8/14/2019 Pigna To

1/14

2012 EGPA Annual Conference

Permanent Study Group I: Information and Communications Technologies in Public Administration

Valeria Pignato

PhD in Sociology of Innovation and Development

Faculty of Human and Social Sciences

University of Enna Kore - Sicily (Italy)e-mail: valeria.pignato@unikore.it

How to read development lines of e-government in the Public

Administrations?

Towards the construction of an interpretative model

IntroductionOn 15th February 2010, Neelie Kroes, European Commissioner for Digital Agenda, during hisfirst official public event, spoke thus: many of you may be asking what exactly does she mean

by the Digital Agenda? [] In the broader sense, we are referring to a cross-cutting and very

ambitious agenda for action that will keep Europe at the forefront of 21st century economic and

social developments (Kroes 2010). This is one of the initiatives of Europe 2020, which sets

targets for growth in the European Union (EU) to be reached by 2020. The Digital Agenda aimsto exploit the full potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to foster

innovation, economic growth and progress. Among dimensions used by European Commissionwhich illustrate the key elements of the European information society, there is e-government.

Technological innovations, therefore, are placed at the center of this change process and when

they begin to influence the performance of public administration, we witness a radical change in

the management of public affairs:the transition of the industrial society is an emerging society

of information (Holmes 2001: 19). Today there are those who speak of public communication

2.0 (Lovari and Masini 2008) and the birth of a context of cyberdemocracy (Lvy 2008), to

describe the innovation that involved the public administration both in its relationship with the

user - whether it be himself, the citizen or the business - and in internal relations within thestructure itself, all thanks to technology and the revolutionary process that wants to bet on the

active participation and new forms of listening and language.Holmes (2001: 13) writes that e-gov, in other words the technologies applied to the complex

sphere of the relations between citizens and institutions, represents a double challenge,

because it involves the government getting closer to technology, intended as a tool of efficiency,

savings and greater transparency and closeness to the needs of the citizen; but also acontemporary closeness of the technologies to the government, meaning a definite awareness of

the necessities to not invade and regulate, but to go forth in an intelligent way in the role that

technology can and should play in society. Miani expresses himself in similar terms (2005: 30),

appealing to some articles of the Italian Constitution - among all art. 2 and art. 21 - he states thate-government and e-democracy are terms of the same equation that sees the application of new

technologies in the public sphere. [...] The new technologies must be put at the service ofbuilding a relationship between state and citizen that is focused on the citizen, as expected from

the spirit of the same Constitution.

E-government is the focus of many recent reflections that allow you to identify the advances and

limitations for promoting administrative modernization, focusing on the actors, on the strategies

and on the tools - from electronic identity and from digital signature to the checklist foraccessibility and usability - that make it possible (Andersen 2005; Marasso 2005).

8/14/2019 Pigna To

2/14

Technology is a fundamental tool able to meet the needs of various kinds, economical, judicial,

military, communicative, taxes, administrative, therefore, it is known as Diderot in the mid-

eighteenth century defined it in his Encyclopedia, in other words, as a positive and rational

development in support of the arts. But not only. Innovation technology, for the man of our

times, is also linked to the needs of daily life (Iacono 2003).

A fundamental space, within this innovative and technological context, that embraces our lives,

is occupied, therefore, by the use of ICT (Holmes 2001), of which we may serve to improve theinteraction between different stakeholders and enrich the exchange of information.

1 - Research objectiveThe objective this paper want to reach is prepare a roadmap in order to consistently organize amultidimensional phenomenon such as e-government.

This paper, therefore, describes the construction process of this map on e-gov. Starting fromsome more recent studies on electronic government, it intends to represent a macro-synthesis that

breaks down the phenomenon in question in dimensions, indicators and variables.

This work of methodological-organizational nature constitutes the first step of a search on e-gov.

It represents, better, a propaedeutic phase, which will be followed by a second phase: the

rigorously interpretative phase. The map, in other words, becomes a tool in order to monitor thedevelopment lines of e-gov, regulated in the Public Administrations of individual European

countries.The most common trends, slower developments, lacking processes would be recordedwithin this map. The methodological effort described in this paper has the ultimate goal ofmapping the European experiences on e-gov, in order to fully understand contents, times and

places of these technological processes offered to citizen-users: through which tools e-democracy is declined today; which countries offer the best examples of e-gov and which, on the

contrary, are behind and technological backward; what is the time dimension through which it

realizes a wikicrazia experience.

Europe is investing so much on the digitization theme of public services. And this path of

research, here in the primary stage, aims to become a sort of thermometer of e-gov 2.0 in all its

dimensions identified in the map; a compass which orients experts to explore the entire

phenomenon. Unbeaten or overflowing roads could emerge.

But two things must be clarified from now.This work of synthesis is too ambitious and long to be exhausted and completed in about ten

pages.Time and more efforts are necessary.Thereforethemap, drawn below, is in its primarystage and all advice is most welcome.

Secondly, it is not an abstract theoretical framework, but analytical and flexible, adaptable to

empirical research and its future implications.

2 - Methodology

From a methodological point of view, two aspects must be distinguished with regard to theconstruction of the map. It is a development model that emerges from below, through the

grounded theory(GT) methodology, but it needs to be systematically organized in a theoretical-

interpretative model provided by James Thompson work, Organizations in Action (1967).

The use of GT is due to the inductive nature of this methodology, which goes well with the

research operation of this paper. The GT offers the possibility to create a theoretical frameworkthrough the analysis of data. It allows you to make the leap from available documents reading to

the creation of a theory(Glaser and Strauss 1967).The theoretical sensitivity (Glaser 1978) of

this approach is its strong point. It is particularly suitable to explore a wide phenomenon and its

underlying processes, which would otherwise remain hidden. In this work, which follows the

logic of discovery, the GT approach becomes essential. The mapping operation of the e-gov

starts without the presence of pre-existing theories. The only available evidence are the empiricalresearches accomplished by scholars community until now.They, therefore, have to lead to the

8/14/2019 Pigna To

3/14

explanation of the investigation object. GT, thus, allows you to query data and categories,

gradually identified, in order to formulate a response to the research question (Charmaz 2006).

Specifically, the initial question that guided this work was generally: how can we read

development lines of e-government in Public Administration?

Around it, an operation of rational interpretation of the most recent researches on e-

government issue has been accomplished.Therefore, the data on which this analysis was based

are international requirements, research experiences available online and papers presented in thelast three years (from 2009 to 2011) during EGPA annual conferences.

After being collected, the data were coded, based on salient themes and basic categories. At first,

the data were collected and, then, codified through salient themes and basic categories. Thisintrepretative operation begin from a fundamental piece of work in the history of organized

thought: Organizations in Action by James Thompson (1967). The categorization process,

better, was driven by the organizational model developed by Thompson.

The researcher believed that organizations were places dominated by coexisting dishomogeneity,

where it was not possible to separate rational and natural dynamics (Gouldner 1970), which, on

the contrary, are found to act simultaneously according to the bounded rationality criteria

identified by Simon (1947). In organizations, the principles of closure and openness, of

rationality and activity, of mechanistic and organic co-exist and feed off each other [...]. Theorganizations, says Thompson, are like oxymorons lowered into reality, and the logic of what

governs them consists in the continuous reconciliation of opposing characters (Bonazzi 1989:396). Thompson (1967), in fact, in his most famous work describes the organizational reality

outlining three levels: micro, meso and macro. The micro level is the innermost level of the

organized apparatuses, dominated by rational logic and characterized by the regular and

systematic function of the organizations that operate in a closed and routine context, which

allows to operate in stable situations free of uncertainty. The macro level is that which concerns

the relationship between organizations and the external environment, bearer of uncertain

circumstances and difficult to dominate or coordinate itself following the logic dictated by

limited rationality. The meso level is the intermediate level that must find a meeting point

between the first closed and rational level and the opened and natural level, allowing you to

adjust to the challenges received from the outside world and to introduce the necessary changesto the solid core of the organizations.

In order to obtain a first code map these three levels, through which public action of the

administrative institutions articulates itself, have been used. Each of these has become a macro-

category that contain all the issues related to e-gov, that is:

- the infra-governmental performances and the means that form and characterize the policies put

into effect from the public administrations (micro level);

- new challenges directed at the e-government should the local and national governments

respond (livello macro);

- mediations or o le ways in which the actors, that operate in the public government offices,respond to the challenges coming from the hyper-technological external environments and adaptto them revolutionizing their business policies? (meso level).

Identified these macro-categories, the encoding operation becomes more and more analytical and

detailed, and dat analysis can start. It interprets the categories all together and aims to understand

how the codes relate among them. In this way, the map is woven, the theory begins to take

shape.

We emphasize, once again, that advice and future discussion are needed to remedy any

wrongdoing and inaccuracies that this methodology inevitably carries: according to Glaser and

Strass (1967) the GT methodology for the study of a phenomenon produces a theoretical work

on multiple levels. The theoretical model here presented set in a primary stage. It can be

considered a substantive theory (ibid.) that does not exhaust the interpretation of thephenomenon of e-gov

8/14/2019 Pigna To

4/14

3 - Towards a roadmapThe construction process of the roadmap on e-gov uses Organizations in Action by Thompson

(1967) and the three levels by him identified - micro, macro, meso - as a lens through which toview e-government and divide it into its main themes. At each level, based on theoretical

literature and having as a reference the document prepared by the OECD in 2003 entitled The e-

government imperative: main findings1 correspond specific variables and factors which are

intended to describe e-gov. The final outcome is the construction of an explorative map aboutdigital government.

3.1 - The e-govmicro system

At the micro level (Thompson 1967), that of the assets, we want to monitor the intrinsicinitiative brought forth by the organizations, when they are dominated by rational logical and

characterized by a regular and systematic function, typical of a closed and routine environment.Part of this perspective, then, are the internal activities and tools (table 1) used by the public

administrations in recent years in which the digital revolution has taken more speed.

Table 1- The e-govmicro level:Assets

In reference to the internal activities, they regard the creation of an administrative system that

already internally has:

- technological and ICT resources, avoiding at the same time a sterile technological determinism;- pre-determined objectives in a strategic plan, where one can realize a check and a programmed

in time monitoring;

- a network that connects both the different sectors in which a PA is divided both the institutions

distributed over distinct territories and institutional levels (local, regional, national): in this

direction, an important role is played by the presence of a robust and organized back-office;- a continuous process of formation and electronic training of the staff (Miani 2005: 50-54).

Regarding the tools used, as Holmes writes (2001: 22-23), the operational strategies of e-govconsist in putting everything (information and services) online and ensure easy and universal

access to the information and to the services on-line. And again, looking at the Italian

legislation 2000 regarding e-gov, and also the plan of action of legislature 2002, in view of a

public administration increasingly more digitalized, they have already included among theirpriorities the technological of services for citizens. Consider, for example, electronic

identification cards, digital signatures, to e-procurement, to online payments (Miani, 2005: 53-

54), to e-health and to databases.

It is through these elements, discussed in this first part of monitoring, that we want to outline e-gov.

3.1.1 - Equipment of ICTThe first point of the analysis concerning the allocation of ICT, represents the necessary

condition in order to start speaking about electronic e-gov. Belisario (2009: 17) writes, itconstitutes anyway a generally accepted principle that the use of the computer and of

information technology and of communication are one of the main solutions to emerge from the

1www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/60/2502539.pdf

MICRO LEVEL

Internal

activities

- equipmentof ICT

- strategic plan and monitoring plan

- interconnection network among governments and

the back office

- formationand electronic training

Tools - provision of online services

8/14/2019 Pigna To

5/14

great crisis of results and credibility that the Italian administration faces. E-government is

explained by all the researchers (Andersen 2005; Belisario 2009; Borgonovi 2005; Faccioli

2000; Fici 2002; Grandi 2001; Iacono 2003; Lvy 2008) as using ICT by the public

organizations. The provision of ICT, therefore, represents a key element for the success of digital

government (OECD 2003)2. Open government, in fact, must inevitably hinge on ICT

provisions. In this direction, it might be useful to know: the technological areas, investments in

Research & Development, expenses for ICT, the adoption and use of ICT. In the latter two cases,it is necessary to make a semantic clarification: the concept of adoption indicates possession,

by an organization, of a specific ICT at a given time; the concept of use implicates that the

institution makes it its own, in line with the potentials offered by technology itself. For example,owning a website qualifies an organization as an adopter, while its frequent updating or

interactive use of the web site with the users, defines it as user. The need for this distinction

comes from numerous empirical evidence that shows how many businesses in the district are

involved in innovative projects without then being able to take advantage of the potentials

associated with ICT. In other words, use of ICT must be strategic, supporting processes such as

R&D, purchases, production and logistics, sales and marketing, strategic planning, internal

communications, corporate communications, customer satisfaction.

At the same time, one must pay careful attention because digitalization, of legislation andnational origin and not only - makes us think of the many UE laws on e-gov - that must not be

misinterpreted and handled by the administrations. E-government must not be reduced to a groupof mere technical and automated procedures; it involves the use of information and

communication technologies (ICT), and particularly the Internet, as a tool to achievebetter

government (OECD 2003)3. Here it is explained that in the end e-gov is not the technological

progress in itself, but the efficiency of governmental practices and the users satisfaction that one

accomplished through technology. The latter, therefore, is not an end, but a means of the

electronic government.

3.1.2 - The strategic plan and the monitoring planThe second part of the analysis concerns elaborating a strategic plan by the Governments that

has evaluates the objectives to be pursued (OECD 2003)4.

The level of performance in Italy, for example, is what is written in the decree law 150/2009. In

fact, art. 10 of Chapter II on the management reform states that the public administrations

must develop a Plan for performance and a Report on performance, two pragmatic documents

which respectively identify, the strategic and operational objectives and in reference to the

previous year, the organizational and individual results achieved in relation to individual

objectives planned and resources, with the count of possible deviations, and the budget

achieved. We are speaking of an element that fixes its responsibility on the administrative

offices and it binds them to a need for transparent monitoring.

2ICT spending, where appropriate, needs to be treated as an investment, with consideration of projected streams of

returns. E-government requires a level of certainty of future funding to provide sustainability to projects, avoid

wasting resources and gain maximum benefit from given funding levels. A central funding programme could help

foster innovation and allow for key demonstration projects (OECD, 2003, The e-government imperative: main

findings, p. 3).3OECD, 2003, The e-government imperative: main findings, pg. 1.

4 E-government implementers should articulate the impacts and benefits of a programme, in order to justify

continued political and public support. Assessment should be realistic and done within time frames that are useful to

decision-makers. Priority should be given to the assessment of demand, benefits and service quality. Assessingdemand remains a major weakness in OECD countries e-government programmes. As services become more

complex and expensive, it is increasingly important to assess this demand and incorporate user feedback (OECD,

2003, The e-government imperative: main findings, pg. 6).

8/14/2019 Pigna To

6/14

3.1.3 - The interconnection network among governments and the back office

The connection of different information systems through computer networks, interoperability

and coordination between the different government departments is another fundamental element

for the realization of e-gov. The integration and interconnection of public networks, based on

practice and infrastructure of a well operating back office, represents an important organizational

element not only for the administrative offices and their internal management efficiency, but also

for users to whom you guarantee the right to access administrative documents (OECD 2003)5.The management of information and data, therefore, is at the base of the process of

interconnection among the governments. In Italy, for example, an ICT infrastructure was

established in 2005 to ensure this coordination: it is known as the Public Connectivity System(SPC). It, in turn, is part of the International Network of Public Administration (RIPA)6.

This process of interconnection and interoperability of governments represents a possible

solution that can help state organizations to connect among themselves, being able to easily

collection, research and data transmission.Data management by state authorities appears to be

an internal challenge for the future of public administration. Through the development of the

integration process between the central, regional and local authorities, through the creation of a

one-stop shop, this is how a quality jump in the organization is made: from closed and self

operated offices, control and processing if information and services given to the openadministrative offices that are geared towards accessing the information. The inter and intra

organizational coordination represents a great test for the current structure of e-gov. Severalfactors come into play. These include centralized or decentralized structure of state organizations

and interaction between all governments. This is not a simple passage of data transfer from one

unity to another. Its not enough. It is important to create a network of common and uniform data

in which each user gives his own data report. The benefits retrieved would be: the speed and

efficiency of public services towards citizens and businesses, the simplification of work

processes, the effective use of information technology, the streamlining data management. On

the other hand, however, some obstacles may arise for the success of sharing data, like, as to

quote the most important: laws on privacy, lack of trust, lack of resources, incompatible

hardware.

3.1.4 - Formation and electronic training

In addition, e-gov requires, that the public administrators at all levels, from leadership to

employees, are skilled and experienced users of information and communication technologies.

The skills required for e-government are not simply technical but also managerial. These require

computer literacy and continuous updating (OECD 2003)7. It should be noted from the start, that

this process of acquiring technological skills is for employees as well as the public

administration. The digital services should be well mastered by those who offer them as well as

5 Seamless government services require different agencies to work closely together. Their collaboration cannot bemerely technical, but must involve a deeper engagement in terms of shared customers . As services become more

complex (and expensive), collaboration will also be dr iven by the need for efficiency. E-government co-ordinators

should facilitate planning for seamless services, fund catalytic projects, clarify data-sharing arrangements and

address accountability issues. When current ways of working make it difficult for agencies to collaborate, barriers to

co-operation need to be overcome.Yet co-ordinators must resolve a central dilemma how can systems and

information be shared with agencies still maintaining responsibility for results and operations? Approaches adopted

to deal with this issue include peer reviews, a whole of government approach, standards and frameworks,

interoperability, shared infrastructure and evaluated pilot projects (OECD, 2003, The e-government imperative:

main findings, pg. 5).6www.digitpa.gov.it

7E-government increases the need for ICT-related skills in government. The skills required for e-government are

not simply technical, as general managers also need broad skills to engage in the ICT decision-making process.

Necessary skills include a basic technical understanding (IT literacy), but also an understanding of informationmanagement and the information society. [] Furthermore, traditional management skills need to be updated and

strengthened to deal with the impact of e-government (OECD, 2003, The e-government imperative: main findings,

pg. 5).

8/14/2019 Pigna To

7/14

those who ask for them. In this first-level of micro-analysis, however, we need to pay most

attention to the actors who organized all this. There is a need for smart human capital.

3.1.5 - The provision of online services

As mentioned up until this time, the e-government represents a model of government potentially

better thanks to the role played by ICTs. The technologies contribute, in fact, to the transfer from

the bureaucratic-weberian model to the business model, marked by the values of effectiveness,efficiency and economy. The transformation of the citizen from inactive to an active and

satisfied user, is the element necessary for the fulfillment of this change. The tool that makes this

strategic change possible is represented by the provision of services, which today will improvethanks to info-telematic technologies. These allow, on one hand, to reduce costs to the

administration, to rationalize resources, especially human resources, and to increase efficiency;

on the other hand, it makes it possible for the citizens to enjoy higher quality services, to interact

with the administrative offices in an easier way and to improve the quality of their lives. Public

services may relate to not only simple services, which are informative services, but also

complex services (Belisario 2009: 138). When we refer to simple services we are referring

to: tourist information, consulting catalogs of a library, consulting calendars, sports events or

cultural events, information on the organization and functioning of the offices, publications andnotices of competitions (op. cit.). When we refer to complex services we are referring to a

particular administrative practice as, to cite some: enrollments in schools and universities,reservations and purchasing of tickets, consulting databases, making payments, forwarding

requests/petitions (op. cit.). The OECD (2003), in this regard says: e-gov improves services8.

One must look at the services offered to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of e-

government in both countries. In the first case we must refer to the structural dimension of the

government; in the second case, to the procedural dimension. Thus, considering the first

terminology we can talk about great changes and transformations. According to some scholars,

in fact, the digitalization process has permitted to carry out governmental applications in new

and easier ways than before; think, for example, on the information on the laws and regulations

that are now available on-line or to the possibility that some forms can be downloaded from the

Internet. Examining the second term, complex services, from a governments point of view, itseems that nothing has changed. E-government finds all in agreement when it states that it has

resulted as an improvement at the application level, however, e-gov did not alter the essence of

the governmental process. For scholars governance always remained the same: it has not

suffered automation or dehumanization. For this reason, the provision of online services should

be traced back to governmental activities, and not governance: such offer of services on line has

changed the structural organization of the governments; it has not changed however, the existing

processes.

Even though the results of the opening of state offices are not always positive, due to the fact the

citizens remain unwilling and demotivated, the interest in the computerized information in favorof the citizens finds great interest in the studies on the recent transformations of the PA.The instrument par excellence on which you can draw attention in order to test and give

feedback in regards to the services offered on line is the website. This represents a

fundamental service to offer to the citizen. It is a true and real virtual window that users can

turn to, electronically, to obtain information of a general nature [] or to be updated on the

status of ones own files, but also to take advantage of the services that individual administrations

makes available on-line (Belisarius 2009: 69).

8Adopting a customer focus is a core element of member countries reform agendas. Successful services are built

on an understanding of user requirements, and online services are no different. A customer focus means that a user

should not have to understand complex government structures and relationships. The Internet can help achieve thisgoal, by enabling governments to appear as a unified organisation and provide seamless online service. As with all

services, e-government services must be developed in the light of demand and user value, as part of an overall

service channel strategy (OECD, 2003, The e-government imperative: main findings, pg. 2).

8/14/2019 Pigna To

8/14

3.2 - The e-govmacro system

With regard to the macro level (Thompson 1967), related to challenges, here we want to

investigate the relationship between organizations, that go into the network, and the external

environment, bearer of conflicting and uncertain circumstances to dominate or to coordinate,

following the logic dictated by the limited rationality (Simon 1947). Once the digital government

has an internal structure, that contemplates, as read in paragraph 3.1, the need to adopt

technologies and a plan of strategic goals to which the action is directed, to create a network ofintra and inter governmental coordination, and a competent and prepared environment and

guarantee range of services to offer to the user, now, we want to take it one step further and

understand what the digital government need to face, specifically when it comes in contact withthe external environment. Internal activities and tools provided on the basis of a rigorous action

scheme, now, must deal with the uncertainties that inevitably occur to the organizations when

these finally relate to the outside, fully realizing their mission, as did the paradigms of New

Public Management (NPM) and above all of Public Governance (PG) had already foreseen by

the end of the 90s. Closed and rational organizations do not exist, as the classic weberian

schools wanted. You cannot ignore the role that the external environment has on them and the

impulses of individuals. This generates unexpected consequences, limits and uncertainties, in

which we cannot help but to treat, as Barnard (1938) and the school of Human Relations hadbelieved. The formal elements, those that we read about in the previous paragraph, have been

described and included in the micro-level, they are relentlessly interwoven with informalelements (Barnard 1938). Thus, the organizations cannot reach full rationality, because critical

situations and tension are generated and arise frequently in front of them. They can hope to

create a rational and satisfying, but not optimal, atmosphere (Simon 1947).

Wanting to put order, the major challenges that the government finds itself facing, when it

relates with the stakeholdersof the off and on-line world are: transparency, privacy and trust;

responsibility; the digital divide, accessibility and e-participation; hackering (table 2).

Table 2 - The e-govmacro level: Challenges

3.2.1 - A fundamental question

The relation between Government and citizens insists on facing in a prior instance the

fundamental question on the State-society relationship. The beneficial power, or not, of the State

was a source of a debate never closed which has ancient origins, since the time of the oratory and

of classical and philosophical speculation.Plato in theRepublicbuilds already his political theory according to which the State must aim to

satisfy the natural needs of man and of the community; things get worse, however, with theincrease of the population and, therefore, of the needs, when the management of public affairs

collides with wars and internal instability. According to the philosopher, these should be dealt

with in the right way: the State interest has to coincide with the interest of the individual. This

task can be only carry out by the philosopher, in other words, of he who knows. The State,

then, for the founder of the Academy, is of ethical type. This link between ethics and politics is

also found in Aristotle, who asserted that human nature is that of being a political animal,

destined to live in thepolis.

Much later, this ethical and divine dimension of the State is replaced by a more scientific one.The State is no longer a natural entity, but an artificial body, built by the will of men. According

to Hobbes, who studies the State through a deductive method, for example, man has to choose

MACRO LEVEL

- transparency, privacy and trust

- responsibility

- digital divides, accessibility, e-participation

- (C)hacker and digital squatter

8/14/2019 Pigna To

9/14

whether he wants to live in a state of nature, dominated by quality criteria and conditions of

freedom, on one side, or, in a state dominated by deregulation and selfish impulses, which push

towards the necessity to find in the State authority - interpreted by the scholar as sovereign and

tyrannical - an occasion to control his own instincts,on the other side. The idea of reciprocity

between State and civil society is still far away, when Rousseau theorizes the need of social

contract, the only possibility for the individual to have an efficient organization, which places

limits to an authoritative and repressive state apparatus and allows happy occasions, that,contradicting Hobbes, only the state of nature could have guaranteed. With Locke, we approach,

however, the idea of society as a place where we can make possible human relationships and

bonds of reciprocity between individuals, before becoming members of the State. It is seen, infact, as the guarantor of this society order already constituted and self-regulated (DAddio 1992).

The debate on the centrality of the state offices continues with Hegel and Marx, who develope

opposing thoughts (Abbagnano and Fornero 1999). The idealist philosopher identifies the State

with a divine body, because it is a holder of supreme social morality in pursuit of the common

good and guarantor of individual rights, in the absolutist sense, because State sovereignty derives

from the State itself, which has in itself its own reason for being. This means that the Hegelian

State is not based on individuals but on the idea of the State, in other words, on the concept of

universal good. Against the liberal thinking of Locke and Kant and the democratic idea ofRousseuian origin, it is the State that builds the individuals and it is in no way tyrannical, but

an ethical and constitutional State, founded on the respect of its laws and on the defence offreedom, thanks to its bureaucracy which aims to find the right combination between individual

interest and collective interest. The philosopher of historical materialism reverses the Hegelian

thought. Marx accuses Hegel of mystical logic, because he has inverted the relationship with

reality ascending from the concrete to the abstract. Such logical mysticism makes Hegel a

conservative (Bobbio 1981: 189) politically, because he is leaded to always legitimize reality,

ending up with a generalized and uncritical approval of the existing institutions, that could not be

modified because they are intrinsically rational and positive. For the author of The Capital, in

fact, there is no mediator and peacemaker function that can be recognized in the bureaucratic

system which, however, thinks of the interests of only one part, to the point that it wants its own

demolition in view of the constitution of a socialist State (Gallino 2006).Contrary to Marxs theory, Jrgen Habermas, great philosopher and our coeval sociologist,

stresses in his most important work, the Theorie des kommunikative Handelns (1981), the

primary role of the public sphere, whose main characters, that is individuals of civil society, need

to identify and express issues of general interest that, following bidirectional logic, reach the

administrative levels. Comparing himself with the weberian theory, in fact, he stresses the need

for a substantial rationality to which opposes a technological instrumental rationality.

Starting from this reflection, he arouses a criticism to those producing facilities of alienation and

forms of coercive powers and defines a global theory of action and of social systems

concentrating on communicative action, unlimited and not authoritarian, which may be thesolution to the problematic aspects of the current society. The act of communication, post toprotect reciprocate understanding in human interaction and based on sharing values, norms and

culture that free it from the logic of technique, becomes for the philosopher the antidote against

any form of domination exercised by the economy, by politics, by bureaucracy and by

technology with instrumental purposes. The intent of Habermas speech was not intended to go

against the power constituted at any cost, rather to contrast the excessive bureaucratization of

this same power that hinders the critical freedom of the individual and of public opinion.

Following the enlightenment approach, the sociologist aims to emphasize that the strength of the

public sphere is in the drawing of its own legitimacy from the rational society that goes and

detaches itself from state authority. And it is this language that allows to criticize the ideology.

Habermas admits that, recalling himself to Adornos critical theory, the risk today lies inminimizing this autonomy of public opinion, which ends up becoming subject to intrigue and

contradictions of this era: the citizen, in fact, is in danger of being constantly transformed into

8/14/2019 Pigna To

10/14

company clientand being overwhelmed by economic and mass-media logic, that from time to

time they maneuver him. To jeopardize the mutual understanding among the individuals, much

desired by the scholar is, therefore, the collapse of the economical and political-administrative

sphere - the so-called social systems - in different areas of mans social sphere - the so-called

worlds of life -. A possible solution can be found in the principle of universalization of the

norm and in the democratic principle of rights (Abbagnano and Fornero 1999). This bitter note

must not, however, make us forget that Habermas work formulates, in a surprising way, notionsof transparency, access and advertising on which the current legislation is based, and it does so

still, in the speech on the duties of public administration towards citizens. The habermasian idea

of a public sphere, rationally active and democratic, can be realized through the use of consciousand correct communicative skills.

At this point, we must try to understand if the State offices of the XXI century and the ICT can

really encourage a progress of organizations in a democratic sense, what opportunities can be

provided by means of virtual environments to the development of alternative forms of sociability

and identity, what occasions are granted to the cives in their relationship with the State

authority. To do this, however, first we must identify the main challenges that arise between

Governments and citizens.

3.2.2 - Transparency, privacy and trust

The key element upon which the administrative performance is based is the information. Thepublic offices deal with an enormous amount of data - that is, documents, records, forms, files,

etc. - in their daily work, off e on-line. About this data or information, the national and

international judiciary expressed themselves by enacting some fundamental rights. To be more

clear, referring to the Italian legislation, some of these rights are: availability of public data, even

in a digital form, the right to access, the right to confidentiality of personal data or privacy,

usability data. The ultimate goal of these rights and principles on the data is of greater

responsibility by the Governments and the fulfillment of transparency in administrative action

and consequently the possibility for these institutions to obtain the confidence of the

stakeholders. Use of technology, then, must help to protect and make real and effective such

actions. To summarize, data accessibility, privacy, transparency and trust are the majorchallenges, closely interrelated with each other, that even more today, e-gov is facing.

If the initial condition was, therefore, the guarantee of Government transparency, the outcome

could be double. On one hand, when people are put in a position to closely view public actions,

this could lead to demystify and desecrate the government. To such political cynicism inevitable

corresponds a lowering of public confidence by part of the citizens. On the other hand,

transparency is known as the panacea for the realization of a good government that will inspire

confidence instead.

Moreover, a policy focused on transparency can clash with problems such as: compliance and

power issues, inability to interpret information, threats to privacy, security risks in delicateoperations which have to do with personal data and identity, such as payments, transactions andauthentification of documents. There are, however, factors on which Governments can invest to

increase the levels of confidence; for example: clear writing of politics on privacy, targeted use

of Internet cookies, access to hardware and software is checked with the use of passwords, the

adoption of special procedures for transferring data such as cryptography.

3.2.3 - Responsibility

Each Public Administration needs to move and work cultivating a strong sense of responsibility,

according to which it must fulfill all the duties conferred upon it: in view of all internal activities

and challenges with the environment discussed so far, all the governmental authorities must

motivate and account for its own conduct (OECD 2003)9

.

9 E-government can open up government and policy processes and enhance accountability. Accountability

arrangements should ensure that it is clear who is responsible for shared projects and initiatives. Similarly, the use of

8/14/2019 Pigna To

11/14

The study conducted by Orelli et al.(2009) provides a significant bibliographical reconnaissance

in the field of responsibility in which, among other things, one can define the main elements on

which scholars have aimed to define responsibility. The administrations holds a responsible

conduct if they clarify the way in which resources are used (Roberts and Scapens 1985; op. cit.

in Orelli et al. 2009); if one measures its own performance and standards (Hood 1991; op. cit. in

Orelli et al. 2009); if one define the principles of accounting and reporting (Patton 1992; op. cit.

in Orelli et al.2009); if one can find an ethical dimension (Pallot 1992; op. cit. in Orelli et al.2009); if one gives space to the needs of contradictions (Hoek et al. 2005; op. cit. in Orelli et al.

2009).

3.2.4 - Digital divide, accessibility, e-participation

The mission on which Governments build their own performance regards, as was said many

times, increasing customer satisfaction, therefore, the improvement of democratic and

participatory processes. However, the introduction of technology and Internet could contribute in

producing forms of discrimination among users who are able to use the digital means available

to them and many others, on the contrary, do not have this ability. This phenomenon is known as

digital divide (Norris 2001). The European Union, in pursuit of the Lisbon strategy, very

sensitive to this issue, has planned a series of politics and activities aimed at seizing the newopportunities offered by knowledge society and aimed at reducing the risks of exclusion that this

society may involve. To ensure integration to knowledge society means to ensure thatdisadvantaged people, because of the geographical position, of level of education and

willingness, are not left out of technological development, avoiding the emergence of new forms

of exclusion linked to lack of computer preparation or of Internet access. Already in 2002 the

European Commission, with the Action Plan eEurope, has provided specific measures for

integration to the so-called knowledge-based society, as to: extend the Internet connections in

Europe, open all communications networks to the adversary, stimulate the use of the Internet by

putting the emphasis on training and consumer protection, expansion of the wide-band

infrastructures secure and widely available. In the 2003 OECD document on the imperatives of

e-government, the digital divide is defined as an obstacle for the full realization of electronic

government and a slope on which national and international policies must work to improve theaccessibility of ICT and the Internet10.

3.2.5 - (C)hacker and digital squatter

Internet possesses strategic and innovative resources that could offer an important contribution to

democracies: speed, which makes sure that the communication offered on the net reaches in real-

time almost all individuals involved; the absence of borders, which allows to develop global

communication flows; interactivity, which gives the opportunity to develop a direct relation top-

down and bottom-up; cheapness, in terms of time, effort and money; the lack of intermediation.

It often happens, however, that the network potential is are abused to implement criminal actionsaiming at demonstrations and not instrumental, for example: interference not agreed on in asystem, production of virus, decipherments not consented of bank transactions via the web or

messages sent via email, netstrike, homography, etc. These practices of dispute and protest are

typical of the hacker world, or better, according to the clarification of Fici (2004), cracker:

private sector partnerships must not reduce accountability (OECD, 2003, The e-government imperative: main

findings, pg. 3).10

The digital divide impedes the benefits of e-government: Online access has advantages that are impossible to

replicate offline, such as the drawing together of information, independent search capacity and interactive policy

consultation. Within OECD countries, however, there are significant differences in access to ICTs and the Internet.

Generally the most disadvantaged have the lowest levels of access, yet they also often have high levels of interaction

with government. If these individuals cannot access e-government services, they will miss out on the benefits of e-government. Improved online access will increase the pool of potential users of e-government services. This plainly

justifies that policies to reduce the digital divide be pursued (OECD, 2003, The e-government imperative: main

findings, pg. 4).

8/14/2019 Pigna To

12/14

within the last year, common people took the unhealthy habit of using the term hacker to indicate

he who performs computer crimes []. Besides being a linguistical error (one uses a basically

positive term to indicate something of the opposite), it is a very serious form of defamation

towards all the true hacker who, as mentioned, give too much free time to common users []

(op. cit.: 35-34). The hackers, in fact, are individuals who often operate in anonymity and

through an individualist logic and use their info-telematic skills to promote cooperative actions

of activism and social disapproval for the protection and promotion of values and civil rights ordigital.

From pirates to paladins or from anarchists to rebels of the web, this dual aspect represents,

however, a great challenge for constituting an open government.

3.3 - The e-govmeso system

Continuing to map the empirical characterization of e-gov, we finally find out in what way and

by what means internal activities (Assets) and dares (Challenges) launched to e-governments can

find agreements (Mediations). According to Thompson (1967), who bases his own idea on

Barnard e Simon thought, the organizations must inevitably stipulate a contract between them

and the external environment with individuals and their habits. Above all Thompson inherets

Gouldners theory (1970), who already stated that there are multiple alternative of bureaucraticmodels, for example, the rational model, closed, disciplined in a prescriptive way and with a

rational strumentalization, and the natural model, organic and interactive. The incompatibilityof these two models is resolved by Thompson, who, by following Simons hypothesis, theorizes

the need for their merger. The rational model is entered in the natural model. Thompson states

the organizations are like oximorons soaked into reality, and the logic that governs them consists

precisely in continuous conciliation of antithetical character (Bonazzi 1989: 396). The meso

level and mediations put into the field are the object of interest in this part of the work. This, on

one side, straighten the irregularities that come from external sources and, on the other side, it

presses on the technical core in order to receive modifications to changing external conditions

(op. cit.: 397).

Carefully analyzing what is happening in the relationship between e-govenment and web 2.0, the

operation of mediation more effective today may be grasped in the potentials of social media(table 3), that is, the tools that pave the way towards a participatory e-government according to a

bottom-up logic.

Table 3- The e-govmeso level:Mediations

3.3.1 - Social media and public administrations

For social media we intend the new communication technologies at low cost and able to bereached by everyone as they are not subject to state or private property and do not require skills

and competencies for their usability, in respects to the traditional media or mass media as

newspapers, radio and television (Barney 2004; Castells 2006). Examples of social media are:

forums, blogs, video blog, music-sharing, newsgroups, etc. Among their main recent

achievements there are: Wikipedia, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube.

Around these tools and the application principles of web 2.0, it is necessary to ask whether therelationship between citizens and public administration might really suffer resolutive changes

and innovation. We can distinguish, in this regard, two possible scenarios: the first recognizes

the potentials of the net and of social media with great conviction and optimism, given that these

tools can finally: activate a major form of participation from below and two-way

communication; become the preferred center to activate mediation strategies and can resolve theconflicts and uncertainties identified in the previous paragraph; regain the asymmetry in the

communication between Government and citizens, improve the public's trust and mediate

MESO LEVEL

Social media

8/14/2019 Pigna To

13/14

uncertainties of transparency, responsibility, accessibility and digital participation. The second

scenario, on the contrary, slows down the enthusiasms, admitting typical criticalities of the so-

called principle of learning by doing.

ConclusionThe final result of this paper is a scheme that means to sum up and to put in order a multifaceted

phenomenon: the e-government. It comes out by the concept to order and systematize researcheson the digital government theme, which often eludes a precise definition. So, it proceeds at

describing its inter-organizational, extra-organizational and intra-organizational policies.

Now, next effort will be to use this methodological tools as a thermometer in order to monitor

the development lines of e-gov, put in place by the Public Administrations of individualEuropean countries. Contents, times and places of these digitization processes claim to be

measured. Its necessary to take stock of the situation.This paper tries to draft or, better, to hint at a roadmap on e-government policies. In this way, it

set itself as a starting point for e-gov scholars community. The work is long and in progress.

References

Abbagnano, N. e Fornero, G. (1999),Protagonisti e testi della filosofia, Paravia, Milano.

Andersen, K. V. (2005), E-government in azione. Tecnologie e cambiamento organizzativo nel

settore pubblico, Franco Angeli, Milano.

Barnard, C. (1938), The Functions of the Executive, Harvard College, Mass.

Barney, D. (2004), The Network Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Belisario, E. (2009), La nuova pubblica amministrazione digitale. Guida al codice

dell'amministrazione digitale dopo la Legge n. 69/2009, Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo diRomagna (RN).

Bobbio, N. (1981), Studi hegeliani, Einaudi, Torino.

Bonazzi, G. (1989), Storia del pensiero organizzativo, Franco Angeli, Milano.

Borgonovi, E. (2005), Principi e sistemi aziendali per le amministrazioni pubbliche, Egea,

Milano.

Castells, M. (2006), The rise of Network Society. The Information Age: Economy, Society and

Culture, Blackwell Publisher, Oxford-Malden.

Charmaz K, (2006), Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative

analysis, London: Sage.

DAddio, M. (1992), Storia delle dottrine politiche, Ecig, Genova.

Faccioli, F. (2000), Comunicazione pubblica e cultura del servizio. Modelli, attori, percorsi,

Carocci, Roma.

Fici, A. (2004),Mondo hacker e logica dellazione collettiva, FrancoAngeli, Milano.

Fici, A. (2002),Internet e le nuove forme della partecipazione politica, Franco Angeli, Milano.

Gallino, L. (2006),Il dizionario di sociologia, Utet, Torino.

Glaser B. (1978) Theoretical sensitivity, Mill Valley Ca., Sociology Press.

Glaser B.G. & Strauss A. L. (1967), The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research, Chicago - NewYork, Aldine de Gruyter.

8/14/2019 Pigna To

14/14

Gouldner, A.W. (1970),Modelli di burocrazia aziendale, Etas, Milano.

Grandi, R. (2001),La comunicazione pubblica. Teorie, casi, profili normativi, Carocci, Roma.

Habermas, J. (1981), Theorie des kommunikative Handelns, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.

Holmes, D. (2001), E-gov: e-business strategies for government, Nicholas Brealey Publishing,

London.

Iacono, G. (2003), Verso l'ecologia digitale delle organizzazioni. Come governare il

cambiamento: la visione di medio termine e l'equilibrio sostenibile, Franco Angeli, Milano.

Kroes N., The Digital Agenda: challenges for Europe and the mobile industry, Mobile World

Congress, Barcelona, 15th February 2010

(http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/28&format=HTML&age

d=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en).

Lvy, P. (2008), Cyberdemocrazia. Saggio di filosofia politica, Mimesis, Sesto San Giovanni

(MI).

Lovari, A. e Masini, M. (ed.) (2008), Comunicazione pubblica 2.0. Tecnologie, linguaggi,

formati, Franco Angeli, Milano.

Marasso, L. (2005), Manuale dell'e-government. Attori, strategie e strumenti di innovazione

nella pubblica amministrazione locale, Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di Romagna (RN).

Miani, M. (2005), Comunicazione pubblica e nuove tecnologie. La pubblica amministrazione

dalle-democracy alle-government, il Mulino, Bologna.

Norris P. (2001), Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information, Poverty and the Internetworldwide, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Orelli, R. L., Padovani, E., Scorsone, E. (2009), E-Government, Accountability, and

Performance: A Comparative Analysis Between European Governments, EGPA 2009

Conference, Malta September 2-4, 2009.

OECD, (2003), The e-government imperative: main findings

(www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/60/2502539.pdf).

Simon, H. (1947),Administrative behavior, MacMillan, New York.

Thompson, J. (1967), Organizations in Action, McGraw Hill, New York.