1

eGovernance and eParticipation: lessons from Europe in promoting inclusion and empowerment Jeremy Millard, Danish Technological Institute 1. Introduction This paper examines the relationship between eGovernance and eParticipation from a European perspective in terms of promoting inclusion and empowerment. This will include an examination of current and future challenges, especially the so-called democratic deficit and the need to create a future around a new understanding of citizen inclusion, empowerment, openness, transparency and trust. How does and can ICT support these developments, and how can we understand and measure them? First, the paper will outline a methodological approach designed to understand the evolution and dynamism of governance, inclusion and empowerment and how this relates to an ICT context. This involves using insights gained from Maslow’s needs hierarchy as well as from a conceptual framework designed to separate the ‘means’ of ICT and governance activities as tools from the ‘ends’ of socio-economic and other forms of development. It is suggested that this could contribute to developing the UN conceptual and measurement framework for eReadiness and eGovernance. Second, the paper will address the changes taking place in the values and needs of European citizens and communities concerning the rights and responsibilities of individuals and of the societal collective, and how these are changing. Inclusion and empowerment are becoming increasingly important in the 21st Century as the democratic welfare state evolves. The concept of empowerment re-engages with basic human rights and needs, both by ‘going beyond formal democracy’, but also re-casting formal democracy, ensuring that all are included in a pluralistic landscape, whilst addressing issues of conflict and trade-off between individual and collective interests. Empowerment which goes beyond formal democracy also presents dangers (such as whose interests do NGOs represent and are they accountable, communities taking decisions without understanding the longer term or wider consequences and thus not being adequately responsible for those decisions, etc.), but also potentially provides large and important benefits, such as social inclusion and increased participation. Inclusion, in the context of eGovernment and eParticipation also needs re-thinking. There is a need to retreat from a narrow technology-driven approach in which eGovernment is seen as a separate activity, and instead take a holistic view from a multi-channel perspective in which the fulfilment of citizens’ needs increasingly depends on their ability to switch and make choices between technology, human and other channels suited to preference, location, service and task. Recent research shows that users of eGovernment successfully use more government services generally, also through non-technology channels, and that the important factors are access and digital skills rather than income, education or age. There is also a need to examine the role of eGovernment intermediaries between the service provider and citizen user, both professional intermediaries (from the public and private sectors) and those embedded in family or community as ‘social intermediaries’. Evidence is now showing that half of all users of eGovernment do so on behalf of others, and that a quarter receive assistance from an intermediary. Understanding and exploiting these developments is crucial in promoting service fulfilment, inclusion and empowerment. This paper does not directly address the traditional issues of eDemocracy and eParticipation, such as citizenship, participation through representation, participation through direct engagement, and similar. It instead examines new developments, challenges and ideas concerning empowerment and inclusion which are posing questions about their relative importance and impact, not just in Europe but also globally, and in relation to how they can be measured. 2. ‘Ends’ and ‘means’: separating what society wants from how society gets what it wants The European eGovernment vision for 2010 “... points at the role of eGovernment as an enabler for better government, an intrinsic political objective encompassing a series of democratic, economic, social, environment and governance objectives. These objectives can be articulated around two major axes: pursuing cost-effectiveness and efficiency, and the creation of public value…” (European Commission, 2004a)

2

The approach adopted in this paper builds on this vision and starts by taking its two major axes (cost efficiency and effectiveness and the creation of public value) as capturing the main issues and essence of eGovernment looking forward over the next few years. However, this paper needs to look further forward than 2010, and thereby proposes that the two pillars should not be seen as independent and equal pillars, but rather as ‘means’ and ‘ends’, with the interrelationship that this implies.

Figure 1: (e)Government ‘ends’ and ‘means’

Figure 1 is designed to imply, not only that public value and efficiency/effectiveness are not equal and independent, but also that public value is the ‘superior’ ends of the operational means. Public value is thus the ultimate goal, and efficiency and effectiveness are ‘only’ means to this higher end. First, therefore, we need to focus on public value which can be provided by governments, as articulated through societal values. What are these and how can the public sector in general and ICTs in particular contribute to realising them? Recent research (Millard, 2006a forthcoming) has identified four overarching ‘ends’ to which the public sector can contribute. These are defined as the ‘public values’ we aspire to create. They are articulated as societal values (to stress that all aspects of society are potentially covered, and not only ´public’ aspects), and are defined as general qualities and principles we wish to promote using the public sector, i.e. the embedded normative characteristics of society we wish to create:

1. Liberal values: covering constitutional and subsidiarity structures; the legal framework: law, regulations and rules; law

enforcement, defence and security; personal justice; and individual rights. 2. Democratic values: covering citizenship; democratic participation through representation; democratic participation

through direct engagement; engaging private interests; and developing the plural society. 3. Social values: covering how needs for and responses to socio-economic support are determined; service design and

production; service delivery; inclusion of all; environmental sustainability; place development; and quality of life. 4. Empowerment values: covering how citizens, communities, groups and interests in society can be empowered to further

their own as well as collective benefits; extending subsidiarity and reciprocity; governance coherence and balance; transparency and openness; ethics and accountability; trust; empowering the public sector as an individual actor; empowering the private sector; personalising services for individual users; and empowering the individual service user

The ‘means’ to achieve these ‘ends’, in the context of this paper, are governance roles and tasks supported by ICT. Some of these are addressed in section 3 below. The societal value ‘ends’, defined above, are derived from a number of sources. First, the structure of the European digital constitutional state, proposed by Bovens (2002) which is portrayed as a ‘house’, an edifice to which new storeys and rooms have been added and furnished over the course of centuries. Each storey of this house originated as a result of the major societal transitions that occurred during previous centuries. Although the house’s foundations had been laid earlier, it began to assume a well defined shape during the 18th century with the development of the liberal constitutional state. This thus becomes the first layer, or the ground floor, and consists of a number of ‘rooms’, such as liberty, legal protection, the rule of law, etc., which have as their central focus the protection of citizens from government as well as from each other. In the19th century, a second layer was added, consisting of the democratic constitutional state where the focus is on civic participation in government. This included, according to Bovens, political rights, the parliamentary system and the separation of politics from administration. The 20th Century provided the social layer as it saw the enactment of the first social legislation with the key emphasis on the protection by government of citizens against an assortment of socio-economic calamities, expressed in a number of broadly formulated social constitutional rights. This required a whole array of social and economic regulation, including the

• capability & effectiveness

• services • integration &

efficiency

increased public value

‘means’ contributing to public sector transformation

‘ends’ the desired outcome

defined by ’societal values’

3

regulation of competition, of industrial relations, and of the provision of goods and services in the context of the so-called welfare state. Although Bovens house is thereby complete, he goes on to suggest some of the possible ‘rooms’ in a new layer, including information rights and transparency. This 21st Century layer he terms ‘digital’, although here we instead substitute the term ‘empowerment’, and extend the analysis to reflect much of the current evidence which points to the likelihood of this being an area of prime focus for European government during at least the early years of this new century. At this 21st Century ‘empowerment’ level, focus is increasingly on values which incorporates public and civil interests, space, culture and sanctuaries, i.e. outside the logic of the market and individual profit, and beyond most of the current roles of the formal public sector. The empowerment domain is thus seen more and more as wider (possibly much wider) than the public sector and government. It now also includes and actively promotes civil society, the active support of which we can now argue should be a main priority of government perhaps for the first time. In this upper and future-oriented layer, many of the roles and tasks are quite new, but many also re-examine and re-interpret roles already established. For example, there is a need to re-think and perhaps transform our existing notions of democracy, participation and subsidiarity. Understanding this need for re-interpretation is facilitated by the historical evolution approach adopted. The other main source for guiding the arrangement of the societal values is Maslow’s needs hierarchy. (Maslow, 1943).1 This well established analysis of needs places each one within a pyramid with those at the bottom being basic needs which must be satisfied before needs further up the hierarchy and pyramid are even contemplated let alone fulfilled. Thus, the lower layers are necessary conditions for each succeeding layer, whilst the upper layers are more specialised and sophisticated. In Maslow’s original needs hierarchy, the first basic need consists of the simple physical requirement of survival, including food, warmth and shelter. This can be compared to the first layer in Bovens’ adapted model which is, as described above, concerned with the protection of citizens from government as well as from each other. Higher needs progress through social and then cultural and psychological needs. Arranging the societal values within Bovens’ house-like structure of the constitutional state seems to provide an instructive analogy with increasingly specialised values, each dependent on the existence of the values in the layer below for their realisation. (See Figure 2)

Figure 2: Maslow needs hierarchy adapted to societal values 3. The ‘means’ to empower individuals and communities Empowerment values comprise the top, and historically most recent, layer in the development of societal needs and values proposed in this paper. It is more forward-looking in the sense that many of the means to achieve it have not yet been 1 Other sources include: Bentley, T and Wilsdon (2003), Leadbeater, C (2004), Stedman, JD (2003), Demos (2006), Miliband (2006), European Commission (2006), Castells (1996), Marshall (1950), Drache (2004).

‘ENDS’ as societal values

4. Empowerment values 21st C

20th C 3. Social values

2. Democratic values

1. Liberal values

19th C

18th C

4

seriously addressed in practice, whilst these also need to be seen in the context of earlier means of governance which remain important. Thus, promoting empowerment values requires a dual approach. First, re-evaluating and re-designing the means used to achieve earlier values but within a 21st Century and forward-looking empowerment context. Second, addressing quite new means which derive from an empowerment philosophy. At the empowerment level of the proposed taxonomy of societal values in Figure 2 rests on a widely defined public domain which incorporates public interests, public space, public culture and public sanctuaries, i.e. beyond the existing formalised public sector. The public domain is thus seen more and more as wider (possibly much wider) than the public sector, as it also includes and empowers civil society. The old narrow idea of government in which citizens passively receive services and vote every four or five years, and where the state acts on their behalf (government for the people but not by the people) is being challenged by the responsible parent, the informed patient, the active citizen, the dedicated teacher, nurse or local public servant, and by outsourcing to individual volunteers or private companies . Each of these could, with an extension of choice and voice, both individual and collective, be enabled to take greater control over their own lives and the lives of their communities, with or without direct support from the formal democratic and government institutions. We need to decide the extent to which we wish to see such developments take place. The concept of ‘community’ comes alive in a myriad of local associations, charities, informal and semi-formal interest groups (both short and long-term), and voluntary organisations. These can perhaps do things the state finds it less easy to do. They focus on the local, on one-to-one help, on unearthing and stimulating local resources, and on being innovative. They can be practical and responsible citizens in action, which governments could encourage. For example, in the UK the current debate is about encouraging new forms of community involvement through so-called citizens' juries, neighbourhood agreements on service delivery, and the transfer of assets to community groups and neighbourhoods with their own budgets and spending ballots. (Miliband, 2006) Much of the current European unease about the public sector is expressed in the term the ‘democratic deficit’, which sees millions of people across Europe turning away from elections and political parties in favour of single issue campaigns and direct action. Thus, although there may be a long term decline in trust in the political system, civil culture and involvement are on the increase. People may feel empowered as consumers but not as citizens. The gap between politics and public seems to be growing. People are becoming disengaged because they feel they are disempowered. A less deferential, more democratic world is threatening a crisis of legitimacy, in which state institutions framed for the old world seem less and less capable of responding to the new. A new paradigm is needed. At its core should be a desire to redistribute power so that responsibility for meeting the challenge of economic, demographic, environmental, social and cultural change is shared between citizens, states and communities, as well as with the private sector. For example, instead of people orbiting around public services, public services should revolve around people. Without citizen and community empowerment and engagement none of these challenges can be met. In the words of Drache (2004) and Nevitte (2000), the old clientelism of the welfare state (derived from the social values developed during the 20th Century) is outmoded and citizens feel that they have much to add to public life but those who are elected to Parliament and legislatures tend to listen less and less. In this context, citizens must take back government from the administration and the politicians. Government is too important to be left to administrators and politicians alone. An historic shift in governance away from earlier systems is required: • Stalinism, 1950s to 1970s, “we know what people want” approach – and this wasn’t just in Eastern Europe. • Consumerism, 1970s to today and still rampant, “give people a choice [but within restricted parameters and ignoring

pluralist needs], and treat them like consumers”. In essence, only a few steps on from ‘Stalinism’, but in a prettier package.

• Empowerment, the next big challenge – initiative, control and influence should be devolved as widely as possible throughout society commensurate with good governance and promoting the wealth, welfare, cohesion and sustainability of society.

Above all, there is an increasing ‘power gap’ below the lowest level of elected government, and thus beyond formal democracy and politics. One of the 21st Century challenges to government is to fill this gap. The empowerment of public and civil sectors can also greatly enhance the empowerment and well-being of individuals, of groups and of the private

5

sector. Getting the balance right between these collective and individual empowerment values becomes even more critical in the 21st Century. A series of ‘means’ to address empowerment values can be proposed, each of which can be supported, to a greater or lesser extent, by ICT: i) Empowering communities, for example by:

• Encouraging social enterprise and social entrepreneurs • Generating knowledge in learning communities • Local area agreements between the public and community sectors

How ICT is used in human, social and economic contexts is crucial to empowerment. A central theme is whether ICT can empower individuals and communities, or will it instead lead to isolation? This question is whether ICT can be used to ‘bridge’ between heterogeneous individuals, communities and groups, or is it best at ‘bonding’ between similar individuals and within existing homogeneous groups? What are the roles that the public realm can play in both cases? Existing research shows that ICT can be used for both ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’, depending on circumstances and purpose. (IPTS, 2004) Thus, it depends on how the technology is used, which means that decision-making and policy frameworks are crucial for successful and appropriate ICT application. There are also potential dis-benefits in terms of variable service standards, uncertain quality, and blurred responsibility and accountability, as soon as we step outside the formalised public sector. Moreover, handing over some power to un-democratic, un-elected organisations, can pose ethical as well as practical problems. Establishing and applying standards (or codes/charters of conduct), though not too rigid or the benefits may also disappear, for both services and the activities for un-elected communities bodies, could be a way forward. It is of course also possible, to elect such bodies and use other processes like consensual policy making or even conflict-resolution and appreciative inquiry techniques where such are warranted. (Cooperrider & Whitney) ii) Extending subsidiarity and reciprocity, for example by:

• ‘Double devolution’ and closing the ‘power gap’ • Promoting social justice and advocacy • Promoting the independence, accountability and viability of communities • Creating subsidiarity and reciprocity beyond formal democracy

A strong public sector can strengthen the community and voluntary sector, and a strong community sector can strengthen the public sector. Evidence shows that countries with more generous state support, such as in Scandinavia, have higher levels of social capital and trust than those with smaller states. There is a good correlation between active public sector and active civil (community) sector. For example, as the public sector has grown considerably in the UK since 1997, this has been accompanied by a corresponding growth in the community and voluntary sectors. (Miliband, 2006) A critical Issue is does devolution down to the very local level work without formal democracy and politics, when democracy is defined in practice as formal structures of voting which normally goes hand in hand with politics, which, in turn, normally also means party politics. There is a power gap in society, at the very local community level, but should this be tackled beyond formal democracy and politics, with which people have become disillusioned to some extent, and instead look to a thriving community and voluntary sector? Does community empowerment provide benefits from initiatives and actions beyond the structures and politics of formal democracy? (Though the extent to which formal democracy extends down to the very local levels varies widely across Europe.) Community and voluntary groups, NGOs, etc., are beyond formal democracy and have the advantage that they can respond to actual on-the-ground need and find additional (normally) local resources, through being genuinely grass-roots and bottom-up driven. However, they are un-elected and there can be questions about who they represent and who gains and who loses from their actions. To whom, ultimately are they accountable, and who decides this. There is also the threat of descending into street politics and a form of mob rule, as well as the encroachment of quangos as formalised but un-democratic institutions in some Member States (such as the UK).

6

On the other hand, formal democracy can also end up as the dictatorship of the majority and miss or avoid serving the needs of all and especially of minorities. It can also become party political when this may not be appropriate at the very local level. So, should there be a space for social enterprise and social entrepreneurs beyond formal democracy? If there is, it must ensure that it does not conflict with formal democracy and really does fill a genuine power gap. Research does show that the problem of the so-called postcode lottery does arise, i.e. highly variable standards, for example of public services, from place to place. (Demos, 2006) However, it may be more important that public services reach real people and respond precisely to what they need at the very local level, than (the strict maintenance of) national standards. In many Member States, local authorities enjoy considerable fiscal discretion. The postcode lottery of areas setting their own priorities can be overcome at a national level through redistributive grants to maintain minimum service levels and equalise resources between rich and poor areas, though this system may be difficult to extend to the community sector. The issue for individual areas then becomes one of choosing priorities above that minimum, and of tolerating diversity. Without devolved power and the money that drives it, however, such choice is meaningless. iii) Improving governance coherence and balance, for example by:

• Centralisation to achieve minimum standards, simplicity efficiency • Decentralisation to achieve responsiveness, subsidiarity and diversity • Networking governance to achieve the benefits of both centralisation and de-centralisation, and to minimise their

dis-benefits (includes finding the balance, the ‘sweet spot’ between the two • Balancing simplicity with complexity • Balancing stability with change • Balancing rights with responsibilities

Centralisation in a public sector can provide many benefits for service delivery, particularly from the perspective of public administrations. First and foremost, it can generate a high level of efficiency. It can also provide equality of service, as everyone everywhere will be entitled to the same level of service in a centralised system. Centralisation can also provide very clear and precise rules and frameworks for public services, which enables clarity in understanding the roles of government and citizens. However, transparency is an issue for a closed, centralised public administration, whose internal communication methods do not easily facilitate openness within, or outside, the administration. Privacy is also a concern for individuals who live and work in administrative regions which are highly centralised. A single centralised government vision heads in completely the opposite direction from the model of good governance suggested by the European Commission in the 2001 White Paper on European Governance, which outlined five key principles: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, and coherence. All of these, perhaps barring effectiveness (in the context of efficiency gains) and coherence, are difficult to achieve in a centralized public administration. The strategy of a centralised public sector implies that eGovernment could become a powerful tool for efficiency, but the real governance objective and impact could become obscure. Efficiency alone will become paramount, but for purposes which are unclear, obscure and perhaps unknowable for many. Thus, this strategy avoids a full consideration of public value, what it is, how it can be achieved, and how eGovernment can support it. In other words, effectiveness in terms of public value becomes sidelined by the search for efficiency. In the centralisation strategy there is a danger that the public sector retreats into itself and only concerns itself with the maintenance of its own (state) power and interests, for example with a heavy focus on legal issues, law enforcement, and security aspects, plus overall bureaucratic control. Efficiency would, however, be maximised, and ICT would, of course, provide excellent tools for such a scenario. A de-centralised and diverse public sector, on the other hand, would focus on a specific set of benefits for one group, location or interests, and, in effect, ignore the benefits or dis-benefits which may accrue to others as a results. Thus, it might be very good at meeting the precise needs of particular jurisdictions and actors (for example, at the local or regional level, or of business), but it would be quite bad at reconciling such needs across all jurisdictions and stakeholders. The danger of the decentralised and diverse public sector is that eGovernment will wither into inter-jurisdictional strife in which each agency and interest only strives to maximise its own efficiency, whilst larger scale effectiveness is sacrificed

7

and forgotten. In principle, governance is all about finding the balance between the centralisation and decentralisation of powers, and what the resulting allocation of ‘good’ and ‘bads’ should be as a result. a de-centralised public sector maximises specific benefits and foregoes general benefits. The networked government strategy, on the other hand, attempts to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the centralised and de-centralised approaches. There are both benefits and dis-benefits of simplicity and complexity. Can people trust something they cannot understand? Simplicity can be seen as part of the ethos of open, transparent and accessible government, particularly if this helps to ensure that the legislation, rules and regulation governing a given service are sufficiently simple and understandable for most users to appreciate and exploit. A society governed fully or mainly by a legal and regulatory framework which is obtuse, hidden or can only be understood and wielded by experts, could be argued to be profoundly undemocratic. On the other hand, simplicity may compromise quality and effectiveness. In the UK, the tax system has become much more complex since 1997 but as part of an attempt to make it fairer by targeting the poorest through means-testing and tax credits. Without this complexity, precise targeting could not easily take place so that both rich and poor citizens would, for example, receive tax breaks. Fairness and efficiency seem to mitigate against simplicity. A similar problem bedevils the Danish tax system, where for many years most citizens and businesses have received pre-completed tax returns from government, based on a standardised ID number and government access to relevant personal data from employers and banks, so that complexity has been side-stepped. The tax system is complex, but this does not matter for most citizens and businesses because the government, in effect, calculates their tax for them. Clearly, high trust in government is necessary for acceptance of such a system. In balancing stability with change, Agre (2000) distinguishes between institutions and organisations. An institution is a persistent form of relationships among people; examples include horseracing, the medical system, greeting rituals, the university, the stock market, management consulting, Christmas, the family, the common law, and the nation-state. Institutions can vary across history and between different societies, but they are remarkable for their ability to remain relatively unchanged for hundreds of years at a time. Institutional persistence is a bad thing when the institutions are unjust or inefficient, but it is a good thing when they enable people to predict the future, focus their attention, and compel others to keep their promises. Institutional theorists make a big point of distinguishing between organisations (such as government agencies, nonprofits, and civic associations, as well as private companies), which come and go, and the persistent institutions within which those organisations are embedded. For example, one distinguishes between the institution of the university and particular universities, or between the institution of broadcast journalism and particular news stations. We need to distinguish between institutions and their component organisations when examining the place of ICT in government. Finding an appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities is clearly necessary, and could be argued to be at the base of collective values. Collective rights can, however, also be a root of dis-benefit for some groups, not just because their power and autonomy are reduced, but because their own legitimate rights can be compromised. A typical example in the public sector context is the right of civil servants to some shielding from the searchlight of total transparency which we otherwise see as a collective public sector value. A total transparency which completely opens the workings of the public sector to full outside visibility and scrutiny, can place the individual civil servant under, arguably, intolerable stress, exposure and monitoring, thereby rendering her/him reluctant to take decisions or accept responsibilities for their action. Clearly such a state of affairs depends on the prevailing public sector ethos and citizens’ trust in government, just as much as it depends on proper standards and management. These need to be fashioned for widespread acceptance that the public sector can, and indeed should, take proper and proportionate risks, and will experience policy and process failures, as long as these are not due to un-professional conduct nor to ignoring the lessons from earlier mistakes. Public sector ICT projects are a classic example here, compounded by the fact that such projects typically need to be large scale, complex and innovative. Projects like this have a poor record everywhere in the world, both in the public and private sectors (Cross, 2005), but it is almost universally the public sector that receives the bad publicity, and where those involved (civil servants and politicians) are heavily criticised. This is due to legitimate and necessary transparency. But, no wonder, that many civil servants are over-cautious, risk averse and frightened of ICT projects, i.e. frightened of eGovernment! iv) Increasing transparency and openness, for example by:

• Generating public information and making it freely available • Total transparency and openness • Responsive decision-making

8

• Protecting legitimate interests from transparency and openness, for example the working conditions of the civil servant and the privacy interests of the citizen.

Total openness and transparency provides the perfect model of open government, where citizens can trace every single interaction with the public administration right down to the name of the individual who is dealing with their query or case in real time. This could include not just transparency of information, of services and their availability, or similar, but also total transparency of the whole purpose and all actions, processes and outcomes of government. This would mean that all have access to (perfect) knowledge about what is going on, and the impact this has or is likely to have. This would make it possible to relate decisions and actions very precisely to the whole set of diverse (sometimes contradictory, sometimes complementary) needs of all actors.

System transparency should enable citizens and civil servants to trace and track requests and cases through the public sector, in order to follow progress, know which part of the system (perhaps down to individual civil servants) is currently responsible, and to better foresee and circumvent bottlenecks or roadblocks. Similarly, it should be possible to track and trace decisions, even when these have taken place ‘invisibly’. The placing of responsibility (and indeed IPR where relevant) could be critical, especially in relation to users who, by way of their status or situation, may not be able to exercise their own responsibility, such as children, the elderly, the handicapped, etc. This will also allow users to become involved, to be better informed and able to exercise some control for their own benefit. v) Improving ethics and accountability, for example by:

• Promoting the public service ethic, especially amongst civil servants • Promoting accountability • Publishing codes and charters • Extending universal ICT service • Enhancing the role of government as an arbiter and referee • Finding new forms of accountability when government is just one player amongst many

Codes and charters can provide useful benefits by establishing quality standards that define the relations between citizen and government. They can be formulated as benefits both citizens and government are entitled to, matched by their obligations (i.e. rights and responsibilities). They are in the interest of both citizen and government. By making government tangible in the front office, it gives incentives for back office reorganisation. Thus, such codes can be instruments to stimulate the further beneficial development of government from the citizen’s perspective. The code also empowers both citizens and government, so both know precisely what they are expected to do, for example, in relation to email response times, being able to benchmark different local authorities, etc. However, dis-benefits can include a focus on easily visible and measurable aspects (including when these are presented as performance targets) at the possible expense of more invisible processes which could be just, or even more, important. For example, in the UK, a service code was established that all citizens should be able to see their local doctor within 48 hours for non-emergency consultation. Because of the pressure on local medical practices, this resulted in doctors’ secretaries refusing to make appointments more than 48 hours in advance even to those patients who wished to book a consultation on a specific day in the future. The overall quality of the service offered to patients was thus considerably reduced. This is a classic example where the implications of specific targets were not thought through, and where insufficient resources were made available to achieve them without drawing such resources from other parts of the system not being measured. Evidence from the UK generally shows that codes in the form of specific targets can be highly beneficial in terms of driving up the quality of services experienced by citizens (as well as improving back-office efficiency), but that this can only take place where wider implications are thought through and adequate resources provided. Partially for these reasons, the UK is now moving away from detailed and precise process targets to more general public value performance targets which enable civil servants themselves to determine precisely how these targets are to be achieved, and to dispose of and organise resources in a manner suited to actual circumstances. In the shift from legality to arbitration and transparency there are clear benefits and dis-benefits. On the one hand flexibility and more responsive government is likely, whilst on the other a reduction of accountability and democratic control can take place. The latter is likely in situations where many private interests are represented, each of which has variable powers,

9

which could be greater even than those of the government, and where there are few or unclear legal or procedural rules being followed. This can add to the democratic deficit, as well as increased complexity. vi) Enhancing trust, for example by:

• Improving confidence • Enhancing mediation and reciprocation • Coping with risk and scale

Trust seems to be one, if not the, common factor in the successful use of ICT for the purposes, not just of empowerment, but also more widely in the economy, the role of (e)government, and in the social lives of citizens and communities. (Millard, 2006b forthcoming) High levels of trust positively impact economic and social relations of all sorts, and reduce inequality which is itself a barrier to both empowerment and economic performance. Wilkinson, 2005) It also minimises suspicion of new technology and change generally. Trust also improves dealings with government and civil society. Reciprocal trust is critical in furthering empowerment, (Social Capital Project, 2005) but this remains a highly misunderstood and under-researched area, especially in the context of the public sector and eGovernment to which it is highly relevant.2 vii) Personalising services for individual users, for example by:

• User segmentation • Awareness and responsivity to changing user needs • Personalising services through close government-citizens relations • Personalised pro-active services • Personalisation through intermediation

User segmentation focuses explicitly on maximising the benefits for a specific user group, and avoiding dis-benefits resulting from a mis-match of service supply and user demand or need. However, there are many different segmentation strategies, and many different notions of a ‘clear customer group’. There could be an infinite number of target groups, so the question is when do you stop splitting into smaller and smaller groups – ultimately when you get down to the individual personal level, hence also the importance of building in personalisation strategies. In the UK, for example, the user segment strategy has identifies 16 major user groups around which the government online website is designed. Building up a personalised relationship between a user and the public sector, normally in the form of an individual civil servant acting as a type of personal ‘citizen account manager’, will enable valuable tacit knowledge, including trust, to develop. Of course, a user must be able to opt out and/or change her/his civil servant contact, as should the latter in difficult or conflict-ridden circumstances, including falling back on a team approach to the same type of relationship. Information empowered front-line civil servants will reinforce delivery of the 'no wrong door' policy and will also allow much practical help to be given beyond a civil servant’s own area of service delivery. This concept could contribute sharply to increasing the skills and job quality for many public service workers, with additional rewards attached to graduating first as a 'service navigator' and then as a 'service advocate' for the citizen across a wide range of services. Some moves in some countries have already been made towards some aspects of the citizen account manager strategy. For example, the use of human civil servant ‘intermediaries’ operating out of small citizen offices located in the more deprived areas of Berlin, and using a digital suitcase to visit old people’s homes, hospitals and the like. Such beneficial mixing of technical, human and other channels is being increasingly used to target groups with special needs. Also, in Seattle in the USA a system of mobile civil servants visiting citizens, rather than citizens travelling to the town hall, is being established based on the capabilities of the city ICT backbone. Another benefit is more civil servant time ‘on the beat’, i.e. in the front-line, and also implies eliminating back-office work which is unnecessary, being duplicated or done inefficiently. The key issue is how to down-size (and perhaps centralise) the back-office and up-size (and perhaps de-centralise) the front-office. (Millard et al, 2004) The aim here is not to have civil servants on the front line delivering the same old service in the same old way, but to also empower them to do more, across more areas of service for more people. When changes in back-office and front-office are connected, this also points to the

2 See also Fukuyama (1995) and Putnam (2000).

10

need for a new wave of 'mobile government' projects, with empowered front line workers staying in the field rather than returning to an office to undertake ‘administrative’ functions, and all civil servants being able to access information on a wide range of issues for citizens while out in the community. Many non-technology issues are important in building up such relationships, including a clear understanding of the ethics involved, the rights and responsibilities required from all parties, and the need for trusting, two-way obligations, based on dialogue and mutual learning. Both user segmentation and personalisation can, however, be extremely costly for the public sector to develop highly nuanced personal welfare systems. This may be mitigated, on the other hand, by increased public value benefits, as well as closer adherence to statutory and other responsibilities placed on the public administration. These strategies may also mean that any dis-benefits arising from a standardised approach, which may manifest themselves in greater demand for other services and/or in increased social problems, including anti-social behaviour, are reduced. Proactive services can be a huge advantage for the user, both because they remove the need to remember to identify when, where and how the service should be used, but also because they save time and effort. This can add considerably to increased growth and competitiveness in the wider economy, especially where users are businesses. It can also be an advantage for the user where services are based on, what for the lay-person, can appear complex legislation, multiple rules and difficult to understand procedures, requiring expertise rarely possessed by the small business or average citizen. For the agency, the ability to offer pro-active services can also bring important benefits. The agency can be assured that the service is activated at the right time and place, is efficiently and expertly fulfilled with no or few errors, and is not delayed by waiting for users to fulfil certain responsibilities or provide certain data. Typically, a pro-active service is one which requires data already possessed by the public sector, or which are easily and legally obtained from third sources (such as employers). These data are then combined as necessary within the context of governing legislation or rules to initiate the service, whether this be paying the user money, requesting money from the user, offering the user certain entitlements, imposing certain obligations on the user, etc. In most cases, the user is obliged to confirm the service initiated before it is implemented, although in some cases non-response is taken as affirmation. In the latter case, the service truly ‘disappears’ from sight as far as the user is concerned, even though it is fulfilled and thereby provides the user with benefits, or imposes obligations, which do of course affect the user. There are, however, also potential dis-benefits including the potential mis-use of the significant power the public sector exercises, though this can be controlled or beneficially channelled through adequate systems of democratic control. Despite being highly pro-active and involved, this strategy could also result in the public sector moving beyond the control or oversight of users, as it can provide services without the user needing to initiate the service or even to be aware that s/he needs the service at that time. There are also significant issues surrounding the invasion of individual user privacy and data protection inherent in this. It is clear that intermediaries can have immense benefits in ensuring that users who need services successfully receive them. This, of course, could add costs to either the public sector itself or other actors acting as intermediaries, but has the advantage of increasing public value benefits, as well as closer adherence to statutory and other responsibilities placed on the public administration because more users are served. The strategy could also mean that any dis-benefits arising from not using an intermediary, which may manifest itself in greater demand for other services and/or in increased social problems, including anti-social behaviour, are reduced. Often users do not care how a service is delivered, or who delivers it, as long as it is easy, cheap, quick and provides service fulfilment. However, the involvement of intermediaries is, by definition, more visible to users and can have a big impact on their ability to access and successfully use a service (in fact that is the main purpose of intermediaries). The importance of intermediaries in delivering public sector services may have been significantly under-estimated. New research (Millard, 2006c forthcoming) shows that the same amount of eGovernment use is undertaken on behalf of users’ employers (i.e. as part of their job) as on their own behalf. In addition, almost as much eGovernment use is on behalf of family or friends as for own use, and such ‘social intermediaries’ assist, on average, 2.6 other users. (Many individual eGovernment users will, of course, be mixing use for themselves, their employers and family/friends.) The research also

11

demonstrates a ’30-70’ rule, i.e. 30% of all users are assisted (partly or fully) by a social intermediary, whilst 70% are using eGovernment without any assistance. Further, 30% of this 30% are totally assisted whilst 70% are partially assisted. When we look at the characteristics of social intermediaries, they are far from being Internet ‘nerds’. They tend to be over 35 years old, male, unemployed or early retired, a mix of educational background (including little education), and reside in what the UN terms ‘emerging’ rather than ‘advanced’ eGovernment countries.(United Nations, 2005) An examination of those receiving support from social intermediaries shows that they are users who otherwise are highly likely to be beyond the digital divide and excluded from eGovernment. Typically they are over 35 years old (with many over 65), have no or lower secondary education, are female, unemployed, not working or retired, low income or in poverty, and reside in what the UN terms ‘early’ and ‘emerging’ rather than ‘advanced’ eGovernment countries. viii) Empowering the individual service user, for example by:

• Individual self-service • User-driven innovation in the public-sector

Shifting responsibility and control to the individual user can provide significant advantages, both because doing so enables users to determine when, where and how the service should be used, and also because they can determine the precise features of the service they wish to exploit. It also enables individual users themselves to follow the progress of service implementation from initiation to fulfilment, for example by using transparent tracing and tracking functions. Further advantages include the ability to check for data inaccuracies or inappropriate information, faster updating of user data, and checking that the public sector possesses only data it is entitled to, and/or which the user wishes it to have. This also means that issues surrounding the invasion of individual user privacy and data protection tend not to be significant. Finally, and perhaps of most significance in a modern democracy, shifting some responsibility and control for appropriate services to individual users can be seen as part of the ethos of open, transparent and accessible government, particularly if this helps to ensure that the legislation, rules and regulation governing a given service are sufficiently simple and understandable for most users to appreciate and exploit. For the agency, shifting more responsibility and control to individual users can also bring important benefits. These include the likelihood that some tasks, such as data input and checking, are significantly reduced, thereby saving staff and other resources, as well as, in certain pre-defined circumstances, relief from the obligation of having to supply the service at all, given that the onus for service initiation is on the individual user. Provided that relevant users are appropriately informed, equipped and skilled, this could also mean that the service is much better targeted than if it is provided across the board or if the agency itself takes all targeting decisions. It can also mean that users become more involved in service provision which, although perhaps an irritant in some contexts, can assist in fulfilling certain decision-making and democratic functions the agency may have. As a concept, self-service is likely to be most useful in relation to citizen use of online services, and, as with front line staff, the wider advantages of empowering citizens should not be underestimated. However, many citizens who rely on public services the most are not confident enough in their use of technology to engage in this kind of activity. The self-service approach could thus also incorporate the notion where appropriate of 'assisted self service', which initially could mean a variety of intermediary actors being allowed to perform full search and transactional services on behalf of the citizen. This would effectively extend the reach of self-government, would drive take up of self-service online services and bring the savings to government associated with that, and should result in improved speed, convenience and quality of service for the citizens involved. Enabling individual citizens to actively self personalise a service is being done increasingly by the use of electronic personal agents (including avatars) which are able to ‘learn’, for example, through neural processing, how the citizen uses the service and respond accordingly. Overall, the individual empowerment values, with their focus primarily on the public sector supporting individual and private needs and interests, maximise the benefits for such interests, but could lead to increased exclusion if users are left purely to their own devices and use services entirely on their own initiation. Many users are likely to be left behind by such an approach. Also, issues of legitimacy and accountability will arise, not only for public administrations but also for

12

politicians. However, efficiency in terms of costs, responding to user demand (maybe at the expense of wider societal need) is maximised. User-driven innovation is a particular type of product and service innovation. Much current thinking in eGovernment is predicated on the concept of user- or citizen-centric systems (for example, the European Commission, 2004b). The next step, within a ten to fifteen year time frame, should transform this into a strategy for user-driven innovation. This means not just designing government and services for users and taking their needs fully into account (i.e. user-centric), but drawing users themselves fully into the processes whereby government and services are determined and created (i.e. user-driven). To borrow a phrase, not just ‘government for the people’ but also ‘government by the people’. ICT can be a transforming instrument to help us achieve this. There are challenges and potential problems in relation to user-driven innovation. Firstly, that users may want, not unreasonably, some recognition of their role as joint authors of innovation. In computer games that comes in the form of recognition from within the community of gamers. Secondly, the response of the professionals, designers, doctors, teachers, civil servants, architects, etc., who feel their position may be threatened by user participation. A good example of this is what has happened to journalism which long resisted user incursions and restricted readers to the letters page only. Today we have blogs, pro-am journalism, wiki-pedias, etc. There are, also, significant questions of quality and standards, which are real challenges, but probably not insurmountable. Many, though of course not all, government users (citizens, businesses and civil servants) are no longer prepared just to be passive recipients of government and eGovernment services. Some experiments in the UK have already started applying this approach to the public sector (Leadbeater , 2005), especially in health, education and crime where few designers presently work. One example is diabetes which costs the UK National Health Service £5 million per day and is one of the main causes of premature death. The average diabetic spends just three hours a year with doctors, but thousands of hours a year managing their own condition themselves. The biggest gains will come from enabling diabetics to become more effective at self-diagnosis and self-management, for example by equipping them with appropriate ICT tools, techniques and peer support. Similarly, 90% of health care is delivered in the home. People want more home-based solutions that they feel they control. The health information available to patients on the Internet is transforming their role; no longer passive, they can question and participate. 4. How to empower and include disadvantaged groups One of the biggest challenges to (e)governance is how to reach out to and include disadvantaged groups in society. Disadvantage can be defined in many ways (for example, socio-economic, demographic, behavioural, health related, locationally determined, etc.) but needs to be seen, first, in the context of inclusion as a societal value, i.e. an ‘ends’ in itself. This implies that no one is left out or behind, and thus takes account of individuals or groups who are disadvantaged in some way so their life chances or quality of life are (or are likely to be) reduced. Inclusion thus also involves both social solidarity and socio-economic benefits. A ’means’ for helping to achieve inclusion is eInclusion (such as through eGovernment). This must ensure that the benefits of ICT for inclusion are available to all, whether these are directly or indirectly provided, and that the ‘digital divide’ is tackled. The direct use of eGovernment services by disadvantaged groups must focus not only on traditional PCs and Internet access but also on other technologies like the telephone, mobile phone, digital TV, multi-media home platforms, etc., which have been shown to often be more important for weaker groups (Millard, 2006c forthcoming). However it is also very important to understand and exploit the indirect use of eGovernment services by disadvantaged groups, i.e. where the public sector itself (often in partnership with the private and civil sectors, and typically through so-called back-office re-engineering) digitises its processes which leads to better information sharing, better management, greater efficiency, etc. Thus, civil service staff, or intermediaries, can use ICT-enhanced systems and services as, for example, telecare, health monitoring, CCTV, environmental scanners, etc., and provide the benefits of eServices to users without requiring that the users themselves have to use the technology. The benefits gained by disadvantaged groups, whether through the direct or indirect use of eServices are manifold, but include better service access; easing their daily life burdens (such as engaged with public administration), improvements to

13

government-citizen relations, better access to education, training, work and jobs, improvements to their personal capacity (quality of life and life chances), and enhancing their social networks and participation. It is important to focus on, and include, disadvantaged groups because their needs have typically been over-looked in favour of ‘mainstream’ needs. Using Maslow’s needs hierarchy again, but this time at the individual user level as opposed to the societal level above, Figure 2 shows how the needs of disadvantaged groups differ from those of mainstream users.

Figure 3: Maslow needs hierarchy adapted to individual needs (source: Waller, 2006)

Figure 3 shows that many of the pressing needs of the disadvantaged are not currently being met. Government ICT policy has typically not addressed these needs, but rather focused on ICT access and use to meet the mainstream needs of the mainstream population. The focus has been on existing services, often irrelevant to the disadvantaged groups. To date the best examples of meeting these basic needs through eServices have been small scale and through the civil sector (NGOs, community and voluntary groups, etc.) (Waller, 2006) 5. A framework for analysis In order to design the ‘means’ to successful achieve the desired ‘ends’ it is necessary to carefully design and analyse the policy making process whilst, at the same time, providing a robust framework for measurement and benchmarking. A suitable way forward could be to adopt the approach often used by the European Commission (2005) and refined by Millard et al (2006) which posits a hierarchy of three objectives levels. The levels are described as a hierarchy as each one contributes to the level above, and is thus subservient to it. Thus, each level needs to be evaluated and benchmarked in relation to the level above to which it contributes, as shown in Figure 4. Objectives need to be set because without a clear understanding of what a future policy (the ‘ends’) is supposed to achieve, it is difficult to identify possible courses of action. It is even more difficult to determine the most suitable policy option. Put differently, unless you know where you are going (the ‘ends’), you are unlikely to get there. Being explicit about pursued objectives also allows policy-makers to verify that the proposed logic of intervention is reasonably strong. Further, this is also a way to promote a common understanding of the ‘ends’ of the policy, which can help later on with implementation,

Bas

ic N

eeds

M

ains

trea

m

Nee

ds

Tenure: SMS Alerts on hostel vacancies for Homeless Money: Pay as you go Credit Cards Health: Remote patient care, medication alerts

ICT Skills: ICT Mentoring schemes focussed on the excluded e.g Timebank Basic Skills: remote web cam based elearning, course alerts Employment: job vacancy alerts, employment market places for excluded

Stigma: smart card for school meals, homework tips via SMS

Crime: Senior-Link Visitor credential checking, reporting crime Safety: Early warning indices for state/ agency intervention

Mainstream Services: opportunities & life chances: Covered by Transformational Government Strategy

Inclusion: empowering case workers to take services to users though ICT Community: communities of interest/ facilitation of peer-peer comms Engagement: interactive games/ DVDs, peer testimony – e,g DVDs/ Podcasts Participation: Life archives/ Digital security boxes

CurrentFocus

14

monitoring progress through specified indicators, as well as benchmarking and evaluating the success or otherwise of the intervention. Objectives should be directly related to the needs or problems being addressed, i.e. what is the ‘demand’ for the policy. In most cases, objectives apply at different levels and should be thought of as a hierarchy. It is thus important that the links between the objectives are clarified. For example, designing and rolling-out eGovernment services and access to them at the operational level must be able to promote the use of (e)government services at the specific objectives level, and finally this usage must be able to contribute to an increase in positive impacts (or benefits) at the general objectives level. Levels 1 and 2 constitute the ‘means’ of the policy, whilst level 3 constitutes the ‘ends’. This kind of domino effect is usually called the ‘intervention logic’. As the ‘intervention logic’ arrow indicates in Figure 4, defining the objectives can be approached by starting from either the more general or the operational end. In practice, the iterative nature of objective-setting means that, regardless of where you start, you will go up and down from level to level until the objectives are consistent with each other and with the need or problem to be addressed. Figure 4 also shows the importance of attempting to align the different levels in the hierarchy, as there is a possibility that achievements at one level will not contribute to meeting the objectives of the next level. This is a problem typically overlooked in policy making and in the development of indicators. This could be for any of three reasons, numbered (A), (B) and (C) in Figure 3: (A) The intervention logic is faulty, in which case it needs to be re-designed. (B) Disturbance, resulting from other actions or policies, which are necessary to meet the objectives (some of which could

be conflicting) over and above the (e) inclusion policy in question, not being in place or being unsuccessful. These other actions or policies are thus beyond the immediate control of the particular policy actors, and may not even be directly related to eInclusion. For example, other government or public sector policies related to economic

Level 3: General objectives (impacts and benefits) These are the overall goals of a policy and are expressed in terms of its ultimate impacts. For example, increased democracy, participation and inclusion as overall societal values or benefits. Progress towards general objectives will often be measured by global indicators.

(A2)

(A1)

PRODUCTION OF

CHANGE:

Figure 4: Levels of policy analysis and measurement

Intervention logic (A)

Level 2: Specific objectives (take-up and use) These are the immediate objectives of the policy – the targets that first need to be reached in order for the general objectives to be achieved. For example, increasing the take up and use of eDemocracy, eParticipation and eInclusion tools and services.

Level 1: Operational objectives (roll-out and access) These are the outputs or operations that the policy should produce as a result of the inputs of finance and people made. For example, the roll-out and availability of eDemocracy, eParticipation and eInclusion tools and services.

(C2)

MISS

(B2)

DISTURB

(C1)

MISS

(B1)

DISTURB

15

development, infrastructure, education and training, policies by other economic sectors, actions by consumers, civil society, etc. However well the (e)inclusion objectives at one level contribute to the next level through the policy’s intervention logic, the next level objectives may not be (fully) realised unless these external actions and policies are in place and successful.

(C) Missing the next level, due to structural or other factors, which are beyond the immediate control of the actors

concerned with the (e)inclusion policy (but which are nevertheless important, and perhaps crucial, for ensuring that the achievements of a given level) are not in place or are not conducive. For example, missing or non-conducive political, institutional, cultural, economic and democratic conditions, legal framework, sector and market conditions, organisational factors, etc., affecting the ability of communities, regions or countries to benefit from (e)inclusion policies.

Situation (A) is largely under the control of the eGovernment stakeholders, but situations (B) and (C) are not, and can thus be termed externalities which are recognised through the assimilation of a number of assumptions and risks. In assuming that the necessary conducive policies and factors are in place, it is important to ascertain which are important for reaching the next level, and, for those which are important, the risk of them not being conducive. For policies and factors which are both important and high risk, an analysis should be made of whether or not the stakeholders can exert any control to make them conducive. Where the possibility of such control is minimal, consideration needs to be given as to whether or not there is an adequate link between the levels, and thus whether or not the policy should take place at all. These can be termed ‘killer assumptions’. Measures for such externalities could also be developed providing an additional useful dimension to indicator development over and above those which measure each objective level. Thus, it is not sufficient to measure achievement at each objectives level in isolation, but in addition clear links through the intervention logic need to be established. Moreover, the externalities likely to disrupt the proper functioning of the intervention logic need to be analysed and perhaps measured so that they can be mitigated. 8. Conclusions and recommendations Government users often report that they do not care how a service is delivered, or who delivers it, as long as it is easy, cheap, quick and provides service fulfilment. The evidence and analysis presented in this paper show that there are many strategies often overlooked for including disadvantaged users in the benefits provided by government services, including for example flexi-channelling and intermediaries. From the strictly ePolicy perspective this could provide a challenge as both involve the blending of electronic and non-electronic channels. As in other policy areas, it is necessary to avoid the trap of assuming that the eChannel provides all the answers, particularly when seen from the perspective of the (disadvantaged) citizen. On the one hand, using non-electronic channels, including social intermediaries, could be a barrier to users’ own use of eServices, but on the other hand, intermediaries are clearly already able to include many citizens who would otherwise be excluded. One way of envisaging flexi-channelling and the use of intermediaries is as a powerful transition phase for many, prior to their own use of eServices. This is certainly the historical pattern of diffusion of new technology in which leaders (temporarily) assist laggards, such as radio in the 1920s, TV in the 1950s, and PCs and telecottages in the 1980s and 1990s. It is clear, however, that flexi-channelling is extremely important in its own right and may not be a temporary phase at all. (Millard, 2006c forthcoming) It involves informed and skilled users switching between channels according to their personal preferences, to the service being accessed and to the task involved, and is strongly associated with both greater and more successful use of government services generally. Such flexi-channelling strategies are used much more by eGovernment users than others, and this appears to be a deliberate choice based on each channel’s own strengths and weaknesses, which taken together are highly complementary and beneficial to users. Extrapolation into the future leads to the prediction that most if not all activities which become ‘routine’, which manipulate, match and mine data, and which require access to information and systematised intelligence, will become codified and automated by ICT, resulting in the squeezing out of direct human presence. In the future, on the other hand, human presence will focus even more than at present on activities which humans are innately better equipped to do than machines. Fortunately, this still appears to encompass a large potential area of growth in the numbers and quality of tasks, revolving

16

around the use and creation of implicit and tacit knowledge. These areas include care, teaching, consulting, counselling, advising, controlling and coordinating, decision- and policy-making, creating, brainstorming, empathising, socialising, etc. In each case, of course, such human presence will increasingly be strongly supported by powerful ICT systems. (Millard et al (2006). Despite the benefits of a multi-channel strategy for inclusion, there is much evidence of strong moves away from multi- towards single ICT channels. The efficiency programme in the UK targets services where most of the users are already online, such as students applying for higher education. Government to business online services like corporation tax are already mandatory for large businesses in many countries (Spain, Denmark, UK) and are fast also becoming so for SMEs (Denmark). Even where multi-channel options are maintained, all are rapidly becoming supported by ICT and shared databases. The move to the single ‘e’ channel means the full automation of services which can sometimes lead to less information being accessible, for example when citizens cannot change or even check their medical records, although it should also be borne in mind that the traditional system may not have been any better than this and that provision costs also need to be considered. Problems and tensions could arise if the movement to a single eChannel quickens and extends to non-specialists target groups, perhaps triggering a ‘reverse-engineering’ of eInclusion in the medium to longer term. When everything is ‘e’ and ‘e’ is virtually without cost, and if efficiency is prioritised higher than inclusion, human contact will become expensive, given that labour costs compared to other costs will rise dramatically. Thus, the already included and better-off citizens will use their resources and skills to access human contact with government in situations where this gives them a better service (for example, in terms of personal advice, care, social support, etc.). The excluded and worse-off citizens will, however, only have recourse to the ubiquitous and inexpensive ‘e’ services, and will not be able to supplement these with human contact. The e-exclusion of today will thus be replaced by the h-exclusion of the future, where ‘h’ refers to human service contact. The EU will need to run h-inclusion programmes. (Millard et al, 2006) In addition to the flexi-channelling strategies used by eGovernment users, many non-eGovernment users access government services indirectly through social intermediaries. This is already providing immense benefits by ensuring that potentially disadvantaged users, who may otherwise not receive the services they need, successfully receive them. The types of individuals receiving assistance from social intermediaries for eGovernment tend to be those who are otherwise beyond the digital divide and excluded from eGovernment, as well as from other Information Society benefits, and who are living in countries which are not leading in eGovernment. The social intermediaries themselves represent a potentially rich resource, given that up to half of all eGovernment users are already acting in this way and assist many other individuals. It is clear that assistance networks bringing online benefits to a large number of people, who would not otherwise enjoy them, already exist. It is also likely, of course, that this is nothing new, and that such networks have existed at family and community levels helping to disseminate the benefits of public and private services long before the Internet provided another channel. Policy design should recognise and promote these networks in a flexi-channel future. However, the types of eServices developed, whether or not directly or indirectly provided for disadvantaged users, tend still to focus on mainstream users and needs (see Figure 3), whilst our analysis and benchmarking still focus on roll-out and use rather than on benefits (Figure 4). New approaches are needed to address these issues. Finally, this paper has also suggested some new conceptual approaches which could be useful for the future understanding and measurement of eGovernment and eInclusion on a global basis. At least it is hoped that the ideas here provide the basis for further thought and discussion. These new approaches include unpicking issues in relation to ends and means, adapting the useful insights provided by Maslow’s needs hierarchy, and adopting an objectives level hierarchy for policy design, analysis and measurement.

17

References Agre, P.E. (2000) Information and Institutional Change, Communication Studies 197B, Spring 2000: http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/

Bentley, T and Wilsdon (2003) The adaptive state: strategies for personalising the public realm, Demos Collection 19, London, UK

Bovens, M and Loos, E (2002) The digital constitutional state: democracy and law in the information society, Information Polity, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2002, pp. 185-197.

Castell,s M (1996) The rise of the network society: the information age, Vol 1, Oxford, Blackwell.

Cooperrider, DL, and Whitney, D, A Positive Revolution in Change: Appreciative Inquiry: http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/uploads/whatisai.pdf

Cross, M (2005), Special report: public sector IT failures, Prospect, October 2005, pp. 48-52.

Demos (2006) ‘Everyday democracy’:http://www.demos.co.uk.

Drache, D (2004) Rethinking the very essence of social inclusion and things privte, Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada.

European Commission (2001) White Paper on European Governance, Brussels, COM(2001) 428 final

European Commission (2004a), “eGovernment in the EU in the next decade: vision and key challenges”, C. Centeno, R. van Bavel and J.C. Burgelman, Final Draft version, August 2004, DG JRC, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Sevilla, Spain.

European Commission (2004b) “Cobra recommendations to the eEurope Advisory Group: eGovernment beyond 2005 – modern and innovative Public Administrations in the 2010 horizon”, 3rd eEurope Advisory Group meeting, Amsterdam, 27-28 September 2004.

European Commission, 2005, Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2005)XXX, 8 June 2005.

European Commission (2006) White Paper on a European Communication Policy, Brussels, 1.2.2006, COM(2006) 35 final: http://europa.eu.int/comm/communication_white_paper/doc/white_paper_en.pdf.

Fukuyama, F (1995), “Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity”, Simon & Schuster, New York

IPTS (Institute for Prospective Technological Studies) (2004), “ICTs and social capital in the knowledge society”, report on a joint DG JRC/DG Employment workshop, IPTS, Sevilla, 3-4 November 2003, January 2004.

Leadbeater, C (2004) Personalisation through participation: a new script for public services, Demos, London, UK.

Leadbeater, C (2005) “The user innovation revolution”, National Consumer Council, UK: http://www.charlesleadbeater.net.

Marshall, TH (1950) Citizenship and social class, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

Miliband, D (2006) ‘More power to the people’ speech by Government Minister David, 21 February 2006, reported in The Guardian newspaper (http://www.guardian.co.uk).

Millard, J. (2003) ePublic services in Europe: past, present and future – research findings and new challenges, prepared for the European Commission’s Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Sevilla, Spain, September 2003. Available from: http://www.cordis.lu/ist/about/socio-eco.htm and http://www.beepgovernment.org.

Millard, J., Kubicek, H., Westholm, H., Cimander, R., Iversen, J.S. (2004) Reorganisation of government back-offices for better ePS – European good practices (back-office reorganisation), prepared for the European Commission eGovernment Unit, Brussels, January 2004. Available from: http://europa.eu.int/egovernment and http://www.beepgovernment.org

Millard, J., Shahin, J., Leitner, C., Warren, R. (2006) “Towards the eGovernment vision for EU in 2010: research policy challenges”, for the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain, European Commission, DG JRC

18

Millard, J. (2006a, forthcoming), “Taxonomy of main existing and potential government activities, tasks and roles”, being prepared for the European Commission, DG JRC, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Sevilla, Spain..

Millard (2006b, forthcoming).”The business and economic implications of ICT use: Europe’s transition to the knowledge economy” to be published by the of Prospective Technological Studies, Sevilla, Spain, European Commission DG JRC.

Millard (2006c, forthcoming) ‘eGovernment services seen from the user perspective’, as part of the eUser project examining evidence-based support for the design and delivery of user-centred online public services, eGovernment report, European Commission IST 6th Framework IST Programme: http://www.euser-eu.org

Nevitte, N. (2000). “Value Change and Reorientations in Citizen-State Relations.” Canadian Public Policy Special Supplement on the Trends Project XXVIS: S73-S94.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon and Schuster.

Social Capital Project (2005), “The Danish Social Capital Project”, Aarhus School of Business, 2005: http://www.asb.dk/departments/nat/research/socaphome.aspx.

Stedman, JD (2003) Transformation not automation, Demos, London, UK

United Nations (2005) Global eGovernment readiness report 2005: from eGovernment to eInclusion, United Nations, New York, 2005.

Waller, P (2006) ‘Digital inclusion: policy formulation and delivery’, Digital Inclusion Team, Social Exclusion Unit, UK Government.

Wilkinson, R.G. (2005) “The impact of inequality: how to make sick societies healthier”, Routledge, 2005., and Social Capital Project (2005), “The Danish Social Capital Project”, Aarhus School of Business, 2005: http://www.asb.dk/departments/nat/research/socaphome.aspx.