World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article


E-government (short for electronic government, also known as e-gov, Internet government, digital government, online government, or connected government) consists of the digital interactions between a citizen and their government (C2G), between governments and government agencies (G2G), between government and citizens (G2C), between government and employees (G2E), and between government and businesses/commerce (G2B). Essentially, e-government delivery models can be briefly summed up as (Jeong, 2007):[1]

  • G2G (government to governments)
  • G2C (government to citizens)
  • G2E (government to employees)
  • G2B (government to businesses)

This digital interaction consists of e-citizen at all levels of government (city, state/province, national, and international), governance, information and communication technology (ICT), and business process re-engineering (BPR).


  • Defining about E-Government 1
  • UN e-Government Development Index 2
  • Examples of e-government and E-Governance 3
  • Delivery models and activities of e-government 4
  • Non-internet e-government 5
  • Controversies of e-government 6
    • Disadvantages 6.1
      • Hyper-surveillance 6.1.1
      • Cost 6.1.2
      • Inaccessibility 6.1.3
      • False sense of transparency and accountability 6.1.4
    • Advantages 6.2
      • Democratization 6.2.1
      • Environmental bonuses 6.2.2
      • Speed, efficiency, and convenience 6.2.3
      • Public approval 6.2.4
  • Technology-specific e-government 7
  • Government 2.0 8
  • E-government by country 9
    • Africa 9.1
      • Kenya 9.1.1
    • Asia 9.2
      • Bangladesh 9.2.1
      • India 9.2.2
      • Iran 9.2.3
      • Malaysia 9.2.4
      • Myanmar 9.2.5
      • Pakistan 9.2.6
      • Sri Lanka 9.2.7
    • Europe 9.3
      • Russia 9.3.1
    • Middle East 9.4
      • Jordan 9.4.1
      • Saudi Arabia 9.4.2
      • United Arab Emirates 9.4.3
    • North America 9.5
      • Canada 9.5.1
      • United States 9.5.2
  • See also 10
  • References 11
    • Further reading 11.1
  • External links 12

Defining about E-Government

E-Gov Strategies (or Digital Government) is defined as "The employment of the Internet and the world-wide-web for delivering government information and services to the citizens." (United Nations, 2006; AOEMA, 2005).[2]

Electronic Government (or e-Government) essentially refers to "The utilization of Information Technology (IT), Information and Communication Technologies (ICT s), and other web-based telecommunication technologies to improve and/or enhance on the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery in the public sector.".[1] e-Government promotes and improves broad stakeholders contribution to national and community development, as well as deepen the governance process.

UN e-Government Development Index

The United Nations Public Administration Network conducts a bi-annual e-Government survey which includes a section titled e-Government Readiness. It is a comparative ranking of the countries of the world according to two primary indicators: i) the state of e-government readiness; and ii) the extent of e-participation. Constructing a model for the measurement of digitized services, the Survey assesses the 193 member states of the UN according to a quantitative composite index of e-government readiness based on website assessment; telecommunication infrastructure and human resource endowment.

Top 50 country that have been ngengeked and its according to the UN's 2014 e-Government Development Index.[2]

Rank Country Index
1  South Korea 0.9462
2  Australia 0.9103
3  Singapore 0.9076
4  France 0.8938
5  Netherlands 0.8897
6  Japan 0.8874
7  United States 0.8748
8  United Kingdom 0.8695
9  New Zealand 0.8644
10  Finland 0.8449
11  Canada 0.8418
12  Spain 0.8410
13  Norway 0.8357
14  Sweden 0.8225
15  Estonia 0.8180
16  Denmark 0.8162
17  Israel 0.8162
18  Bahrain 0.8089
19  Iceland 0.7970
20  Austria 0.7912
21  Germany 0.7864
22  Ireland 0.7810
23  Italy 0.7593
24  Luxembourg 0.7591
25  Belgium 0.7564
26  Uruguay 0.7420
27  Russian Federation 0.7296
28  Kazakhstan 0.7283
29  Lithuania 0.7271
30  Switzerland 0.7267
31  Latvia 0.7178
32  United Arab Emirates 0.7136
33  Chile 0.7122
34  Greece 0.7118
35  Liechtenstein 0.6982
36  Saudi Arabia 0.6900
37  Portugal 0.6900
38  Monaco 0.6715
39  Hungary 0.6637
40  Malta 0.6518
41  Slovenia 0.6505
42  Poland 0.6482
43  Andorra 0.6426
44  Qatar 0.6362
45  Montenegro 0.6346
46  Argentina 0.6306
47  Croatia 0.6282
48  Oman 0.6273
49  Kuwait 0.6268
50  Colombia 0.6173

Examples of e-government and E-Governance

E-Government should enable anyone visiting a city website to communicate and interact with city employees via the Internet with graphical user interfaces (GUI), instant-messaging (IM), audio/video presentations, and in any way more sophisticated than a simple email letter to the address provided at the site”[3] and “the use of technology to enhance the access to and delivery of government services to benefit citizens, business partners and employees”.[4] The focus should be on:

  • The use of information and communication technologies, and particularly the Internet, as a tool to achieve better government.[5]
  • The use of information and communication technologies in all facets of the operations of a government organization.[6][7]
  • The continuous optimization of service delivery, constituency participation and governance by transforming internal and external relationships through technology, the Internet and new media.[8]

Whilst e-government has traditionally been understood as being centered around the operations of government, e-governance is understood to extend the scope by including citizen engagement and participation in governance. As such, following in line with the OECD definition of e-government, e-governance can be defined as the use of ICTs as a tool to achieve better governance.

Delivery models and activities of e-government

The primary delivery models of e-government can be divided into:

Within each of these interaction domains, four kinds of activities take place:[10][11]

  • pushing information over the Internet, e.g.: regulatory services, general holidays, public hearing schedules, issue briefs, notifications, etc.
  • two-way communications between the agency and the citizen, a business, or another government agency. In this model, users can engage in dialogue with agencies and post problems, comments, or requests to the agency.
  • conducting transactions, e.g.: lodging tax returns, applying for services and grants.
  • governance, e.g.: To enable the citizen transition from passive information access to active citizen participation by:
  1. Informing the citizen
  2. Representing the citizen
  3. Encouraging the citizen to vote
  4. Consulting the citizen
  5. Involving the citizen

Non-internet e-government

While e-government is often thought of as "online government" or "Internet-based government," many non-Internet "electronic government" technologies can be used in this context. Some non-Internet forms include telephone, fax, PDA, SMS text messaging, MMS, wireless networks and services, Bluetooth, CCTV, tracking systems, RFID, biometric identification, road traffic management and regulatory enforcement, identity cards, smart cards and other near field communication applications; polling station technology (where non-online e-voting is being considered), TV and radio-based delivery of government services (e.g., CSMW), email, online community facilities, newsgroups and electronic mailing lists, online chat, and instant messaging technologies.

Controversies of e-government


The main disadvantages concerning e-government is the lack of equality in public access to the internet, reliability of information on the web, and hidden agendas of government groups that could influence and bias public opinions.

There are many considerations and potential implications of implementing and designing e-government, including disintermediation of the government and its citizens, impacts on economic, social, and political factors, vulnerability to cyber attacks, and disturbances to the status quo in these areas.[12] See also Electronic leviathan.


Increased contact between government and its citizens goes both ways. Once e-government begins to develop and become more sophisticated, citizens will be forced to interact electronically with the government on a larger scale. This could potentially lead to a lack of privacy for civilians as their government obtains more and more information on them. In a worst-case scenario, with so much information being passed electronically between government and civilians, a totalitarian-like system could develop. When the government has easy access to countless information on its citizens, personal privacy is lost.[13][14]


Although "a prodigious amount of money has been spent" on the development and implementation of e-government, some say it has yielded only a mediocre product. The outcomes and effects of trial Internet-based governments are often difficult to gauge or unsatisfactory.[15] According to Gartner, Worldwide IT spending is estimated to total $3.6 trillion in 2011 which is 5.1% increase from the year 2010 ($3.4 trillion).[16]


An e-government site that provides web access and support often does not offer the "potential to reach many users including those who live in remote areas, are homebound, have low literacy levels, exist on poverty line incomes."[17]

False sense of transparency and accountability

Opponents of e-government argue that online governmental transparency is dubious because it is maintained by the governments themselves. Information can be added or removed from the public eye. To this day, very few organizations monitor and provide accountability for these modifications. Those that do so, like the United States’ OMBWatch[18] and Government Accountability Project, are often nonprofit volunteers. Even the governments themselves do not always keep track of the information they insert and delete.[19]


The ultimate goal of the e-government is to be able to offer an increased portfolio of public services to citizens in an efficient and cost effective manner. E-government allows for government transparency. Government transparency is important because it allows the public to be informed about what the government is working on as well as the policies they are trying to implement. Simple tasks may be easier to perform through electronic government access. Many changes, such as marital status or address changes can be a long process and take a lot of paper work for citizens. E-government allows these tasks to be performed efficiently with more convenience to individuals. E-government is an easy way for the public to be more involved in political campaigns. It could increase voter awareness, which could lead to an increase in citizen participation in elections. It is convenient and cost-effective for businesses, and the public benefits by getting easy access to the most current information available without having to spend time, energy and money to get it.

E-government helps simplify processes and makes access to government information more easily accessible for public sector agencies and citizens. For example, the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles simplified the process of certifying driver records to be admitted in county court proceedings.[20] Indiana became the first state to allow government records to be digitally signed, legally certified and delivered electronically by using Electronic Postmark technology. In addition to its simplicity, e-democracy services can reduce costs. Alabama Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, Wal-Mart and NIC [21] developed an online hunting and fishing license service utilizing an existing computer to automate the licensing process. More than 140,000 licenses were purchased at Wal-Mart stores during the first hunting season and the agency estimates it will save $200,000 annually from service.[22]

The anticipated benefits of e-government include efficiency, improved services, better accessibility of public services, sustainable community development and more transparency and accountability.[12]


One goal of e-government will be greater citizen participation. Through the internet, people from all over the country can interact with politicians or public servants and make their voices heard. Blogging and interactive surveys will allow politicians or public servants to see the views of the people they represent on any given issue. Chat rooms can place citizens in real-time contact with elected officials, their offices or provide them with the means to replace them by interacting directly with public servants, allowing voters to have a direct impact and influence in their government. These technologies can create a more transparent government, allowing voters to immediately see how and why their representation in the capital is voting the way they are. This helps voters better decide who to vote for in the future or how to help the public servants become more productive. A government could theoretically move more towards a true democracy with the proper application of e-government. Government transparency will give insight to the public on how decisions are made and hold elected officials or public servants accountable for their actions. The public could become a direct and prominent influence in government legislature to some degree.[23][24][25][26]

Environmental bonuses

Proponents of e-government argue that online government services would lessen the need for hard copy forms.[27] Due to recent pressures from

  • Government computerization at DMOZ
  • Digital Government Portal
  • Network of e-Government Leaders of Latin America and the Caribbean (RED GEALC)
  • Free Software (Open Source) platform initiative for e-government
  • University of Illinois at Chicago e-Government Online Certificate Program
  • University of Illinois at Chicago e-Government Workshop
  • International Conference on Electronic Governance
  • Center for Electronic Governance at UN University – IIST
  • EGovernment at W3C
  • e-Governance Academy
  • Government Computing collected news and commentary at The Guardian
  • e-government at
  • e-Government Project RISER "Address Verification online in Europe"
  • Informatics : An e-Government Publication from National Informatics Center, India"

External links

  • Jane Fountain, Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change (2001)
  • Encyclopedia of Digital Government. Edited by Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko and Matti Mälkiä. Idea Group Reference.
  • I. Kushchu and M. H. Kuscu (2003). "The 3rd European Conference on e-Government". pp. 253–260. 
  • Cordella, A (2007), E-government: towards the e-bureaucratic form?, Journal of Information Technology, 22, 265–274.
  • Foundations of e-Government. Edited by Ashok Agarwal and V Ventaka Ramana. ICEG'07 5th International Conference on e-Governance
  • West, Darrell. State and Federal Electronic Government in the United States. The Brookings Institution. 2008-08-26. Retrieved on 2008-09-16.
  • West, Darrell. Improving Technology Utilization in Electronic Government Around the World. The Brookings Institution. 2008-08-26. Retrieved on 2008-09-16..
  • Ríos, Mauro D. In search of a definition of e-government (in spanish). NovaGob. 2014.

Further reading

  1. ^ a b Jeong Chun Hai @Ibrahim. (2007). Fundamental of Development Administration. Selangor: Scholar Press. ISBN 978-967-5-04508-0
  2. ^ a b United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. "United Nations E-Government Survey 2014". UN. Retrieved 2014-09-16. 
  3. ^ Kaylor, C., Deshazo, R. and Van Eck, D. The essence of e-governance is "The enhanced value for stakeholders through transformation" Gauging e-government: A report on implementing services among American cities. Government Information Quarterly, 18 (2001), 293–307.
  4. ^ Deloitte Research – Public Sector Institute At the Dawn of e-Government: The Citizen as Customer, 2000
  5. ^ OECD. The e-government imperative: main findings, Policy Brief, Public Affairs Division, Public Affairs and Communications Directorate, OECD, 2003
  6. ^ Grima-Izquierdo, C. (2010). A generic architecture for e-Government and e-Democracy: requirements, design and security risk analysis. Ed. LAP Publishing.
  7. ^ Koh, C.E., Prybutok, V.R. (2003). "The three-ring model and development of an instrument for measuring dimensions of e-government functions". Journal of Computer Information Systems 33 (3): 34–9. 
  8. ^ Gartner Group, “Key Issues in E-Government Strategy and Management,” Research Notes, Key Issues, 23 May 2000
  9. ^ Larsen, B., & Milakovich, M. (January 1, 2005). Citizen Relationship Management and E-Government. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3591, 57–68
  10. ^ Mary Maureen Brown. "Electronic Government" Jack Rabin (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, Marcel Dekker, 2003, pp. 427–432 ISBN 0824742400.
  11. ^ Shailendra C. Jain Palvia and Sushil S. Sharma (2007). "E-Government and E-Governance: Definitions/Domain Framework and Status around the World" (PDF). ICEG. Retrieved 2008-07-10. 
  12. ^ a b Atkinson, Robert D.; Castro, Daniel (2008). Digital Quality of Life (PDF). The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. pp. 137–145. 
  13. ^ Lyman, Jay (2006-02-01). "AT&T Sued for Role in Aiding US Government Surveillance". TechNewsWorld. Retrieved 2009-02-28. 
  14. ^ Singel, Ryan (2007-08-06). "Analysis: New Law Gives Government Six Months to Turn Internet and Phone Systems into Permanent Spying Architecture".  
  15. ^ "The pros and cons of e-government". Economist. 2008-02-14. Retrieved 2009-02-28. 
  16. ^ "Global IT Spending". Gartner. 2011-01-11. Retrieved 2011-02-24. 
  17. ^ Becker, Shirley A. PhD. "Bridging Literacy, Language, and Cultural Divides to Promote Universal Usability of E-Government Websites".  
  18. ^ "". Retrieved 2013-07-03. 
  19. ^ Chiger, Stephen (2002-09-11). "Has Terrorism Curtailed E-Government?". Medill News Service. Retrieved 2009-01-23. 
  20. ^ Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles. (2009-06-16). Retrieved on 2012-06-25.
  21. ^ "". Retrieved 2013-07-03. 
  22. ^ "Picking Up the Tab". Government Technology. September 2005. Retrieved 2009-04-23. 
  23. ^ Sinrod, Eric J. (2004-06-30). "A look at the pros and cons of e-government".  
  24. ^ Schrier, Bill (2008-10-17). "How Web 2.0 Will Transform Local Government". Digital Communities. Retrieved 2008-03-01. 
  25. ^ "Transparency". Center for Democracy & Technology. Retrieved 2009-03-01. 
  26. ^ Thorpe, Stephen J. (2008-06-23). "Facilitating effective online participation in e-government". E-government in  
  27. ^ Dezayas, Heidi (2008-01-30). "So, how much paper does our local government use?". Penn-Trafford Star. Retrieved 2008-03-01. 
  28. ^ "Report to Congress on the Benefits of the President's E-Government Initiatives ("Business Gateway," p. 50)". 2009. Retrieved 2009-02-28. 
  29. ^ Satyanarayana, J. E-Government: The Science of the Possible. India: Prentice Hall, 2004.
  30. ^ Nixon, Paul G.; Rawal, Rajash. Enabling Democracy? e-Government, Inclusion and Citizenship. The Hague University. pp. 281–290.  
  31. ^ "Study Finds Federal Gains in Electronic Government and Citizen Services; Challenges Remain". Bearing Point. 2007-04-26. Retrieved 2009-03-08. 
  32. ^ Urdiales, C.; de Trazegnies, C.; Salceda, J. Vazquez; Sandoval, F. eGovernment and Identity Management: using Biometrics to Reduce the Digital Divide (PDF). University of Malaga, Spain; University of Utrecht, the Netherlands. 
  33. ^ Roy, Saumya (2002-03-12). "How Much Government Snooping Is Okay?". Medill News Service. Retrieved 2009-01-23. 
  34. ^ Government Technology’s Public CIO Thought Leadership Profile "Expanding eGovernment, Every Day" open-access online paper 2006.
  35. ^ RI Treasury (@RITreasury) op Twitter. Retrieved on 2012-06-25.
  36. ^ "Real Life. Live document". Retrieved 2013-07-03. 
  37. ^ "". Retrieved 2013-07-03. 
  38. ^ O'Reilly, Tim. "Gov 2.0: It's All About The Platform". TechCrunch. Retrieved 22 January 2013. 
  39. ^ a b Harper, Logan (27 March 2013). "Gov 2.0 Rises to the Next Level: Open Data in Action". Open Source. Retrieved 24 July 2013. 
  40. ^ Howard, Alex. "Making Dollars and Sense of the Open Data Economy". O'Reilly Radar. Retrieved 22 January 2013. 
  41. ^ "Welcome to egovernment", Kenya e-Government website, Directorate of e-Government Kenya, Retrieved 14 October 2012.
  42. ^ "From E-government to M-government: Facing the Inevitable", Ibrahim Kushchu and M. Halid Kuscu, Mobile Government Lab (mGovLab), May 2004, Retrieved 14 October 2012.
  43. ^ "Regional Economic Outlook: Sub-Saharan Africa, Sustaining the Expansion", World Economic and Financial Surveys, International Monetary Fund, October 2011, ISBN 978-1-61635-125-0, Retrieved 14 October 2012.
  44. ^ e-Government – Bangladesh. Retrieved on 2012-06-25.
  45. ^ "Portal For Public Grievance". Department Of Administrative Reforms And Public Grievances, Government Of India. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  46. ^ "MCA21 Mission Mode Project". Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government Of India. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  47. ^ "E-Filing Anywhere Anytime". Income Tax Department, Government Of India. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  48. ^ "E-Gazette". Directorate Of Printing, Department Of Publication, Ministry Of Urban Development, Government Of India. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  49. ^ "Digital India". Department Of Electronics and Information Technology, Government Of India. 11 September 2014. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  50. ^ "Privacy Laws In India And Privacy Rules And Regulations In India". Privacy Rights In India And Privacy Rights In The Information Era And Internet. 14 February 2014. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  51. ^ "Data Protection Laws In India And Privacy Rights In India". Civil Liberties Protection In Cyberspace. 5 January 2014. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  52. ^ "India Needs A New And Better Cyber Law And The Old One Must Be Repealed". Cyber Laws In India And Technology Laws And Regulations In India. 22 January 2014. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  53. ^ "Indian Cyber Law And Telegraph Act Should Be Immediately Repealed And Reenacted By Parliament". Global ICT Policies And Strategies And Indian Perspective. 23 January 2014. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  54. ^ "E-Delivery Of Public Services Development Policy Loan Of India". Global ICT Policies And Strategies And Indian Perspective. 27 June 2011. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  55. ^ "Electronic Delivery (E-Delivery) Of Services In India Is Needed". Perry4Law Organisation’s Blog – An Exclusive And Global Techno Legal Knowledge Base. 4 October 2012. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  56. ^ "ICT Trends in India-2006". Perry4Law’s Techno-Legal Base (PTLB). 20 February 2007. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  57. ^ "Critical Infrastructure Protection In India: The Problems, Challenges And Solutions". Centre Of Excellence For Cyber Security Research And Development In India (CECSRDI). 6 January 2014. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  58. ^ "Mandatory E-Governance Services In India Are Urgently Needed". IfG.CC - The Potsdam eGovernment Competence Center. 10 June 2014. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  59. ^ "Cyber Security Laws In India Needed". Centre Of Excellence For Cyber Security Research And Development In India (CECSRDI). 9 March 2014. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  60. ^ Shahghasemi, E., Tafazzoli, B., Akhavan, M., Mirani, G. & Khairkhah, T. (2013). Electronic Government in Iran: A Case Study. Online Journal of Social Sciences Research, 2(9), 254-262.
  61. ^ "". Retrieved 2013-07-03. 
  62. ^ Jeong Chun Hai @Ibrahim, & Nor Fadzlina Nawi. (2007). Principles of Public Administration: An Introduction. Kuala Lumpur: Karisma Publications.
  63. ^ e-Government Pakistan. Retrieved on 2012-06-25.
  64. ^ "Government of Sri Lanka Official Web Portal". Retrieved 2013-07-03. 
  65. ^ "Government Information Center". Retrieved 2013-07-03. 
  66. ^ Government`s Regulation of the Russian Federation on June 8, 2011 № 451 «On infrastructure, provides information-technology interaction of information systems used for electronic government and municipal services».
  67. ^ e-Government – Russia.
  68. ^ "United Nations E-Government Survey 2012: E-Government for the People". 2012-03-15. Retrieved 2013-07-03. 
  69. ^ Gaurav Mishra (January 2009). "The Promise and Myth of Barack Obama's Government 2.0". Retrieved 2009-02-23. 
  70. ^ Dean Giustini (January 2009). "The Audacity of Government 2.0 – The Obama Era Arrives". The University of British Columbia. Retrieved 2009-02-23. 
  71. ^ Daniel Lyons and Daniel Stone (November 2008). "President 2.0". Newsweek, Inc. Retrieved 2009-02-23. 
  72. ^ a b c Transparency and Open Government. Retrieved on 2012-06-25.
  73. ^ "Obama's e-government off to good start". 2009-04-27. Retrieved 2010-05-07. 
  74. ^  
  75. ^ "Routesy Bay Area". Routesy. Retrieved 24 July 2013. 
  76. ^ Newsom, Gavin (15 June 2009). "Recycling in San Francisco Made Easy with the iPhone". Clean Technica. 
  77. ^ "San Francisco Crimespotting". Retrieved 24 July 2013. 
  78. ^ "A Conversation with Twitter about the Future of Technology in Government" (video), Gavin Newsom and Evan Williams, Mayor's Press Conference (YouTube), 10 March 2009, 47 minutes.
  79. ^ Wagner, Mitch (8 June 2009). "San Francisco Twitters With Citizens To Fix City". InformationWeek. 
  80. ^ Van Grove, Jennifer (2 June 2009). "San Francisco First City to Instate City-Wide 311 Twitter Program". Mashable. 
  81. ^ Fretwell, Luke (29 January 2010). "SF Mayor Newsom: Open Source More Reliable". GovFresh. 
  82. ^ Maeder, Kate (25 June 2012). "#OpenData and Real-Time Information Saves San Francisco Over $1 Million". Reset San Francisco. 


See also

In August 2009 the San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was at Twitter headquarters for a conversation about technology in government.[79] During the town hall Newsom received a tweet about a pothole.[80] He turned to Twitter co-founders Biz Stone and Evan Williams and said let's find a way for people to tweet their service requests directly to San Francisco's 311 customer service center. Three months later, San Francisco launched the first Twitter 311 service, called @SF311, allowing residents to tweet, text, and send photos of potholes and other requests directly to the city.[81] Working with Twitter and using the open-source platform, CoTweet turned @SF311 into reality. The software procurement process for something like this would normally have taken months, but in this case it took less than three months.[82] The @SF311 is saving the city money in call center costs.[83]

In 2009 the U.S. federal government launched in order to make more government data available to the public. With data from Data.Gov, the public can build apps, websites, and mashups. Although the Gov 2.0 as a concept and as a term had been in existence since the mid-2000s, it was the launch of that made it "go viral".[39]

President Obama’s memorandum centered around the idea of increasing transparency throughout various different federal departments and agencies. By enabling public websites like and to distribute more information to the American population, the administration believes that it will gain greater citizen participation.[74]

The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States became associated with the effective use of Internet technologies during his campaign, and in the implementation of his new administration in 2009.[70][71][72] On January 21, 2009, the President signed one of his first memorandums – the Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Transparency and Open Government.[73] The memo called for an unprecedented level of openness in Government, asking agencies to "ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration."[73] The memo further "directs the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services (GSA), to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies [and] to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in the memorandum."[73]

United States

The current Clerk of the Privy Council – the head of the federal public service, has made workplace renewal a pillar of overall public service renewal. Key to workplace renewal is the adoption of collaborative networked tools. An example of such as tool is GCPEDIA – a wiki platform for federal public servants. Other tools include GCconnex, a social networking tool, and GCforums, a discussion board system.


North America

In the United Arab Emirates, the Emirates eGovernment is designed for e-government operations.

United Arab Emirates

The e-Government was also established in Saudi Arabia, and it offers online government services and transactions.

Saudi Arabia

Jordan has established its e-government program since 2002. many governmental services are provisioned online.


Middle East

Today Russian e-government elements are demanded in the spheres of e-governance, e-services (e-health, e-education, e-library, etc.), e-commerce, e-democracy (web-election, Russian public initiative). By the United Nations E-Government Survey 2012: E-Government for the People Russia became one of the 7 emerging leaders in e-government development, took 9th place in rating of e-government development in largest population countries, took 8th rank in Top e-participation leaders, after Norway, Sweden and Chile, Advancing 32 positions in the world rankings, the Russian Federation became the leader of e-government in Eastern Europe. Evolution of ICT in the Russian Federation provided the raising of Russia in E-government development index to the 27 place.[69]

Other systems located on cloud services.

4. Head system providing utilization of electronic signature.

The portal of public services is one of the key elements of the project to create «electronic government» in the country. The portal provides a single point of access to all references on state and municipal services through the Internet and provides citizens and organizations the opportunity to receive these services electronically. Monthly visits by users of the public services portal range between 200,000 and 700,000. For example, citizens are now able to get or exchange a driver license through this portal.

3. United portal of state and municipal services and functions which is the «single window» for all information and services assured by government and municipals.[68]

2. The united system for authentication and authorization providing evidence of the rights of all participants of e-government.

1. The united interagency Interacting system using for providing of state and municipal services, exchange of information and data between participants of interagency interacting, quick approval of state and municipal decisions, etc.

Nowadays Russian e-government includes such systems as:[67]

The main target on creating of e-government lies in the field of providing the equal opportunities for all the Russians in spite of their living place and their incomes and make more effective system of public administration. So e-government are created for reaching the useful system of public management accommodating the individual interests of every citizen by participation through ICTs in public policy-making.

On the Federal Law «On providing state and municipal services» (2010), the strategy on development of Information Society in the Russian Federation, approved by the President (2008), the Federal target programme «Electronic Russia» (2002 – 2010 years), approved by the Government (2002), the State Programme «Information Society» (2010), the Procedure on development and approval of administrative regulations execution of public functions (public services), approved by the Government (2005), the concept of administrative reform in the Russian Federation in 2006 - 2010 respectively, approved by the Government (2005),on other orders, resolutions and acts in the Russian Federation was created electronic government (or e-government).


eGovernment shows significant advancement in Europe. For more information see eGovernment in Europe.


Sri Lanka have taken some initiative actions to provide the benefits of e-Government to the citizens.[65][66]

Sri Lanka

In Pakistan, the Government of Pakistan's e-government directorate is committed to building a robust e-network framework that essentially allows the government to be more responsive in delivering public services to citizens and businesses.[64]


The official web-portal is

In January 2013 responsibility for e-Government was divided between the e-Government Administration Committee and the e-Government Processing Committee. The e-Government Administration Committee includes the Mayor of Yangon City as Chief, the General Secretary of Yangon City as Sub-Chief, and the other 20 head of department officers as chairmen. The e-Government Processing Committee includes the Head of Public Relation and Information Department as Chief and the other 20 deputy head of department officers as chairmen.

In 2003, YCDC was organized to provide e-Government for Yangon City. The main purposes of the city's e-Government program are to provide easy access between the government and the city's citizens via the Internet, to reduce paper usage, to reduce the city budget, to build the city's fiber ring, to provide timely public information, to store public data and to develop and expand G2G, G2C, G2B, and G2E programs.

The Yangon City Development Committee (Burmese- ရန်ကုန်မြို့တော်စည်ပင်သာယာရေးကော်မတီ) (YCDC) is the administrative body of Yangon, and Yangon is the largest city and former capital of Myanmar (Burma). The Yangon City Development Committee consists of 20 departments. It's headquarter was basing on the Yangon City Hall. The committee's chairman is also the city's mayor.


Electronic government is an initiative aimed at reinventing how the government works. It seeks to improve both how the government operates, as well as how it deliver services to the people (Ibrahim Ariff & Goh Chen Chuan, 2000).

In Malaysia, the e-Government efforts are undertaken by the Malaysian government, under the umbrella of Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) and e-Government flagships, which was launched in mid-1996, by Dr Mahathir Mohamad (1981-2003), by the then Prime Minister of Malaysia (Jeong & Nor Fadzlina, 2007).[62][63]


In 2002, Iran prepared a detailed report named TAKFA(Barnameye Tose-e va Karborde Fanavaie Etela’at)in which it was predicted that most of the government bodies would try to virtualize their services as soon as possible. But, based on the reports by UN bodies, Iran has failed in the recent years to meet the average standards of EG. In 2008, Supreme Council of Information released a report in which the council criticized the government for poor advancement in employing new communication technologies for administration purposes.[61]


However, the biggest challenge before Indian e-governance initiatives comes from poor cyber security in India.[56] According to techno legal experts, e-governance without cyber security is useless in India.[57] In fact, that makes the critical infrastructure of India vulnerable to sophisticated cyber attacks.[58] Absence of mandatory e-governance services in India is the main reason for apathy towards this crucial field.[59] Lack of proper cyber security laws in India is also going to create a big trouble for India in near future.[60]

However, majority of e-governance initiatives in India have failed to materialise due to poor implementation and absence of proper laws. For instance, there is neither a privacy law [50] nor any data protection law [51] in India. On the contrary, draconian and outdated laws like cyber law [52] and telegraph law [53] have been retained by Indian government despite suggestions to the contrary. The e-delivery of public services development policy loan of India has also not been utilised properly in India.[54] India also failed to ensure e-delivery of services in India so far.[55]

Indian government has launched many good E-Governance initiatives. These include a portal for public grievance,[45] MCA21 Mission Mode Project,[46] e-Filing of income tax,[47] e-gazette,[48] digital India policy,[49] etc.


eGovernment web portal has been developed to provide more convenient access to various government service and information through one window.[44]



Website: Open Kenya | Transparent Africa

Like many other African nations, Kenya has embraced the high mobile penetration rate within its population. This is attributed to the ubiquity aspect, that is provided by mobile phones-such that even people living in remote areas that could not be having the traditional telecommunications' networks, they can now communicate with ease. It is noted that this has a great impact on the governments' strategies in reaching out to its citizens.[42] Given that about 70% of the population owns mobile phones, leading mobile network operators like Safaricom have taken a great step in offering services that meets citizens' demands. Such services include Kipokezi service(that allows subscribers to do online chatting and also exchange electronic mails via standard mobile phones)-and then M-Pesa; the mobile bank(that allows the subscribers to send and receive electronic cash). This has even appealed to the majority of Kenyans, as it supports the branchless members of the society too, in doing normal and secure businesses via M-Pesa. The recent IMF report reveals that MPESA transactions in Kenya exceeded those carried out by Western Union worldwide.[43]

The transition period from the KANU government to the NARC government(December 2002), marked the full realization of the e-government aspect, as the nation was set to tap the great potential of ICT-in service delivery to its subjects. Nonetheless, it was in January 2004 when, after the executive (cabinet) session, that a Directorate of e-government was established. The newly created department had the duty to draw the plan of action; for future ICT implementations.[41]


As the rest of the world keeps embracing the benefits of e-government, Africa has of late shown significant milestones in developing similar electronic government platforms. There are various countries that has shown progress in the recent years:


E-government by country

Gov 2.0 combines Web 2.0 fundamentals with e-government and increases citizen participation by using open-source platforms, which allow development of innovative apps, websites, and widgets. The government’s role is to provide open data, web services, and platforms as an infrastructure.[40]

Government 2.0 or Gov 2.0 refers to government policies that aim to harness collaborative technologies to create an open-source computing platform in which government, citizens, and innovative companies can improve transparency and efficiency.[38] Put simply, Gov 2.0 is about "putting government in the hands of citizens".[39]

Government 2.0

Government and its agents also have the opportunity to follow citizens to monitor satisfaction with services they receive. Through ListServs, RSS feeds, mobile messaging, micro-blogging services and blogs, government and its agencies can share information to citizens who share common interests and concerns. Government is also beginning to Twitter. In the state of Rhode Island, Treasurer Frank T. Caprio is offering daily tweets of the state’s cash flow. Interested people can sign up at here.[35] For a full list of state agencies with Twitter feeds, visit NIC.[36] For more information, visit[37]

Social networking services are an emerging area for e-democracy. The social networking entry point is within the citizens’ environment and the engagement is on the citizens’ terms. Proponents of e-government perceive government use of social networking as a medium to help government act more like the public it serves. Examples can be found at almost every state government portal through Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube widgets.

To develop these public sector portals or platforms, governments have the choice to internally develop and manage, outsource, or sign a self-funding contract. The self-funding model creates portals that pay for themselves through convenience fees for certain e-government transactions, known as self-funding portals.

The primary delivery models of e-government are classified depending on who benefits. In the development of public sector or private sector portals and platforms, a system is created that benefits all constituents. Citizens needing to renew their vehicle registration have a convenient way to accomplish it while already engaged in meeting the regulatory inspection requirement. On behalf of a government partner, business provides what has traditionally, and solely, managed by government and can use this service to generate profit or attract new customers. Government agencies are relieved of the cost and complexity of having to process the transactions.[34]

There are also some technology-specific sub-categories of e-government, such as m-government (mobile government), u-government (ubiquitous government), and g-government (GIS/GPS applications for e-government).

Technology-specific e-government

Although internet-based governmental programs have been criticized for lack of reliable privacy policies, studies have shown that people value prosecution of offenders over personal confidentiality. Ninety percent of United States adults approve of Internet tracking systems of criminals, and 57% are willing to forgo some of their personal internet privacy if it leads to the prosecution of criminals or terrorists.[33]

Recent trials of e-government have been met with acceptance and eagerness from the public.[31][32] Citizens participate in online discussions of political issues with increasing frequency, and young people, who traditionally display minimal interest in government affairs, are drawn to electronic voting procedures.

Public approval

E-government allows citizens to interact with computers to achieve objectives at any time and any location, and eliminates the necessity for physical travel to government agents sitting behind desks and windows. Improved accounting and record keeping can be noted through computerization, and information and forms can be easily accessed, equaling quicker processing time. On the administrative side, access to help find or retrieve files and linked information can now be stored in databases versus hardcopies stored in various locations. Individuals with disabilities or conditions no longer have to be mobile to be active in government and can be in the comfort of their own homes.[29][30]

Speed, efficiency, and convenience


This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.