key: cord-0073776-6b174hz1
authors: Manoharan, Aroon P.; Melitski, James; Holzer, Marc
title: Digital Governance: An Assessment of Performance and Best Practices
date: 2022-01-20
journal: Public Organiz Rev
DOI: 10.1007/s11115-021-00584-8
sha: c86e9ab80e6b4cb75c6b1908490b80d35955c1f2
doc_id: 73776
cord_uid: 6b174hz1

Over the past decade, e-government has evolved from providing static content and services to integrating user generated content and social media technologies. This allows citizens to participate and provide regular feedback on policies and programs, both of which promote public value through e-democracy. However, few studies continue to track their performance on a worldwide scale. This article discusses the results of a global and comparative survey of e-government performance, based on an assessment of municipal government websites around the world. Along with a longitudinal assessment, the study identifies best practices, highlights key findings, and provides guidance for future research.

The diffusion of information and communication technologies (ICTs) is central to the study of e-government . The use of ICT tools can improve public trust when governments promote transparency, accountability, and government responsiveness (Milakovich, 2010) . Traditionally marginalized sections of society can also participate in the policy making process through multiple channels, resulting in more legitimate decisions and effective implementation (Manoharan & Melitski, 2019) . The adoption of digital government also has the potential to develop more socially inclusive and sustainable communities worldwide.

Along with e-government and e-democracy, the concepts of open government and transparency are new paradigms which emphasize access to data and its reuse, and thereby promote interoperability and innovation (Hansson et al., 2015) . In the open government paradigm, the technology is secondary; the focus is "on the interoperability, openness, and participatory dimension that the technology might enhance, as well as on a fundamental change of how governments operate" (p.5). Citizens are becoming proactive stakeholders in public service delivery rather than passive recipients. Open government and the improved quality of citizen participation are having a positive influence on public trust in government (Moon, 2018) .

From a public values framework, e-government creates value in several distinct areas. Public value theory examines how transparency, accountability, efficiency, and openness create public value (Nabatchi, 2018; Panagiotopoulos et al., 2019) . assert that the implementation of technological innovations creates value through two distinct perspectives. The first perspective is managerial in nature and seeks performance improvements in the delivery of existing public services in terms of quality and quantity. A second method for creating public value is derived by creating systems that improve democratic governance by engaging citizens, increasing transparency, and enhancing trust in government. A third category for public value is derived from the information systems literature, represented by the client or end user who experiences the system on behalf of themselves, their families, or any organizational associations they may have ranging from corporate interests to nonprofit organizations (MacLean & Titah, 2021; Kelly et al., 2002) . Public value is created through each of these perspectives and is particularly relevant as ICTs mature.

Early e-government maturational studies describe an emphasis on Web 1.0 applications providing static content online that then extends to transactional services (Layne & Lee, 2001; Brown, 2007; Moon, 2002) . As technology and communication tools advanced, the public sector enhanced citizen engagement and transparency through the use of mobile technologies, smart technologies, and social media. Citizen use of mobile and smart technologies is increasing as are the various forms of governance such as m-governance, smart governance, and ubiquitous government. The primary emphasis of smart cities and governments is the promotion of public value through the use of ICTs and internet-enabled devices like cameras and sensors to improve the quality of life (Manoharan & Mossey, 2019) . But, these advances require multiple channels of communication and participatory mechanisms for citizens. Many local governments are also using social media to connect and engage with their citizens in the policy process (Mainka et al., 2015) . Governments are looking beyond traditional web services towards a further progression of e-government called "we-government" (Linders, 2012) . There is also today a widely recognized concept of Government 2.0, which is distinct from Web 1.0. Meijer et al. (2012) views Government 2.0 as "a more open, social, communicative, interactive, and user-centered version of e-government".

Many governments are responding by ensuring that their e-government components are mobile compatible and accessible. However, some cities are still at Web 1.0. They offer few opportunities for public participation and interaction with government. They operate largely in the e-government paradigm and are making comparatively little progress towards the e-participation or open government paradigm.

When viewed from a global and comparative perspective, the adoption of e-government, both at the national and local levels, has varied considerably. A 2015-16 study of global municipalities (Holzer & Manoharan, 2016 ) determined that cities are at different stages of e-government adoption, with regard to their website privacy and security, usability, content, services, and citizen and social engagement. Some cities and local governments may not be able to sustain their performance over time as research has shown some late adopters may overtake the early adopters in e-government performance (Calista et al., 2010) . And, the failure rates of e-government projects remain high. It is therefore important to continuously monitor and benchmark the performance of e-government on a global scale (Gil-García, 2006; Heeks, 2003) . Such studies can highlight best practices in various dimensions of e-government and encourage cities to learn and adopt new innovative practices. This is particularly important for local governments that operate with limited resources and budgetary constraints.

The Global E-Government Survey project measures the performance of digital governance in large municipalities from around the world. This longitudinal study, conducted bi-annually since 2003, evaluates the city's official websites and ranks them on a global scale.

Consistent with previous surveys conducted by the E-governance Institute, the 2018-19 survey identified the top 100 cities within the most wired nations based on data from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which is affiliated with the United Nations (UN). Previous research consistently shows a positive relationship between population and e-government capacity (Manoharan, 2013; Moon, 2002; Zheng & Manoharan, 2016) . Given the relationship between a city's e-government capacity and its population, the largest city by population was selected from these 100 nations. Each city was considered a surrogate for all cities in its respective nation. Next, their official websites were identified and evaluated in their native languages. The website URLs are listed in Appendix 1.

The survey used a comprehensive e-governance index of 86 measures, classified into five categories: 1) Privacy and Security; 2) Usability; 3) Content; 4) Services; and, 5) Citizen and Social Engagement. For each category, 14 to 23 questions were asked, and each question was coded either on a four-point scale (0, 1, 2, 3) or a dichotomy of two points (0, 3 or 0, 1). The categories were all equally weighed in calculating the overall score for each municipality. This avoided skewing the research in favor of any specific category regardless of the number of questions in each category. Table 1 summarizes the survey instrument, and Appendix 2 presents an overview of the criteria. 

The following section discusses the survey results for 2018-19, and Table 2 lists the rankings and scores of each municipality. As stated earlier, the highest possible score for any city is 100, and this represents the aggregate of each city's scores in the five categories. Seoul ranked first in the survey with an overall score of 84.07, increasing its score from the previous survey in 2015-16. Madrid was second with a score of 80.51, increasing its score from 69.24 in 2015-16. Similarly, Yerevan improved its score from 59.61 in 2015-16 to 67.59 in the latest survey. Auckland and Paris completed the ranking at fourth and fifth positions, both showing significant improvements from 54.27 to 67.24 and 41.43 to 65.02, respectively. The highest ranked cities in each continent were Johannesburg (Africa), Seoul (Asia), Madrid (Europe), Toronto (North America), Auckland (Oceania), and Montevideo (South America). Table 3 lists the top 20 municipalities from the 2018-19 survey, with total and category scores. Madrid had the highest score for Privacy and Security as well as Usability. Seoul was the top scoring city in Content and Services. Finally, the top three cities in Citizen and Social Engagement were Shanghai, Auckland, and Seoul.

The following section further discusses the survey results based on the five categories. Table 4 highlights selected features from each category and shows the percentage of cities offering them on their official websites.

For Privacy and Security, the top-ranked cities in 2018-19 were Madrid, Seoul, Yerevan, Bratislava, Singapore, Toronto, New York, Buenos Aires. The average score for all cities in this category was 6.16, an increase from a score of 5.55 in 2015-16. Madrid ranked first, a significant improvement from its tenth place ranking in the previous survey. Seoul improved its ranking from sixth in 2015-16. Yerevan also registered a remarkable improvement from fifty-fourth place with a score of 3.7 in 2015-16 to a score of 15.50 in 2018-19. Bratislava ranked 4th with a score of 14.00, another improvement from its thirteenth-place ranking in 2015-16 and its score of 11.85. Tied for fifth place with scores of 13.00 are Singapore, Toronto, New York, Buenos Aires (ranked thirteenth in 2015-16).

In the category of Usability, the top-ranking cities were Madrid, Buenos Aires, Shanghai, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Oslo, and Yerevan. All the cities 

In the category of Citizen and Social Engagement, the top ranked cities were Shanghai, Auckland, Seoul, Madrid, Paris, and Lisbon. Shanghai was first, with a score of 15.36, an increase from tenth position in 2015-16. Auckland, ranked thirteenth in 2015-16, but ranked second in the recent survey with a score of 14.39. In third was Seoul with a score of 13.90, followed by Madrid and Paris, tied for fourth with scores of 13.66. Lisbon ranked sixth. The average score in this category was 4.10, a slight increase from 3.87 in 2015-16.

This section highlights the longitudinal results of the Global E-gov Survey of municipal government performance based on the eight surveys conducted since 2003. The overall average score for all municipalities surveyed globally in 2018-19 was 38.80, an increase from 36.57 in 2015-16, 33.37 in 2013-14, 33.76 in 2011-2012, 35.93 in 2009, 33.37 in 2007, 33.11 in 2005, and 28.49 in 2003. The cities' average scores in the five e-government categories has also increased compared to 2015-16. Table 5 shows the top 20 municipalities in e-government performance from the previous 3 surveys. Although average scores continue to increase, there are notable changes among the top scoring cities over time. Seoul remains ranked first despite relative declines in its overall scores. Madrid and Auckland show consistent increases between 2013 -14 and 2018 -19. New York, and Hong Kong experienced overall declines between 2013 -2014 . Table 6 highlight the differences and changes by continent. When examining the longitudinal results by geographic location, Oceania was highest ranked among the continents, with an average score of 59.72, significantly higher than its score of 52.17 in 2015-16. Europe ranked second with a score of 43.54, also increasing its score of 43.16 in 2015-16. North America and Asia followed in third and fourth positions with scores of 34.82 and 34.44, respectively. South America and Africa also improved from 2015 to 16 with scores of 32.54 and 23.37, respectively. Importantly, all 100 cities selected for this survey had official websites. Only 97 had them in 2015-16. When comparing survey scores based on affiliation with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), we found OECD cities scored higher than non-OECD cities. Interestingly, the gap between cities in OECD and non-OECD nations slightly decreased between 2018-19 and 2015-16, as shown in Table 7 . The differences between the two groups based on categories is shown in Table 8 . This indicates that non-OECD countries are making great strides in improving e-government performance relative to OECD countries. Seoul (84.07) was the highest-ranked OECD city, and Yerevan (67.59) ranked highest for the non-OECD category.

The cities overall improved their average scores in all five categories, with the highest score in Usability and the lowest in Citizen and Social Engagement. Among the five categories (Privacy/Security, Usability, Content, Services, and Citizen and Social Engagement), all improved slightly in 2018-19 as compared to 2015-16. Table 9 shows these findings. 

The city of Seoul, South Korea ranked first in the Eighth Global E-Governance Survey. Similar to the previous surveys, Seoul was the top performing city in Service Delivery, Content, and ranked second in Privacy and Security, third in Citizen and Social Engagement, and ninth in Usability. The official website presents a userfriendly interface with clear block arrangements, vibrant graphics, and a homepage of appropriate length. The website provides several features including robust search tools, attractive design, and a sitemap with interactive links that facilitate greater citizen participation online. The website also enables direct communication between the citizens and the Mayor, as well as multiple social media platforms to interact with the municipal departments.

Madrid ranked second overall and first in Privacy and Security and Usability, and second in Service Delivery. Its top performance in Privacy and Security is a result of robust features such as its transparency portal, open data portal, new municipal organization chart, security measures, and more. The website homepage has two real-time features: a "Most Seen" link that highlights the top three trending links, and "Madrid at the Minute" which shows the current time, weather, air quality, traffic, and alternative travel route options. The website also provides several channels for engagement with public officials and enables users to subscribe for updated content on subjects that interest them.

The city of Yerevan, a new entrant to the top five rankings in the Global E-Government Survey, ranked third in both Privacy and Security and Service Delivery. The website enables users to conduct several transactional services, make payments, complete applications, etc. The city also enables service requests through social media, specifically the Yerevan Municipality Facebook Page. The resident users have various channels online to engage with their government and provide feedback, such as discussion boards and online surveys and polls for specific issues that display immediate results. The website privacy policy also addresses the use of encryption and cookies, the disclosure of personal information to third parties, and the managerial measures that limit access to such data.

The city of Auckland ranked fourth in the Global E-Governance Survey, having moved up thirteen places from the previous survey, and second in Citizen and Social Engagement. The most prominent feature on its website is "Have your say and help shape Auckland", which enables resident users to share their opinions on policies, municipal projects, and encourages them to attend council meetings, hearings, speaker sessions, etc. There is a link for the People's Panel, a public engagement forum, and there is also a specific link for Maori to contribute to the decisionmaking process.

The city of Paris, France completes the Top 5 Best Practices section, ranking fourth in Content and fifth in Citizen and Social Engagement. The website homepage features the "Services and Practical Information" navigation link which guides users to the most frequently requested types of content such as obtaining a national identity card or passport, parking payments, etc. The city provides an online form at the bottom of every page for users to request information from the city, and also provides real-time status information on several requests and applications. The website's most unique feature is a decision-tree infographic posted by the city's twitter account that displays specific handles to contact for each question.

Cities around the world use technology to create public value and better serve their visitors, residents, and citizens. This research extends our knowledge of the capacity and performance of local governments to provide information, transact services and engage in participatory e-governance. We show that Usability, Content, and Services experienced minor declines. Calista et al. (2010) suggests several potential reasons for declines in e-government performance, including regime change, volatile economic conditions, and changes in strategic priorities. The longitudinal analysis provides valuable comparative information demonstrating that e-government performance lagged in the years following the 2008 great recession before improving again in 2013-14. Future research needs to consider the impact of COVID-19 as a contextual factor in assessing the capacity of city e-government performance.

In addition, this research indicates that in the 2018-19 survey, Privacy and Security and Citizen Social Engagement experienced the greatest gains. Increases in Privacy and Security may indicate the increased risk that cybersecurity presents to municipal governments. Local governments around the world are charged with safeguarding data, but there is also an increased need to engage citizens and become more open and transparent. It is not surprising that scores for Citizen and Social Engagement increased between 2015-16 and 2018-19. This may indicate that municipal governments are transitioning from an emphasis on Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 applications. Rogers (2003) asserts that new technology is adopted along an s-curve where the adoption of innovation is slow initially, followed by rapid growth that eventually levels off as the innovation matures. Melitski and Calista (2016) further state that e-government capacity improves at a rate consistent with others technological innovations. As e-government transitions from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, it is not unreasonable to expect a similar period of moderate adoption, followed by accelerated growth before plateauing.

Lastly, the gap between OECD and non-OECD nations decreased between 2015-16 and 2018-19, indicating greater equity between OECD and non-OECD nations. This is consistent with previous research following the 2008 financial crisis among developed nations (Calista & Melitski, 2011) . Overall, e-government capacity is growing, but not at rates previously experienced, particularly among developed nations. Despite a few declines, overall scores increased between 2015-16 and 2018-19. Future research needs to continue evaluating e-government capacity and performance. In particular, we should examine the effects of COVID-19, and the shift towards improving privacy, security, transparency, and citizen engagement.

Data Collection 10. Use of "cookies" or "Web Beacons

Understanding e-government benefits: An examination of leading-edge local governments. The American Review of Public Administration

E-government and e-governance: Converging constructs of public sector information and communications technologies

Worldwide municipality websites between

Digitized government in worldwide municipalities between

Enacting state websites: A mixed method study exploring e-government success in multi-organizational settings

Open government and democracy a research review

Most eGovernment-for-development projects fail: How can risks be reduced?

Digital governance in municipalities worldwide

Creating public value: An analytical framework for public service reform. Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office

Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly

From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media

A systematic literature review of empirical research on the impacts of E-government: A public value perspective

Looking for friends and followers: A global investigation of governmental social media use. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy

A study of the determinants of county e-government in the United States

Introduction to E-government. E-Government and Information Technology Management: Concepts and Best Practices

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. E-Government and Information Technology Management: Concepts and Best Practices

E-government and E-governance best practices in cities and countries compared between 2003 and 2012: Fad or diffused innovation

The internet and increased citizen participation in government. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and open government

The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?

Evolution of co-production in the information age: Crowdsourcing as a model of web-based co-production in Korea

Public values frames in administration and governance

Public value creation in digital government

Diffusion of innovations, 5 th edition

The influence of government capacity on e-services diffusion at municipal level in New Jersey

Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations

Privacy/Security