is

already in use in another Latin American country. The ability to push for support is

completely dependent upon the success of the project thus e-government leaders should

collaborate with private businesses and the public to ensure that all parties have a vested

interest in the project.45 Once the project is complete, politicians can use its success to

take credit for positive gains in society and government.46 E-government leaders can then

perpetuate the excitement about new projects by introducing more complex or inter-

agency programs that include more stakeholders. This method of increasing support can

create excitement among government leaders and the public while providing worthwhile

new public services.

A third way to push for e-government investment is through a large promotional

campaign that highlights all the benefits people will receive once the program is in place.

This can be done through posting billboards on major roads, using signs on public

transportation, and producing public service announcements that show people what,

where, and how to use the new e-government programs.47 In order for the campaign to

promote a strong message, projects should benefit a large number of people such as

receiving tax information online or renewing certain permits and licenses for

businesses.48

A successful promotional effort can create excitement among constituents

and strengthen an administrations political will to engage in new e-government projects.

E-government leaders can use the media to highlight top priorities and marshal the

financial resources that are necessary for the implementation of technical

improvements.49


28/73

22

Unfortunately, when it comes to technology investments there are many leaders

who do not support e-government programs. There are a number of reasons why leaders

are not supportive:

IT investments are expensive and risky and often do not save the state money; Alternative issues such as social programs are considered more important; Legislators may bow to vested interests who often fear that implementing new

technology will change the status quo.50

Many scholars argue that when there is a technological innovation in government,

there is usually a mayor, governor, or legislator who had the political will and authority

to support it through the decision making process.51 E-government leaders in Latin

America must acknowledge the reasons why government employees would be opposed to

technological investments. They must lay out in their campaign why the benefits of e-

government programs are greater than its associated costs and risks and how technology

investments accomplish agency goals more effectively and efficiently in the long-term.

Corruption

Corruption exists in every country regardless of the level of development and

socioeconomic and cultural variables. Arguably, there are different forms of corruption

that tend to be more prevalent in countries at different levels of development. In the case

of less developed countries, corruption takes the form of retail corruption including

nepotism, bribery, and tips among others.52 This type of corruption is highly manifest,

annoying and ubiquitous in many less developed countries.53 In contrast, more

developed countries exhibit a type of corruption that is more likely to be less

ostensiblemore institutional, legal and selective wholesale corruption.

54

Where retailcorruption is often at the administrative and street level in the form of monetary bribes,

wholesale corruption tends to occur through a sphere of intra-elite exchanges at the

political level where under the veneer of legality and formality, the currency is mainly

political and the economic stakes extremely high.55 In terms of e-government


29/73

23

development, corruption is one of the areas that can be reduced through more transparent

service provision and inter-agency communications.

In the case of Latin American and Caribbean countries, Transparency

International reports indicate that the region is corruption prone though corruption

appears in different forms depending on the country in question.56 In many of the

countries, there are specific terms for different kinds of bribes (e.g. coima and mordida)57

and the term el que no tranza no avanza (one that does not act ethically does not

succeed)58 indicating that corruption is in many ways institutionalized in the social,

cultural, and economic spheres. Corruption in the region has its roots in the historical and

cultural patrimonial legacy dating back to the beginning of European colonialism in the

1500s.59

Accordingly, cultural remnants from the colonial legacy have been adopted into

the administrative customs in many countries in Latin America affecting the

modernization of the public sector. As identified by Jorge Nef, a regional historian, there

are several characteristics that fit into an ideological cultural construct helping to

explain corruption in the administrative system.60 The following characteristics can

negatively influence e-government program development and implementation.

According to Nef, the core of the administrative culture in Latin America is

defined by the persistence of amoral familism or particularism.61 This is exhibited in

the manifestation of patrimonial practices that reveal built-in particularism leading to

insular communities, limited transparency, and a distrust of strangers surrounding the

performance of public functions.62 Formalism is another characteristic of corruption in

the region. It is dependent on the rigid hierarchical class structure in Latin America which

is more often than not preoccupied by official titles and officialdom in general. This

comes as no surprise as official titles serveas a mechanism to access privateconsultancies and alternative (and not always transparent) sources of income.63 Thus,

there are two sides to public officialdom. The first is a front of legality and formality seen

by the public and the second is a private zone of exceptionality for insiders.64

According to Nef, relationships can be explained by time in that delays, waiting, and


30/73


31/73

25

These are only a few of the numerous challenges that arise when new programs

and ideas are introduced into the government system. They have been described in

general terms and, as witnessed, some can be overcome with strong leadership and

effective planning that involves key stakeholders while others are more difficult to

overcome because they are more nuanced and require time, resources, and attitudinal

change.

It is important to remember that the aforementioned challenges are specifically

described in a Latin American context based on the focus of this discussion. However,

every government needs to consider the problems associated with e-government

development and implementation based on country-specific characteristics such as

cultural, socioeconomic, and historical factors. While there are similarities between e-

government development and implementation among all countries, there is no perfect

model or one-size-fits-all program that works in every country. Thus, identifying and

acknowledging strengths and weaknesses within government systems and areas that

require reform is essential to e-government planning. In fact, this is arguably the first step

in the e-government planning process for many countries.


32/73

26

Notes

1 Chapter 3 is part of an unpublished paper entitled E-Government Challenges in Latin

America by Saretta Ramdial. July, 2006. (Draft.)2 Interview with Miguel Porra Vign, Program Coordinator for E-Government

Development at the Organization of American States, Washington. D.C., June 27, 2006.3 Search Engines, Directories, and Internet Usage, Internet World Stats. Online.

Available: http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/mx.htm. Accessed: April 15, 2007.4Ibid.5 Darrell West,Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), p. 30.6

Ibid.7Ibid.8Ibid.9Ibid.10 Interview with Miguel Porra Vign, Program Coordinator for E-GovernmentDevelopment at the Organization of American States, Washington. D.C., June 27, 2006.11Ibid.12 Maria Christina Shcarf, Knowledge Flows and the Use of Internet-Related

Information Technologies in Public Sector Organizations: A Comparative Case Study,inDigital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance, ed. Darrell West.

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005,) p. 31.13

Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in PublicServices inDigital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance. ed.Darrell West. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005,) p. 31.14 West,Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance. (Princeton

University Press, 2005,) p. 31.15 Interview with Miguel Porra Vign, Program Coordinator for E-Government

Development at the Organization of American States, Washington. D.C., June 27, 2006.16 West,Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance. (Princeton

University Press, 2005,) p. 31.17 Louis Tornatsky and K. Klein, Innovation Characteristics and Innovation Adoption-

Implementation: A Meta-Analysis of Findings inDigital Government: Technology and

Public Sector Performance. ed. Darrell West. (Princeton: Princeton University Press,

2005,) p. 31.18Ibid.19 Class lecture by Gary Chapman, Professor, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public

Affairs, Spring 2006; Darrell West.Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector

Performance. (Princeton University Press, 2005,) p. 32.20Ibid.


33/73

27

21 Gant, Gant, and Johnson, State Web Portals, inDigital Government: Technology and

Public Sector Performance. ed. Darrell West. (Princeton: Princeton University Press,

2005,) p.32.22 Katherine Reilly, Government, ICTs and Civil Society in Central America: Is NationalGovernment ICT Use Contributing to More Democratic States? Online. Available:

http://www.undp.org/surf-

panama/egov/docs/publications_n_resources/pubs/government_icts_cso_CA.pdf

Accessed: March 10, 2007.23Ibid.24Ibid.25 Interview with Miguel Porra Vign, Program Coordinator for E-GovernmentDevelopment at the Organization of American States, Washington. D.C., June 27, 2006.26 Katherine Reilly, Government, ICTs and Civil Society in Central America: Is National

Government ICT Use Contributing to More Democratic States? Online. Available:http://www.undp.org/surf-panama/egov/docs/publications_n_resources/pubs/government_icts_cso_CA.pdf

Accessed: March 10, 2007.27 Organization of American States. Draft Resolution: Support the Implementation of the

Declaration of Santo Domingo. Presented at the 36 th Regular Session of the OASGeneral Assembly, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, June 4-6, 2006. Online.

Available: http://www.oas.org/consejo/GENERAL%20ASSEMBLY/Resoluciones-

Declaraciones.asp. Accessed: November 10, 2006.28 Interview with Miguel Porra Vign, Program Coordinator for E-GovernmentDevelopment at the Organization of American States, Washington. D.C., June 27, 2006.29

Darrell West,Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance.(Princeton University Press, 2005,) p. 33.30Ibid.31 Darrell West,Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance.

(Princeton University Press, 2005,) p. 36.32Ibid.33Ibid.34 Darrell West,Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance.

(Princeton University Press, 2005,) p. 37.35Ibid.36 Interview with Miguel Porra Vign, Program Coordinator for E-Government

Development at the Organization of American States, Washington. D.C., June 27, 2006.37 Darrell West,Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance.

(Princeton University Press, 2005,) p. 38.38 The Working Group on E-Government in the Developing World. Roadmap For E-

Government in the Developing World: 10 Questions E-Government Leaders Should Ask

Themselves. Los Angeles, Pacific Council on International Policy, 2002. Online.

Available:


34/73

28

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan005030.pdf#search=

%22roadmap%20for%20e-

government%20in%20the%20developing%20world%2C%20pacific%20council%20on%20international%20policy%22. Accessed: October 12, 2006.39Ibid.40Ibid.41Ibid.42Ibid.43Ibid.44Ibid.45Ibid.46Ibid.47Ibid.48

Ibid.49 Darrell West,Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance.(Princeton University Press, 2005,) p. 39.50Ibid.51Ibid.52 Jorge Nef, Government Corruption in Latin America, Where Corruption Lives

(Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, 2001,) p. 160.53Ibid.54Ibid.55Ibid.56Ibid.57

Ibid.58 Cecilia M. Arruda, Business Ethics in Latin America.Journal of Business Ethics,

vol. 16, no. 14 (1997), pp. 1597-1603. Online. Accessed: January 10, 2007.59 Jorge Nef, Government Corruption in Latin America, Where Corruption Lives(Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, 2001,) p. 160.60 Jorge Nef, Government Corruption in Latin America, Where Corruption Lives

(Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, 2001,) p. 167.61Ibid.62Ibid.63Ibid.64Ibid.65

Ibid.66 Jorge Nef, Government Corruption in Latin America, Where Corruption Lives

(Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, 2001,) p. 168.67Ibid.68Ibid.69Ibid.70Ibid.


35/73

29

Chapter 4. E-Government Development and Implementation

in Mexico

By the end of the 1990s, the Mexican government was increasingly using ICT for

government processes and functions. There were some initial steps taken in the 1990s to

further the use of technology such as the 1995 Telecommunications Law, the 1998

Electronic Declarations Legislation Package, and development of the e-procurement tool

Compranet in 1996. However, during this time period there was no e-government

framework or overarching policy that legislated coordination among agencies and

government branches in terms of ICT use.

As in many countries, e-government in Mexico was developed and has been

implemented using a top-down approach. Originally, e-government was the responsibility

of the Institute for Statistics, Geography, and Informatics (INEGI) which was the

authority for the federal governments IT policy. However, with the growing importance

of e-government as part of government reform on a worldwide scale, authority was

transferred from INEGI to the Presidents Office in 2000. Although e-government

programs include multiple stakeholders, in recent years it has been the executive office

that sets the guidelines for e-government programs. The Presidents Office delegated

responsibility to the Ministry of Public Administration to implement specific policies and

strategies between 2000 and 2003. In 2003, the Presidents Office transferred authority to

the Ministry of Public Administration following the creation of the Good Government

Agenda.

E-government in Mexico was formally introduced in November of 2002 when the

administration created the Good Government Agenda encompassing six areas for

political reform. The Agenda includes improving the quality of government, increasing

professionalism among government agencies and employees, improving regulatory

processes and functions, and creating an e-government component of governance that


36/73

30

supports good governance goals. It is argued by experts, however, that there are many

problems with the implementation of e-government in Mexico because of the countrys

legal formalism and the lack of federal government legislative coordination.1 In this

sense, a legal framework for e-government remains unclear because of the passing of

some laws but resistance to others among different entities in government. These legal

problems are described as patchworks and loopholes that hinder the full

implementation of e-government processes throughout all government agencies.

As seen in Chapter 3, the main challenges to e-government development in the

Latin American region stem from a number of cultural, historical, and socioeconomic

factors affecting the government system and bureaucracy. However, there are variables

specific to Mexico influencing the uptake of e-government programs among citizens,

businesses, and government agencies. The following section focuses on the key players in

Mexicos e-government development and implementation and the most pervasive

problems in implementation.

Key Players in Mexicos E-Government System

There are numerous agencies and organizations involved in the development and

implementation of e-government programs in Mexico. Many of them have been charged

with new responsibilities following the creation of the Good Government Agenda. Table

4.1 describes the roles and functions of each entity in Mexicos e-government

development and implementation. Although many of the key players and agencies have a

government mandate to be involved in the e-government planning and implementation

process, some are not formally integrated into the process but still provide important

services and advice.


37/73

31

Table 4.12

Main Agencies Involved in E-Government

Agency Description of Program/

Organization

Responsibilities

Presidents Office Office of Innovation It sets the guidelines for e-

government, coordinates e-government within the Good

Government Agenda framework,

provides guidance for e-

government accountability,

facilitates negotiations among

agency heads to devise

performance measures, andprovides leadership and political

support for e-governmentinitiatives.

Ministry of Public Administration E-Government and IT Policy Unit Guides strategic initiatives for the

entire federal public

administration system,

develops policies, guidelines,

strategies, and harmonizes [sic]

practices and standards. 3

E-Government Network Creates a forum of e-government

officials at the federal ministry

and agency level to discuss goals

and strategies.Provides officials with the

opportunity to share bestpractices and solutions to e-

government challenges.Is not legally constituted as an

administrative body but will

become a CIO council with

specialized committees if the

draft agreement for an e-

government framework is

ratified.

Ministry of Communications and

Transportation

e-Mexico Launched in 2001 to help end the

digital divide in MexicoCreated to help build a regulatory

framework for electronic media

and e-commerce.Created to establish e-learning

applications, an e-health system,

and to digitize government

services.4

National Council of Science and

Technology

INFOTEC A privately managed

government organization that

offers guidance and advice


38/73

32

regarding e-government plans.5

It is not a formal policy makingentity but is highly tied into the

strategy and implementationphases of e-government because

the organization undertakes manypublic projects with the Mexican

government.

Based on Table 4.1, it is clear that the Presidents Office and the Ministry of

Public Administration are the top key players because they set and implement the e-

government agenda. This trend is similar to other countries where the e-government push

has been top-down rather than starting at the grassroots level. For example, President

Bushs Presidential Management Agenda (PMA) of 2001 included five main government

reforms that pushed the federal government to become more efficient and accountable to

citizens and more results-oriented.6 The aim of the PMA was to integrate ICT into

President Bushs government reform plan using a number of different strategies. One of

the methods for incorporating technology was supporting the development of a

comprehensive federal e-government program. In the case of both countries, Presidential

leadership and support throughout the buy-in and development process is essential for

pushing new ideas through other branches of government.

As e-government continues to evolve, it is likely that the role of each agency or

organization will change based on preferences among new administrations, new

technologies, and different methods for collaboration among government agencies.

Likewise, entities may emerge in the form of merged agencies or entirely new agencies

because of unanticipated needs of the government and the public. Additionally, as e-

government progresses in Mexico, there will most likely be a need for increased

coordination in terms of regulations and laws that allow for coordination between theseentities.


39/73

33

Challenges to E-Government Implementation in Mexico

Chapter 3 outlines a variety of challenges that all governments face when

developing and implementing e-government programs such as overcoming corruption

and navigating through controversy over outsourcing. However, it is important to also

describe some of the country-specific variables that influence agencies in Mexico. The

following challenges are limited to problems in the budgeting and funding system, a lack

of collaboration among government agencies, and an overuse of INFOTEC among public

sector entities. These factors will be considered at a more micro-level in the following

sections with a discussion on the e-Mexico project.

Budgetary Barriers

Budgeting for e-government projects can be extremely expensive and difficult to

predict because there are no guarantees that software programs, technology investment,

and training will result in more efficient and productive agencies. Indeed, a fear of

projects becoming runaway projects is understandable and should be acknowledged by

agency leaders. This is especially important for agencies that have experienced runaway

projects and are wary of undertaking expensive ICT changes that could result in a similar

negative outcome.

According to the OECD, there are a number of problems with budgeting

structures for many countries because of the nature of ICT projects in general. It argues

that budget time horizons of e-government projects require commitments over long

periods and countries focus on single year expenditures.7 Additionally, budgetary

rigidities prevent shared funding arrangements maintaining redundancies and

duplication within the government system.8 There are also difficulties in measuring the

costs and benefits of programs because of the intangible nature of e-government

programs.9 In Mexico, the largest agencies involved in the e-government budgeting

process are the Ministry of Public Administration, which coordinates and defines

program changes, the Federal Regulatory Improvement Commission which develops e-


40/73

34

government regulations, and the Ministry of Finance, which sets the budgetary guidelines

for all government agencies.10

According to a study completed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD) in 2005, 45% of e-government officials in Mexico argue that

budgetary barriers are very important and 32% argue they are important.11 This

makes budgeting for e-government projects one of the largest external barriers to e-

government development in the country. Mexicos funding structure, argued to be very

inflexible, allows for the budgeting of individual projects, however, this causes problems

when agencies are collaborating and sharing responsibilities for a cross-agency project.12

In Mexico, many agencies indicated that a lack of funding was a problem for

them in developing and implementing e-government projects. This is not an uncommon

issue for most agencies across the board, but it is often linked to different causes when it

comes to e-government funding. For one, non-e-government officials may not

conceptualize IT investments as part of a government reform process because of the lack

of exposure or training they may have in the technology field.13 However, e-government

officials in this case are also to blame for budgetary problems because they may not

present their IT expenses as part of a larger more comprehensive business case that is

applied across the entire organization.14

For many agencies, future funding is uncertain and makes programs difficult to

plan since budgets are on a one-year cycle. One option that has been used by many

agencies in this predicament is the e-Mexico trust fund which allows agencies to transfer

unused IT funds that can be withdrawn the subsequent fiscal year. However, this solution

is temporary and ad hoc and does not help with the process of institutionalization [sic]

of e-government in Mexico.15 Another option for funding is a multi-year budget plan

which must be approved by multiple entities such as the Ministry of Finance and acongressional sub-committee.16 The timeframe for a multi-year budget is very long and,

according to OECD data, there is a low approval rate which deters agencies from entering

into the process.17


41/73

35

Inflexibility also arises within agency budgets. For most agencies, it is difficult to

reallocate funds to high priority areas because leftover funds must be used within the

same budgetary line.18 For example, if funds were not allocated by the Ministry of

Finance as IT expenditures or investments, they cannot be used for IT purposes thus

discretionary spending on the part if the agency is extremely limited. This can also be

problematic for cross-agency projects where one agency may use all available funds and

the other agency is unable to expend funds because of the budget allocation restrictions.

The end result of the inflexible IT and e-government budgets can arguably lead to less

collaboration and coordination because of the inability of agencies to follow through and

change course if operational or technical problems arise.

Lack of Collaboration

As seen in Chapter 2, there are multiple phases of e-government development that

signal a certain degree of information sharing, collaboration, and seamlessness in

functions and processes. Collaboration in projects can decrease and sometimes eliminate

redundant information and programs, saving time and resources for multiple agencies. In

Mexico, there has been an effort to collaborate on some levels including one-stop shops

(eSAT), whole-of-government call centers (chambatel), information kiosksand

government portals.19 However, based on OECD research, agencies have yet to

collaborate on higher levels including the development of e-government programs and

service delivery methods.20 Although Mexican agencies are undoubtedly coordinating in

many ways by starting to share information and developing e-government portals, inter-

agency collaboration has yet to occur due to a number of factors.

Information sharing has been advanced through the E-Government Network

which allows agency heads to share technical issues in developing and implementing

agency plans.21 Arguably, this group can also exchange knowledge of e-government best

practices, major challenges, and administrative hurdles taking information sharing a step

further. Due to the lack of institutionalization of e-government regulations and structure,


42/73

36

collaboration at the agency level has yet to be mandated through legislation. If mandated,

performance measurements and goals regarding collaboration may be built into

legislation causing agency heads to work with other agencies on collaborative projects.

More advanced coordination is seen in portal development which allows agencies to

provide hypertext links to other entities related to similar services and information.

However, much of this portal development is limited to national and federal ministry

portals with local agencies (state and municipal) going un-represented.22

In terms of collaboration, Mexican agencies have yet to advance from

coordination among agencies to collaboration among agencies. This is in part due to the

idea that Mexico is still in the initial phases of e-government development. It is also

linked to budgetary inflexibility that does not facilitate cross-funded e-government

projects or multi-year budgets for programs with a life span of longer than the traditional

one year.23 The OECD outlines a number of obstacles to collaboration which includes a

lack of common vision and understanding of e-government across agencies, the habit of

non-collaboration, internal resistance, and performance measures that do not recognize

the value of collaboration.24 Taken in combination, these obstacles inhibit the

development of e-government in Mexico. They also reveal the importance and necessity

of institutional transformation on all levels in the e-government development andimplementation process. Thus, the transformational aspect of e-government is not only in

ICT use but also in the organizational culture of an agency and the history of traditional

relationships between agencies. Ultimately, positive changes in outlook and action

regarding inter-agency collaboration in the organizational culture of Mexican agencies

will advance e-government on a municipal, state, and national level.

The lack of collaboration among Mexican agencies undertaking e-government

projects is problematic because one of the goals of e-government is to reduce

redundancies in service provision and information gathering. The fact that only a handful

of agencies participate in collaborative projects is disturbing because agencies do not

have in-house examples to follow when the opportunity for collaboration arises.

Collaboration is also not part of the evaluative process where it could be presented as a


43/73

37

feasible performance measure for all agencies. If collaboration was incorporated, it could

be expanded with budgetary incentives for agencies that participate in inter-agency

projects.

Reliance on INFOTEC

A large part of Mexicos government reform efforts is centered on transparency

and accountability among public sector employees and agencies. One of the major legal

changes in this area occurred in 2000 when the Law of Acquisitions, Leasing, and

Services of the Public Sector (LAASP) was passed to make government procurement

more transparent.25 In general, the law requires that public sector agencies make bids for

projects open and public so any appropriate supplier can bid and so that the selection

process can be reviewed by interested parties.

At face value, the law signals a major change in the government procurement

process. However, an unanticipated consequence of the LAASP is that it can add two to

six months the to procurement process making it difficult for agencies to respond quickly

to ICT problems.26 As a result, the organization most agencies turn to for IT procurement

is INFOTEC, a privately managed government research organization. INFOTEC is a

major e-government player because it is familiar with public sector processes and does

not have to go through the open bidding process other firms legally must go through to be

a supplier to

Documents

E-Government Development and Implementation Patterns in Mexico