Hoofdlijnen artikelen
Week 1:
West – Digital government: Technology and public sector performance.
Stages of E-Government: From Billboards and Service Delivery to Interactive Democracy
There are four general stages of e-government development that distinguish where government
agencies are on the road to transformation: (1) the bill board stage, (2) the partial service-delivery
stage, (3) the portal stage with fully executable and integrated service delivery, and (4) interactive
democracy with public outreach and accountability-enhancing features.
This categorization does not mean all government websites go through these exact steps or that
they undertake them in a linear order. It is clear from looking at agency websites that there is a
variety of ways in which e-government has evolved. Based on our research of looking at
thousands of websites, however, this sequence appears to be a prevalent course of action in
many jurisdictions.
In the first stage, officials treat government websites much in the way high way billboards are
used, that is, static mechanisms to display information. They post reports and publications, and
offer databases for viewing by visitors. There is little opportunity for citizen interaction and no
chance for two-way communications between citizens and officials. Visitors can read government
reports, see the text of proposed legislation, and check to find out who works in specific offices.
Even today, some government offices, such as those of the U.S. Congress, remain stuck in the
billboard stage. The static nature of a billboard approach limits a visitor’s ability to use interactive
technologies. Citizens can see information, but not alter it to their own ends. Government
websites utilizing this approach offer the advantage of access to information, but do not allow
citizens to search the site, send feedback, or order government services. Without the ability to
“engage” a government website, citizens cannot take advantage of the technology’s capacity for
two-way communications or personalize the website to their own specific interests.
Due to these limitations, some government agencies have moved to a second stage, that of
incorporating information search features and partial service delivery into the website. In this
phase, citizens can access, sort, and search informational databases. Government websites start
to place some services online, al though the services offered tend to be sporadic and limited to a
few areas.
This stage represents an advance over the billboard approach, but there are limits to what
citizens can do online. In this situation, most government agencies are slow to incorporate truly
interactive features onto their websites. Citizens are not able to “personalize” their website or
engage in conversation with public officials. There is little way to take full advantage of the power
of digital technologies.
The third stage features “one-stop” government portals with fully executable and integrated online
services. This phase offers considerable con venience to visitors. The entire city, state, or nation
has one place where all agencies can be accessed. This improves citizen ability to find
information and order services. Agency sites are integrated with one another and a range of fully
executable services are available to citizens and businesses. Officials show that they pay
attention to privacy and security concerns on the part of the general public by posting policies
online. No longer are websites static and presentational, but dynamic and interactive. By
incorporating advanced features on government websites, citizens gain control over information
and service delivery. Visitors can register to receive updates and newsletters, as well as other
material that is useful to them.
,The limiting factor of this stage, however, is that it is characterized more by a service-delivery
mentality than by a vision of transforming democracy. Government websites generally have been
slow to take advantage of “democracy enhancing” technologies that would improve
responsiveness to citizens or help the public hold leaders accountable for governmental actions.
Public planners are more apt to want to get new services online than seek to extend democracy
to disenfranchised citizens. There is little interest in providing opportunities for government
feedback and public participation in decision making.
This stage ignores the central virtue of the Internet: its ability to enhance the performance of
democratic institutions and improve the functioning of democracy. Technology is available,
though not widely implemented, for citizens to convey preferences to government personnel,
participate in agency decisions, and improve the functioning of democratic political systems. Few
of these attributes have been incorporated into the public sector, however, be cause government
officials emphasize a model of e-government based on service delivery as opposed to system
transformation.
While these two visions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they do represent different
emphases, and lead to major variations in e-government prior ities. The more service delivery
dominates e-government thinking, the less likely government websites are to incorporate
interactive features that help the site achieve the full potential of democratic governance. Rather
than de vising opportunities for participation and representation, many government websites
emphasize service delivery to current Internet users.
It is at the fourth stage—interactive democracy with public outreach and accountability measures
—that government websites move to a goal of system- wide political transformation. In addition to
having integrated and fully executable online services, these kinds of government sites offer
options for website personalization (i.e., customizing for someone’s own particular interests) and
push technology (i.e., providing emails or electronic subscriptions that provide automatic updates
on issues or areas people care about). These features help citizens customize information
delivery and take advantage of the interactive and two-way-communications strengths of the
Internet. Through these and other interactive features, visitors can avail themselves of a host of
sophisticated technologies designed to boost democratic responsiveness and leadership
accountability.
De Donk – A changing landscape; short overview of the dominant trends.
The research came up with five major trends that are changing the medialandscape:
1. An increase in the level of competition and commercialism (a larger partof the landscape
is controlled by commercial partners that are motivatedby profit);
2. Technical and economic forms of convergence (furthered by both tech-nical digitalisation
and economic internationalisation, which also lead to a further integration of the domain of
traditional mass media and xftelecommunications);
3. A strong trend towards globalisation of the media industries and the growth of several
very large media concentrations (which may actuallybecome new players in the field, and
might push out more traditionalplayers);
4. An explosion in the available content, much of it with a link to merchandising and
entertainment (but also: a new opportunity for all kinds offragmented niche markets);
5. Increased possibilities for interaction and ‘individual’ use of mediacontent (pay-per-view,
conditional forms of access).
, The media landscape is developing more and more ties with culture, eventsand amusement. In
the Netherlands, there is also a strong rise in both localand regional media, especially in radio
(but also regional and local websitesare gaining importance).
will traditional values do? a fresh look and the need for a broader perspective
Reflecting on the trends mentioned above, the Council has decided that afresh look and a
broader perspective are needed to inspire and evaluatefuture policymaking in the field. If the
media landscape actually develops into an entertainment-driven, highly competitive and
international market, a new perspective is needed on what the public interests are and how these
could be safeguarded. It is very unlikely that media policy couldbe restricted to interventions that
mainly concern the governance of thepublic broadcasting system or that ensure the pluralism of
the press. Untilnow, Dutch media policy was largely restricted to these fields and was
alsocharacterised by a fragmented and disjointed approach used by separateministries and
supervising authorities.
Firstly, the findings have exposed serious shortcomings in the perspectivesand overview
of current Dutch government policy. By concentrating solelyon traditional media and its
infrastructures, the government is ignoring major developments in other mainstream sectors of
the media. Thetendency for politicians and regulators to adopt a tunnel vision is worrying. If
this attitude continues, this will lead to more and more legal loop-holes and policy inconsistencies
which are difficult, if not impossible, tojustify. This is an undesirable development in terms of
implementation,law-making and public legitimacy. In the Council’s view, a new perspectiveis
needed for a sustainable media policy. Until now, the public interest was mainly seen as
developing and protecting the actual facilities for publicbroadcasting. A reflection on the
trendsand shifts discussed above leads to the conclusion that policymakingshould be geared
towards a more general strategic level, which explicitly disconnects the notion of public interests
and the current facilities forpublic broadcasting. It should seek to develop a strategy for the media
landscape as a whole.
Secondly, the trends discussed above give rise to some questions about thenormative
foundations that have, up till now, inspired policymaking in this field. As we pointed out, the
traditional values (independency, pluralism and accessibility) will remain important, but they
will have to be reassessed in the light of the new landscape.
More importantly, however, the characteristics of the new landscape point towards some
new values that should be taken into account. The normative evaluation framework for media
policy needs to be expanded by three supplementary values. Anticipating the digital age not only
means that anew map is needed to guide policies, but also that the compass has to bechanged.
The Council concluded that future policymaking in this fieldshould be inspired by three additional
values: privacy (because digitalisation and the convergence of broadcasting and
telecommunication are blurring the boundaries between public and private forms of
communication),social cohesion (because of the risks of an accelerated fragmentation of
bothsupply and demand for media consumption) and quality (because futuredevelopments in the
media landscape are affecting, at least potentially,some of the relevant dimensions of quality,
such as professional qualityand the way in which the media landscape contributes to the
importantfunctions needed in a democratic society)
The Economist – Pessimism v Progress
Artikel gaat over de pessimistische opvatting over technologie; dat het veel nadelen heeft.
However, that pessimism can be overdone. Too often people focus on the drawbacks of a new
technology while taking its bene!ts for granted. Worries about screen time should be weighed
against the much more substantial bene!ts of ubiquitous communication and the instant access to
information and entertainment that smartphones make possible. A further danger is that Luddite
efforts to avoid the short-term costs associated with a new technology will end up denying access
