Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective (2002)...

Benchmarking E-government:

A Global Perspective

Assessing the Progress of the UN Member States

United Nations

Division for Public Economics and

Public Administration

American Society for

Public Administration

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

i

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements iv

About the Project v

Section page number

Section 1: The 2001 Global E-government Landscape 1

1.1 Executive Summary 1

1.2 E-government Profile of the UN Member States 1

1.3 The E-government Index 2

1.4 Important Global Trends in 2001 3

1.5 The Information Decade 4

Section 2: Benchmarking E-government 8

2.1 Services are the Public Face of Government 8

2.2 Current Benchmarking Practices 10

2.3 The Stages of E-government 11

2.4 Country Progress 13

Section 3: Analysis of Stages 15

3.1 Overview 15

3.2 Emerging Presence 16

3.3 Enhanced Presence 17

3.4 Interactive Presence 17

3.5 Transactional Presence 19

3.6 Website Evaluation as a Benchmarking Tool 21

Section 4: The E-government Index 22

4.1 Ensuring an Enabling Environment 22

4.2 Compiling the E-gov Index 24

4.3 Global Overview 27

4.4 Change: The Essential Process of the E-gov Universe 28

Section 5: Geographic Regional Analysis 34

5.1 North America 35

5.2 Europe 37

5.3 South America 40

5.4 The Middle East 41

5.5 Asia / Oceania 42

5.6 Central America 44

5.7 The Caribbean 45

5.8 Africa 45

Section 6: Public Administration and E-government 48

6.1 E-administration: 48

Challenges of Governing in the Information Age

6.2 Administrative Issues in 2001 50

6.3 E-Governance 53

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

ii

Conclusion 56

Appendix 1: Member States’ E-government Index By Region 57

Appendix 2: Best Practices Developed by Firstgov.gov 63

Appendix 3: Sample Questionnaire 64

Appendix 4: Website Evaluation Form 67

Selected Online Resources 69

References 71

Endnotes 74

Boxes

Box 1: Online Profile of UN Member States 1

Box 2: The Stages of E-Government 2

Box 3: National governments roles in an information society 4

Box 4: The Principles of E-Government 6

Box 5: The Stages of e-Government 10

Box 6: Single Entry Portals Are Standard 18

Box 7: Single Entry Portals: Several Excellent Examples 18

Box 8: Online Tax Transactions 19

Box 9: September 11, 2001 21

Box 10: Factors Impeding an Enabling E-gov Environment

in Developing Countries 22

Box 11: Global Online Population 23

Box 12: Indexing South America 26

Box 13: E-Government Program Development 50

Box 14: The Framework of E-Governance 54

Charts

Chart 1: Country Stages for 2001 12

Chart 2: E-Gov Index by Geographic Regions 34

Chart 3: Percentage of Population Online By Region in 2001 40

Chart 4: Information Access Measure by regions 42

Chart 5: Telephone lines and mobile phones / 100 inhabitants

by region in 2001 47

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

iii

Tables

Table 1: 2001 Global E-gov Leaders 3

Table 2: The 2001 E-Government Index 7

Table 3: Global Online Population 23

Table 4: Global Leaders 24

Table 5: Indices for South America 26

Table 6: 2001 Global E-Government Indexes 30

Table 7: Geographical Regional Comparison of Indicators 34

Table 8: Index – North America 35

Table 9: Index – Europe 37

Table 10: Index – South America 40

Table 11: Index – Middle East 41

Table 12: Index – Asia / Oceania 43

Table 13: Index – Central America 44

Table 14: Index – Caribbean 45

Table 15: Index – Africa 46

Table 16: Barriers to E-government 49

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

iv

A

CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Benchmarking E-government: Assessing the United Nations Member States was made

possible through a collaboration between the American Society for Public Administration

(ASPA) and the United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public Administration

(UNDPEPA) of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).

There are several individuals we wish to acknowledge for their cooperation, assistance

and guidance in the research and preparation of this report. We would like to thank

Ms. Mary Hamilton, Ph.d, Executive Director, ASPA, who made available the

organization’s membership and staff. We would also like to thank Prof. Marc Holzer,

Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey, Director, Ph. D. Program in Public Administration

and founder of the E-Governance Institute at Rutgers University --- Newark whose

expertise in the area of performance measurement proved of great value.

We would also like to express our deepest appreciation to the members of the Office of

the E-Envoy of the United Kingdom; the E-government Project Team, Department of the

Taoiseach, Government of the Republic of Ireland and the members of the United States

Government’s Firstgov.gov team and the United States General Services Administration,

in allowing access to their respective units and who were extremely generous with their

knowledge, ideas and time.

We would further like to thank the following individuals who provided an invaluable

service in conducting research: Dr. Jafar M. Jafarov, UNDP; Laura Forlano, Ph.d

candidate, Columbia University, Sylvie Angelou, New York University, and especially

Dana Curran of Columbia U. for her country analysis and Jesse Catral of Rutgers

University for his insightful assistance and statistical analysis in developing the

e-government index.

Finally, we would like to express our deepest appreciation and heart felt thanks to

Mr. Guido Bertucci, Director, UN Division for Public Economics and Public Administration,

for without his vision and support, this study would have remained a proposal.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

v

A

BOUT THE

P

ROJECT

In an effort to gain an appreciation of the global e-government landscape in 2001, the

United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public Administration (UNDPEPA) and

the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) undertook a research study

analyzing the approach, progress and commitment on the part of the 190 UN Member

States.

The study’s primary goal was to objectively present facts and conclusions that define a

country’s e-government environment and demonstrate its capacity to sustain online

development. This was accomplished by a comparative analysis of fundamental

information and communication technology (ICT) indicators and critical human capital

measures for each UN Member State. The final measure or E-government Index could be

useful tool for policy-planners as an annual benchmark.

In determining what defines an enabling environment, this report analyzed critical factors

by benchmarking the core areas endemic to national e-government programs. The final

measure or E-government Index attempts to objectively quantify these factors, and

establish a “reference point” for which a country can measure future progress.

The E-government Index presents a more inclusive and less subjective measure of a

country’s e-government environment. It incorporates a country’s official online presence,

evaluates its telecommunications infrastructure and assesses its human development

capacity.

The website research was conducted during two intervals from May to July and October

to December, 2001 in order to measure progress and ensure accuracy. Each Member

State was examined using sites available on the world wide web during these periods.

E-government development can be swift and continuous, yet inchoate. Change and

improvement must be a permanent part of the process if a country is to achieve the

stated goals within its strategic framework and to offer the most inclusive citizen-centric

approach. Unquestionably, many of the UN Member States will have a different look six,

even three months from the release of this report.

Progressive governments are upgrading their sites regularly; expanding the types and

quality of their online services and improving their content daily in an effort to achieve

the highest measure of user satisfaction, administrative efficiency and cost effectiveness.

The research and analysis conducted for this research is an appraisal taken at a

particular period in time --- a digital photo of the global e-gov landscape during 2001.

Stephen A. Ronaghan

Project Coordinator and

author of the final report

New York

May, 2002

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

vi

Stephen A. Ronaghan has been employed by the United Nations as a policy analyst and

project coordinator since 1994. He has worked on several information and

communications technology (ICT), public sector management and governance projects

and has contributed to numerous research studies and policy analyses. Mr. Ronaghan

has also worked in the area of UN project and program evaluation and performance

measurement. He received an M.P.A. from New York University’s Robert F. Wagner

Graduate School of Public Service in 1993.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

1

S

ECTION

1:

T

HE

2001G

LOBAL

E-

GOVERNMENT

L

ANDSCAPE

1.1. Executive Summary

Since the mid -1990s governments

around the world have been executing

major initiatives in order to tap the vast

potential of the internet for the distinct

purpose of improving and perfecting the

governing process. Like the personal

computer, the internet has become an

indispensable tool in the day-to-day

administration of government. In an

effort to gain an appreciation of the

global e-government landscape in 2001,

the American Society for Public

Administration (ASPA) and the United

Nations Division for Public Economics

and Public Administration (UNDPEPA)

undertook a research study analyzing

the approach, progress and

commitment on the part of the 190 UN

Member States.

Broadly defined, e-government can

include virtually all information and

communication technology (ICT)

platforms and applications in use by the

public sector. For the purpose of this

report however, e-government is

defined as:

utilizing the internet and the

world-wide-web for delivering

government information and services to

citizens.

In order to maximize e-government’s

effectiveness and realize its vast

potential, several fundamental

conditions must exist in order to

facilitate an enabling environment. The

study’s primary goal was to objectively

present facts and conclusions that

define a country’s e-government

environment and demonstrate its

capacity (or lack of) to sustain online

development. This was accomplished by

a comparative analysis of fundamental

information technology (IT) indicators

and critical human capital measures for

each UN Member State.

Two methodologies were used in the

research. First, national government

websites were analyzed for the content

and services available that the average

citizen would most likely use. The

presence, or absence of specific

features contributed to determining a

country’s level of progress. The stages

present a straightforward benchmark

which objectively assesses a country’s

online sophistication. Second, a

statistical analysis was done comparing

the information and communication

technology infrastructure and human

capital capacity for 144 UN Member

States. The final measure or

E-Government Index could be useful

tool for policy-planners as an annual

benchmark.

1.2. E-government Profile of the UN

Member States

National e-government program

development among the UN Member

States advanced dramatically in 2001.

Box 1: Online Profile of UN Member States

UN Member States: 190

with a government website presence: 169

with a National Government Website: 84

with single entry portals: 36

with sub-national govt websites: 84

with online transaction capacity: 17

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

2

Countries whose web presence in

previous years consisted of one or two

static government web pages began

offering content rich, well-designed,

citizen-centric sites. But despite creative

initiatives, national e-government

program development remains

overwhelmingly at the information

provision stage. The level of

sophistication in which countries are

using the internet to deliver quality

information does, however, vary

considerably.

Full-fledged commitment to

e-government implies that a country’s

leadership recognizes the fact

information has become a social and

economic asset just as important and

valuable as traditional commodities and

natural resources. Information benefits

the most the individuals and industries

which have unimpeded access to its

acquisition, and the self-determination

to convert essential data into

knowledge. The theme of this report,

therefore, is “facilitating information

access for enhanced citizen

participation through e-government”.

In 2001, of the 190 UN Member States,

169 (88.9%), of their national

governments used the internet in some

capacity to deliver information and

services. For 16.8% of these

governments, their presence on the

internet was just emerging. The official

information offered in these countries

was often static in content and limited

to only a few independent websites.

Countries with an enhanced internet

presence --- where users can access an

increasing number of official websites

that provide advanced features and

dynamic information ---- represented

34.2%, the highest number among the

Member States. Thirty percent of the

countries surveyed offered interactive

online services where users have access

to regularly updated content and,

among other things, can download

documents and e-mail government

officials. The capacity to conduct

transactions online, where citizens can

actually use the internet to pay for a

national government service, fee or tax

obligation, was offered by 17 national

governments, or only nine percent of the

UN Member States.

A country's social, political and

economic composition most definitely

correlates closely with its e-government

program development. However there

were exceptions, as evidenced by

several developing and transitioning

economies. Key factors such as the

state of a country’s telecommunications

infrastructure, the strength of its human

capital, the political will and

commitment of the national leadership

and shifting policy and administrative

priorities play important roles. Each of

these factors influence how decision

makers, policy planners and public

sector managers elect to approach,

develop and implement e-government

programs.

1.3. The E-government Index

In determining what defines an enabling

environment, this report analyses the

above issues by benchmarking the core

areas endemic to national

e-government programs. The final

measure or E-government Index

attempts to: 1) objectively quantify

Box 2: The Stages of E-Government

Emerging: An official government online presence

is established.

Enhanced: Government sites increase; information

becomes more dynamic.

Interactive: Users can download forms, e-mail

officials and interact through the web.

Transactional: Users can actually pay for services and

other transactions online.

Seamless: Full integration of e-services across

administrative boundaries.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

3

these critical factors and 2) establish a

“reference point” for which a country

can measure future progress.

The E-gov Index presents a more

inclusive and less subjective measure of

a country’s e-government environment.

It incorporates a country’s official online

presence, evaluates its

telecommunications infrastructure and

assesses its human development

capacity.

The Index identifies, underscores and

weighs the importance of the requisite

conditions which enable a country to

sustain an e-government environment

which ensures that every segment of its

population has unconstrained access to

timely, useful and relevant information

and services.

Not surprisingly, the results of the E-gov

Index tend to reflect a country’s

economic, social and democratic level

of development. Industrialized nations,

whose citizens enjoy the benefits of

abundant resources, superior access to

information and a more participatory

relationship with their governments, rank

well above the mean E-Gov Global

Index of 1.62.

Geographically by region, North

America (2.60), Europe (2.01), South

America (1.79) and the Middle East

(1.76) all registered an index above the

global mean. Asia (1.38), the Caribbean

(1.34) Central America (1.28) and Africa

(0.84) fell below the global index.

Among individual countries, the United

States (3.11

) is the current global leader

and was the only country to register an

index above 3.00. By geographic region

the leaders in 2001 were: North

America: United States; Europe: Norway

(2.55); South America: Brazil (2.24);

Middle East: Israel (2.26

); Asia /

Oceania: Australia (2.60

); Africa: South

Africa (1.56); Caribbean: the Bahamas

(1.79

); Central America: Costa Rica

(1.42

).

1.4. Important Global Trends in 2001

E-government can offer numerous

possibilities for improving how a nation’s

public sector responds to the basic

needs of its citizens. There is however a

wide variance as to the process in which

governments choose to realize such

potential.

Throughout the course

of researching this

report,

we were able to gain

access to a

considerable number

of high level policy and

decision makers,

dedicated public

sector managers,

administrators and civil

servants working on

their country’s national

e-government

programs. Onsite visits were made to

several countries, while in-depth

interviews were conducted by

telephone and e-mail. A questionnaire

(see appendix 3)was also sent to

selected individuals. Many generously

shared their expertise, knowledge and

thoughts with us. Below are some of their

most important insights.

► A country’s overall progress in

e-government closely correlates

with its social, political or

economic composition. The

more effective programs

prioritize development to reflect

ICT, human resources and user

capacities.

► National E-government program

development remains desultory

and unsynchronized. A

compelling lack of coordination

exists across administrative and

policy boundaries. Ultimately this

may compromise program

effectiveness and performance

efficiency.

USA 3.11

Australia 2.60

New Zealand 2.59

Singapore 2.58

Norway 2.55

Canada 2.52

UK 2.52

Netherlands 2.51

Denmark 2.47

Germany 2.46

Table 1:

2001 Global E-

g

ov Leaders

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

4

► Online service delivery should be

thought of as complementary

rather than accepting the more

popular view that it will ultimately

replace many traditional

channels for service delivery.

► Increased access to the world

wide web does not automatically

transform into increased use of

e-government as user interest

has been low and indifferent.

► There exists a significant digital

divide within national public

administrations.

► Single Entry Portals are an

accepted and important

standard.

► Prioritizing online service delivery

to the business community is a

implementation strategy in

several emerging economies at

the expense of citizen-centric

service delivery.

► National E-gov management

teams in 2001 were the

exception rather than the rule.

► There is a considerable lack of

public awareness campaigns

informing citizens that national

governments are offering online

service delivery.

► Cost Effectiveness: The belief

that online service delivery is less

costly than other channels is not

wholly unfounded. However

there exists little empirical

evidence to support this

assertion.

► With few exceptions funding

e-government is tied directly to

the level of commitment on the

part of the political leadership.

Perhaps the most compelling finding of

the survey, however is: for a large

majority of countries, national

e-government program development is

occurring in a swift and dynamic

manner and for now change is the only

constant.

1.5. The Information Decade

Over the past ten years the dramatic

advances made in information and

communications technology (ICT) have

transformed much of the world into a

digitally interconnected community that

is increasingly functioning on a “365 / 24

/ 7” basis. Throughout this period,

especially the past five years, the

predominant drivers of change have

been the internet and the world wide

web. Both have added a new, and

arguably indispensable "e" dimension to

academia, commerce, and now

government.

Considerable resources, both human

and financial, are being committed to

launching and perfecting programs

which deliver government information

and services online. Such initiatives are

intended to improve administrative

operations and enhance government

efficiency while realizing the residual

effect of deeper citizen involvement in

the governing process. From

Armenia

to

Box 3: National governments play four

distinct roles in an information society

►

Determine the policies and

regulatory structures

►

Deliver the programs and services

of government to the citizen

►

Use the information infrastructures

to enhance the internal

administrative practices

►

Interface with citizens in the

democratic process of

government.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

5

Zambia the concept of e-government is

being openly embraced.

For most of the UN Member States,

electronic service delivery, or

e-government, is still a new and

challenging medium. To be precise,

e-government encompasses many

applications and incorporates virtually

all ICT platforms. However, it is the

internet that is the most widely

recognized and identifiable component

driving e-government. A major indicator

of a society’s openness is access to the

information available on the internet.

Restrictive states have sought ways to

contain or manage information and

access, ultimately compromising an

enabling e-government environment

1

.

The year 2001 saw a greater expansion

in government online presence than the

previous five years combined. Website

content and online applications

progressed from static, public affairs

“e-brochures” to virtual information

centers where the interaction between

citizen users and the public sector is

continuous. Last year also saw an

increase in the online transaction of

business with government.

In 2001, it was estimated that globally

there were well over 50,000 official

government web-sites (22,000 sites in the

US Federal government alone) with

more coming online daily.

∗

In 1996 less

than 50 official government homepages

could be found on the world-wide-web.

Of the 190 UN Member States, 169 were

providing some degree of information

and services online. Based on the

available resources, policy priorities and

political commitment, however, the

scope and content of national

∗

See Worldwide Governments on the World Wide

Web: http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/world.html

e-government programs contrast

substantially. Namibia's Ministry of Health

and Social Services

(www.healthforall.net/grnmhss/) for

example, maintains an effective

information gateway despite extremely

inadequate resources, while the

Republic of Korea’s National Tax Service

( www.nta.go.kr/

) is indicative of what

can be done with unabridged

commitment and support.

E-government development is constant

and conspicuous. It has received

considerable attention through a steady

stream of events at the national and

international levels. In March 2001, for

example, the Third Global Forum on

Reinventing Government

(

www.globalforum.org

) chose for its

theme: “Fostering Development

through E-government”. Participants

from 122 nations, which far exceeded

the combined official representation of

the first two Global Forums,

met in

Naples, Italy to share best practices,

information and ideas.

The Third Global Forum articulated the

following key points:

► E-government can consistently

improve the quality of life for citizens

and can create a sharp reduction of

costs and time.

► E-government will eventually

transform the processes and structures of

government to create a public

administration less hierarchical,

empowering civil servants to serve

citizens better and to be more

responsive to their needs.

► E-government must be given

serious consideration also in the

developing countries not only for its

potential for stronger institutional

capacity building, for better service

delivery to citizens and business (thus

increasing local social and economic

development), for reducing corruption

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

6

by increasing transparency and social

control, but also for “showing the way”

to the civil society and business

community.

Wide-ranging e-government programs

remain at, or near, the top of most

countries’ policy agendas. For many

nations, digitizing service deliveries like

filing personal income taxes online or

paying VATs electronically represents a

marked departure from the traditional

paper-based way of doing business. For

some countries, such departures have

culminated in success. For others the

challenge is formidable, but not

insurmountable.

When asked to describe the ultimate

benefit of e-government, the most

consistent response given by decision-

makers and public sector professionals

interviewed for this report was that it

transforms governance like no previous

reform or reinvention imitative.

E-government potentially empowers

individual citizens’ by providing them

with an alternative channel for

accessing information and services and

interacting with government.

It also gives the individual citizen another

choice: whether to become an active

participate in the governing process or

remain a passive observer.

Providing citizens with new choices is a

goal that resonates throughout many of

the national e-government strategic

plans. Both the intended and the

residual outcomes of this objective are

considerable: open communication,

enhanced transparency, increased

social inclusion and citizen participation,

democratic enrichment and superior

governance. These outcomes however,

tend to be more potential then extant,

and objectively quantifying a

potentiality is in itself a test. This study ---

the first global effort at benchmarking

e-government --- is in itself a challenge

as it attempts to balance both the

abstract and the tangible in order to

enlighten.

But perhaps what e-government is

ultimately about is opportunity.

Opportunity to transform a public sector

organization’s commitment so it can

function as truly citizen-centric.

Opportunity to provide cost effective

services to the private sector

contributing to the development of

business and promoting long-term

economic growth. Opportunity to

enhance governance through improved

access to accurate information and

transparent, responsive and democratic

institutions. The types of services that can

be delivered over the internet are still

being conceived, developed and

improved by both the public and

private sectors. Over the next few years

expect to see a increased

experimentation, innovation and

organizational learning in an effort to

perfect e-government.

Box 4: The Principles of E-Government

► Build services around citizens’ choices

► Make government and its services

more accessible

► Facilitate social inclusion

► Provide information responsibly

► Use government resources effectively

and efficiently

UK Government White Paper

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

7

Table 2:

The 2001 E-Government Index

Global Index: 1.62

High E-gov Capacity

Medium E-gov Capacity

Minimal E-gov Capacity

Deficient E-gov Capacity

2.00 - 3.25

1.60 - 1.99 1.00 - 1.59 Below 1.00

USA 3.11 Poland 1.96 Armenia 1.59 Cameroon 0.99

Australia 2.60 Venezuela 1.92

Brunei 1.59 Cent African Rep. 0.98

New Zealand 2.59 Russian Fed. 1.89 South Africa 1.56 Ghana 0.98

Singapore 2.58 Colombia 1.88 Paraguay 1.50 Nepal 0.94

Norway 2.55 Latvia 1.88 Cuba 1.49 Thailand 0.94

Canada 2.52 Saudi Arabia 1.86 Philippines 1.44 Congo 0.94

UK 2.52 Turkey 1.83 Costa Rica 1.42 Maldives 0.93

Netherlands 2.51 Qatar 1.81 Panama 1.38 Sri Lanka 0.92

Denmark 2.47 Lithuania 1.81 Nicaragua 1.35 Mauritania 0.91

Germany 2.46 Ukraine 1.80 Djibouti 1.35 Bangladesh 0.90

Sweden 2.45 Bahamas 1.79 Dominican Rep. 1.34 Kenya 0.90

Belgium 2.39 Hungary 1.79 Trinidad & Tobago 1.34 Laos 0.88

Finland 2.33 Greece 1.77 Indonesia 1.34 Angola 0.85

France 2.33 Jordan 1.75 Jamaica 1.31 Haiti 0.84

Rep of Korea 2.30 Bolivia 1.73 Iran 1.31 Mauritius 0.84

Spain 2.30 Egypt 1.73 Azerbaijan 1.30 Tanzania 0.83

Israel 2.26 Slovakia 1.71 India 1.29 Senegal 0.80

Brazil 2.24 Slovenia 1.66 Kazakhstan 1.28 Madagascar 0.79

Italy 2.21 Mongolia 1.64 Belize 1.26 Zimbabwe 0.76

Luxembourg 2.20 Oman 1.64 Barbados 1.25 Burkina Faso 0.75

Unit. Arab Emir. 2.17 Ecuador 1.63 Guyana 1.22 Zambia 0.75

Mexico 2.16 Suriname 1.63 Honduras 1.20 Mozambique 0.71

Ireland 2.16 Malaysia 1.63 El Salvador 1.19 Sierra Leone 0.68

Portugal 2.15 Romania 1.63 Guatemala 1.17 Cambodia 0.67

Austria 2.14 Belarus 1.62 Gabon 1.17 Comoros 0.65

Kuwait 2.12 Peru 1.60 Turkmenistan 1.15 Guinea 0.65

Japan 2.12 Uzbekistan 1.10 Namibia 0.65

Malta 2.11 Vietnam 1.10 Togo 0.65

Iceland 2.10 Samoa (Western) 1.09 Gambia 0.64

Czech Republic 2.09 Cote d'lvoire 1.05 Malawi 0.64

Argentina 2.09 China 1.04 Mali 0.62

Estonia 2.05 Pakistan 1.04 Ethiopia 0.57

Bahrain 2.04 Nigeria 1.02 Chad 0.55

Uruguay 2.03 Kyrgyzstan 1.01 Niger 0.53

Chile 2.03 Botswana 1.01 Uganda 0.46

Lebanon 2.00

Tajikistan 1.00

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

8

S

ECTION

2:

B

ENCHMARKING

E-

GOVERNMENT

2.1. Services are the Public Face of

Government

Virtually all government services can be

classified under one of three

fundamental categories: informational,

interactive and transactional. The first,

informational, is by far the most

significant. Information is at the heart of

every policy decision, response, activity,

initiative, interaction and transaction

between government and citizens,

government and businesses and among

governments themselves. How

information is collected, processed,

analyzed, packaged and disseminated

is in itself a specialized industry.

2

Successful citizen-centric e-government

programs emphasize the indispensable

nature of information while balancing its

often limited shelf-life and considerable

inflationary component. In the

information and knowledge age, there is

no institution that produces raw data

and new information with more

regularity than government.

Since services are the public face of

government, the primary objective of all

e-government initiatives is to provide the

citizen user with an efficient alternative

medium for interacting with public

sector service providers. This is generally

accomplished by improving the flow of

information both externally and

internally. Information is government’s

most fundamental output

3

and

consequently, transforming ministries,

departments, agencies, units and staff

to make them “e”-ready is an intense

and challenging process.

Eighty-eight percent of the UN Member

States have made at a legitimate effort

to commit to some form of

e-government; that is 169 countries have

an established online presence with

official government websites. However,

in 2001, for over 25% of the countries, the

content of official websites consisted of

static and insufficient information often

of a public relations nature and

consistently with strong political

overtones. Such sites can hardly be

described as service delivery or

considered citizen-centric since they are

not a medium to elicit useful feedback.

This trend is predominant in a several

emerging countries in Asia, the

Caribbean and throughout Sub-Sahara

Africa where countries like Zimbabwe

(www.gta.gov.zw/

) exploit the web for

very singular purposes.

The industrialized countries have taken a

less desultory approach in developing

their programs and the types of services

they are providing. This is particularly

evident throughout Europe, North and

South America as nearly all the countries

in both regions have highly dynamic

and interactive official government

websites, where content is accurate,

specialized and regularly updated.

The capacity to conduct transactions

online at the national government level

in 2001 was available in 17 countries.

There was also considerable activity at

the sub-national level, which would

suggest that in countries where

e-government is evolving autonomously

or without a coordinated national

strategic program, transactional service

delivery will occur irregularly with, in

many cases, local governments

demonstrating such a capacity before

the national government.

Although online transactions are one of

the primary features that justify a wide-

ranging e-government initiative, it is

worth noting, that despite the benefits of

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

9

technological and the impact of

globalization, the national economies of

over 75% of the countries indexed are

substantially cashed based.

4

In the

majority of these societies, credit-card

use is still reserved for a select and

privileged minority. Consequently, the

necessity for online transactions in such

countries may not be as great as the

need for reliable information.

Credible information is sine qua non for

maintaining a balanced and open

dialogue between decision-makers and

the civil society. The policy participation

process is one example.

A higher level of participation that goes

beyond just providing feedback and

comment is the participation of citizens

in the processes of policy development

and decision making of government.

Traditionally this has been practiced

through the use of voting and referenda

and again mostly at community and

local levels. It goes beyond simply

providing feedback; rather it is a process

of discussions and negotiations which

often involves personal interaction.

5

E-government potentially increases

citizen involvement in the process of

governance at all levels by introducing

new voices to the dialogue through

online discussion groups, thus expanding

outreach and influence while

enhancing the rapid development and

effectiveness of interest groups.

6

In the United States for example, there is

concern among academics, activists,

and elected officials that government

websites might focus more on providing

services, and less on facilitating civic

involvement. This type of service

orientation, they argue, treats citizens as

consumers rather than partners in

government, and thus inhibits public

engagement with the nation’s political

environment.

7

While users are certainly taking

advantage of all the services and

information made available on

government sites, a smaller portion are

active in using the Internet to monitor

public affairs. In 2001, an estimated 42

million Americans (24% of those with

access) used government Web sites to

research public policy issues; 23 million

(13% with access) used the Internet to

send comments to public officials about

policy choices; and 13 million (7.5% with

access) participated in online lobbying

campaigns.

∗

Despite the incredible advances made

in information technology, digitizing

government is, and will continue to be

into the foreseeable future, a complex

and constant process. Countries vary

radically in their approach, level of

development and overall commitment

to e-government. Critical endemic

factors like available resources, political

leadership, economic capacity and the

character of the civil society deeply

impact on the scope and breadth of a

government's e-gov policy. How a

nation ultimately shapes its

e-government commitment ideally

should consider these factors and

respect the citizen-centric approach

rather than being influenced by short-

lived trends or what outcomes may be

politically expedient.

For countries, like the United Kingdom

(

www.ukonline.uk.gov

) launching an

e-government program is an extensive,

meticulously planned exercise with

ambitious goals and targets. The UK also

enjoys the advantages of unabridged

political support. For other nations,

especially those in Sub-Sahara Africa,

just going online can be a frenetic leap

from the past into the future with little

time to absorb the present.

E-government is a new and for the most

part a nascent activity. Program success

∗

Source: Pew Internet & American Life Project

Government Web Sites Survey, September 5-27,

2001 N=815. Margin of error is ±4%.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

10

is not necessarily measured by the

increase in the number of government

websites, the number of daily “hits” or

user visits to each site, or by the number

of officials who can be accessed by

e-mail. (Though for many countries

producing a fully interactive, service

oriented website is a task not to be

taken lightly.) Successes are kept in

perspective, and setbacks are to be

expected. Despite the highly visible and

multi-functional sites, many governments

continue to "flight test" their programs in

an attempt to find the right combination

of services, features, content and entry

points that are efficient, cost-effective

and truly citizen-centric. However, time

in cyberspace does not allow

governments to celebrate very long

their accomplishments, nor mull over

their setbacks.

2.2. Current Benchmarking Practices

Benchmarking is an essential and

valuable exercise since the practice

allows individuals to mark a specific

policy or program’s progress and

chronicle successes and setbacks over a

given period of time. This provides policy

developers, decision makers and public

sector managers with vital information in

order to make mid-course adjustments,

improve program efficiency and ensure

that the tax-payers are getting a return

on their ‘investment’. Several countries,

international organizations and private

sector consulting firms have developed

useful tools in an attempt to measure e-

government progress through a series of

targets that mark a specific stage of

development.

The primary research conducted for this

report was gathered for two purposes:

first, to gain an appreciation and

understanding of the global

e-government landscape and; second,

to quantify data so to develop and test

a new and impartial benchmarking

practice. The research sought to assess

how governments have approached,

developed and implemented online

service delivery. The research also

sought to maintain objectivity, yet to be

as inclusive as possible in determining all

UN Members’ level of development

based on the available data.

A practice currently in use by

governments, international organizations

and private sector firms charts progress

through a series of levels or stages

marked by the presence (or absence) of

fundamental online applications and

basic features. The primary research for

this report has benchmarked a country’s

progress using the tools and methods

being practiced by the European Union

(www.eu.org), the United Kingdom’s

Office of E-Envoy; the United States

Government’s General Services

Administration; and Ireland’s national

e-government program.

Box 5: The Stages of e-Government

Emerging: A government web

presence is established

through a few

independent official

sites. Information is

limited, basic and static.

Enhanced: Content and information

is updated with greater

regularity.

Interactive: Users can download

forms, contact officials,

and make appointments

and requests.

Transactional: Users can actually pay

for services or conduct

financial transactions

online.

Seamless: Total integration of e-

functions and services

across administrative

and departmental

boundaries.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

11

Using the world wide web, all 190 UN

Member States were accessed and over

1900 national government websites

examined in order to analyze and chart

each country’s level of progress. The

citizen-centric approach was the basis

for our analysis. That is sites

(predominately cabinet ministries and

departments) and sectors considered to

be most representative of services that

the majority of citizens were likely to seek

were evaluated. The primary or target

sectors were: health, education, labor or

employment; social welfare and

services, and finance. Countries were

also evaluated for a capacity to

conduct transactions online.

∗

Countries were assessed by the following

criteria:

► An official government web

presence must exist.

► The type of service delivery

available: basic or informational,

interactive, transactional.

► The presence and of services in

five critical sectors: education,

health, labor/employment,

welfare/social services and

financial services.

► Use of single entry portals; and

de facto portals (official national

government websites).

► To a lesser degree, fidelity to

strategic plans, use of e-gov

teams.

2.3. The Stages of E-government

Development

National (and for that matter, regional

and local) government strategic

planning, characterizes e-government

∗

Here we took a broader approach to the

research, not restricting the transactional capacity

to the targeted sectors.

development as a linear progression,

with service providers moving through

four, five or even six levels or stages

before achieving the stated program

objectives.

8

This type of benchmarking is

a based primarily on analyzing website

content; any interactive features

(e-mail), quality and timeliness of

information and the capacity to

conduct online transactions. It provides

a convenient reference point for

developed and emerging nations, but it

presupposes a definitive level of

technical sophistication.

Prior to this study, developing countries

were omitted from much of the research

completed using this practice. We have

included a stage that reflects the

progress of developing countries.

In order to quantify the results, a

numerical scale ranging from 1 – 5 with

one representing an Emerging Presence

and five, Seamless or fully integrated,

was used. Each stage was furthered

analyzed for the presence of specific

features and content and measured by

intervals of .25.

The stages are a method for quantifying

progress. They are representative of the

government’s level of development

based primarily on the content and

deliverable services available through

official websites. This is not to suggest,

however, that in order to achieve

immediate success, a country must

follow this linear path, but rather reflects

the type of analysis and standards used

in 2001.

E-government programs are subjected

to a number of internal and external

factors. Technology and trained staff

obviously play a vital role in e-gov

development and influence how a

government will implement its program.

But it is the availability of resources that

dictate the goals of a particular

government. Ramping up from level one

to level two, level three, etc is, for now, a

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

12

consequence of the patterns of

contemporary program evolution. This

does allow policy planners a degree of

flexibility and creativity in program

development while still following the

game plan. Based on the availability of

a governments’ resources, an effective

program can be designed and

launched with the intent of being fully

transactional before ever going online.

Ramping up also allows the luxury of

utilizing a cost-effective practice of

testing through pilot programs.

The website research was conducted

during a three month period from May

to July and repeated from October to

December, 2001 in order to measure

progress and ensure accuracy. Each

Member State was examined using sites

available on the world wide web during

these periods. As stated earlier,

e-government development can be

swift and continuous, yet inchoate.

Change and improvement must be a

permanent part of the process if a

country is to achieve the stated goals

within its strategic framework and to

offer the most inclusive citizen-centric

approach. Unquestionably, many of the

UN Member States will have a different

look six, even three months from the

release of this report.

Progressive governments are upgrading

their sites regularly. Expanding the types

and quality of their online services and

improving their content daily in an

attempt to achieve the highest measure

of user satisfaction, administrative

efficiency and cost effectiveness. The

website analysis conducted as part of

this research is an appraisal taken at a

particular period in time --- a digital

photo of the global e-gov landscape

during 2001. (The stages of development

are however an important variable in

compiling the E-gov Index: Section 4)

For the purpose of the UN/ASPA survey,

a country’s online presence can be

categorized by one of five stages:

emerging; enhanced, interactive;

transactional; and fully integrated or

seamless.

Chart 1: Country Stages for 2001

32

65

55

17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Emerging Enhanced Interactive Transactional Seamless

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

13

2.4. Country Progress

Emerging Presence:

A country commits to becoming an e-gov player. A formal but

limited web presence is established through a few independent government websites

which provide users with static organizational or political information. Sites may include

contact information (i.e telephone numbers and addresses of public officials). In rare

cases, special features like FAQs may be found.

Angola

Antigua & Barbuda

Botswana

Burundi

Cape Verde

Central African Rep.

Cyprus

Ethiopia

Fiji

Gabon

Gambia

Grenada

Guinea

Haiti

Lao PDR

Lesotho

Liberia

Madagascar

Malawi

Mali

Marshall Islands

Moldova

Myanmar

Niger

Qatar

St. Vincent & Gren.

Seychelles

Solomon Islands

Syria

Togo

Tonga

Yemen

Enhanced Presence:

A country’s online presence begins to expand as its number of

official websites increase. Content will consist more of dynamic and specialized

information that is frequently updated; sites will link to other official pages. Government

publications, legislation, newsletters are available. Search features, and e-mail addresses

are available. A site for the national or ruling government may also be present that links

the user to ministries or departments.

Albania

Algeria

Andora

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Bahamas

Bangladesh

Barbados

Belarus

Belieze

Benin

Bosnia / Herz.

Burhino Faso

Cambodia

Cameroon

Cote d’Ivoire

Croatia

Cuba

Dominica

Domincan Rep.

Ecuador

El Salvador

Georgia

Ghana

Guatemala

Guyana

Honduras

Indonesia

Iran

Iraq

Kazakhstan

Kenya

Kyrgystan

Liechtenstein

Macedonia

Maldives

Mauratania

Micronesia

Monaco

Mongolia

Mozambique

Namibia

Nepal

Nigeria

Oman

Papaua New Guinea

Rwanda

St. Kitts & Nevis

St. Lucia

Samoa

San Marino

Senegal

Sierre Leone

Swaziland

Tajikistan

Tanzania

Trinidad & Tobago

Turkmenistan

Uganda

Uzbekistan

Vanuatu

Viet Nam

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

14

Interactive Presence: A country’s presence on the internet expands dramatically with

access to a wide range of government institutions and services. More sophisticated level

of formal interactions between citizens and service providers is present like e-mail and

post comments area. The capacity to search specialized databases and download

forms and applications or submit them is also available. The content and information is

regularly updated.

Argentina

Austria

Belgium

Bahrain

Bolivia

Brunei

Bulgaria

Chile

China

Colombia

Costa Rica

Czech Rep.

Denmark

Egypt

Estonia

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

India

Israel

Italy

Jamicia

Japan

Jordan

Kuwait

Latvia

Lebanon

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malaysia

Malta

Mauritius

Morocco

Netherlands

Nicaragua

Pakistan

Panama

Paraguay

Peru

Phillippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russian Federation

Saudi Arabia

Slovakia

Slovenia

South Africa

Sri Lanka

Sweden

Thailand

Turkey

Ukraine

United Arab Emirates

Uruguay

Venezuela

Yugoslavia

Transactional Presence:

Complete and secure transactions like obtaining visas,

passports, birth and death records, licenses, permits where a user can actually pay

online for a services pay parking fines, automobile registration fees, utility bills and taxes.

Digital signatures may be recognized in an effort to facilitate procurement and doing

business with the government. Secure sites and user passwords are also present.

Australia

Brazil

Canada

Finland

France

Germany

Ireland

Italy

Mexico

New Zealand

Norway

Portugal

Rep. Of Korea

Singapore

Spain

United Kingdom

United Statees

Seamless or fully integrated:

Capacity to instantly access any service in a "unified

package”. Ministerial/departmental/agency lines of demarcation are removed in

cyberspace. Services will be clustered along common needs.

No country surveyed has achieved this stage.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

15

S

ECTION

3:

A

NALYSIS OF

S

TAGES

3.1. Overview

Much of the current performance analysis

recognizes e-government development as

a linear progression, with countries moving

through four, five or even six levels or

stages of advancement. This form of

benchmarking is a based primarily on

analyzing website content, special

features, the quality and type of

information offered and the capacity to

conduct online transactions. It provides a

convenient reference point for developed

and emerging nations, but it presupposes

a certain level of sophistication.

Developing countries have, for the most

part, been omitted from many of the

studies completed using such a

benchmark. Our research recognizes the

efforts of least developed countries as

well. Therefore a stage that reflects their

efforts and progress was included.

However in practice, there exists three

functional levels of online service delivery

--- basic or publish, interactive and

transactional.

For most countries, gradually ramping up

to a more advanced level or stage of

development is a sound strategic

approach. Factors like technological

improvements, financial and human

resources, political commitment and

citizen participation, all contribute to how

quickly an e-government program

progresses.

There are, however, other factors that

should be noted as well. In certain

developing and emerging nations current

cultural and economic conditions may

justify e-gov programs that reflect the

immediate needs and technical capacity

of these societies. In such cases, attaining

level three or even level two may be a

realistic strategic development goal and a

sufficient online response. Consequently,

some programs may seem modest in

comparison to progressive or industrial

nations. It should be emphasized that the

primary objective of any e-government

program is to address the needs of

citizens. For a number of countries

attaining the enhanced or interactive

level may successfully fulfill this objective.

There are a finite number of services that

citizens and businesses can transact online

with national governments. Transactional

services vary depending upon the type of

political system. Highly centralized

governments will retain jurisdiction over

many transactions that decentralized and

federal systems will devolve to sub-

national levels. Driver’s license is one

example.

As noted in Section 2, the research

procedure selected for analyzing the

government websites was based on a

practices currently in use by national

governments, international organizations

and to a lesser degree, private sector

consulting firms.

The citizen-centric approach was the basis

for our analysis, therefore official websites

addressing sectors that were considered

to be most representative of services that

average citizens were most likely to seek

were evaluated. Five primary or target

sectors were analyzed: health, education,

labor or employment; social welfare and

services, and finance.

We further sought to Identify those aspects

of agency websites that are most

important for effective delivery of public

information and services. It is envisioned

that the results of this research will lead to

the development of a set of objective

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

16

performance measures for determining

the degree to which an agency website

effectively fulfills its mission of providing

information and services to the public.

Once accepted, these measures can be

tested and refined. Eventually a concise

set of internationally recognized

procedures that describe how these

performance measures can be refined

and ultimately applied could be

developed.

National government websites were

analyzed for their content and the type of

services available. The presence or

absence of specific features and

information factored into a country’s level

or official presence. The stages present a

straightforward and functional benchmark

of a national government’s online

presence and the sophistication of its

e-government program. Below is a brief

analysis of each stage.

3.2. Emerging Presence

Nearly all 32 countries, (16.8 of those

surveyed) at the

Emerging Presence Level,

are among the world’s least developed

nations with over half (18) in Sub-Sahara

Africa. Countries at this level averaged 3.9

official websites per government (in 2001,

the United States had over 31,000 Federal,

State and local sites) with content

consisting of predominately static and

insufficient information that is updated

infrequently, if at all. Most programs are in

their embryonic stage, providing few

interactive features like e-mail or

downloading forms. Actual online

services, as of this writing, are non-existent

for the countries at this level, and no

country offered an official website for any

of the five target sectors. Official

information for many of these countries is

predominately of a highly partisan,

political nature, i.e. bios and predictable

spin on the prime minister or the party in

power. The number of sites

disproportionately favor the political

parties over the service-provision or

administrative sites. There is little or no

information that would assist an individual

in accessing a specific public service. For

the most part, content could hardly be

described as citizen-centric.

Sectors with sites that are funded by

international organizations or outside

groups, or those promoting foreign

investment and tourism tend to be more

highly developed as a result of the

political and economic weight placed on

such issues. Some island nations, whose

primary source of economic activity is

tourism, have one or two sites promoting

the advantages of visiting or investing in

their country. Seychelles and Trinidad and

Tobago are such examples.

Obviously many of these countries are

among the poorest in the world, whose

limited resources are stretched well

beyond their finite capacities. National

priorities focus on basic survival issues.

However some countries have displayed

an intrinsic capacity for progress. Gabon’s

national government site

www.gabon.gov.ga

is an example of a

‘de facto’ single entry portal and allows

users to access 14 official national

government sites. Guiana and Botswana

are on the verge of ramping up to the

next level.

Most government sites do not have links to

all of the ministries and agencies, and

many have not been updated. The sites

typically are not used for administrative

purposes. For the countries at the

Emerging Presence level, e-government

program development is erratic and

disparate. There is little evidence of any

coordination or strategic planning within

ministries or departments, let alone,

national governments. However, this

condition may be reflective more of the

prioritization of needs rather than

organizational or political indifference.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

17

3.3. Enhanced Presence

Of the 65 countries (34.2%of the Member

States) with an

Enhanced Presence,

58%

are emerging or newly industrialized

economies, and, with the exception of

North America, are found in all

geographic regions. The average number

of sites for countries at this level is 18. There

are several cases of developing countries

like Cote’d Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Ghana

who are quickly succeeding in their

e-government programs as evidenced by

their commitment to content

improvement. There is still, however, very

little if any online representation of

ministries or departments dealing and with

social welfare, education or health issues.

The potential for more advanced

development in e-government is

apparent from some areas of Ghana's

site, however. Administrative guidelines

and regulations for obtaining a license to

export cocoa are clearly outlined in

extensive detail. Although the sites do not

allow the user to download the necessary

forms and applications, the information is

easily accessible and thorough. The

majority of CIS states including Georgia,

Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan are at the

Enhanced Presence level.

Presently, Nigeria's government web sites

are primarily for public affairs issues, with

very little dynamic information to the

citizens of Africa’s most populous nation.

Political agendas of the party in power are

obvious and appear on the forefront of

the site. In Nigeria's case, the unofficial

government web site is the Presidency.

Quotes about combating corruption and

allegiance to the presidency appear on

the page. The site itself does not provide

direct access to all ministries and legisla-

tive or judicial issues, including laws and

regulations or court decisions. This is not

uncommon among the countries at this

level, particularly those in Africa.

Nigeria has no ministries online, and

instead provides links to an array of

agencies and departments concerning

export regulations, ports authority, public

enterprises, corporate affairs, and

investment promotions. The focus is

clearly on promoting investment and

enhancing economic growth and

development. However, all sites or

information relating to education, social

services, health care or women and

children specifically are conspicuously

absent. This pattern of unbalanced

implementation is common at this level

and among developing countries.

Several Central American countries, such

as El Salvador, the Dominican Republic

and Guatemala, despite persistent

program obstacles (i.e. technological,

financial and human resources), are on

the verge of ramping up to the next level

of development. The Principalities of

Monaco and Liechtenstein each have

technically advanced websites, but their

content provides general information of a

public affairs nature promoting the

benefits of their countries.

The majority of nations at the Enhanced

Level show a greater degree of diversity in

their online content and the quality of

information. Although the content on most

official sites is predominantly political or

public affairs in nature, more than half the

countries (34), are developing a citizen-

centric approach with sites for at least one

of the targeted sectors. Forty-two

countries are upgrading their information

on a regular basis (at least once every two

weeks).

3.4. Interactive Presence

The Interactive Presence clearly

embodies the citizen-centric approach as

content, information and services

become what the people should expect

rather then what governments prefer to

offer.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

18

The delivery of information and services is

aimed at maximizing the importance of

the consumer by ensuring that ease of use

is priority. Portals are the preferred point of

entry; content is critically managed and

information is well balanced. Security and

privacy features are prominent among

sites.

At this stage, perhaps the most varied

profile of the Member States in terms of

national economic, political and social

conditions can be found. Of the 55

countries who offer interactive services,

20% are developing nations. The

remaining 80% are evenly divided

between newly emerging economies and

industrialized countries. Virtually all the

governments have demonstrated a strong

national commitment to a citizen-centric

e-government program and are well

advanced technically in their programs.

Only ten countries did not have websites

for all five target sectors. Each of the ten,

did however have a minimum of three

target sectors online.

Twelve countries (24%) at this stage

employ official single entry portals. Thirty-

one countries (62%) have official national

government sites which serve as de facto

portals, each linking the user with most

ministries, agencies departments as well as

government and elected officials. Of the

31 countries with official national

government sites, 24 link to the ministries of

the five targeted sectors: health,

education, labor, social welfare and

finance. Communicating with government

or elected officials is available through

e-mail and post comments features for

each of the 55 countries.

Information and content take on a

greater significance at this level and are

continuously updated. The sites are also

upgraded on a regular basis. Although

there is always a degree of political

information present in the content, it does

not dominate a country’s official

government web presence. In all 55

countries, users have the capacity to

download and request either documents

or forms from a specific ministry,

department, agency or unit. For a

number of countries like the Netherlands,

Sweden, Japan, ramping up to the

transactional level is only a matter of time,

Box 7: Single Entry Portals:

Several Excellent Examples

Australia www.fed.gov.au/KSP

Brazil . www.redegoverno.gov.br

Canada www.canada.gc.ca

Finland www.eduskunta.fi

France www.service-public.fr

Germany www.bundesregierung.de

Ireland www.irlgov.ie

Mexico www.precisa.gob.mx

New Zealand www.govt.nz

Norway www.norge.no

Rep. Of Korea www.kois.go.kr

Singapore www.gov.sg

Spain www.la-moncloa.es

United Kingdom www.ukonline.gov.uk

United States www.first

g

ov.

g

ov

Box 6: Single Entry Portals Are Standard

As a gateway or single point of entry to

government services, portals are

becoming the standard. In 2001, 36

countries provided easy access through

single entry portals. At the regional or

state level the number is much higher. All

26 of Brasil's states use this approach, as

do Germany's Landers, the majority of

Mexico's states and all 50 of the US states.

Serving as much more than a simple

gateway, however, a portal offers an

opportunity to reorient services around

the needs of citizens while consolidating

back office responsibilities. The United

States (www.firstgov.gov

) and the United

Kingdom (www.ukonline.gov

) are

excellent examples.

Eighty-four countries have an official

national government web page. These

sites can serve as de facto single entry

portals. National government websites

offer most of the features and links that

would be found on single entry portals.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

19

and several may have already achieved

the capacity by the release of this report.

Although online transactions are one of

the primary services that demonstrate

e-government’s utility, the point must be

reiterated, that despite daily advances in

information technologies and the

inescapable impact of globalization the

national economies for the large majority

of UN Member States are predominately

cashed based. Credit-cards, online

banking and other paperless forms of

e-commerce are, for the present,

available to those who have the means to

access such services. The necessity for

online transactions in many of these

societies may not be as great as the need

for reliable and practical information.

3.5. Transactional Presence

At the Transactional Presence level, a

country has fully demonstrated the

capacity for users to interact with the

government by purchasing publications or

other item, or utilizing a service like

obtaining a passport and paying for it

online with either a credit card, bank

debit or by some other electronic means.

At the completion of our online research,

17 countries offered complete

transactions online. (In should be

emphasized that in the case of online

transactions, the empirical evidence

sought required a closer examination of

national government websites. In some

cases transactional activity at the local

level has preceded national

governments.) Each of these countries is

a member of the OECD. All 17 use single

entry portals with the UK and Singapore

adopting the personal user ID approach.

All have very sophisticated citizen-centric

sites that offer the user access to

government organizations whose

existence most citizens may hardly be

aware of. The sites are undergoing

frequent revision and improvement to

achieve the maximum level of user

satisfaction. Content is regularly updated

to reflect the constant demand for current

and accurate information.

Box 8: Online Tax Transactions

Perhaps the most often cited example of e-

government’s utility is the capacity to pay

taxes online. Many countries now offer

electronic filing. Spain, has one of the most

sophisticated online taxation programs in

Europe.

But paying online is a different matter. France

has had an electronic payment program for

years and has successfully transitioned the

service to the web. But the program itself

requires several steps include gaining

permission to participate and securing an

electronic credit from the government and

the bank selected for payment and has yet

to achieve popularity with the French

citizens. Mexico has a similar program. But of

the 91 million people only 3.7 million have

access to the web. Payment of VAT,

personal and business taxes are at varying

stages of development.

From January 1 to April 15 the Internal

Revenue Service Website receives three

times as many hits as any other official US

government website. However the number

of taxpayers e-filing is disproportionately low.

There are a number of explanations, but the

most common is that despite the relative

ease and convenience, US taxpayers have

yet to gain a sense of trust for the process.

The IRS has projected that 45 million US

citizens will file electronically in 2002an

increase of 16 percent from 2001. The

remaining 95 million US taxpayers, however,

will continue to use the traditional approach

Online filing is gaining popularity among

South American countries. Collecting

payment however, is still in the pilot stage.

Chile for a example since instituting the

service in 1997 has seen a business filings

increase from 23,000 in 1998 to 800,000 in

2001. Brasil also has in effect an online filing

system in which over 80% of those who filed

taxes in 2000, filed online.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

20

Australia, the UK, Ireland, Brazil and the

United States all present a concise, easily

navigable portal to its transactional

services.

Perhaps the most frequently cited online

national government transaction is the

filing and payment of taxes (see Box 8).

Online taxation payment is technically in

the pilot program stage for nearly all 17

countries at the transactional level. Spain,

(www.aeat.es

) has one of the most

sophisticated online taxation programs in

Europe. Citizens can pay income taxes

online, and businesses can pay income,

property and sales taxes online as well.

Spain also features the use of digital

signatures.

Germany and Finland have successfully

launched payment programs for citizens

as well as businesses. The Republic of

Ireland

(www.ros.ie

) has introduced online

VAT payments. Ireland also provides

services like paying one’s utility bill, which

is available at most General Post Offices

throughout the Republic, now online.

Norway

(www.skatteetaten.no

) is the site of

the Norwegian Revenue Service offers

several transactional services, including

the payment of income, property and

sales taxes.

The United States

(www.irs.gov/e-file

)

improved its online taxation payment

program from a year ago, though the

number of those filing e-returns has

remained below expectations.

France has used a variation of electronic

tax filing for several years. However the

transition to online taxation has been slow

to gain acceptance as those wishing to

use the service must negotiate several

administrative steps. Mexico has instituted

a similar system.

Canada has perhaps one of the most

comprehensive e-government programs.

In addition to offering a bi-lingual portal, it

provides citizens with a wide range of

services in a highly efficient and user-

friendly manner. Content and services

reflect the government’s unremitting

commitment to improvement and to

providing the best product to Canadian

citizens and international users.

Level Five or Seamless government

represents, for some countries, the

ultimate goal. However very few countries

have publicly acknowledged it as a final

policy objective. The United Kingdom and

Singapore are two examples. Seamless

government is not as easy to qualify as the

four previous levels. It is characterized by

the objective of having all online services,

information, websites, etc available to the

user through a single entry point that is

driven by a super-search engine. But

that’s only half the equation. It also

presupposes a reorganization of internal

administrative structure of government’s

responsibilities to process these services: in

effect eliminating administrative

boundaries. It is sound strategic thinking,

however it is a perfect world scenario. A

more futuristic vision of service delivery

based on the presumption that both

technology and human nature will be so

compliant that the administrative

procedures will transverse organizational

boundaries and become one simple

seamless process.

Attaining this level would necessitate a

considerable degree of political,

administrative and managerial

cooperation. Before the government’s

time and the public’s resources (both of

which will need to available in

abundance) a specific set of

environmental conditions must exist.

These include:

9

► A realistic political vision and

plan that completely grasps the

strengths and weaknesses of its

public sector’s capacity.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

21

► A fully committed national

leadership secure enough to

sustain the political opposition to

such a reform program.

► A confident and professional

administrative culture willing to

relinquish some degree of

organizational and

administrative territory.

For the majority of countries, attaining

the goal of seamless government may

be an abstract or remote objective.

3.6. Website Evaluation as a

Benchmarking Tool

Governments analyze and test a variety

of measures and indicators in order to

find the most practical benchmarking

methods. Website Evaluation should be

used in conjunction with other

assessment and benchmarking activities

that compliment its value. When

perfected, website evaluation can be

useful in fulfilling such governance goals

as:

► Improved planning and goal

setting of E-government

initiatives.

► Improved decision-making and

resource allocation related to

E-government programs.

► Determining the effectiveness of

a E-government website.

► Determining the degree to which

the website adds value to the

organization.

► Providing trend data to assess

change over time.

► Contributing to continuous

improvement efforts and

benchmarking.

► Identifying problems and possible

solutions, as well as the

effectiveness of corrective

action.

► Empowering organizational

actors to seek and enact

solutions.

► Developing accountability

organizational learning.

► Improving public information

access services of those

websites.

Box 9: September 11, 2001

When the entire downtown area around the White

House, including the FirstGov offices, was evacuated

on September 11

th

, team members worked through the

night on computers in their homes to produce content

and design for a special section on the FirstGov

homepage.

By 7:00 AM on September 12

th

, the team had already

assembled critical lists of more than 60 websites and

telephone numbers of official government services,

critical care facilities, and emergency centers. By that

afternoon, the special FirstGov site called “America

Responds to Terrorism” was up and running on the

World Wide Web. In a matter of hours, the major

commercial Internet search sites — AOL’s Government

Guide, MSN, MSNBC, Yahoo and Google had special

hot links to FirstGov. Key government sites, the White

House, FEMA, DOD, State, GSA and SSA all crossed

linked to FirstGov. Specialized listserves and Federal call

centers alerted their subscribers to FirstGov’s special

site. Television and radio stations across the U.S. began

to broadcast FirstGov’s URL.

The days following the devastation in New York and

Washington provided the FirstGov team with an

extraordinary opportunity to use technology to create

a rapid, effective response in a time of national

emergency. Hits on the site doubled, visits tripled, and

the number of unique visitors to the FirstGov portal

quadrupled. But what meant the most to the FirstGov

team were personal testimonials from Americans

stunned by the September 11

th

attacks. Americans

turned to FirstGov for information on missing family

members, for hospital telephone numbers, for locations

of blood donation centers, and links to airlines and

disaster centers. Hundreds of people in the U.S. and

from more than 60 other countries contacted the

FirstGov team, communicating their sympathy, anger

and suggestions for additional information.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

22

S

ECTION

4:

T

HE

E-G

OVERNMENT

I

NDEX

4.1. Ensuring an Enabling Environment

To ensure that a national e-government

program realizes its maximum potential,

the existence of a favorable or enabling

environment is paramount. By regularly

assessing the core areas that are

requisite for sustaining an information

society --- institutional capacity, cultural

and human resources conditions, ICT

strengths and the political commitment -

-- governments would be in a position to

carefully evaluate performance

opportunities and challenges while

candidly appraising their strengths and

weaknesses. “E-capacity” analysis allows

policy and decision-makers to initiate

the appropriate actions necessary in

order to ensure the needs of their

citizens are effectively met.

National governments play four distinct

roles in sustaining the enabling

environment of an information society:

10

► Determine the policies and

regulatory structures.

► Deliver the programs and

services of government to the

citizen.

► Use the information

infrastructures to enhance the

internal administrative practices.

► Interface with citizens in the

democratic process of

government.

In order to effectively respond to the

numerous technological, fiscal and

cultural factors that contribute to

developing and sustaining an

information society, decision-makers

and public sector professionals should

maintain a clear, practical vision of their

national e-gov programs that

realistically reflect the strengths,

weaknesses, needs and priorities of their

constituents.

Box 10: Factors Impeding an Enabling E-gov Environment in Developing Countries:

The are several core factors that have been identified in UN reports on ICT and have also been discussed in various

forums impacting developing countries in ICT and e-government projects.

Core Factors Symptoms Consequences

Institutional Insufficient Planning Inadequately Designed Systems

Weakness Unclear Objectives Cost Over-runs

Human Shortage of Qualified Personnel Insufficient Support

Resources Lack or Professional Training Isolation from sources of technology

Funding Underestimated Project Costs Unfinished Projects

Arrangements Lack of recurring expenditure Higher Maintenance Costs

Local Lack of Vendor representation Lack of qualified technical support

Environment Lack of back-up systems / parts Implementation Problems

Technology and Limited Hardware / Software System Incompatibility

Information Changes Inappropriate software Over-reliance on Customer Applications

Knowledge Societies

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

23

If a national government’s strategic

“e-vision” anticipates greater citizen

participation, improved service delivery,

increased efficiency, administrative

modernization, enhanced transparency

and increased foreign investment, then

the political leadership must be fully

prepared to see such a commitment

through to the completion of these

objectives regardless of the challenges.

Table 3: Global Online Population

The strategic goals of any national

policy should, most importantly, reflect

the needs and expectations of the

citizens, not necessarily the grandiose

dreams of policy advisors or ephemeral

promises of the political leadership.

Like resources and technical capacity,

priorities and expectations vary widely

from county to country, government to

government and citizen to citizen.

Where perfecting the payment of taxes

online is one of several principle

objectives in Spain, for example, simply

“going online” or staying online may be

the most immediate goal in Senegal.

In developing and transitioning

countries, factors such as institutional

weakness, lack of qualified or properly

trained staff and technological

limitations potentially make even a

minor e-gov activity, like responding to

e-mail, a major administrative challenge

(see Box 10

11

). The need for technical

assistance, administrative capacity

building and human resource training

are the most conspicuous areas where

the international community and the

United Nations can play an active,

facilitating and significant role.

The web, being a transparent and highly

visible medium, is the public’s most

palpable assessment of a country’s

e-readiness. Consequently a subtle

dynamic is taking place among

governments: the allure of the status

associated with the recognition (or the

perception) of being e-ready. In order to

realistically compete (or at least be

given the opportunity to compete) as a

knowledge-based economy in the

Online August ‘00

August

‘01

% change

+/-

World Total 408 mil 514 mil + 20

Africa 3.2 mil 4.2 mil + 24

Asia /

Pacific

105 mil 143 mil + 28

Europe 114 mil 154 mil + 26

Middle East 2.5 mil 4.7 mil + 47

Canada /

USA

168 mil 181 mil + 8

Latin

America

17 mil 25 mil + 32

Box 11: Global Online Population

The figures used were collected by Nua.com,

(www.nua.com.ie

) an internet research firm, based in

Dublin, Ireland. Currently they are the only analysts

who have attempted to measure access for all

countries. The analysis has shown that in all

technologies Europe and North America have the

highest percentage of access while the African

region has the lowest percentage. According to a

UNESCO study this could be an indication that as

expected the more the region matures and develops

economically the higher the percentage of access.

This same trend becomes evident when the analysis

focuses on industrialized and developing countries.

The Annual Global growth rate over the past year

was 20%, which according to internet watchers

should hold at this level for the next few years.

Although it is not unlikely that a region could show

accelerated growth, as was the case with the Middle

East. This reflects a policy of full commitment to

access on the part of governments in the region. The

advanced telecommunications infrastructure also

assisted significantly. Africa’s 24 percent growth rate

was its highest yet and the region should achieve at

least this level of growth over the next year, if not

exceed it. The figure of eight percent for Canada

and the US reflects the near saturation point for both.

As regards to the provision of telematics services to

government departments the difference between

developing and industrialized countries is striking, as

industrialized countries have an edge in that a higher

proportion of their government departments have

access. Source: www.nua.com.ie

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

24

global e-commerce arena, many

developing country governments are

committing to fast track applications

that are either lack real substance or

address only the needs of a single sector

such as the business community, often

at the expense of a citizen-centric

approach.

12

4.2. Compiling the E-government Index:

∗

∗∗

∗

The Key Indicators

There are several key factors that define

the core areas of an enabling

e-government environment. Many are

endemic to a nation’s individual

political, economic and cultural fabric.

In short a country's national character.

Yet because the visions, goals and

policies that encompass e-government

vary considerably among practitioners

and users, comparative indicators may

not always be precise, while any proven

reference points, at this time, are

virtually nonexistent. Consider also the

fact that despite a pattern of continuous

growth in internet usage (see Table 3) it

is too early to anticipate with

confidence what percentage of a

country’s population will completely

accept e-government and make it a

regular part of their lives.

Several proven indicators, however, do

exist that are representative of a

country's capacity to launch, sustain,

perfect and promote an effective

e-government program --- a country's

e-gov environment---

and can be used

as dependable benchmarks.

Telecommunications indicators like, pc’s,

internet hosts, telephone lines, are

indispensable, as without these requisite

technologies, a country’s capacity to

sustain online service delivery is

∗

Appendix 1 describes the formula used in

compiling the e-gov index.

nonexistent. Analyzing website content,

access patterns, online services and

official information, give only a partial

(albeit a critical) account of a countries

overall e-gov environment.

Table 4: Global Leaders

USA 3.11

Australia 2.60

New Zealand 2.59

Singapore 2.58

Norway 2.55

Canada 2.52

UK 2.52

Netherlands 2.51

Denmark 2.47

Germany 2.46

Sweden 2.45

Belgium 2.39

Finland 2.33

France 2.33

Rep of Korea 2.30

Spain 2.30

Israel 2.26

Brazil 2.24

Italy 2.21

Luxembourg 2.20

Unit. Arab Emir. 2.17

Mexico 2.16

Ireland 2.16

Portugal 2.15

Austria 2.14

Kuwait 2.12

Japan 2.12

Malta 2.11

Iceland 2.10

Czech Republic 2.09

Argentina 2.09

Estonia 2.05

Bahrain 2.04

Uruguay 2.03

Chile 2.03

Lebanon 2.00

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

25

In devising a methodology for

benchmarking and performance

measurement for an enterprise as

nascent and unique as e-government,

one approach would be to include

many variables in order to obtain the

most comprehensive picture as possible.

But currently, there are only a few

comparable universal indicators suitable

for quantifying e-government. And, such

comprehensiveness may not be entirely

desirable. While too few indicators may

tell only a partial story, too many can

distort the picture or dilute general

trends. The model practice will weigh

disparities and balance inequities.

The E-government Index attempts to

emphasize and balance the conditions

that are most representative of a

country's capacity to develop, sustain

and provide unimpeded access to

timely, useful and relevant information

and services for every segment of its

population.

In order to best capture a balanced

interpretation, three distinctive measures

consisting of primary indicators

available for most (144), of the UN

Member States were developed. The

measures are: Web presence Measure;

Telecommunications infrastructure

Measure and; Human Capital Measure.

The first --- web presence measure---

captures a country's online stage of

development discussed in Sections 2

and 3. The second measure ---

telecommunications infrastructure

measure --- compares six primary

indicators which define a country's ICT

infrastructure capacity. The sources for

the statistics are the 2001 International

Telecommunications Union Report and

the 2001 UNDP Human Development

Report. They are:

► PCs per 100 individuals: For now,

PC’s are the primary device for

accessing the internet until

access becomes universally

available through other mediums

like television; this statistic is

fundamental in quantifying a

country’s capacity to deliver

online service.

► Internet hosts per 10,000 individs:

Measures internet penetration.

Obviously, the greater the

number of internet hosts and

service providers, the greater the

opportunity for citizen access.

► Percentage of a nation’s

population online:

Estimates how many are citizens

are using the web. The

source for these figures is

www.nua.com.ie

, (see table 3),

the only organization that

provides statistics for nearly every

UN Member State

► Telephone lines per 100 Individs:

Which is basic infrastructure

measure. The greater the

number of telephone lines the

likelihood increases for access.

► Mobile phones per 100 individs:

Indicates a country’s potential

for wireless capacity. Wireless

connectivity is extremely

important in many developing

countries. This could play an

important role in the near future,

as mobile access becomes more

comprehensive.

► Televisions per 1000: This

indicator was included to assess

the prospects of web TV. Cable

and satellite TV potentially offer

the highest rate of access of any

hardware device.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

26

Having the education, freedom and

desire to access information is

critical to e-government’s

efficacy. Presumably, the higher

the human development the more likely

citizens will be inclined to accept and

use e-government services.

Having the technical means to access

relevant and timely information and

services is a critical factor addressed in

the web presence and infrastructure

measures. The third measure --- human

capital --- attempts to capture a

country's, and its citizens’ facility,

opportunity and willingness to use online

government. The three indices are

► The UNDP Human Development

index which measures a

society's well being, including

level of education, economic

viability and healthcare.

www.undp.org/humandevelopment

.

Infrastructure Measure Human Capital Measure

Country

Web

Presence

Measure

PCs / 100

Int Hosts

/ 10000

% of Pop

Online

Tele

Lines /

100

Mobile

Phones /

100

TVs /

1000

Human

Development

Index

Information

Access

Index

Urban as

% of Total

Population

E-Gov

Index

Argentina 3.25 5.13 72.98 10.5 21.32 16.34 289 .842 .916 89.6

2.09

Bolivia 3.25 1.23 1.59 2.1 6.17 5.16 115 .648 .833 61.9 1.73

Brazil 4 4.41 51.53 7.1 18.18 13.63 316 .750 .667 80.7

2.24

Chile 3.25 8.55 49.11 12.5 22.12 22.36 232 .825 .833 85.4 2.03

Colombia 3.25 3.37 11.06 3.3 16.92 5.33 217 .765 .500 73.5

1.88

Ecuador 2.75 2.01 0.18 1.5 10.00 3.81 293 .726 .667 64.3 1.63

Guyana 2.5 2.45 0.69 1.1 7.49 0.33 59 .704 .833 37.6

1.22

Paraguay 2.75 1.12 2.36 1.3 5.00 19.55 101 .735 .583 55.3 1.50

Peru 2.5 3.57 4.17 1.5 6.37 4.02 144 .743 .583 72.4

1.60

Suriname 2.5 1.10 0.24 3.0 18.06 9.84 217 .758 .916 73.5 1.63

Uruguay 3 9.96 162.02 12.8 27.84 13.19 242 .828 .999 91.0

2.03

Venezuela 3 4.55 6.68 5.7 10.78 21.75 185 .765 .500 86.6 1.92

Regional

Average 3.00 3.95 30.22 5.19 14.19 11.28 200.83 .760 .740 72.65

1.79

Box 12: Indexing South America

The table used as an example compares the

12 countries of South America. Analyzing the

numbers reveals some interesting findings. For

example, Brasil is the overall regional leader

with a 2.24 E-gov Index. This is achieved

primarily based on the strength of its Web

Presence Measure of 4.0, the highest in the

region.

Uruguay (2.03), however leads the region in

nearly all individual infrastructure and human

capital measures, and along with Argentina

(2.09) scored higher than Brasil in many of

these indicators. However both countries have

not, matched Brasil’s online service

development. Consequently, they are slightly

behind in the overall index.

Uruguay’s strength in the infrastructure and

human capital measures (highest Information

Access indicator) would suggest that there is a

greater likelihood for overall long term success

and increased citizen participation. This of

course precludes the possibility of political or

economic emergencies.

Table 5: Indices for South America

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

27

► The Information Access Index

which draws on two annual

surveys from Transparency

international (

www.trasparency.org)

and Freedomhouse International

(www.freedomhouse.org)

.

Quantifying a country’s citizen

interaction with government is a

challenge. Both organizations

produce annual surveys that

measure key democratic

components which contribute to

accessing and disseminating

information and monitor a

countries public sector for

corruption. The Information

Access Index combines

the two annual indicators

converts them to a

percentage.

► Urban / rural population ratio

which gives an indication of

internet service patterns and

how access may be prioritized.

Countries with a greater

percentage of its inhabitants in

rural areas may find bringing

service to its population a

greater challenge.

4.3. Global Overview

Overall, 61 or 42% of those countries

indexed placed above the global mean

of 1.62. Thirty-six countries, or 25% of the

144 indexed have High E-government

Capacity, exceeding the value of 2.00.

The majority of the countries with a High

E-gov Capacity (25) are OECD

members. Countries indexing above

2.00, predominantly, have the technical

and human capacity and the resources

to sustain innovative and productive

citizen-centric e-gov programs with few

encumbrances.

The United States (3.11) is the overall

global leader and the only country to

register an index greater than 3.00.

Clearly, the US’s tradition as a

pioneering leader in the field of

information technology, along with its

well-educated population, economic

strength and a fidelity to the principles of

freedom of information give it a

significant competitive advantage. But

despite an abundance of technological

and human capital reserves, the US was

slow off the e-gov mark and only began

to make serious strides in 2001 with the

performance of Firstgov.gov, the official

portal of the federal government;

improved online transaction capabilities

and the US Government’s remarkable

ability to disseminate accurate, reliable

and timely information immediately

following the events of Sept. 11

th

, 2001

and thereafter.

Several countries, such as Mexico (2.16),

Brazil (2.24) and Chile (2.03) for

example, were able to overcome

persistent infrastructure limitations, like

inadequate hardware availability or

scarce internet access, and rigorous

human capital challenges, to develop

complete e-government programs. In

Mexico and Brasil, much like in Australia,

the United Kingdom, Ireland and

Sweden the commitment on the part of

political leadership has been strong and

constant.

Twenty-six countries (18% of those

indexed) have Medium E-government

Capacity and placed between 1.60 and

1.99 with Poland (1.96) just missing

inclusion among the global leaders.

Countries in this group are

predominantly technologically

advanced and in many cases enjoy a

well educated population. However,

each country may be weak in one or

more key individual areas. Poland, for

example, scored high in its web

presence measure suggesting an

unabridged commitment on the part of

the political leadership to a competitive

e-government program. However in the

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

28

infrastructure and human capital

measures, Poland ranked comparatively

lower than most of its European

neighbors.

Egypt (1.73) is another example where

the commitment to an effective and

efficient e-gov program is a priority

despite ongoing infrastructure and

human capital limitations.

A greater number of countries, 36 (25%),

demonstrated a Minimal E-government

Capacity indexing between 1.00 – 1.59

than any other level. Included in this

group were newly emerging economies,

developing and least developing

countries. The e-government programs

among these countries reflect the

realities of their limited infrastructure and

human capital capacities while

balancing the priorities of their

development needs. Information

provision is the primary service provided

by governments and in several cases it is

of minimal value to the users (when they

can actually gain access to the

internet).

Lack of basic assets like PC’s, partial

internet access, and an inadequate

number of telephone lines are part of

the equation. Limited economic

resources are the other part. Despite

inadequacies in the areas of education,

human capital levels are improving.

The commitment to a fully functional

e-government program, however, is

strong in many countries including,

Armenia (1.59), Costa Rica (1.42),

Jamaica (1.31) and India (1.29).

Among the developing countries, India,

has benefited from the combined effort

of its political leadership and highly

professional civil service in developing a

multi-functional e-gov program. It

maintains a single entry portal and offers

many of the requisite features found in

the programs of the global leaders.

Of the 35 (24.3%) countries who indexed

below 1.00 --- Deficient E-gov Capacity

---

31 are among the world’s least developed

nations with 25 from Sub-Saharan Africa.

For the majority of these countries,

e-government registers a low order of

priority on the policy agenda.

Augmenting ICT capacity must be

rationally balanced with food, medical,

educational and labor issues.

However, there are nations who are

finding the resources and the expertise

to make e-government happen.

Bangladesh, Kenya, and Ghana, for

example recognize the importance of

the role technology plays in

development and have embarked on

e-government programs representative

of their respective development

agendas.

4.4 Change: The Essential Process of the

E-government Universe

Change is the one word that best

characterizes the current global

e-government condition. Change in

processes; change in thinking; change in

administrative practices and change in

outlook. This may sound simplistic, but it is

accurate and contains its own set of

complex issues.

Change in cyberspace is constant, swift

and dynamic. Many of countries that

are excluded from access to

technological advances are often not

even aware of the fact that they are

falling behind.

13

Hardware and software availability and

internet access are vital components of

e-government for the obvious reason

that they facilitate the delivery of

information to communities. This benefit

ultimately empowers citizens with the

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

29

capacity to participate more readily in

the governing process and by having a

greater voice in decisions that impact

upon their societies. This point cannot be

over emphasized.

Public education to increase familiarity

and comfort with the internet is a

significant component of the enabling

environment. Although highly guarded

of official information, Singapore, for

example, has made it a specific goal to

ensure that its population has access

and becomes literate in the use of the

internet

14

.

Persuading citizens to change however

and accept, for example, transactions

online, or to even trust the official

information provided requires, in many

cases, a major readjustment of cultural

thinking. As discussed earlier, as of 31

December 2001, 17 national

governments had online transaction

capability.

∗

Most developing countries

and NICs are predominantly cash-based

economies with a small percentage of

the population credit card users (usually

restricted to the professional and

affluent). One residual effect of this

reality is the escalation of the digital

divide. Changing cultural traditions will

be a gradual and challenging process.

The raison d'être of online service

delivery is to provide citizens and

businesses with a 24 / 7 / 365 channel to

government. Yet several nations have

created for themselves a temporary

dilemma: choose between a citizen

centric approach or prioritize

information and service delivery to

address the needs of a specific sector:

∗

For perspective: a recent Pew Internet Project

Survey found that of an estimated 68 million

Americans who accessed a government website

in 2001, 5.4 million or 8% conducted a transaction

online. Note this includes federal, state and local

sites.

i.e. the business community. This was not

lost upon the conclusions of the Third

Global Forum on Reinventing

Government:

“In developing countries,

e-government can reduce economic

and social gaps, but in such contexts a

particularly strong public action is

needed to guide the process and avoid

an exclusively business approach."

Our research corroborates these

findings, as addressing the business

sector has been an approach preferred

by many developing and newly

emerging countries. This is particularly

true in Latin America for countries, like

Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay and to a

lesser degree Brazil and Argentina. Such

a policy, or strategic approach,

however supports the premise that ICT

led economic growth has consistently

raised national productivity, created

jobs and increased income.

15

Countries

with a long tradition of social service

delivery, on the other hand, have

prioritized a citizen-centric approach.

The Nordic countries are excellent

examples. Yet despite numerous

measures to liberalize the ICT sector in a

number of developing countries only

about nine percent of the world’s

population enjoys regular internet

access

16

. Concerns like telephony, user

costs, bandwidth size, telecom

regulations must be weighed in

considering e-government’s potential

for transforming governance.

Access to the web will continue to

increase as the telecommunications

infrastructure improves and the

preparation of vital draft legislation

facilitating access become laws

17

removing outdated regulations

impeding e-government projects.

However, there is currently little

evidence to suggest that these actions

will lead to increased e-government use.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

30

Table 6: 2001 Global E-Government Indexes

High E-gov Capacity: 2.00 - 3.25

ICT Infrastructure Measures Human Capital Measures

Country

Web

Presence

Measure

PCs /

100

Int Hosts

/ 10000

% of

Pop

Online

Tele

Lines /

100

Mobile

Phones

/ 100

TVs /

1000

Human

Develop

Index

Info

Access

Index

Urban as

% of Total

Pop

E-Gov

Index

USA 4 58.52 2928.32 62.1 69.97 36.45 847 .934 .999 77.0 3.11

Australia 4 46.46 843.52 52.5 52.41 44.63 639 .936 .999 84.7 2.60

New Zealand 4 36.02 900.87 46.1 49.57 40.25 501 .913 .999 85.7 2.59

Singapore 4 48.31 437.56 49.3 48.57 68.38 348 .876 .333 100.0 2.58

Norway 4 49.05 1009.31 54.4 72.91 70.26 579 .939 .999 75.1 2.55

Canada 4 39.02 768.68 46.5 67.65 28.46 715 .936 .999 77.0 2.52

United King 4 33.78 280.75 55.3 56.72 66.96 645 .923 .916 89.4 2.52

Netherlands 3.5 39.48 1017.49 54.4 60.67 67.12 543 .931 .999 89.3 2.51

Denmark 3.75 43.15 626.60 54.7 75.25 60.99 585 .921 .999 85.3 2.47

Germany 4 33.64 248.30 34.5 60.12 58.59 580 .921 .916 87.3 2.46

Sweden 3.75 50.67 670.79 69.9 68.20 71.37 531 .936 .999 83.3 2.45

Belgium 3.5 34.45 295.44 26.4 49.94 54.89 510 .935 .916 97.3 2.39

Finland 4 39.61 1022.53 48.3 54.69 72.64 64 .925 .999 66.7 2.33

France 4 30.48 190.89 19.7 58.02 49.41 601 .924 .916 75.4 2.33

Korea, Rep. of 4 19.03 84.10 46.4 46.37 56.69 346 .875 .833 81.1 2.30

Spain 4 14.29 112.19 18.4 42.12 60.93 506 .908 .916 77.4 2.30

Israel 3.5 25.36 287.52 17.1 0.47 70.18 318 .893 .833 91.1 2.26

Brazil 4 4.41 51.53 7.1 18.18 13.63 316 .750 .667 80.7 2.24

Italy 4 20.94 177.97 33.4 47.39 73.73 486 .909 .916 66.9 2.21

Luxembourg 3 45.90 271.15 22.9 75.97 87.22 619 .924 .999 91.0 2.20

United Arab Emirs

3.5 12.51 176.00 33.0 41.79 58.51 294 .809 .250 85.5 2.17

Mexico 4 5.06 56.55 3.5 12.47 14.23 261 .790 .750 74.2 2.16

Ireland 4 36.46 296.37 32.5 42.63 66.76 456 .916 .999 58.8 2.16

Portugal 4 10.48 62.02 21.8 43.05 66.52 542 .874 .999 62.7 2.15

Austria 3.5 27.65 588.49 40.6 47.36 78.55 516 .921 .999 64.6 2.14

Kuwait 3 12.13 17.55 8.1 24.40 24.86 491 .818 .416 97.4 2.12

Japan 3 31.52 365.66 37.2 58.58 47.30 799 .928 .916 78.6 2.12

Malta 3 18.13 169.59 11.4 52.49 29.42 518 .866 .999 90.3 2.11

Iceland 2 39.15 1419.96 60.8 67.74 66.98 356 .932 .999 92.4 2.10

Czech Rep 3.5 12.20 155.52 10.7 37.79 42.42 447 .844 .916 74.7 2.09

Argentina 3.25 5.13 72.98 10.5 21.32 16.34 289 .842 .916 89.6 2.09

Estonia 3.75 13.52 284.25 25.6 36.33 38.70 48 .812 .916 68.8 2.05

Bahrain 3 13.98 0.77 10.1 24.97 30.05 419 .824 .083 91.8 2.04

Uruguay 3 9.96 162.02 12.8 27.84 13.19 242 .828 .999 91.0 2.03

Chile 3.25 8.55 49.11 12.5 22.12 22.36 232 .825 .833 85.4 2.03

Lebanon 3 4.64 23.00 9.0 19.96 19.38 352 .758 .250 89.3 2.00

Averages 3.60 27.05 447.93 32.2 46.00 49.68 459.5 .883 .844 82.3 2.29

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

31

Medium E-Gov Capacity: 1.60 – 1.99

ICT Infrastructure Measures Human Capital Measures

Country

Web

Presence

Measure

PCs /

100

Int Hosts

/ 10000

% of

Pop

Online

Tele

Lines /

100

Mobile

Phones

/ 100

TVs /

1000

Human

Develop

Index

Info

Access

Index

Urban as

% of Total

Pop

E-Gov

Index

Poland 3.5 6.89 87.66 9.1 28.24 17.40 413 .828 .916 65.2 1.96

Venezuela 3 4.55 6.68 5.7 10.78 21.75 185 .765 .500 86.6 1.92

Russian Fed 3 4.29 22.22 10.1 21.83 2.22 420 .775 .333 77.3 1.89

Colombia 3.25 3.37 11.06 3.3 16.92 5.33 217 .765 .500 73.5 1.88

Latvia 3 8.20 83.72 10.1 29.99 16.86 593 .791 .916 69.0 1.88

Saudi Arabia 3 5.74 1.73 2.5 13.72 6.37 26 .754 .001 85.1 1.86

Turkey 3 3.81 10.64 6.2 28.00 24.56 286 .735 .416 74.1 1.83

Qatar 2 13.58 37.68 9.8 26.77 19.96 808 .801 .167 92.3 1.81

Lithuania 3 5.95 48.14 7.2 32.11 14.17 376 .803 .916 68.4 1.81

Ukraine 3 1.58 7.09 0.4 19.89 1.62 490 .742 .500 67.9 1.80

Bahamas 2 2.34 0.79 5.1 37.59 10.36 896 .820 .999 87.9 1.79

Hungary 3 8.51 102.09 11.9 37.09 29.34 437 .829 .916 63.8 1.79

Greece 3 7.05 103.91 13.6 53.16 55.90 466 .881 .833 59.9 1.77

Jordan 3 1.39 1.36 4.1 9.29 5.83 52 .714 .500 73.6 1.75

Bolivia 3.25 1.23 1.59 2.1 6.17 5.16 115 .648 .833 61.9 1.73

Egypt 3.75 1.20 0.35 1.1 8.64 2.14 127 .635 .250 45.5 1.73

Slovakia 3 10.93 70.16 14.2 31.42 23.94 402 .831 .916 57.3 1.71

Slovenia 3 25.14 110.11 34.2 37.80 54.66 356 .874 .916 50.3 1.66

Mongolia 3 0.92 0.64 1.3 4.97 4.04 63 .569 .750 63.0 1.64

Oman 2 2.64 11.46 2.0 8.88 6.48 595 .747 .250 82.2 1.64

Ecuador 2.75 2.01 0.18 1.5 10.00 3.81 293 .726 .667 64.3 1.63

Suriname 2.5 1.10 0.24 3.0 18.06 9.84 217 .758 .916 73.5 1.63

Malaysia 3 9.45 29.33 17.0 19.93 21.32 166 .774 .333 56.7 1.63

Romania 3 2.68 18.60 3.6 17.46 11.19 226 .772 .833 55.9 1.63

Belarus 2.5 3.15 1.99 1.7 26.88 0.48 314 .782 .167 70.7 1.62

Peru 2.5 3.57 4.17 1.5 6.37 4.02 144 .743 .583 72.4 1.60

Averages 2.88 5.43 29.75 7.0 21.61 14.57 334.0 .764 .609 69.2 1.75

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

32

Minimal E-Gov Capacity: 1.00 – 1.59

ICT Infrastructure Measures Human Capital Measures

Country

Web

Presence

Measure

PCs /

100

Int

Hosts /

10000

% of

Pop

Online

Tele

Lines /

100

Mobile

Phones

/ 100

TVs /

1000

Human

Develop

Index

Info

Access

Index

Urban as

% of Total

Population

E-Gov

Index

Armenia 2.5 0.57 7.57 1.1 15.53 0.23 217 .743 .500 69.7 1.59

Brunei 2 6.22 141.21 1.2 24.59 20.52 638 .857 .167 71.7 1.59

South Africa 3 6.18 42.95 6.3 11.36 12.01 125 .702 .916 51.1 1.56

Paraguay 2.75 1.12 2.36 1.3 5.00 19.55 101 .735 .583 55.3 1.50

Cuba 2 0.99 0.59 1.1 4.36 0.06 239 .765 .001 76.7 1.49

Philippines 2.5 1.93 2.54 3.0 3.92 8.24 108 .747 .750 57.7 1.44

Costa Rica 2.5 10.17 18.29 7.1 24.94 5.20 387 .821 .916 47.6 1.42

Panama 2.25 3.20 52.82 2.3 16.43 8.27 187 .784 .916 56.0 1.38

Nicaragua 2.25 0.81 2.76 1.0 3.04 0.90 190 .635 .667 55.8 1.35

Djibouti 1.5 0.95 0.02 0.5 1.40 0.04 73 .447 .416 83.3 1.35

Dominican Rep 2 1.75 9.44 0.2 9.81 5.02 84 .722 .833 64.40 1.34

Trin & Tobag 1.5 5.42 50.96 4.0 23.11 10.29 331 .798 .833 73.60 1.34

Indonesia 2.75 0.99 1.26 1.2 3.14 1.73 136 .677 .583 39.8 1.34

Jamaica 2 4.30 5.71 3.2 19.86 14.24 323 .738 .833 55.60 1.31

Iran 2 5.58 0.27 0.8 14.90 1.51 157 .714 .167 61.1 1.31

Azerbaijan 2 0.45 1.99 0.7 10.36 5.56 254 .738 .250 56.9 1.30

India 3 0.45 0.35 1.2 3.20 0.35 69 .571 .750 28.1 1.29

Kazakhstan 2 0.30 4.55 1.1 10.82 0.30 234 .742 .250 56.4 1.28

Belize 2 10.63 12.16 6.9 14.94 2.97 180 .776 .999 53.6 1.26

Barbados 2 7.80 3.74 3.3 42.71 11.14 283 .864 .999 49.50 1.25

Guyana 2.5 2.45 0.69 1.1 7.49 0.33 59 .704 .833 37.6 1.22

Honduras 2 0.95 0.20 1.1 4.61 2.39 90 .634 .667 51.6 1.20

El Salvador 2 1.62 0.92 1.1 9.08 6.22 250 .701 .750 46.3 1.19

Guatemala 2.25 0.99 4.92 1.1 5.71 3.05 126 .626 .583 39.4 1.17

Gabon 1 0.84 0.28 1.5 3.18 9.79 136 .617 .416 80.3 1.17

Turkmenistan 2 0.46 2.76 1.0 8.19 0.09 201 .730 .001 44.7 1.15

Uzbekistan 2 0.29 0.11 1.0 6.58 0.22 273 .698 .083 37.2 1.10

Vietnam 2 0.89 0.02 1.0 3.19 0.99 180 .682 .083 39.8 1.10

West Samoa 2.5 0.56 139.52 0.3 4.75 1.69 69 .701 .833 21.5 1.09

Cote d'lvoire 1.75 0.55 0.41 0.2 1.81 1.77 70 .426 .460 45.7 1.05

China 2 1.59 0.54 2.1 11.12 6.58 272 .714 .083 31.6 1.04

Pakistan 2 0.43 0.46 0.9 2.22 0.25 88 .498 .250 36.5 1.04

Nigeria 1.75 0.64 0.06 0.4 0.43 0.03 67 .455 .500 43.1 1.02

Kyrgyz tan 2 0.43 8.76 1.1 8.00 0.19 44 .707 .250 33.6 1.01

Botswana 1.5 3.10 14.53 1.2 7.69 7.45 27 .577 .833 49.7 1.01

Tajikistan 2 0.28 0.44 0.2 3.53 0.01 285 .660 .167 27.5 1.00

Averages 2.10 2.39 14.89 1.7 9.75 4.70 182.0 .686 .531 50.8 1.26

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

33

Deficient E-Gov Capacity: Below 1.00

ICT Infrastructure Measures Human Capital Measures

Country

Web

Presence

Measure

PCs /

100

Int

Hosts /

10000

% of

Pop

Online

Tele

Lines

/ 100

Mobile

Phones /

100

TVs /

1000

Human

Develop

Index

Info

Access

Index

Urban as

% of Total

Population

E-Gov

Index

Cameroon 1.5 0.27 0.21 0.5 0.64 1.00 81 .506 .083 48.0 0.99

Cent Afric Rep

1.75 0.14 0.02 0.9 0.26 0.14 5 .372 .583 40.8 0.98

Ghana 1.75 0.25 0.01 0.4 1.17 0.64 115 .542 .750 37.9 0.98

Nepal 2.5 0.27 0.48 0.3 1.16 0.04 4 .480 .583 11.6 0.94

Thailand 2 2.43 10.47 2.5 8.70 4.39 236 .757 .750 21.2 0.94

Congo 1 0.35 0.02 0.1 0.77 0.12 8 .429 .333 61.7 0.94

Maldives 2 1.89 9.85 2.1 9.08 2.85 39 .739 .250 26.1 0.93

Sri Lanka 2 0.56 1.14 0.6 4.06 2.38 92 .735 .583 23.3 0.92

Mauritania 1 2.72 0.45 0.2 0.72 0.27 91 .437 .250 56.4 0.91

Bangladesh 2 0.10 0.25 0.8 0.34 0.12 7 .470 .583 23.9 0.90

Kenya 1.75 0.42 1.56 1.1 1.01 0.11 21 .514 .250 32.1 0.90

Laos 2 0.23 0.01 0.7 0.75 0.23 4 .476 .083 22.9 0.88

Angola 1.5 0.10 0.01 0.6 0.53 0.20 124 .422 .167 33.5 0.85

Haiti 1.5 0.88 0.10 1.5 0.89 0.31 5 .467 .250 35.10 0.84

Mauritius 1 9.37 27.62 8.0 23.69 10.15 228 .765 .916 43.1 0.84

Tanzania 1 0.24 0.23 0.7 0.49 0.51 21 .436 .500 50.1 0.83

Senegal 1 1.51 1.94 0.5 2.17 2.06 41 .423 .583 46.7 0.80

Madagascar 1.5 0.19 0.34 0.3 0.36 0.23 46 .462 .667 29.0 0.79

Zimbabwe 1.25 1.30 2.31 1.1 2.07 1.51 29 .554 .250 34.6 0.76

Burkina Faso 1.75 0.10 0.32 1.1 0.45 0.21 6 .320 .500 17.9 0.75

Zambia 1 0.72 0.86 0.3 0.93 0.31 137 .427 .416 39.5 0.75

Mozambique 1 0.26 0.06 0.1 0.44 0.11 4 .323 .583 38.9 0.71

Sierra Leone 1 0.21 0.43 0.4 0.39 0.25 26 .258 .416 35.9 0.68

Cambodia 1.5 0.11 0.37 0.1 0.26 1.00 123 .541 .167 15.6 0.67

Comoros 1 0.30 0.58 0.5 1.00 1.00 4 .510 .333 32.7 0.65

Guinea 1 0.34 0.25 0.3 0.79 0.53 41 .397 .250 32.0 0.65

Namibia 1 2.95 18.51 2.3 5.94 4.67 32 .601 .750 30.4 0.65

Togo 1 1.77 0.34 0.8 0.92 0.54 20 .489 .333 32.7 0.65

Gambia 1 0.79 0.12 0.1 2.30 0.42 4 .398 .167 31.8 0.64

Malawi 1.25 0.10 0.01 0.3 0.44 0.22 2 .397 .667 23.5 0.64

Mali 1 0.10 0.08 0.2 0.25 0.04 11 .378 .750 29.4 0.62

Ethiopia 1.25 0.10 0.01 0.2 0.37 0.03 5 .321 .333 17.2 0.57

Chad 1 0.13 0.01 0.1 0.13 1.00 2 .359 .250 23.5 0.55

Niger 1 0.04 0.16 0.3 0.18 0.01 26 .258 .500 20.1 0.53

Uganda 1 0.25 0.08 0.3 0.26 0.54 26 .435 .250 13.8 0.46

Averages 1.36 0.90 2.26 0.9 2.11 1.09 47.6 .469 .431 31.8 0.77

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

34

S

ECTION

5:

G

EOGRAPHIC

R

EGIONAL

A

NALYSIS

Chart 2: E-Gov Index by Geographic Regions

2.60

2.01

1.79

1.76

1.62

1.38

1.34

1.28

0.84

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Nor th

America

Europe

South

America

Middle

Eas t

Global

Index

Asia /

Oceania

Caribbean

Central

America

Africa

Table 7: Geographical Regional Comparison of Indicators

ICT Infrastructure Measures Human Capital Measures

Region

Web

Presence

Measure

PCs /

100

Int Hosts

/ 10000

% of

Pop

Online

Tele

Lines /

100

Mobile

Phones

/ 100

TVs /

1000

Human

Development

Index

Info

Access

Index

Urban as %

of Total

Population

E-Gov

Index

North America 4 34.20 1251.18 37.4 50.03 26.38 607.67 .887 .916 76.1 2.60

Europe 3.25 21.14 280.93 24.97 45.41 43.54 431.75 .861 .863 71.5 2.01

South America 3 3.95 30.22 5.19 14.19 11.28 200.83 .760 .740 72.6 1.79

Middle East 2.77 6.46 37.23 7.08 14.11 16.89 279.53 .733 .278 75.1 1.76

Asia / Oceania 2.46 7.07 96.77 8.89 14.55 11.1 227.87 .709 .446 47.3 1.37

Caribbean 1.86 3.35 10.19 2.62 19.76 7.35 308.71 .739 .678 63.2 1.34

Central America 2.18 4.05 13.15 2.9 11.25 4.14 201.43 .711 .785 50.0 1.28

Africa 1.3 1.13 3.48 0.96 2.26 1.75 50.12 .453 .446 38.9 0.84

Global 2.6 10.17 215.39 11.25 21.44 15.3 288.49 .731 .646 61.9 1.62

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

35

5.1. North America

North America registered a regional

index of 2.60 for a High E-gov Capacity

mark. Canada, Mexico and the United

States are fully committed to providing

the most innovative and citizen centric

e-government programs. Based on the

measures, each country enjoys a strong

enabling environment capable of

sustaining the most sophisticated e-gov

programs. For the United States and

Canada, technology and human

capital are not an issue when it comes

to improving service delivery, reaching

users and enhancing overall e-gov

program performance. In Mexico,

however, the situation is different.

Historically, the United States (3.11) has

been an innovator and leader in digital

government initiatives. Between 1993

and 2001, the Federal government

launched over 1300 independent

initiatives that may eventually morph

into a truly comprehensive national

e-government policy. An abundance of

economic, technical and human

resources, account for the US’s global

dominance in virtually all the

infrastructure and human capital

measures. For the United States it is now

a case of living up to its potential and

reputation. The challenges for the US

are in improving performance,

coordinating policy and programs, and

encouraging increased citizen

participation. Challenges which Firstgov

(www.firstgov.gov

) are responding to with

creativity and a total commitment to

the customers’ needs. In the US, citizen

acceptance of e-gov has taken on a

quiet momentum. Increased use,

however, is due more in part to an

internet savvy population rather then

any official government promotion.

(Although, urls for many local and state

governments are appearing with

greater frequency on public service

announcements, television ads, and

vehicle license plates as with the State

of Pennsylvania

(www.state.pa.us

).

Table 8: Index – North America

Perhaps in more than any other

federative system, the autonomy that

exists among the US federal, state and

local governments is most evident

through the delivery of services. The

greatest number of services that are

provided to citizens are done so by local

and municipal governments. State

governments provide less services with

the Federal government providing the

fewest amount of services directly to

citizens. (Although there does exist some

confusion on the part of US citizens as to

jurisdiction: case in point, the most

frequently asked e-question the Federal

Government’s Department of

Transportation receives has to do with

driver’s licenses, which are actually

issued by the state governments.) To

address this issue, a pilot project

“Government Without Boundaries”

which will develop a directory of

government services available from all

governments to citizens has been

developed and is under

implementation. The test program in

2001 was the purchasing of national and

state park user and camping permits

through one combined service,

available on the Firstgov.gov site.

The Bush Administration had been

supportive of e-government, appointing

a federal “e-gov czar” and initiating a

policy that will migrate to the internet by

2003, all government procurement.

18

Country

Index

USA

3.11

Canada

2.52

Regional Index

2.60

Mexico

2.16

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

36

Yet, it remains information provision

where the US is the strongest.

No government offers greater online

access to official information than the

United States. Whether this improves

government performance, increases

citizen participation and enhances the

policy making process, only time and a

commitment to improvement will tell.

Possibly more than any other country,

Canada (2.52) has demonstrated an

uncanny prescience and intrinsic

understanding of e-government’s

potential and reality. Like the United

States, Canada’s strong infrastructure

and human capital measures are the

foundation of a solid enabling

environment and a High E-gov

Capacity. Where the Canadian

government excelled in 2001 was in its

ability to implement upgrades and

improvements, particularly in the area of

customer relationship management.

Coordination among departments is

perhaps stronger than in any other

industrialized nation. This could be

attributed to the leadership

demonstrated by the Treasury Board,

which is the focal point for the national

e-gov program and promotes cross

departmental communication and

coordination through the presence of

ad hoc and permanent task forces.

Canada’s portal (

www.canada.gc.ca

)

focuses on the requests most likely

frequently made by three groups ---

citizens, businesses and non-Canadians.

Each major government ministry and

agency websites are linked by theme.

Canada’s fidelity to its strategic plan has

also enabled individual agencies to

keep pace with each other’s

development and maintain a

consistency in site presentation.

Canada benefits from an uninterrupted

confluence of technology, human

capital and government

resourcefulness, suggesting that Canada

will be a case study on e-gov success for

years to come. It is, however, the citizens

who will determine the success of

‘e-Canada.’ In 2001, public

acceptance of e-government was still

‘reserved’.

Despite a less favorable enabling

environment when compared with the

United States and Canada, Mexico

(2.16) has, nevertheless demonstrated a

High E-gov Capacity. This is primarily

due to the strength of its web presence

(4.0) as Mexico provides several

transactional services, including the

paying of taxes online. However,

Mexico’s infrastructure (5.06 pcs/ 100

and 3.5% of the population online in

2001) and human capital measures (.790

HDI and .750 Info Access) rank near the

bottom among the 36 countries who

placed in the High E-gov Capacity

bracket. With the exception of

percentage of population online and an

overall e-gov index second only to Brasil,

Mexico does rank well above the

regional average of indicators for Latin

America.

Despite such obstacles Mexico is

developing a strong service oriented

e-government program. Much of the

credit could be directed toward the

leadership of the administration of

President Vicente Fox, which has made

combating corruption, improving

administrative efficiency and providing

the highest quality of services to the

people the highest priority of the federal

government.

In 2001, the ‘e-Mexico’ initiative was

launched with the goal of providing

online all essential services. The

materialization of most citizen-centric

services, however, has been slow,

despite the ambitious strategic

objectives of the federal government.

There is, however, very little evidence of

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

37

coordination among ministries and

agencies. Online services are not

organized around the needs of the

citizens, but rather the objectives of the

service provider. Progress has been slow,

however, notable advances have been

made in the social services sector

(www.ssa.gob.mx/

); education

(www.sep.gob.mx/home1.html

); welfare

(www.sedesore.gob.mx/

)

; and labor

(http://www.stps.gob.mx/).

Mexico benefits from political leadership

that is committed to transforming the

country into the leading e-government

nation in Latin America. It will take an

unremitting effort to achieve this goal,

however.

5.2. Europe

Throughout Europe e-government is a

major administrative and political

priority. Regionally, Europe has emerged

as a global innovator and leader in

strategic planning, program

development, information access and

citizen participation. With a regional

e-gov index of 2.01 and 32 of the 36

countries researched achieving an

index above the global mean of 1.62,

Europe’s E-government capacity in

2001is classified as High.

In providing online services, only four

countries rank below the interactive

presence level. Seven countries offered

online transactions in 2001. This figure

should more than double in 2002 as an

additional eight countries are poised to

upgrade services. In 33 of the 36

countries, all the key ministries targeted

as benchmarks --- health, education,

social services, employment and

finance --- offer interactive sites and

provide regularly updated content.

Currently, 20 countries use single entry

portals. There is also a considerable local

government presence online.

In both the ICT and Human Capital

measures, Europe scores higher than all

other regions with the exception of North

America. Throughout most of Europe

political commitment and leadership

are extraordinarily supportive and are

key motivating factors, as is a keen

Table 9: Index – Europe

Country Index

Norway

2.55

UK

2.52

Netherlands

2.51

Denmark

2.47

Germany

2.46

Sweden

2.45

Belgium

2.39

Finland

2.33

France

2.33

Spain

2.30

Italy

2.21

Luxembourg

2.20

Ireland

2.16

Portugal

2.15

Austria

2.14

Malta

2.11

Iceland

2.10

Czech Republic

2.09

Estonia

2.05

REGIONAL INDEX

2.01

Poland

1.96

Switzerland

1.96

Russian Fed.

1.89

Latvia

1.88

Turkey

1.83

Lithuania

1.81

Ukraine

1.80

Hungary

1.79

Greece

1.77

Slovakia

1.71

Slovenia

1.66

Romania

1.63

Belarus

1.62

Cyprus

1.50

Bulgaria

1.47

Croatia

1.33

Moldova

1.29

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

38

competitive spirit among nations.

This is reflected by the content of the

sites and the official information made

available. The United Kingdom, Sweden,

(www.sverigedirekt.riksdagen.se/)

Norway, France

(www.service-public.fr/

)

Germany, the Republic of Ireland,

Estonia, Belgium

(www.belgium.fgov.be

)

and Italy

(www.governo.it/

) are

particularly advanced in policy

regarding official government

information and content available to

their residents. Well educated citizens

who take government participation

seriously and fewer official boundaries

impeding information access contribute

to an energetic e-government

environment. Also, the European Union is

active in the policy area by developing

a set of guidelines that will ensure that

the 15 member states’ e-government

programs complement each other.

Europe’s technological proficiency,

innovative approaches to providing

online services and a history of active

civil participation would suggest that

Europeans should take to e-government

enthusiastically. However, such was not

the case in 2001, as citizen acceptance

was modest. This could be attributed to

among other factors, the cost of the

internet provider service and the cost of

telephone service to name just two.

Despite an online population index of

24.9 %, which is more than double the

global average, the internet has not

been the phenomena in the majority of

European countries as it has been in the

United States or Canada. France, Austria

and Germany are examples as each

have a surprisingly lower than average

internet use than that of the rest of

Europe despite scoring high in key ICT

measures.

Norway (2.55)

(www.norge.no/

), The UK

(2.52)

(www.open.gov.uk/

), the

Netherlands (2.51),

(www.overheid.nl)

lead the region.

Although competitive in most key

sectors, The Netherlands lags behind in

the area of online revenue payment

and information. Spain, (2.30) (

www.la-

moncloa.es/) has become an innovator

in the area of online taxation through its

Agencia Estatal de Administracion

Tributaria

(www. aeat.es/

). There is

however, no middle ground with Spain’s

e-government experience. Programs

and agendas are traditionally

developed along departmental or

regional lines with little coordination and

open communication. Consequently the

service is either exceptional, as in the

case with taxes or deficient, as with the

social services sector. Poland (1.96)

(www.poland.pl/)

is an example where a

comparatively weak ICT measure

contributes to an index lower than the

regional medium. However this has not

deterred the country’s overall

development as Poland has a

prominent web presence. Demark

(2.47),

(www.danmark.dk/

) ranks fourth

overall and like its Nordic neighbors

offers exceptional social services sites.

Also, official information is abundant.

Where the Danes are weak is in the area

of online revenue and taxation, as the

service was limited and inconsistent in

2001. The United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy

(before the change in government)

Spain, Estonia, and the Nordic countries

are examples of where elected officials

have ardently supported e-government

initiatives. Any mention of e-government

as a campaign issue was conspicuously

absent from both the UK and Italian

2001general elections, though

administrative reform and civil service

performance were not.

An intense competitive and chauvinistic

nature exists among the countries,

particularly within the EU, as each seems

to be striving to secure the title of global

e-gov leader, for what ever that may be

worth. Most countries are balancing

program development evenly between

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

39

a citizen-centric approach and

facilitating online services to the business

community. In 95% of European

countries, the key sectors, health,

education, social services,

employment/labor and justice have

interactive or transactional websites. The

Nordic countries are particularly specific

in their approach in a region where the

use of the internet is the highest in the

world. The steady progress being made

by the Baltic States, particularly Estonia

are excellent case studies and models

for NICs. Estonia

www.riik.ee/et/valitsus/

(2.05) has from the start of its program

respected the citizen-centric approach.

In the areas of strategic development,

planning and sharing information with

the public the overall strategic leader

must to be considered the United

Kingdom

(www.ukonline.gov.uk

)

The UK’s Office of E-Envoy

(www.e-envoy.gov.uk)

has approached

the vast project of digitizing government

with a level of professionalism that

deserves to be praised and emulated.

This is reflected in the results attained

thus far. The UK also has taken several

innovative steps in the direction of

performance measurement of online

services. However, despite prescience

planning, meeting the deadline of all

services online by 2003 is questionable

due to unremitting interoperability issues.

Convincing an indifferent public to use

e-gov may be considerably easier than

persuading a recalcitrant Ministry to

surrender administrative responsibilities

to one central entity.

In the Republic of Ireland

(www.irlgov.ie/

)

resources and political commitment are

not a problem. Like UK Prime Minster

Tony Blair, the Taioseach Bertie Ahern,

www.irlgov.ie/taoiseach/ pledged his full

support in making Ireland a global

e-gov leader and his commitment is

reflected in the coherency of its

program. However also like the UK,

advances hit numerous walls in 2001,

because of interoperability issues.

Ireland excelled in developing an online

revenue system and made the service a

showcase of its E-Ireland Program.

Revenue On Line

(www.ros.ie

) allows

citizens to pay all types of tax obligations

online and is one of the governments

most popular and user-friendly sites.

Close coordination typifies the

collaboration between the national

government and the 26 counties in

administrating the programs. A national

council, consisting of central and local

government representatives was

established and interacts directly with

county managers. The council’s purpose

is to facilitate communication of the

central government’s goals and the

local governments concerns. County

managers retain broad decision making

powers, which can produce innovative

results. An example is County Meath,

where the county manager applied

DHL’s package tracking system and

software to track every document that

comes out of his and his staffs offices.

Throughout the Irish public sector there is

a strong commitment to hiring physically

disabled workers. This is particularly true

of e-government as demonstrated by

County Meath.

As a federal system, Germany’s

(www.bundesregierung.de

) e-government

initiatives, innovations and practices

were driven by the Landers. The Federal

Government has, however, expanded

its e-government presence by providing

citizens with greater ease of access to

the sites and services of the national and

local governments, and by offering

superior content and information. This is

especially true in the education sector,

as the federal sites are exceptional.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

40

Chart 3: Percentage of Population Online By Geographic Region in 2001

0.9

2.6

2.9

5.2

7.1

8.9

24.9

37.4

11.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Africa

Caribbean

Central America

South America

Middle East

Asia/Oceana

Europe

North America

Global

5.3. South America

South America registered a regional

index of 1.79, which classifies its E-gov

Capacity as Medium. Most of the 12

countries are making steady progress.

However, for several governments there

remains an absence of strategic vision,

program coordination and balancing

real citizen-centric concerns with

constituent needs. Throughout Latin

America in general, but in South

America particularly, three issues impact

on the enabling environment: diffident

political leadership; inadequate

commitment to a citizen-centric

approach, and the digital divide. The

research suggests that the approach in

most of South America is moving toward

prioritizing service delivery to businesses

potentially at the expense of individual

services to citizens.

Most of the region enjoys a high rate of

teledenesity and expanding internet

access. In 2001, Uruguay led the region

in PCs/100 (9.96) int. hosts / 10,000 (102)

and percentage of population online

(12.8%). South America enjoys the

second highest human development

index (.760) in Western Hemisphere; and

growing economic diversity.

Table 10: Index – South America

With a regional average of 3.0, nearly all

12 South American countries have an

extensive web-presence. In each

country, information provision dominates

the online services. Interactive and

South America Index

Brazil

2.24

Argentina

2.09

Chile

2.03

Uruguay

2.03

Venezuela

1.92

Colombia

1.88

Regional Index

1.78

Bolivia

1.73

Ecuador

1.63

Suriname

1.63

Peru

1.60

Paraguay

1.50

Guyana

1.22

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

41

transactional services remain

inconsistent and primarily address the

needs of the business community. This

may be due to the combination of

several factors: the strategic

importance of the business sector as a

source of government revenue; the

likelihood that businesses will regularly

use e-gov services more then individual

citizens since they are more likely to

have regular access to the technology;

a cultural hierarchy that historically

appreciates the affluent class; the fact

that governments can publicly

demonstrate a greater degree of

success with the business community

than with the delivery of individual

citizen-centric social services.

Despite increased awareness regarding

the digital divide and cultural biases,

hard policy choices are being made

that potentially compromise citizen-

centric approach. Chile is a case in

point, while Brazil seems to have

developed a more balanced program.

Online service delivery to the business

sector is a strategic planning priority that

can be seen as a tool to facilitate

economic development. This particularly

true in Chile, and to a lesser degree in

Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay. It is

commonly promoted that if country can

demonstrate a strong enabling

environment, increased foreign

investment will follow. Prioritizing service

delivery to the business community

could also potentially generate an

accelerated revenue stream for the

government. Administratively, Brasil is in

the process of upgrading back office

capacity by a new administrative model

that seeks to achieve the ambitious goal

of computerizing the entire civil service

by 2002.

19

There are also plans for the

creation of an infrastructure linking

internet services of the Federal, State

and Municipal governments.

Throughout South America,

e-government is a high priority. A third of

the countries have achieved a high

e-gov capacity. Venezuela, Colombia

and Bolivia should ramp up in 2002.

5.4. Middle East

Table 11: Index – Middle East

The Middle East regional index of 1.76

qualifies its E-government Capacity as

Medium. However, the enabling

environments of each country vary

dramatically. False program starts and

the retracing of implementation steps is

a common. Israel (2.26) is the overall

leader and along with The United Arab

Emirates (2.17) Kuwait (2.12), Bahrain

(2.04) and Lebanon (2.00) demonstrated

a High e-gov capacity in 2001. While

Tunisia, Yemen, and Algeria are well

below the regional index.

The Middle East is predominately

characterized by wide imbalances in

infrastructure measures. For example

Israel, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE all

have twice the regional mean (6.46)of

pcs/ 100, while in Libya, Algeria and

Country

Index

Israel

2.26

United Arab Emirs

2.17

Kuwait

2.12

Bahrain

2.04

Lebanon

2.00

Saudi Arabia

1.86

Qatar

1.81

REGIONAL INDEX

1.76

Jordan

1.75

Egypt

1.73

Oman

1.64

Libya

1.57

Morocco

1.47

Tunisia

1.36

Yemen

1.30

Algeria

1.27

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

42

Yemen only one person in every 300 has

access to a pc. The regional mean for

percentage of population online was

7.08. The UAE with one third of its total

population online is among the global

leaders; Morocco, however, with

only 0.4% of its over 32 million residents

online, is among the lowest in the world.

There also exists an imbalance in the

quality of information. Residents have

access to little official content other

than information of a highly political

nature. The regional mean for the

information access

Chart 4: Information Access Measure

by Regions

measure was (.278) the lowest among all

geographic regions. The Middle East

had the highest percentage of what

could be considered political

information sites and the fewest which

would be described as citizen-centric.

Government subsidization of the internet

is the highest in the world.

20

Throughout

the Middle East, the disparity in ICT

infrastructure may not be as great an

obstacle to an enabling environment as

the disparity in citizen-centric

information and the freedom to access

it.

5.5. Asia / Oceania

Despite having five of the global

leaders, Asia / Oceania’s E-gov regional

index measured 1.38 qualifying the

region’s E-gov Capacity as Minimal.

While several countries performed

exceptionally well in 2001, the majority

indexed at the minimal level with several

qualifying as deficient in e-gov capacity.

Asia / Oceania was one of two regions

whose mean for each of the 10 E-gov

measures was below the global

averages. However, the region’s web

presence measure of 2.46 was surpassed

only by North America and Europe,

indicating that national governments

are treating their online presence

seriously. Most countries in the region

have at least reached the interactive

stage in their program development.

Australia (2.60), New Zealand (2.59) and

Singapore (2.58), led the region. Each

country demonstrated a balanced and

citizen-centric e-government program,

while possessing the benefits of a high

technological infrastructure and human

capital measures.

0.278

0.446

0.646

0.678

0.740

0.785

0.863

0.916

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000

Middle East

Asia/Oceana

Africa

Global

Caribbean

South America

Central America

Europe

North America

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

43

The Republic of Korea, (2.30) made

perhaps the most dramatic advances in

its e-government program by

successfully implementing several new

online transaction features. Japan,

(2.12) however, has yet to live up to its

rather significant potential. Japan’s

e-government program has not yet

reached a comparable level of

sophistication as that of the regional

leaders due primarily to achieving only a

limited interactive presence among

national government websites. Japan

scores high in both technology

infrastructure and human capital, but

despite a new national strategic plan,

the government has been unable to

begin to rectify the interoperability

problems afflicting its obdurate

bureaucracy.

Among the developing countries of

Asia, Malaysia (1.63) has made

e-government a high priority as it seeks

to attain developed nation status.

Malaysia’s infrastructure measure’s are

above the regional means. (i.e. 17.9 % of

population online; more than twice the

regional average.) However its

information access measure (.333) is

among the lowest index of the 190 UN

Member States. Malaysia’s online

services were barely above the

interactive level, though the citizen-

centric component is only minimally

present. India (1.29) has enormous

infrastructure and human capital

challenges that must continuously be

confronted. A highly innovated and well

educated public sector, however, is the

driving force behind a serious

e-government commitment that has

made the citizen-centric approach a

priority. India most assuredly will attain

the transactional level in 2002. However

the country most likely will pay a high

price as it continues to lose qualified

staff to higher paying jobs in other

countries

Table 12: Index – Asia / Oceania

For the majority of Asian countries the

enabling e-government environment is

weak. Addressing the deficencies in

their infrastructure and human capitral

measure should be a high priority for the

governments of these countries.

Country Index

Australia

2.60

New Zealand

2.59

Singapore

2.58

Rep. Of Korea

2.30

Japan

2.12

Mongolia

1.64

Malaysia

1.63

Brunei

1.59

Armenia

1.59

Philippines

1.44

Georgia

1.39

REGIONAL INDEX

1.38

Indonesia

1.34

Iran

1.31

Azerbaijan

1.30

India

1.29

Kazakhstan

1.28

Turkmenistan

1.15

Vietnam

1.10

Uzbekistan

1.10

Samoa (Western)

1.09

Pakistan

1.04

China

1.04

Kyrgyzstan

1.01

Tajikistan

1.00

Thailand

0.94

Nepal

0.94

Maldives

0.93

Sri Lanka

0.92

Bangladesh

0.90

Laos

0.88

Cambodia

0.67

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

44

5.6. Central America

Table 13: Index – Central America

With an index of 1.28, well below the

global mean of 1.62, Central America’s

E-gov Capacity could be

described as Minimal. This is due

primarily to a deficiency in several

infrastructure and human capital

indices. Although the region on

average has more pc’s / 100 (4.05),

more internet hosts (13.15 /10000) and

slightly higher percentage of the

population online, (2.9) than the

Caribbean, it lags behind in telephone

lines (11.25) and human development

(.711). The region’s information access

measure (.785), however, was higher

than that of South America, the

Caribbean, Africa, Asia and the Middle

East.

Despite numerous national

technological and human capital

obstacles, each country did score a

minimum of 2.00 in the e-gov web

presence measure, confirming that

e-government has secured a place on

the national policy agendas of each

country. Yet e-gov development for six

of the seven countries lacks consistent

coordination and a clear vision.

Through out Central America, online

services are restricted to information

provision. The content does, for the most

part, address the needs of the

constituents and is regularly updated.

Although registering a modest index

(1.42), Costa Rica is an excellent

example of effectively maximizing

limited resources. With the exception of

pcs/100 and internet hosts, Costa Rica

leads the region in all infrastructure and

human capital measures. The national

e-gov program is consistently making

progress. Costa Rica is also succeeding

in carefully balancing the need of

citizens with those of the business

community, although there were no

transactional and very few interactive

services available to both citizens and

business in 2001.

Since1998 Costa Rica has invested in

government led initiatives to upgrade

ICT facilities in schools and universities. In

addition, the government is spending

$2.5 million to increase the number of

professionals in the education system

and to improve the country’s intellectual

property regime.

21

Increased

management and technical training has

resulted. Panama (1.38) registered the

second highest index in the region

primarily due to the highest number of

internet hosts (52.82/10,000); four times

greater than the regional average); a

high HDI (.784) and a high Info Access

index (.916). Belize scored the highest

Info Access (.999) and also had the

second highest percentage (6.9) of its

population online in the region also

show promise.

Information access is less than adequate

throughout Central America due

primarily to a weakness in several of the

infrastructure areas and a reluctance to

fully commitment to a citizen-centric

approach on the part of most of the

governments. Regionally, the indicators

would suggest that six of the seven

countries show a potential to easily

ramp up to the next level in 2002.

However the indicators also suggest that

achieving a favorable enabling

environment for each will be a

protracted and costly exercise.

Country

Index

Costa Rica

1.42

Panama

1.38

Nicaragua

1.35

Regional Index

1.28

Belize

1.26

Honduras

1.20

El Salvador

1.19

Guatemala

1.17

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

45

5.7. The Caribbean

Based on the Caribbean’s index of 1.34,

in 2001, the region’s E-gov Capacity is

Minimal. No country scored higher than

2.0 in the Web Presence measure, which

suggests that each country is still

determining their best approach to

providing online services. Only Jamaica,

despite a low index, and a weak

enabling environment, demonstrated a

steadfast commitment to e-government.

Table 14: Index -- Caribbean

Infrastructure measures across the region

are low. Only three in every 100 persons

own or have access to a pc. In 2001, just

2.9 percent of the population had

access to the internet; only Africa was

lower. The Bahamas (1.79), had the

highest percentage of its population

accessing the internet (5.1), but was

below the regional average (3.35) in

pcs/100 (2.34). (The Bahamas did

register the highest level of

televisions/1000 ---896--- in the world.)

Human Capital Measures are high, (.739

HDI) as the Caribbean ranks ahead of

the Middle East, Central America and

Africa in regional Human Development.

For information access, five of the seven

countries (.899) scored well above the

global average (.646). Cuba and Haiti’s

extremely low indices will eventually

compromise the efficacy of their e-gov

programs.

5.8. Africa

With a regional index of 0.84 Africa’s

E-government Capacity could be

described as Deficient. Clearly, this

reflects a near total absence of the core

areas necessary to sustain an enabling

e-government environment. But despite

the regions appalling lack of an

adequate telecommunications

infrastructure, nearly all Sub-Saharan

countries have some form of web

presence. As our research found, 75% of

the countries offer only static information

websites. There are, however, several

notable exceptions: South Africa (1.56),

Djibouti (1.35), Gabon (1.17), Cote

D’Ivoire (1.05), Nigeria (1.02), Ghana

(0.98), the Central African Republic

(0.98), Congo (0.94), Mauritania

(0.91),Kenya (0.90) all of whom

exceeded the regional Index of 0.84.

Political commitment has been

moderate but in some cases open to

conditional external assistance.

South Africa’s (1.56) enabling

environment is the strongest in Africa

allowing the government to successfully

emulate the programs of industrialized

countries. South Africa far exceeds the

rest of the region in each of the ten

e-gov indices, and in all probability will

begin to offer transactions online in 2002.

Ghana has instituted the use of wireless

payphone kiosks that has provided a

cost-effective application to broaden

rural access.

There was in 2001, moderate expansion

of the Internet in Africa. For the first time,

all countries and territories are now

online, and the number of dial up

internet subscribers grew by

approximately 15% over the one million

recorded in 2000.

22

Most of this development, however, is

happening in the major cities, and

Caribbean

Index

Bahamas

1.79

Cuba

1.49

Dom. Rep.

1.34

Trin & Tobago

1.34

Regional Index

1.34

Jamaica

1.31

Barbados

1.25

Haiti

0.84

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

46

consequently is not reaching the

majority of the Africa’s population.

Universal internet access remains the

major challenge. Despite a nearly 20

percent increase in users, access is

largely confined to the capital cities ---

over 61% of the continent’s inhabitants

live in rural areas.

The unfortunate reality is that only one in

every 100 Africans have access to a pc,

and less the one percent of the

continent’s 750 million inhabitants have

actually gone online.

The infrastructure and human capital

challenges have not deterred

e-government progress in some

countries. Ghana, Kenya, Namibia,

South Africa, Nigeria and Zimbabwe, for

example, have taken the initiative to

upgrade their official government sites

with interactive features that include,

search capabilities, site maps,

feedback, and discussion boards. This

would indicate an increasing

acceptance among decision-makers in

these countries that e-government is an

essential and potentially powerful

medium from which to disseminate

information to citizens.

Nigeria's e-government presence will

likely develop and advance in

proportion to the changes and

improvements in accessibility for the

population. Nigeria is a country worth

observing closely since it is home to

more than one fifth of Sub-Sahara’s

population. Reaching Nigeria’s rural

populations through e-government has

been given a high priority.

Table 15: Index -- Africa

Two independent sites ---

Africaonline.com

(www.africaonline.com

)

Newafrica.com --- provide a unique

service and are sources for accurate

and frequently updated information for

Country Index

South Africa

1.56

Djibouti

1.35

Gabon

1.17

Cote d'lvoire

1.05

Nigeria

1.02

Botswana

1.01

Cameroon

0.99

Ghana

0.98

Cent. African Rep.

0.98

Congo

0.94

Mauritania

0.91

Kenya

0.90

Angola

0.85

Mauritius

0.84

Tanzania

0.83

REGIONAL INDEX

0.84

Senegal

0.80

Madagascar

0.79

Zimbabwe

0.76

Zambia

0.75

Burkina Faso

0.75

Mozambique

0.71

Sierra Leone

0.68

Togo

0.65

Namibia

0.65

Guinea

0.65

Comoros

0.65

Malawi

0.64

Gambia

0.64

Mali

0.62

Ethiopia

0.57

Chad

0.55

Niger

0.53

Uganda

0.46

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

47

Chart 5: Telephone lines and mobile phones / 100 inhabitants by region in 2001

North America

Europe

South America

Middle East

Asia/Oceana

Caribbean

Central America

Africa

Global

0 1020304050

Tele Lines / 100 Mobile Phones / 100

every country. Africaonline.com and

Newafrica.com are independent sites

which fill a vast e-government void for

many countries. Although the sites do

not link to legislation and ministry

websites, the scope of their content and

the mere fact that single sites have

consolidated information on so many

countries allows each to function as a

de facto single entry portal. Africaonline

allows users to access dynamic

information about developments in

every country, regardless of the progress

that government itself has made online.

A residual benefit of these sites is in

building of an information and

e-government culture among Africans.

This type of centralized information

provider is a first step to increasing the

number of e-government users. It may

also become an ideal way to

encourage horizontal development

among countries, so that the web

presence of one government may be

seen as an incentive or encouragement

for others to develop. This is already

in evidence to a certain extent, but the

direction each government's online

development takes is very divergent.

Considering their weak enabling

environments, eight countries are

making progress with e-government.

Yet, no country has implemented

transactional services. But as access

expands and the number of users

increase, it is possible that demand for

such services will lead to their

development. For now the obstacles of

cost, intervention of prevailing political

party views and priorities, and the

inability to find a common strategy or

theme which determines how

e-government should develop, either

across countries or within one country's

government, remain the biggest barriers

to developing an enabling environment

capable of sustaining interactive and

eventually transactional service delivery

in all African countries.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

48

Section 6: P

UBLIC

A

DMINISTRATION AND

E-G

OVERNMENT

6.1. E-administration: Challenges of

Governing in the Information Age

Information age governing presents an

entirely new set of challenges for

decision-makers, public sector

professionals and citizens. How

individuals and businesses interact with

government is being fundamentally

altered by the technological advances

driving e-government. This

transformation has public sector

professionals considering questions like:

!

!!

!

How will e-government affect

the performance of public

organizations?

!

!!

!

What are the structural effects of

e-government and information

technology on the public

organization?

!

!!

!

What skills do public employees

need in order to maximize their

performance in an information

age?

!

!!

!

What new leadership skills will be

needed in the e-governing age?

!

!!

!

Will e-government instill

individuals in public sector

organizations with a greater

degree of autonomy, enabling

them to re-think conventional

administrative practices?

Developing an effective online public

administration or e-administration means

balancing the needs of two constituent

groups: one external --- the citizens or

the customers, and one internal --- staff

and management, or the administrative

back office. These two obligations are

neither conflicting nor mutually

exclusive. In both situations the internet

has become essential in augmenting the

administrative system in support of its

mission.

For a number of countries (industrialized,

emerging and developing) there exists a

propensity to center their e-government

projects and budgetary resources on

the output of services provided to

external users before ensuring the

administrative capacity exists to support

such initiatives. The reason for this

choice, as a recent EU report found, is,

“the need to catch-up that prompts

governments to go as fast as possible

giving priority to matters of direct interest

to citizens, before being fully capable of

providing such services.”

23

The obvious result is that there is limited

back office capability to handle the

new responsibilities created by

e-government, thus potentially

compromising online service delivery

efficiency. This was perhaps the major

concern of the public sector

professionals interviewed for this report.

In developing countries the chronic lack

of qualified staff and inadequate

human resources training has been a

problem for years. The new

e-government programs that many

developing countries feel compelled to

launch further compounds this problem.

Countless official guidelines and

methodologies have been published to

help countries implement e-government

initiatives more successfully. While these

tools have been used with some

success, many e-gov programs are

underachieving and falling short of their

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

49

initial promise. Implementation problems

exist because too many organizations

conceive of, organize, and implement

e-government programs first and

foremost as generic information

technology projects.

24

Box 13 identifies

the most common organizational

obstacles encountered at the

Institutional, Managerial and Planning

areas. Several can afflict more than one

area.

Table 16: Barriers to e-government

25

The most perplexing problems, however,

are almost always the ones created as a

result of the politics of organizational

change. If change-related issues get the

kind of consideration they warrant, then

implementing e-government programs

will be a much less complicated

exercise.

The most effective back office e-gov

applications are not used simply to

facilitate existing workflows but, to

reorganize assignments and planning in

ways that fundamentally transform

government operations—integrating

work-flow across (and outside)

government in recognition that citizens

interact with government as a single

enterprise.

26

Skeptical decision-makers

and reluctant public sector managers

need to understand and appreciate the

value that can be created when

technology is used to redesign workflow

from an enterprise perspective. While

such changes will often be difficult to

implement, the potential benefits may

very well justify the risks involved. The

goal should be to balance risk against

return—not merely to minimize risk.

For the aforementioned skeptical

decisions-makers, a first step is to

recognize and understand the patterns

I

NSTITUTIONAL

/

O

PERATIONAL

M

ANAGERIAL

P

OLICY

/

P

LANNING

Technology and infrastructure

costs / factors

Lack of capacity to manage

large scale IT projects

Lack of Coordination and or

Strategic Planning

Lack of resources to support

24 / 7 operations

Lack of conviction of top or

middle mangers

Lack of comprehensiveness and

continuity of policies /

programmes

Lack of innovative incentives in

the public sector – particularly

regarding IT

Management Expectations vs.

Management Realities

Absence of Policy guidelines

Organizational / cultural

dichotomies

Doubts and resistance by

leadership

Organizational / cultural

dichotomies

Lack of institutional support

Opposition by professional or

union interests

Local governments and

municipalities if left far behind

become bottlenecks

Information mismanagement

Reluctance to share among

depts. Misuse of sensitive data

Obsolete legal frameworks to

innovate and incorporate

private sector

Lack of comprehensiveness and

continuity of policies and

programmes

Absence of Policy guidelines

Information mismanagement

Reluctance to share among

depts. Misuse of sensitive data

Opposition by professional or

union interests

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

50

of confusion and conflict that can be

associated with a particular e-gov

project. Different paradigms will require

different types of decision-making ---

“thinking outside of the box” is a start.

27

The degree in which E-gov can improve

a government's administrative systems

varies greatly and may be too

subjective to measure reliably. The

dream of a paperless office is still, for a

large majority of government's years

away, if it is a realistic outcome at all.

The EU report found that only a few of its

members confirmed that the expanding

use of ICT has had a concrete and

tangible effect on administrative

reorganization and effectiveness.

28

How

new technological tools are used within

the framework of existing organizational

environments depends on the

administrative traditions, practices and

cultures endemic to a country.

Successful execution of these changes

depends on the will which managers

and decision makers ultimately

demonstrate.

6.2. Administrative Issues in 2001

National E-government program

development lacks coordination.

There are four fundamental approaches

to e-government program

development. 1) A nationally

coordinated or top-down approach,

which is driven by the central

government and often features a

national strategic plan that coordinates

all e-gov initiatives, spending and

implementation, among ministries,

departments, agencies and units. 2) A

nationally autonomous or parallel

approach where ministries and agencies

develop their own e-gov initiatives with

less formal strategic planning, support or

coordination from the central

government. 3) Sub-nationally or

vertically up where local and state

governments tend to be the drivers and

initiators of programs that rise up and

are eventually adopted as policy by the

central or federal government. 4) Sub-

nationally autonomous approach,

where again the innovations and

programs are developed at the local

levels, but have modest influence on the

national governments e-gov activities.

Predominately across ministries,

departments, agencies and units

e-government development has been

autonomous, with only a limited number

of countries coordinating national

efforts. This could probably be best

attributed to the newness of the medium

and technology and to the fact that

there are few existing policies and

strategies to act as guidelines.

29

Although the success of a coordinated

e-gov approach cannot be

overemphasized, only 35 countries, in

2001, developed a comprehensive

official national strategic e-gov agenda

and translated it into a government

wide policy.

A majority of decision and policy makers

choose to proceed from the point of

view that e-government should remain

part of existing government information

technology programs. But developing

e-government independent of existing

government IT programs has been a key

to successful development: the United

Kingdom, Ireland and Singapore are

examples.

Box 13: E-Government Program Development

Nationally Coordinated: top down approach

Nationally autonomously: parallel

Sub-national autonomously: vertically up

Sub-national autonomously: parallel

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

51

Although coordination from the top

down is a strategically sound initiative, in

practice actual program development

is autonomous and spontaneous in

character as most ministries department

and agencies go online as their

capacity and resources permit.

F

or developing countries, the priority is

upgrading internal administrative

capacity --- back-office capability --- in

order to support e-government

programs. In the developing world,

citizen-focused online services barely

exists as website content remains static

and politicized. Limited resources are an

obvious explanation, but a collective

lack of confidence and / or creativity on

the part of the ICT strategists is another

reason.

30

Ultimately the push will come

from an informed civil society. The

developing countries have been slow to

accept a coordinated approach to

e-government implementation. Of the

58 countries In Sub-Sahara Africa, for

example, 20 have demonstrated some

type of limited coordinated approach

to e-government program

development. An obvious measure is

the websites themselves and how

content is displayed.

One important factor impacting all

countries, but particularly those where

resources are scarce, is the change in

thinking required within the public

sector, particularly among the

administrative culture, when transitioning

to web-based service delivery. This

actuality is more likely to create a

greater sense of unease than most other

policies or new programs because of

the imposing nature that the technology

can project.

31

For example, the decision

to assign content-managers the

responsibility of keeping information

topical and responsive to constituent

needs requires an extensive

organizational commitment. Also, the

delegation of authority that must

accompany increased accountability,

individual ministries and departments will

need to interact more intensively with

their clients and the community at large.

Traditional processes where material

being made public was confined to a

specific unit or individual will now need

to yield to managerial empowerment,

with greater accountability.

In 2001, E-gov project management

teams were the exception rather than

the rule.

The creation of specialized units or

divisions mandated with the

responsibility of coordinating and

implementing the government wide

e-gov strategic plan rather than

delegating the responsibility to individual

agencies remains the exception rather

than the rule. E-gov management

teams are a significant organizational

change and a tangible sign that

governments are serious about

implementation. They recognize the

challenges and realize that the success

of projects of this scale depends upon

inter-governmental cooperation of an

unprecedented scope.

32

These units are

usually not an independent agency,

fall under the administration of the

executive branch and can be ad hoc.

Over 100 countries have official Chief

Information Officers, many of Cabinet

Rank

33

. Special e-gov offices or task

forces appear to be more effective

when independent of the CIO. They

mandated with the difficult task of

launching the e-gov initiatives usually

under extremely tight deadlines. Team

composition is often an eclectic

combination of talent from the policy

areas, IT, management and public

affairs areas. There are several

management models that warrant

further study. These include the UK,

Ireland, Italy, and to a lesser degree

Brasil, Singapore, Australia. The US

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

52

Firstgov team is operating on very limited

resources due to the tragic events of

September 11

th

, 2001.

A prevailing belief which exists among

non-IT government staff is that e-gov,

especially web-based activities, is

merely another policy administrative

approach to providing generic public

affairs type information. Outside of the

ICT community there seems to be a

limited sense of e-gov as a major driver

of change, administrative reform or

reengineering.

The one weakness of e-gov teams:

They tend to be isolated and self-

contained generating limited

acceptance on the part of the rest of

the government. They may also attach

a quasi-messianic message and posture

to their mission.

A considerable digital divide exists

within public administrations.

Upon taking office as Secretary of State

in January 2001, one of the first

administrative policy decisions Colin

Powell made was to address the

significant deficiency in information

technology throughout the Department

of State. All 42,000 State employees

were to receive pcs and have internet

access before the end of 2002. Even

the global e-gov leader is subjected to

resource imbalances.

Lack of connectivity to the web, inferior

technology, limited e-mail capacity,

absence of intranets all need to be

addressed within national, regional,

state and local public sectors, before

governments can realistically expect

online service delivery to be effective. At

the same time there is a need to

educate

all governmental agencies on

the level of effort, capacity,

coordination, citizen focus, and most of

all, commitment needed to transition to

digital government.

Though the most visible component of

e-gov, the internet is, however, another

medium for service delivery. Potentially

a very powerful medium, but still another

means for delivering services. Despite

the hype, most decision-makers and

public sector professionals understand

this and tend to view e-government

through a pragmatic and objective lens.

Those truly in touch with reality are not

myopic in their outlook to think that the

internet alone is the ultimate

transformational or “killer” application

that will reform how government

provides information and delivers service

to citizens.

The issue of funding e-government is tied

directly to the level of commitment and

prioritization on the part of the political

leadership

Despite its growing importance, in a

majority of countries decision-makers

tend to view e-government as a

decentralized IT issue allocating funds

accordingly based on individual

department, ministries, IT budgetary

needs. There are of course exceptions

among the national leadership and it is

reflected in the level of development in

several national programs. UK Prime

Minister Tony Blair is one example, as is

the Republic of Ireland’s Taioseach, Berti

Ahern. President Fernado Cordoza of

Brazil has also demonstrated a strong

degree of public support for

e-government. Does this guarantee

success? Not necessarily. Does a lack of

political leadership mean limited success

or slower development? Not necessarily

either. Supportive political leadership,

however, is more likely to accept the

complexities and tolerate the setbacks

that are encountered throughout all

phases of development. Several OECD

countries have established independent

funding initiatives or arrangements

through the executive branch.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

53

Cost effectiveness

The belief that online service delivery is

less costly than other channels is not

wholly unfounded. But according to a

Columbia University Study

34

this is

contingent on several factors like cost

per unit / cost per transaction /

processing time, etc. Currently, there is

very little reliable data to support or

refute this assertion. What research or

data that does exist is likely to come

from local or regional governments.

Savings can translate into a source of

additional revenue, but most likely this

will take several years to realize in both

developed and developing countries.

E-services require investments in IT

hardware, software and staff. Most

e-gov savings expected or anticipated

by the transferring and upgrading of

service delivery will not be realized in the

fiscal year in which the project is

launched or the services are

upgraded.

35

In fact it will more than likely

be several years before an agency or

government can show appreciable

savings. Planning web-based service

delivery programs should include a

scheme that automatically collects unit

cost data, analyzes and projects costs.

According to the Columbia University

Study, very little if any microanalysis is

being done in the US.

36

Logically, the unit cost of web-bases

services will be reduced as there is an

increase in citizen use. Accordingly

citizen use will increase as more people

become web proficient. Analysis should

factor in increased speed and accuracy

of online service delivery and increased

customer satisfaction.

The Digital Divide

There is growing concern that

e-government will only exacerbate the

digital divide and further marginalize the

have-nots. Among the reasons for this

are, governments prioritize program

development based on limited or

contracting resources consequently

targeting sectors that are more likely to

use e-gov. There is a cynical perception

on the part of some decision-makers

that those without access will never

have the motivation or desire to accept

and take advantage of e-government

programs regardless of what services,

hardware or incentives are provided.

Competition among other programs for

resources is keen and can result in the

more proactive sectors or programs

winning out. The question, How long will

innovative attempts to bring access to

rural poor remain viable and cost

manageable? is embedded in most

planning agendas.

Effective citizen-centric programs

prioritize development to reflect a

country's ICT capacities, no matter how

weak, and user capacity, no matter

how limited. If most businesses are

connected, the priority may be towards

e-commerce service delivery. This is not

to suggest that there should be a zero

sum attitude toward strategic

deployment of e-government programs

or that decisions are based on less than

equitable factors. It is intended to

emphasis the reality that governments

face when it comes to allocating

resources in choosing the approach that

is the most cost-effective and beneficial.

Service delivery programs should be built

around current technological strengths

no matter how limited these strengths

may appear to be.

6.3: E-Governance

Defining E-Governance

Governance is not necessarily

government as a physical entity, nor is it

the act of governing through individuals.

It is more realistically understood to be a

process: the process by which

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

54

institutions, organizations, and citizens

'guide' themselves. Governance is also

about the interaction between the

public sector and how society organizes

itself for collective decision making, and

provides the transparent mechanisms for

seeing those decisions through.

E-governance is the public sector’s use

of the most innovative information and

communication technologies, like the

internet, to deliver to all citizens

improved services, reliable information

and greater knowledge in order to

facilitate access to the governing

process and encourage deeper citizen

participation. It is an unequivocal

commitment by decision-makers to

strengthening the partnership between

the private citizen and the public sector

.

Digital government has the potential to

connect every citizen with elected

officials and decision-makers like no

previous innovation or activity. It offers

individuals new and greater access to

information and knowledge,

subsequently redefining personal

freedom. Introduction and acceptance

of e-governance is a way to ensure that

every citizen has an equal right to be a

part of the decision-making processes

which affect them

directly or indirectly,

and influence the

process in a manner

which may best

improve their

conditions and the

quality of their lives.

E-Governance has the

potential to ensure

that citizens are no

longer passive

consumers of services

offered to them by

allowing them to play

a more proactive role

in deciding the kind of

services they want

and the structure

which could best

provide them. Below

are the core disciplines which form the

framework of E-governance.

E-government is characterized by inter-

organizational relationships including

policy coordination and policy

implementation and by the delivery of

services online or through other

electronic means to citizens. This

includes:

!

!!

!

Developing citizen- centric

programs

!

!!

!

Promoting and enhancing citizen

participation

!

!!

!

Perfecting Online service delivery

through analysis and evaluation;

measuring efficiency and

benchmarking against other

forms of service delivery

!

!!

!

Country Indexing (performance

measurement benchmarking):

portal analysis; website analysis

Box 14: The Framework of E-Governance

E-Government: Inter-organizational relationships

!

!!

!

Policy coordination

!

!!

!

Policy Implementation

!

!!

!

Public Service Delivery

E-Administration: Intra-organizational relationships

!

!!

!

Policy Development

!

!!

!

Organizational Activities

!

!!

!

Knowledge Management

E-Governance: Interaction between citizens, government

organizations, public and elected officials

!

!!

!

Democratic Process

!

!!

!

Open Government

!

!!

!

Transparent Decision-Making

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

55

E-administration defines the intra-

organizational relationships or the

internal and public sector management

component and includes:

!

!!

!

Strategic planning in transitioning

to electronic delivery of services

!

!!

!

Quantifying cost effectiveness of

electronic service delivery

!

!!

!

Benchmarking and performance

measurement

!

!!

!

Human resource management

issues like training and

recruitment, deployment of staff

and maximizing existing

resources.

E-governance facilitates the interactions

between citizens, government

organizations and elected officials and

how the internet can improve the

governing and policy making process.

The core are:

!

!!

!

How technology (particularly the

web) is transforming the

governing process

!

!!

!

E-federalism; the changing

relationship among the levels of

government

!

!!

!

Social implications --- the digital

divides

!

!!

!

Administrative professionalism:

e-ethics; increased transparency

!

!!

!

E-democracy:

Enhancing citizen

participation; online voting;

Issues of Ethics, security and

privacy; Fundraising for the

e-campaign; increased

transparency

!

!!

!

Legislative and policy-making

environment framework: policy

initiatives governments are

taking; the regulatory framework;

implications of initiatives like

recognizing the legality of

e-signatures; greater citizen

participation in the policy-

making environment

( e-democracy)

!

!!

!

International Implications:

Lowering of borders through

information exchanges --

impacts and consequences;

International standards and best

practices; Information and

knowledge management and

e-government.

As the various components of

e-governance evolve from objectives

into accomplishments, the vision and

philosophy for digital government will be

confirmed. In the past, citizens

presented themselves to governments

that stood between them and the

information and services they wanted. In

contrast, e-governance ensures citizens

direct access to information and

services on their own terms without

regard to the government agency

behind the counter or service. This

requires the bureaucrat that used to

control that information, and indeed all

government, to take on a whole new

role in serving the citizen.

Instead of being served at arms length

as a customer, the citizen now has

assumed their rightful place as the

proprietor and must be regarded and

respected as a shareholder in the

business of government. And it is this

citizen who will define the details and

determine the future and nature of

digital government.

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

56

C

ONCLUSION

E-government is no longer an

experiment in administrative reform but

a permanent part of the governing

process. For both governments and

citizens, clearly its advantages far

outweigh the risks of investment.

Yet how a country chooses to

approach, design, and ultimately

implement e-government is dependent

upon its capacity to sustain an enabling

environment and address the needs

and priorities of its citizens. By the end of

2002, many countries will have

upgraded their online services, while

many more will be striving to find the

best possible approach. The E-gov

Index attempted to identify and

benchmark the core factors that

embody the UN Member States

“e-capacity”, and to create a

foundation for further analysis and

performance measurement.

E-government is about opportunity.

Opportunity to transform a public sector

organization’s commitment in order to

function as citizen-centric. Opportunity

to provide cost effective services to the

private sector contributing to the

development of business and promoting

long-term economic growth. And

opportunity to enhance governance

through improved access to accurate

information and transparent, responsive

and democratic institutions.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote nearly two

hundred years ago:

“Information is the

currency of democracy.”

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

57

Appendix 1: Member States’ E-government Index by Region

Computing the E-government Index:

The e-government index is a mean figure derived from the Web Presence,

telecommunications infrastructure, and human capital measures. Since multiple

indices contribute to the infrastructure and the human capital measures, a

composite variable was compiled. Because of the considerable differences in a

number of the ICT indices, a weighted composite variable for the infrastructure

measure was computed in an attempt to ‘level the playing field’ to some extent.

The unabridged tables for each region are available on the UN’s Public

Administration Website (www.unpan.org).

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

58

North America

Central America

Infrastructure Measure Human Capital Measure

Country

Web

Presence

Measure

PCs /

100

Int

Hosts /

10000

% of

Pop

Online

Tele

Lines /

100

Mobile

Phones

/ 100

TVs /

1000

Human

Development

Index

Information

Access

Index

Urban as

% of Total

Population

E-Gov Index

Belize 2 10.63 12.16 6.9 14.94 2.97 180 .776 .999 53.6 1.26

Costa Rica 2.5 10.17 18.29 7.1 24.94 5.20 387 .821 .916 47.6 1.42

El Salvador 2 1.62 0.92 1.1 9.08 6.22 250 .701 .750 46.3 1.19

Guatemala 2.25 0.99 4.92 1.1 5.71 3.05 126 .626 .583 39.4 1.17

Honduras 2 0.95 0.20 1.1 4.61 2.39 90 .634 .667 51.6 1.20

Nicaragua 2.25 0.81 2.76 1.0 3.04 0.90 190 .635 .667 55.8 1.35

Panama 2.25 3.20 52.82 2.3 16.43 8.27 187 .784 .916 56.0 1.38

Regional Avg 2.18 4.05 13.15 2.9 11.25 4.14 201.43 .711 .785 50.04 1.28

The Caribbean

Infrastructure Measure Human Capital Measure

Country

Web

Presence

Measure

PCs /

100

Int

Hosts /

10000

% of

Pop

Online

Tele

Lines /

100

Mobile

Phones

/ 100

TVs /

1000

Human

Development

Index

Information

Access

Index

Urban as

% of Total

Population

E-Gov Index

Bahamas 2 2.34 0.79 5.1 37.59 10.36 896 .820 .999 87.90 1.79

Barbados 2 7.80 3.74 3.3 42.71 11.14 283 .864 .999 49.50 1.25

Cuba 2 0.99 0.59 1.1 4.36 0.06 239 .765 .001 76.7 1.49

Dom Rep 2 1.75 9.44 0.2 9.81 5.02 84 .722 .833 64.40 1.34

Haiti 1.5 0.88 0.10 1.5 0.89 0.31 5 .467 .250 35.10 0.84

Jamaica 2 4.30 5.71 3.2 19.86 14.24 323 .738 .833 55.60 1.31

Trin & Tob 1.5 5.42 50.96 4.0 23.11 10.29 331 .798 .833 73.60 1.34

Regional Avg 1.86 3.35 10.19 2.62 19.76 7.35 308.71 .739 .678 63.26 1.34

Infrastructure Measure Human Capital Measure

Country

Web

Presence

Measure

PCs /

100

Int

Hosts /

10000

% of

Pop

Online

Tele

Lines

/ 100

Mobile

Phones

/ 100

TVs /

1000

Human

Development

Index

Information

Access

Index

Urban as

% of Total

Population

E-Gov Index

Canada 4 39.02 768.68 46.5 67.65 28.46 715 .936 .999 77.0 2.52

Mexico 4 5.06 56.55 3.5 12.47 14.23 261 .790 .750 74.2 2.16

USA 4 58.52 2928.32 62.1 69.97 36.45 847 .934 .999 77.0 3.11

Regional Avg 4 34.20 1251.18 37.4 50.03 26.38 607.67 .887 .916 76.1 2.60

Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective --- Assessing the UN Member States

United Nations - DPEPA ASPA

59

Europe

Infrastructure Measure Human Capital Measure

Country

Web

Presence

Measure

PCs /

100

Int Hosts

/ 10000

% of Pop

Online

Tele

Lines /

100

Mobile

Phones /

100

TVs /

1000

Human

Developme

nt Index

Information

Access

Index

Urban as %

of Total

Population

E-Gov

Index

Austria 3.5 27.65 588.49 40.6 47.36 78.55 516 .921 .999 64.6 2.14

Belarus 2.5 3.15 1.99 1.7 26.88 0.48 314 .782 .167 70.7 1.62

Belgium 3.5 34.45 295.44 26.4 49.94 54.89 510 .935 .916 97.3 2.39

Bulgaria 2 2.66 22.41 7.6 35.04 8.97 366 .772 .750 69.3 1.47

Croatia 2 6.70 37.12 4.7 36.49 23.09 267 .803 .750 57.3 1.33

Cyprus 2.5 19.32 117.62 15.8 64.72 32.11 167 .877 .999 56.2 1.50