One of the ongoing debates within the literature on electronic democracy and engagement relates to the relationship between government electronic and online service delivery projects and political participation activities. Authors in this area consistently observe a lag between the work undertaken to place government services online and the use of ICTs in facilitating democratic participation.
Three hypotheses have been offered to explain this gap:
All of these perspectives have some value and we can point to examples that illustrate each of them. However, it must be recognised that a simple delineation between the ‘political’ and the ‘administrative’ is an analytical fallacy that is undermined by observation of practice. A classic example is the provision of departmental and agency information online: a public sector activity that provides a useful public service (allowing greater access to government programs by members of the public) and also allows for greater transparency for democratic oversight.
Exhibit 12: mGovernment
mGovernment’ or ‘mobile government’ is the use of telecommunications technologies in the administrative process of government. With the growth of wireless telephone and internet access, increasing numbers of citizens are conducting their business, personal and government transactions using devices like mobile telephones, ‘smartphones’, wireless laptops and personal digital assistants (PDAs). These devices can be employed to access information services (such as telephone information lines or internet browsing) or conduct transactions online (book and pay for services, make appointments, complete forms and other regulatory requirements) and reflect the growing flexibility of people’s employment and work / life balance. The next generation of mobile telephones (3G), for example, feature high-speed internet access that allows for the transmission of video (send and receive).
Like eGovernment, mGovernment has both internal and external applications. Inside the Public Service, techniques like teleworking allow greater employment flexibility, or the provision of portable computers allows for:
- ‘smart’ fieldwork which optimises time spent in the community and reduces the need for a return to base (such as in the areas of Policing, Community Services and some regulation and licensing areas); and/or
- home-based employment arrangements that allow for greater employment flexibility, staff decentralisation and reduction in the need for work-related commuting.
Externally, governments are looking at ways that these devices can be used to transact business with government (such as in remote service delivery) or means to ‘push’ information to members of the public (such as the use of SMS notification services).
The benefits of mGovernment are:
The risks of investing in mGovernment lie in:
- further loss of interpersonal contact within the public service and between government and the public;
- telework ‘bleeding into’ personal life;
- reduced professional contact for teleworkers; and/or
- unclear development path for mobile technologies (questionable levels of uptake of advanced devices).
While it is clear that the introduction of electronic and online service delivery infrastructure within the public sector provides a useful platform for developing eEngagement activities, it is useful to reflect on the relationship between these two areas of activity across four dimensions.
First, service recipients' experiences with electronic and online service delivery applications using ICTs closely resemble eEngagement projects associated with highly focused data collection. There is negligible difference between this and normal market research undertaken by government. The defining characteristic is the selection of participants based on their use of a specific service channel.
Second, where the objectives of an eEngagement activity are diffuse and the process of engagement is either semi-structured, or un-structured, in nature, it is possible to recognise a significant difference between these types of online transactional systems and conventional electronic commerce technologies, which tend to be based on highly specific and relatively rigid transactional process models, with limited capacity for members of the community to vary from the imposed structure.
Third, the electronic service programs of government can provide opportunities to expand eEngagement. This can be achieved through ensuring that the development of new service channels have the capacity to include consultation and participation activities. A good example of the possibilities here can be seen in the use of service delivery terminals for public consultation, particularly where the consultation focuses on issues of place.
Fourth, there can be opportunities for policy managers to provide significant input into the development of service delivery technologies to provide more policy-oriented user information from these systems. Electronic and online service delivery systems are commonly developed with the intention of introducing efficiencies or extending the reach of public services and these projects can focus only on highly ‘rational’ outcomes (for example, new systems are developed only to introduce cost efficiencies in existing business practices). Given the often considerable investment of public money in the development of these technologies, consideration of system development that allows for the capture of information for policy analysis can provide significant benefits to policy outcomes. These benefits can include:
In addition, it must be recognised that one of the most powerful aspects of electronic and online service delivery is the capacity for information to be captured, analysed and presented in real-time. This aspect of eGovernment can represent one of the most powerful opportunities for public management.
Public sector managers with an interest in eEngagement can play important roles in the development of electronic and online service delivery activities. However, it is also important to take into consideration the business culture of the business units tasked with developing the systems. Indeed, business units will require considerable persuasion to incorporate ‘fuzzy’ or ‘soft’ processes and capabilities within their business systems.
Where the eEngagement team is attempting to piggyback on a hardware installation, (e.g. accessing participants via a service kiosk, where access may be rationed due to scarcity), the justification required to argue for the integration of an eEngagement initiative may be considerable. These difficulties can be particularly acute where:
Exhibit 13: Relationship Between mGovernment and eEngagement
mGovernment is compatible with eEngagement, but has implications for public sector managers investing in these concepts:
- Public servants need to consider the range of devices used by members of the public to interact with government information services. The appropriate design of websites, for example, can allow for ease of access by members of the public with devices that have small screens and low-speed internet access. Alternatively, information stored online can be re-purposed for use in Interactive Telephone Services;
- Information-on-demand permits timely participation in government consultation processes. The Queensland Government’s Generate youth service allows for SMS messages to be sent to subscribers notifying them of new consultations; and
- Portable ICTs permit a range of possibilities, from simple participation to remote data collection. For example, the increasing prevalence of Global Positioning System (GPS) location data has been used in the United States to encourage the creation of local pollution maps by volunteers.