E-Government Methods to Improve Public Service Delivery

Introduction

In recent years, governments at all levels in both developed and developing nations have increasingly recognized the benefits of delivering services to the public using so-called e-government methods. By providing information and services to their constituents in this efficient fashion, governments are also saving money while improving public satisfaction. There are, however, challenges involved in implementing and administering an efficient e-government system that must be taken into account in order for these methods to be well received and to accomplish their intended purpose. To determine what these challenges are, this paper provides a review of the relevant literature to identify opportunities for improving the delivery of government services using e-government methods. A summary of the research and important findings is presented in the conclusion.

The Development of E-Government in the United States

It is reasonable to suggest that almost everyone in the United States has had the opportunity to use a computer and the Internet at some point, and the use of online services by American citizens for a wide range of purposes continues to increase rapidly. In this regard, Calista and Melitski emphasize that "the diffusion of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the public sector—particularly through the Internet and the World Wide Web—is now commonplace" (2007:87).

In reality, e-government is certainly not a new phenomenon in the United States. On June 24, 2000, President William Clinton conducted his first address to the American public via Webcast, in which he announced a series of bold e-government initiatives (Moon 2002). Among these initiatives was a priority to develop a comprehensive and integrated system that would place all online resources provided by the U.S. national government in a single website (www.firstgov.gov) (Moon 2002). The initiatives announced by President Clinton in 2000 also included providing online access to approximately $500 billion in grants and procurement opportunities for American citizens, educational institutions, and businesses (Moon 2002). Based on these efforts by the federal government, a number of state and local governments followed suit and implemented their own e-government systems (Moon 2002). According to Moon, "For instance, they have created or improved their websites and provide web-based services to promote better internal procedural management and external service provision" (2002:424).

It simply makes good business sense to provide governmental services in the most efficient manner possible, and it is not surprising that localized versions of e-government systems have become increasingly popular. However, there remains some confusion among some American citizens about what e-government is and how it is supposed to work. In this regard, Moon concludes that "despite this continuing move toward e-government, the development, implementation, and effectiveness of e-government at the local level are not well understood" (Moon 2002:424).

Moreover, Jackson, Harris, and Eckersley (2003) emphasize that while e-government has become an established reality, its relatively brief history has created a need for a better understanding of how it works and how it can help ordinary citizens interact with their local, state, and federal governments. Establishing this understanding is an essential element in achieving successful outcomes with e-government initiatives. According to Jackson and his associates, "As the main targets of e-government are citizens, the legitimacy of the service depends in large part on its popular support, and the public good it conveys or provides" (2003:232). Therefore, one opportunity to improve the delivery of services using e-government methods involves establishing their legitimacy among the public that uses them.

From a strictly pragmatic perspective, Jackson et al. point out that e-government is not an earth-shattering enterprise and has received little fanfare because it simply duplicates—albeit in a more convenient manner—government services that are otherwise available. As they note, "Unlike comprehensive health care coverage or emergency services, e-government provides no immediate or blatant improvement in what the state offers: it is not necessarily a social 'killer app.' This is not to say that it does not improve government itself, just that existing services can work well without being 'e-enabled'" (Jackson et al. 2003:232). In order to establish legitimacy among its constituents, e-government initiatives must prove their worth in the same ways that the private sector evaluates new alternatives involving a change to the status quo. As Jackson and his colleagues note, "The core argument behind implementing e-government must be the same in the public sector as e-business reformers adopt in the private sector: to improve operational performance. An e-government should make the state more effective and efficient" (emphasis added) (Jackson et al. 2003:232).

Certainly, no taxpayer would likely argue against more effective and efficient government, and many authorities agree that e-government is the best way to achieve these goals. A study conducted by the Council for Excellence in Government maintains that e-government "has the greatest potential to revolutionize the performance of government and revitalize our democracy" by facilitating transactions, improving efficiency, and bridging the gap between government and citizens (Dearstyne 2001). The report also emphasized, however, that there is a "huge amount of information that government must generate, update, and manage," and cites "the difficulties of putting programs and organizations of the government's size and complexity online" (Dearstyne 2001:16).

Notwithstanding these obstacles, the mandate is clear. The E-Government Act of 2002 mandates that federal agencies reduce as many traditional in-person programs as possible and replace these government services with digital versions (Davidsson 2008). According to Davidsson, "This process allows agencies to cut staffing and office infrastructure costs. However, it often places the burden on citizens to find the means of accessing new electronic e-government services" (2008:16). Based on the definition of e-government offered by the Information Use Management and Policy Institute, e-government is "the use of technology, especially the Internet, as a means to deliver services to citizens, businesses, and other government or organizational entities." A major goal of the Act is thus to provide online alternatives to traditional government services in an effort to streamline the process and reduce the number of government employees required to deliver these services (Davidsson 2008).

Defining E-Government and Its Scope

Beyond the foregoing definition, e-government encompasses virtually any type of transaction involving the government that is conducted, at least in part, using information and communication technologies (Graafland-Essers and Ettedgui 2003). According to these authorities, "E-government plays an important function in mediating government actions and its role will continue to grow as communications technologies become more widespread. Already, communications technologies change the way that government operates by facilitating information dissemination, communications and transactions" (Graafland-Essers and Ettedgui 2003:13).

As noted above, there is more involved in implementing and administering e-government services than simply creating a webpage and posting forms and information on it. In order to establish acceptance, trust, and legitimacy among its users, e-government services must represent an improvement over existing methods of delivery. In this regard, Graafland-Essers and Ettedgui emphasize that "e-government is not simply the process of moving existing government functions to an electronic platform. Rather, it calls for rethinking the way government functions are carried out today to improve some processes, to introduce new ones and to replace those that require it" (2003:13).

Like the private sector—in which companies of all types and sizes are constantly forced to make difficult decisions concerning the optimum approach to achieving a return on their investments—governments at all levels must determine which services represent good candidates for placing online and how those services will operate. This may be far more complex than casual observers might think. In fact, Graafland-Essers and Ettedgui point out that "the range of services that may be provided by e-government spans from simple information sites to fully interactive experiences where users and government engage in a dialog mediated by information technology" (2003:15).

Conclusion

The research showed that e-government is the delivery of traditional government services, at least in part, using information and communications technologies. The research also showed that the proliferation of these technologies has created the opportunity for governments at all levels to improve their efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of services, but there are a number of challenges, obstacles, and constraints that must be considered to ensure a successful outcome. Perhaps the overarching consideration that emerged from the research was the need to carefully monitor the services being delivered online to ensure that they remain relevant, that users are able to accomplish what they need through them, and that they are viewed as a legitimate substitute that users can trust. In the final analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that more governmental services will continue to find their way into American homes through online resources, but it is also reasonable to suggest that the need for traditional delivery methods will remain for the foreseeable future.

Works Cited

Balutis, Alan P. 2006. "E-Government 2001, Part I: Understanding the Challenge and Evolving Strategies." The Public Manager 30(1): 33.

Calista, D.J. & Melitski, D.J. (2007). "E-government and e-governance: Converging Constructs of Public Sector Information and Communications Technologies." Public Administration Quarterly 31(1): 87–88.

Davidsson, Robert. 2008, April. "Welcome to the E-Government Library of the Future—Today." Public Management 90(3): 16–17.

Dearstyne, Bruce W. 2001, October. "E-business, E-government & Information Proficiency." Information Management Journal 35(4): 16–17.

Graafland-Essers, Irma and Emile Ettedgui. Benchmarking E-Government in Europe and the U.S. Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2003.

Jackson, Paul, Lisa Harris and Peter M. Eckersley. E-Business Fundamentals. London: Routledge, 2003.

McLoughlin, Ian and James Cornford. 2006. "Transformational Change in the Local State?" Journal of Management and Organization 12(3): 195–196.

Moon, M. Jae. 2002. "The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality?" Public Administration Review 62(4): 424–425.