Document(s) 5 of 16

Today's world is more and more referred to as being "networked" due to the advancement of ICTs but also because of the growing phenomenon of the involvement of non-state or non-governmental actors into policy-making, either in a consultative way or through the development of new participatory approaches, often enabled or enhanced by the use of ICTs.

This is dispersing State power into autonomous local governance systems, while the industrial revolution in the past centralized it. The opportunity of using ICTs for communicating on a global scale has added new dimensions to possibilities for pursuing national, regional and local development; that is where economic and social impacts can be more valuable to the administration users and the citizens.

Recognising the importance of information for democratic and civic life, in principle, it is required to increase knowledge and information capacities to operate in a context where institutions and infrastructure are needed to facilitate the flow of information, its availability and access. Some indicates in a straightforward positive way that "Information and knowledge are closely intertwined: to produce information, a knowledgeable agent processes new findings and data, acceptable to society, and the resulting commodity is the increase of knowledge through improvement of access". In this way, "The increment in knowledge reduces uncertainty with regard to the organisation of economic and social activities, providing the capacity to effectively use available information and reach informed decisions"¹.

However, as a matter of fact, information is not knowledge neither competence. Information access and sharing, as well as expert data handling, necessitate a lot of knowledge. Information is not the first stage towards knowledge, neither the pre-condition of it. Often it is quite the opposite. Similarly, the increase of participation in the usage of ICTs is no automatic and linear step towards a deep, effective, sustainable or democratic evidence. On the contrary, one has to stress that to carry out a collective learning of some significance through ICTs, more horizontal processes, empowerment and trial and error linked with experience sharing must somehow take place "upstream" or at least considered quite early in an ICT-based project to constitute a democratic enhancement chance.

In this context, the relations between ICTs and governance are multiple. Governance supported by the development of ICTs can have more powerful information transmission, stimulate debate and participation and, at the same time, the establishment of information systems and knowledge management tools can facilitate governmental processes. However, it should be underlined that, when discussing integration of ICTs in administration, the focus is in the promotion of governance using ICTs as a tool, rather than the ICTs being an end in themselves².

To this extent, it is necessary to identify and to try to define the basic concepts we are dealing with, from Government to Governance, at central and local level, and including the potential role of the ICTs as a tool for good governance as well as giving a perspective on how ICTs can enhance citizens' participation.

In fact, there are many definitions and views of the same concept, and interpretations are so varied and sometimes conflicting that makes this task difficult and could generate controversial conclusions. In this context, with particular regard to the use of ICTs in public administration, some assert that "trying to establish a single definition for such complex and diverse issues and challenges may be unworkable at best and unhelpful at worst"³.

Therefore, what I try to do here is to discuss basic concepts and present some commonly recognised definitions aiming at providing a contribution to the establishment of a common understanding on what we are talking about, in order to build a shared framework within which an operational dialogue among different actors and stakeholders, with different backgrounds, viewpoints, interests and objectives, can work together. This is done utilising international literature and especially recent background papers produced within the context of the Global Forum on Re-inventing Government and the UN World Public Sector Reports⁴.

First of all, everyone thinks they know what a government is, but its "simple" definition given by the United Nations, introduces other concepts that are not always effectively considered by all governments.

In its broadest sense, government refers to a body that has the authority to make and the power to enforce laws within a civil, corporate, religious, academic and other organization. At a nation level, government commonly refers to the administration of a state, in general to the executive function or branch of the body of the exercising authority. The level of government responsible for running a district, province or city is also referred as local government in contrast with bodies at nation-state level (I will be back on this later).

1.1. GOVERNANCE, GOOD GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

When most people hear the word governance they think of government. After all, both have the same root word (xνβερνν) from the Greek language, which means "to steer". But governance is about more than just government. It is a complex yet universal force that exists in all societies. People use governance in their daily lives to manage human relationships, just as corporations and countries do to manage their interactions and activities⁵.

In this regard, and considering its meaning in the Greek language, an useful metaphor to describe governance is referred to steering a ship. "Steering a ship, in fact, is not only a matter of keeping the ship afloat and in forward, backward, or sideways motion. It is knowing the direction to be taken and ensuring that the ship is constantly on course in that direction. Above all, for everyone in the ship and those waiting for its arrival, a captain can claim good seamanship only when the ship gets to where it is expected"⁶. As an act of steering a people's development, governance is about processes not about ends.

The World Bank has identified three distinct aspects of governance: 1. the form of political regime; 2. the process by which authority is exercised in the management of a country's economic and social resources for development; 3. the capacity of governments to design, formulate and implement policies and discharge functions (World Bank, 1997).

For UNDP, governance is viewed as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country's affairs at all levels. It is about the process by which government, the private sector, citizens and groups articulate their interests, mediate their differences, and exercise their legal rights and obligations (UNDP, 1997).

For UNESCO, governance refers to the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the management of a country's affairs, including citizens' articulation of their interests and exercise of their legal rights and obligations.⁷

The concept of governance defined by OECD denotes the use of political authority and exercise of control in a society in relation to the management of its resources for social and economic development (OECD, 1995). This broad definition encompasses the role of public authorities in establishing the environment in which economic operators function and in determining the distribution of benefits as well as the nature of the relationship between the ruler and the ruled.

According to the Institute of Governance,⁸ governance comprises the institutions, processes and conventions in a society which determine how power is exercised, how important decisions affecting society are made and how various interests are accorded a place in such decisions (Institute of Governance, 2002).

The Commission on Global Governance defines it as the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and co-operative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed or perceive to be in their interest (Commission on Global Governance, 1995).⁹

As we have seen, definitions of governance by leading institutions and studies converge on the term as meaning by which power is exercised.

Having now made clear the concept of governance as a "participatory process", we can better understand why it has become a truism to say that good governance is essential for successful development. But what is good in good governance and what are the implications for development ?

The concept of governance in the context of the promotion of sustainable economic development comprises efficient government, effective civil society and a successful private sector. Good governance has many characteristics. Good governance systems are participatory in that the members of governance institutions have a voice in the decision making process based on democratic traditions. The procedures and methods of decision making reflect transparency to ensure effective participation. The governance system aims at bringing about sustainable development, which is defined as "improving economic efficiency, protection and restoration of the environment and enhancing wellbeing of people" (International Institute of Sustainable Development, 1995).

While governance is a neutral concept, good governance addresses the allocation and management of resources to respond to collective problems. A universally agreed position on what constitutes good governance is hard to come by. However, conceptually, it is characterised by the principles of participation, transparency, accountability, rule of law, effectiveness, equity and strategic vision (UNDP, 1997).

By definition, good governance is the positive aspect of governance. But what about bad governance?

Bad governance is defined by Weiss as "the personalisation of power, lack of human rights, endemic corruption and unelected and unaccountable governments"¹⁰

When we speak of the quality of a country's governance, then, we mean the degree to which its institutions and processes are transparent and accountable to the people and allow them to participate in decisions that affect their lives. It is also the degree to which the private sector and organisations of the civil society are free and able to participate¹¹.

Good governance is a concept that has come into regular use in political science, public administration and, more particularly, development management. It appears alongside terms such as democracy, civil society, participation, human rights and sustainable development. In the last decade, it has been closely associated with public sector reform. As indicated by the Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi A. Annan "Good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development"¹².

According to the United Nations, good governance promotes equity and equality of treatment to all based on the concept of non-discrimination. The basic consideration in good governance is being able to develop the resources and methods of governance. In the context of social development parameters, it promotes gender balance, enables synthesis of diverse perspectives and mobilises resources for social purposes. Good governance strengthens indigenous mechanisms and ensures efficient and effective use of resources. All civilised societies are supposed to be based on the rule of law which is an essential component of good governance and that should engenders and commands respect and trust.¹³

According to OECD, good governance has eight major characteristics. It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimised, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society.¹⁴

Participation by both men and women is a cornerstone of good governance. Participation could be either direct or through legitimate intermediate institutions or representatives. It is important to point out that representative democracy does not necessarily mean that the concerns of the most vulnerable in society would be taken into consideration in decision making. Participation needs to be informed and organised. This means freedom of association and expression on the one hand and an organised civil society on the other.

Consensus oriented: considering there are several actors and as many viewpoints in a given society, good governance requires mediation of the different interests in society to reach a broad consensus on what is in the best interest of the whole community and how this can be achieved. It requires a broad and long-term perspective on what is needed for sustainable human development and how to achieve the goals of such development. This can only results from an understanding of the historical, cultural and social contexts of a given society or community.

Accountability is a key requirement of good governance. Not only governmental institutions but also the private sector and civil society organisations must be accountable to the public and to their institutional stakeholders. Who is accountable to whom varies depending on whether decisions or actions taken are internal or external to an organisation or institution. In general an organisation or an institution is accountable to those who will be affected by its decisions or actions. Accountability cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law.

Transparency means that decisions taken and their enforcement are done in a manner that follows rules and regulations. It also means that information is freely available and directly accessible to those who will be affected by such decisions and the enforcement of those decisions. It also means that enough information is provided and that it is provided in easily understandable forms and media.

Responsiveness: Good governance requires that institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders within a reasonable timeframe.

Effectiveness and efficiency: Good governance means that processes and institutions produce results that meet the needs of society whilst making the best use of resources at their disposal. The concept of efficiency in the context of good governance also covers the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of the environment.

Equity and inclusiveness: A society's wellbeing depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires that all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable, have opportunities to improve or maintain their wellbeing.

Rule of Law: Good governance requires fair legal frameworks that are enforced impartially. It also requires full protection of human rights, particularly those of minorities. Impartial enforcement of laws needs an independent judiciary and an impartial and incorruptible police force.

In brief, according to the general principle of International Organisations, good governance is when the authority of the government is based on the will of the people and is responsive to them. It is when open, democratic institutions allow full participation in political affairs and when human rights protection guarantees the right to speak, assemble and dissent. And it is when government and governmental institutions are pro-poor and promote the human development of all citizens. In short, it distinguishes between the institutions and processes of governance and their content and quality.

A definition that summarises the concept of governance and good governance which can be universally recognised is the following:

Building on these ideas, the UNDP Human Development Report 2002¹⁵ elaborated the concept of democratic governance, that is, governance that would promote human development. Like the concept of good governance, democratic governance seeks efficient institutions and a predictable economic and political environment necessary for growth and effective functioning of public services.

It is defined as follows:

The concept of democratic governance shares with humane governance the concerns with political freedom and human rights and the removal of discrimination as central objectives. A reform agenda would aim not only at building institutions and rules that are not just efficient but also fair, and that are developed through a democratic process in which all people have a real political voice. Democratic governance thus incorporates the notion of good governance for development, democratic processes and institutions and a concern with the securing of political and civil rights and freedoms as human rights.

Democratic governance is therefore considered as the most "human-development-friendly system of governance"¹⁶. However, we should also consider that democracy is a value that has different meaning in different cultures, and especially, that it is not only participation as it is often – in a simplistic way – referred to. And this is particularly true when it comes to ICTs.

In many cases, in fact, it is argued that introducing ICTs in Government can increase democracy, because it enlarges participation to public affairs. But this is not always the case, and, more important, it is not enough to enable changes.

1.2. LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND DECENTRALISATION

If we recognise the concept and definition of government and governance as indicated above, then we can discuss their implications at local level, trying to define the major forms of public sector decentralisation arrangements. But first of all what do we intend for local government?

In modern nations, local governments usually have fewer powers than national governments do. They usually have some power to raise taxes, though these may be limited by central legislation. In some countries local government is partly or wholly funded by subventions from central government taxation. The question of Municipal Autonomy - which powers the local government has, or should have, and why - is a key question of public administration and governance.

The institutions of local government vary greatly between countries, and even where similar arrangements exist, the terminology often varies. Common names for local government entities include state, province, region, department, county, district, city, township, town, borough, parish and village. However all these names are often used informally in countries where they do not describe a legal local government entity.

Local Government can therefore be defined as follows:

Now, if we consider the concept of governance at a local level, we will then have the definition of Local Governance.

But not all governance practices at a local level would constitute local governance. It is possible to have central governance or even foreign governance at local level. "What determines whether governance is local or not is the extent to which the local population is involved in the steering (i.e. in determining the direction) according to their local needs, problems and priorities"¹⁷.

In this sense, governance ceases to be a matter of government only. It is a situation of multiple inter-linkages and relationships in which different and various actors in the public and private sectors as well as civil society – at local, national and international levels – play different roles sometimes mutually conflicting and sometimes mutually reinforcing and complementary, focussing on satisfying the interests of the local community.

In this framework, local governance is not good by definition, but it can be assumed that good local governance involves a good management of administration at local level, including inter-administrative and inter-sectoral linkages.

Thus, the definition of Good Local Governance can be as follows:

Linked to the concept of local governance is of course the idea of decentralisation.

Conceptually, decentralisation relates to the role of, and the relationship between, central and sub-national institutions, whether they are public, private or civic.

The concept and definition of decentralisation has evolved over time and has acquired several shades of meaning. The "Classic" Decentralisation, as Mawhood and Davey described it, has rarely taken place.

Instead, regimes in developing countries modified the term to fit different types of administrative setups.¹⁸

According to the Fifth African Governance Forum V, decentralisation is defined as follows:

Organisationally, decentralisation, or decentralised governance, refers to the restructuring of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility between institutions of governance at central, regional and local levels according to the "principle of subsidiarity", thus increasing the overall quality and effectiveness of the governance system, while increasing the authority and capacities of sub-national levels.²⁰

Broadly speaking, according to the United Nations, decentralisation can take the form of either devolution, deconcentration, delegation, or outsourcing, defined as follows:

Of the four forms of decentralisation described above, deconcentration represents the least amount of transfer of power to local people. Delegation also does not by itself transfer power to the locals, although the delegated agencies have the scope for involving local people in their decision making process. It is the two other forms, namely devolution and outsourcing/transfer-partnership when it is referred to civil society organisations that provide the largest scope for developing genuinely local level governance based on popular participation, through mobilizing the capacity and initiatives of civil society organizations working for social and economic development. Overall, according to studies and analysis, in Africa, decentralisation has, to a different degree, by and large taken the form of deconcentration and delegation.²¹

1.3. ICTS, E-GOVERNMENT, E-GOVERNANCE AND E-PARTICIPATION

The overall objective of improving the governance systems and the performance of the public administration at all levels, enhancing the delivery of the public services to all citizens, can greatly benefit from the integration of ICTs in the process of decision making, planning, co-ordination and management carried out by governments. But what are ICTs and why should we integrate ICTs in the government process?

On a point of definition we talk of ICTs, adding "communications" to the more familiar "Information Technology". This reflects the increasing role of both information and communications technologies in all aspects of society. Generally speaking, ICTs are defined by Stevenson in his 1997 report to the UK government and promoted by the new National Curriculum documents for the UK in 2000 as: "The study of the technology used to handle information and aid communication"²². But what we are interested in, more than the study of technologies, is the application to improve and "channel" information through any means of communication, based on different infrastructure. So it is important to understand what is information and what is communication. The World Bank defines ICTs as a generic term, which includes Information Technology (hardware and software) and the telecommunication infrastructure, equipment and services.

According to J. Habib Sy, "Information refers to knowledge, strategic and non-strategic research results as well as patented or licensed information increasingly commoditised in public and private channels at a cost commensurate with its technological, commercial, military, educational or social value". Despite being a bit complicated, this means that information is an essential ingredient in any historical communication system and a central condition for capital accumulation and wealth generation. "Communication refers instead to processes and effects within a given social context in which senders and receivers of messages enter into transactions of some sort". For Sy, "ICTs refer mainly to people and the way they relate to each other either individually or in a group rather than the technology. Technology, in this context, is neither a necessary and sufficient condition for social progress nor a means for leapfrogging"²³.

Therefore, recent literature uses interchangeably the word ICTs and Info-communication to signify the following:

Thus, what is important about ICTs is their capacity for improving the communication between people: that is defined as the quint-essential aspect of human society. In fact, human beings have always used communication to inform, learn, define concepts and viewpoints, deliberate and reach agreements, in private and public life. The electronic features of modern ICTs can be put into this timeless communication process and benefit from doing so²⁴.

The definition of the Quintessence of ICTs made by Dr. Joseph Okpaku in one of his instructive papers is instrumental in this regard.

In this respect, ICTs either as a tool or structural productivity lever, support both ordinary communication and innovation networking environments; they also, along the way, modify lifestyles, organi­sational boundaries and institutional adaptation capabilities. They help solve problems but also feed divides of various natures. They are supposed to define a new social paradigm, the Information Society, a world of promises, still to a large extent to be verified.

The e-world developed in this context, the Internet was the tool that, in the area of already existing computing instruments and applications, changed it all. Private initiatives came first, pioneering sectors being the banks, tourism, aviation, the military, then as somewhat a post Internet bubble remedy, but certainly in the continuation of messianic announcements by Al Gore and Martin Bangemann in the early nineties, state-supported efforts to develop converging strategies emerged, in OECD countries first, before expanding as a standard programme or at least an expectation in all countries, regions and municipalities of the world²⁶.

In this connection, it is worth underlining the role of ICTs as a tool for development, and not as a goal in itself. Using ICTs can help achieve development goals. This is particularly true in relation to government operations and governance in general. The integration of ICTs in governmental operations introduces the concept of Electronic Government, Digital Government or – in short – e-government.

This development has started in some isolated cases somewhat before the Internet (digital cities, like Amsterdam, for instance), but of course, the nineties were the period during which all this really took off. Measuring the deployment of e-government became a considerable business, benchmarking countries and regions in terms of initially, how much they could show as far as computer and Internet accesses were concerned, then various forms of "readiness" or administrative sophistication they could report upon became a "must to". More recently, measurement started to become a more scientific endeavour, coping with complex and partially contradicting features to benchmark efficiency, effectiveness, openness, etc. This debate is now open to emphasising real impact or track effectiveness with figures and verifiable models and all indications show that we are only at the beginning of this process.

Technological evolution may also soon prove to be a strong modifier of the initial e-government development framework, wireless solutions, satellite coverage and access and even more, mobile phone expanding potential.

After a few hesitations about terms, digital government, e-administration and others led to a more consensual formulation to this underpinning effort, and the e-government era emerged. In fact, there are many definitions of e-government, and the term itself is not universally used. The differences are not just semantic and may reflect priorities in government strategies.

According to Prof. Claudio Ciborra, in literature, e-government is mainly referred to as having three levels:

• the relationship (transaction) between the administration and the citizen (customer) and the related re-engineering of the activities internal to the administration (Bellamy and Taylor, 1998);
  
  
• the way in which the boundaries between the state and the market are redrawn, by the creation of an electronic, minimal state, more transparent, agile and accountable (Heeks, 1999, Stiglitz and Orszag 2000);
  
  
• the purpose of aid policies aimed at introducing e-government into developing countries, to improve accountability and transparency as key characteristics of good governance (UNDP, 2001)²⁷.

According to the OECD, the definitions of e-government fall into three groups:

• e-government is defined as Internet (online) service delivery and other Internet-based activity, such as e-consultation;
  
  
• e-government is equated to the use of ICTs in government. While the focus is generally on the delivery of services and processing, the broadest definition encompasses all aspects of government activity;
  
  
• e-government is defined as a capacity to transform public administration through the use of ICTs or indeed is used to describe a new form of government built around ICTs. This aspect is usually linked to Internet use.

The definition of e-government of the OECD is therefore simply "The use of ICTs, and in particular the Internet, as a tool to achieve better government"²⁸.

Adding a level of complexity, the European Union Commission defines e-government as "the use of ICTs in public administra­tions combined with organisational change and new skills in order to improve public services and democratic processes and strengthen support for public policies"²⁹.

For the World Bank, e-government refers to the use by government agencies of information technologies (such as Wide Area Networks, the Internet, and mobile computing) that have the ability to transform relationships with citizens, businesses, and other arms of government. These technologies can serve a variety of different ends: better delivery of government services to citizens, improved interactions with business and industry, citizen empowerment through access to information, or more efficient government management. The resulting benefits can be less corruption, increased transparency, greater convenience, revenue growth and/or cost reductions.³⁰

In a simpler and easy manner, Prof. Dele Olowu, in a book published by UNECA, defines e-government as "all the information and communication technology platforms and applications in use in the public sector or the use of the internet for delivering government information and services to citizens"³¹.

If we consider the ICTs as a "facilitator" in improving governance, through "re-inventing" the role of governments, providing tools to support public service reforms, enhance public administration management and public sector performance vis-à-vis the private sector and the citizens, we arrive at the concept of Transformational e-government. This, at its best, can be viewed as the process of creating public value with the use of modern ICTs, where public value is defined by Kelly and others (2001) as "the value created by Government through services, laws, regulations and other actions", or, by the United Nations in a simpler (or maybe too simplistic) way, as "the things that people want"³².

A definition of e-government in this sense, that is comprehensive and summarises the concept of transformational state, is provided by the private sector, and in particular Gartner Research, which has been one of the pioneers in this area. It also reflects the operational approach that is typical of the business-oriented experience of private companies, and is as follows: "the continuous optimization of Government service delivery, constituency participation, and governance by transforming internal and external relationships through technology, the Internet and new media. In particular, e-government technologies can improve significantly the capacity of co-ordination among different branches and bodies of government, and communication among governments, citizens and business"³³.

The model of development for this pervasive effort is the famous stage concept of Gartner (2000), which has since been reformulated with minor variations. It supposed stages of phases and complexity through which government and, in most cases it should be more accurate to say the administration, deploys means of providing information and gradually more interaction-based service access to the users, online.

According to the United Nations "World Public Sector Report 2003: e-government at the Crossroads", "e-government is a government that applies ICTs to transform its internal and external relationships. Through the application of ICTs to its operations, a government does not alter its functions or its obligation to remain useful, legitimate, transparent and accountable. If anything, this application raises society's expectations about the performance of government, in all respects, to a much higher level"³⁴.

An evolution of this concept (2005; 2006; UNDESA) brings about the definition of E/M-Government (e-government / Mobile Government) as follows.

"The application of ICTs within and by the public sector, that provides government, the citizen and business with a set of tools that can potentially transform the way in which interactions take place, services are delivered, and public administration reform and good governance goals are met³⁵.

In this regard, it is assumed that "the strategic use of ICTs in government can result in a more inclusive, effective, efficient, transparent and accountable public administration, which will be key to improved economic development and competitiveness. Moreover, in enhancing the quality and delivery of public services through ICTs - especially in education, health, social security and social welfare - government may be better positioned to reduce poverty, redress inequality, and promote sustainable development"³⁶.

This definition and conceptual framework is, in my opinion, appropriate to identify the developmental role of ICTs and the transformative potential of the impact of ICTs. However, it also highlights the limitations of e-government as a real transformative process in itself, considering its focus on only one of the functions of the State, namely the service delivery.

Therefore, considering the numerous definitions of e-government, the working definition of e-government that I propose here is "a middle-of-the-road concept", that is as follows:

Considering instead the combination of ICTs with governance in the sense we formulated it above, e-government is more and more moving towards e-governance, where the concept of e-governance further encompasses e-government. e-governance is a growing phenomenon around the world and is emerging as a significant discipline, initially within the field of public administration reform, but that is now being realised as not only being a "government business", but a societal challenge as well.

e-governance is defined by the Inter-American Development Bank as being "beyond the scope of e-government.......", and in particular by Blake Harris that, to summarise, says that "e-governance is not just about government websites and email, etc..." and that "....it will change how citizens relate to governments as much as it changes how citizens relate to each other"³⁸.

UNESCO defines e-governance as "the public sector's use of information and communication technologies with the aim of improving information and service delivery, encouraging citizen participation in the decision-making process and making government more accountable, transparent and effective"³⁹.

The Pacific Institute of Management in India equates e-governance with smart governance and uses the acronym SMART to define it as the "application of ICTs to the process of government functioning to bring out Simple, Moral, Accountable, Responsive and Transparent governance". The government of India has used this as the basis for its vision statement for e-governance and for the development of strategic initiatives and further objectives as outlined in what was termed an Indicative Roadmap to enact that vision.⁴⁰

Different approaches are that of Gordon, who defines e-governance rather more narrowly as "the use of ICTs to improve the quality and efficiency of all phases of the life cycle of legislation". Vikas Nath, active on the Internet, defines e-governance as "Governance processes in which ICTs play an active and significant role". Gurstein and others emphasise the role of citizen as the basis for e-governance as in "the use of ICTs as a means to enhance the role of citizens in relation to their capacity and opportunity for effective participation in the broad structures of governance"⁴¹.

A working definition of e-governance for Africa has also been developed -with my support- by the African Training and Research Centre in Administration for Development (CAFRAD) within the framework of the e-Africa Initiative for Good Governance: Building e-governance capacity in African countries. It defines e-governance as "the use of ICTs, and especially the Internet, to adopt a new conception and attitude of governing and managing where participation and efficiency are required of all the partners linked in a network: e-governance is therefore a new way of co-ordinating, planning, formulating and implementing decisions and operations related to governance problems. Governments can utilise e-governance to re-invent themselves, get closer to the citizenry and forge closer alliances and partnerships with diverse communities of interest, practice, expertise, conviction and inter-dependence within the context of national and international development agendas"ap. This definition is probably, in my opinion, the more appropriate to the African context, and it highlights how, as a concept and an emerging practice, e-governance seeks to realise processes and structures for harnessing the potentialities of ICTs at various levels of government and beyond, of the public sector, for the purpose of enhancing good governance and, in particular, citizens' participation.

But it is clear that the concept of e-governance is not commonly recognised and shared worldwide. Quite the contrary. For many, e-governance is just one more buzzword for e-government. For others, who aim at specific identifications, e-governance is merely an indication of the impact of e-government outside the administration boundaries, in particular when private economy actors are active stakeholders.

Looking at prevalent literature and definitions, as pointed out by Finger (2003, 2004 and further elaborated by Finger, Rossel and Misuraca, 2005, 2006), we can identify three main conceptualisations of e-governance: 1) e-governance as customer satisfaction; 2) e-governance as processes and interactions and 3) e-governance as tools⁴³.

The first and probably most widespread conceptualisation refers to customer satisfaction. Indeed, the term e-governance is not only used here as being synonymous of e-government, it is moreover synonymous with satisfying the citizen/customer by means of delivering the services through the Internet. Generally, this is the view of promoters of new public management who see in the ICTs a significant contribution to, and the next step in, improving service delivery and especially customer satisfaction. For this conceptualisation, the main unit of analysis is the government or rather the administration, whose interface with the citizens the ICTs are said to be going to improve. As a matter of fact, citizens are seen here as more or less passive recipients of digitalised information and services, i.e., as customers. In other words, at the heart of this conceptualisation it is not the process to which the ICTs are being applied, but merely the delivery of information and sometimes services. Needless to say that this view does not take into account the possible other policy levels that the state may need to cope with and, also, it does not mention the emergence of non-state actors who become increasingly involved in policy-making, service delivery and to a lesser extend regulation - the three main functions of the state⁴⁴.

In the second conceptualisation e-governance is seen as a decisional process. The International Centre of e-governance says for example, "Governance is not government, nor is it the act of governing. It is more usefully seen as a process: the process by which institutions, organisations, companies and societies guide themselves. It is also about how these bodies interact with each other, with their clients and with the public. At its most basic level, it is about how society organises itself for collective decision making, and also provides transparent mechanisms for seeing those decisions through. E-governance is a shorthand term for the use and impact of technology, in particular ICTs, in governance systems." Similarly, the e-governance Institute of Rutgers University states: "e-governance involves new channels for accessing government, new styles of leadership, new methods of transacting business, and new systems for organizing and delivering information and services. Its potential for enhancing the governing process is immeasurable." Here, the focus is clearly on processes and interactions, which the ICTs are said to foster or at least to facilitate. Potentially, the conceptualisation could also be extended to transactions. However, the view of the state remains quite traditional: indeed, it means interactions between the citizens and the private sector on the one hand and the state on the other. However, the state remains always at the centre of the process.

The third conceptualisation sees e-governance as a set of tools in the hands of government, or rather in the hands of the administration. In other words, the starting point here is not the state or its transformation, but the possibilities that ICTs offer. According to the Commonwealth Centre for e-governance (CGeG), it is the movement of governments online to deliver their services and programmes, to provide government information, and to interact with the citizen, all electronically. This is resulting in the formation of new relationships between the citizen and the state.

In particular, CGeG says: "e-governance is a tool. And like any other tool, no matter how powerful, it has limited value and relevance in itself. Its value arises from its application to specific goals and objectives. E-governance is really about choice. It is about providing citizens with the ability to choose the manner in which they wish to interact with their governments."..."E-governance is the commitment to utilise appropriate technologies to enhance governmental relationships, both internal and external, in order to advance democratic expression, human dignity and autonomy, support economic development and encourage the fair and efficient delivery of services"⁴⁵.

Following this and other research, in particular from the Riley Reports, the Commonwealth Centre for e-governance notes that "e-governance differs from e-government in the sense that e-government constitutes the ways public sector institutions use technology to apply public administration principles and conduct the business of government: it is government using new tools to enhance the delivery of existing services. E-governance includes the vision, strategies, planning, leadership and resources needed to carry this out: it is the way that political and social power are organised and used"⁴⁶.

This is parallel to the discussion by Okot Uma (2001 and 2005), which focusses on the direct contribution that the "e" plays in advancing principles of governance and particularly good governance. Indeed, he says, "e-governance seeks to realise processes and structures for harnessing the potentialities of information and communication technologies at various levels of government and at the public sector and beyond, for the purpose of enhancing good governance". Better governance, thanks to the ICTs, would improve, according to Okot-Uma, democracy and ultimately peoples' lives⁴⁷.

Not surprisingly, e-governance is not structured along concepts of state transformation, but rather along technological possibilities. Says Perri, one of the representatives of this conceptualisation of e-governance: "one way to classify e-governance systems is roughly according to the main tool for which they are used. There are tools for 1) generating understanding simple data; 2) collecting data or observations through search agents; 3) organising and analysing data on events, conditions, problems and processes; 4) supporting communication and transaction e-mail, electronic conferencing, video-conferencing systems; 5) modelling decisions and advising on possible consequences spreadsheets; 6) and environments that provide integration and storage for the other categories".

In other words, this conceptualisation is characterised by a strange combination of quite unreflected use of ICTs on the one hand and visionary (or even normative) statements on democracy and "good governance" on the other. It clearly puts the ICTs before the state, and actually operates with, in the opinion of Finger and others (2003, 2005), a quite simplistic and old-fashioned, and in any case naïve vision of the State. In particular, it is not dynamic, as it does not see the implications of the ICTs on operations, nor on state transformation.

In summary, looking at the main, currently prevalent conceptualisations of e-governance, it can be seen that there are still quite different understandings of what e-governance is, ranging from naïve and promotional views (e-governance as tools for democracy) to simplistic and unambitious ideas of using the ICTs for enhancing service delivery only (e-governance as customer satisfaction), passing through the one which sees e-governance as a dynamic process, i.e., mainly as an enhancement of interactions between actors (citizens/consumers, administration, private sector, civil society)⁴⁸.

Given the above, I postulate that there is a need to consider a more radical paradigmatic shift. As a complementary activity but inherently different from e-government, e-governance is the field of activity where co-ordination, arbitration, networking and regulation (just to mention essential steering functions), with ICTs, but also of ICTs, involved with all sorts of non-state actors, the state representatives being at best one of the stakeholders⁴⁹.

There are basically two converging processes that support the activities in the e-governance arena. One which stems from insufficient coverage, by the state, of problems that need to be solved but in which most solutions, experiments and expertise, from design to usage, are mainly carried out by non state actors, as innovative moves or as survival needs.

The other process, emerging from technology or service users, as inhabitants or as specific customers of a given economic market, individuals, communities or local enterprises, expresses some form of bottom-up creativity in which the state may play a role but only after the interactions and processes tackled reach a certain level of consistency. It is particularly true in the ICT area, where new services, habits, components or even technological ecosystems (let us think of Ipod, digital photography, smartphone applications or GPS-based services) emerge with barely any state presence of any kind.

E-governance is an intermediation arena in which negotiations, experiments and networking make important use of ICTs and in turn may also be dealing with some regulation of ICTs. After a while, in particular in the second case, the state tries to control it, sometimes with success (standardisation in WIFI for instance), sometimes not (governance of the Internet). In other cases, the issues are still open (pornography, intellectual property rights of ICT multimedia products, etc.).

In an attempt to advocate a "muddling through approach" rather than an idealistic one, in my opinion, and in this supported by research carried out in the last few years, I summarize the analysis by saying that differently from e-government, e-governance stresses the importance of the several components and multi-dimensional capacity of ICTs, the learning residing much more in the causality chain than the other way around.

For each technological implementation, for each e-service delivered, beyond their obvious instrumental level, there is in fact an organizational and institutional dimension, more governance-oriented, to be taken care of, in which ICT-deployment must be defined within the framework of a policy-compliant and inter-stakeholder knowledge management-effective perspective. This allows the slide from e-government to e-governance.

Society in fact is not harmonious and just saying that e-governance, like governance is about the transactional aspect of inter-actor life would not account for the complexity of what really takes place, it is also confrontational. Stakeholders have to muddle their way through even when they are not fundamentally friends, inter-industry-wise and inter-level-wise. This is why e-governance can be seen as the expression of a "dynamic tension" between institutional frameworks and ICTs.

Therefore, in a point of conceptualisation, we must take into consideration the multi-dimensional aspects of ICTs when discussing e-governance. In this regard, in a simple but, in my opinion very effective way, e-governance can therefore be defined as: the Governance "with and of" ICTs⁵⁰.

There are in fact, two side of the coin: "with" means basically "bureautic", web-based and connective type of technologies and applications or rather said mediation-supportive technologies and applications; meanwhile governance of ICTs means dealing in terms of innovation and regulation with all the technologies of the Information society (from tele-surveillance to GPS, through transport telematics and virtual community management applications, just to mention a few). (I will be back on this).

Complementary to the concept of e-governance, are the concepts of e-Participation and e-Democracy, which deal with how the citizen interacts with government and influences the legislative or public sector process. These concepts and emerging movements seek to engage the citizen with government and legislatures through the use of ICTs. According to some activists, this new dynamic that is developing between the citizen and government can actually result in giving some measure of power to the citizen. The distribution of information (if critical) can in fact produce some distribution of power since government information is no longer restricted to the political and bureaucratic elite.⁵¹

But before I present some definitions of e-Participation and e-Democracy that this approach involves and which is becoming popular on the web and among practitioners, despite it is evident that it is more a wishful thinking that a proven reality, it has to be considered that for countries, especially in the developing regions, there is the need to ensure (before even thinking of "going e", the correct introduction and utilisation of ICTs and e-government applications. Of particular importance is therefore the concept of "e-readiness", as defined by Richard Heeks:

In this regard, it has to be considered that included in the vision of the UN General Assembly Millennium Declaration, is the reaffirmation by the member states that they "....resolve to work collectively for more inclusive political processes, allowing genuine participation by all citizens in all countries... and the right of the public to have access to information....."⁵³ Within this framework, e-Participation has been defined as follows:

Looking at the concept of e-participation, according to the methodology and results of the UN Global e-government Survey, which presents a ranking of countries in the world referring to two primary indicators (e-government Readiness Index and e-Participation Index), the following e-Participation framework has been devised:

Much of the analysis and the literature on the issues of e-governance, e-participation and e-democracy, highlights that, so far, governments are mainly concerned with organising ways for a better delivery of their services to the citizens, while there is little evidence that the citizen is having any significant input into how e-government will evolve.

It is not the objective of this work to analyse and discuss in-depth the issue of e-democracy, especially because there are as many interpretations of what constitutes e-democracy as there are interpretations of democracy. Moreover, since this concept is in its early stages, there remains much confusion about what it encompasses and how to clearly define it⁵⁶.

However, to take advantage of the studies undertaken by individuals on this subject, a definition of e-democracy by Steven Clift is referred to⁵⁷:

In conclusion, what can be said here is that this new participatory approach to running governance affairs, involving both the public sector, the private sector and the civil society, despite represents for the time being only an optimistic hypothesis should be implemented taking into consideration that the development of ICTs, and especially that of the Internet, is in principle able to improve the quality of life and blurring national boundaries. Through "e-space", the traditional concept of citizenship can be transformed into "active citizenship" and the next step is likely to be the establishment of systems based on online consultation and participation, according to some experiences already available in both industrialised and developing countries⁵⁸. However, if this will automatically enhance democracy is yet to be proven.

Notes

¹ Okpaku Joseph, "e-Culture, Human Culture and In-Between: Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century Digital World", Address to the ITU Conference on "Creating New Leaders for e-Culture", Coventry, UK, August, 2001

² Misuraca Gianluca, Overview of the e-Africa initiative for good governance: building e-governance capacity in Africa, Encyclopedia of Developing Regional Communities with Information and Communication Technology, IDEA May 2005.

³ e-government Policy Network of the Privy Council Office (PCO) "Transforming Government and Governance for the 21st Century", www.publiservice.pco-bcp.ga/egov-cybergouv 2003

⁴ The Global Forum on Re-inventing Government (and related publications and reports) is organized (every two years now) by the Division for Public Administration and Development Management of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DPADM/UNDESA). Gianluca Misuraca was a member of the organizing committee of the 4th Global Forum on Reinventing Government, Marrakech, Morocco, 2002, and contributed in the 5th Global Forum on Reinventing Government, Mexico City, 2003. See also www.unpan.org

⁵ Cheema Shabbir and Maguire Linda, "Democracy, and Development: A Conceptual Framework"; Background Paper of the 4th Global Forum on Re-inventing Government - Citizens, Businesses and Governments: Dialogue and partnerships for Development and Democracy, Marrakech, Morocco, 10-13 December 2002, UN, New York 2002. www.unpan.org - www.globalforum.ma

⁶ Kauzya John-Mary, "Local Governance Capacity Building for Full Range Participation: Concepts, Frameworks, and Experiences in African Countries"; Background Paper of the 4th Global Forum on Re-inventing Government - Citizens, Businesses and Governments: Dialogue and partnerships for Development and Democracy, Marrakech, Morocco, 10-13 December 2002, UN, New York 2002. www.unpan.org - www.globalforum.ma

⁷ www.portal-unesco.org, 2003

⁸ The Institute on Governance is a NGO based in Ottawa, Canada, www.iog.ca

⁹ Fukuda-Parr Sakiko and Ponzio Richard, "Governance: Past Present and Future"; Background Paper of the 4th Global Forum on Re-inventing Government - Citizens, Businesses and Governments: Dialogue and partnerships for Development and Democracy, Marrakech, Morocco, 10-13 December 2002, UN, New York 2002. www.unpan.org - www.globalforum.ma

¹⁰ Weiss Thomas, "Governance, Good Governnace and Global Governance: Conceptual and Actual Challenges", Third World Quarterly, Vol. 21, n.5, 2000

¹¹ Cheema Shabbir and Maguire Linda, "Democracy, Governance and Development: A Conceptual Framework"; Background Paper of the 4th Global Forum on Re-inventing Government - Citizens, Businesses and Governments: Dialogue and partnerships for Development and Democracy, Marrakech, Morocco, 10-13 December 2002, UN, New York 2002. www.unpan.org - www.globalforum.ma

¹² Kofi Annan, Millennium Declaration, United Nations 2000.

¹³ UNDESA, Economic Governance: Guidelines for Effective Financial Management, New York, 2000.

¹⁴ This definition of good governance is taken from an OECD e-book entitled Citizens as Partners - Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making, 2001

¹⁵ UNDP, Human Development Report 2002, "Deepening democracy in a fragmented world", UN, NY, 2002.

¹⁶ Falk Richard, Prof, "On Humane Governance", University Park, The Pensyllvania State University, 1995.

¹⁷ Kauzya John-Mary, "Local Governance, Health and nutrition for all: problem magnitude and challenges with examples from Uganda and Rwanda", Paper presentation to the Global Forum on Local Governance and Social Services for All, Stockholm, Sweden, 2-5 May 2000.

¹⁸ Report of the workshop on Poverty Alleviation and Decentralization for ten West African countries, organized jointly by UNDESA and the Government of Senegal, Dakar, July, 2003.

19. The subsidiarity principle, as it is conceived in the Treaty of the European Union, is intended to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that constant checks are made as to whether action at Community level is justified in the light of the possibilities available at national, regional or local level. Specifically, it is the principle whereby the Union does not take action (except in the areas which fall within its exclusive competence) unless it is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level. It is closely bound up with the principles of proportionality and necessity, which require that any action by the Union should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty, www.europa.eu.int

²⁰ Work Robertson, "The Role of Participation and Partnership in Decentralized Governance: Lessons from Nine Local Case Studies on Service Delivery to the Poor"; Background Paper of the 4th Global Forum on Re-inventing Government - Citizens, Businesses and Governments: Dialogue and partnerships for Development and Democracy, Marrakech, Morocco, 10-13 December 2002, UN, New York 2002. www.unpan.org - www.globalforum.ma

²¹ Report of the workshop on Poverty Alleviation and Decentralization for ten West African countries, organized jointly by UNDESA and the Government of Senegal, Dakar, July, 2003. See also Katsiaouni, 2003.

²². Stevenson, 1997, in Computing Dictionary, http://www.hyperdictionary.com

²³ Sy, J. Habib, "Critical and Prospective Views on ICTs and Governance in Africa", in "Africa Networking: Development Information ICTs and Governance, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, UNECA, Addis Ababa, 2004

²⁴ Osorio C., "Public Ends by Digital Means: Some Thoughts for Creating Public Value", National Science Foundation, Digital Government Workshop, White Paper 2002.

²⁵ Okpaku Joseph O. Sr., "The Role of ICTs in the African Development Agenda", keynote address to the CAFRAD, UNDESA, NEPAD e-Africa 2002: Regional Workshop on Building e-governance capacity in Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa, 28-31 October 2002.

²⁶ Gianluca Misuraca, Matthias Finger, Pierre Rossel, "Governance with and of ICTs: the need for new institutional design in a changing world", egov magazine, Volume II – Issue 5, May 2006,

²⁷ Ciborra Prof. Claudio, U., "Unveiling e-government and Development: Governing at a distance in the new war", Inaugural lecture at LSE on 24 October 2002

²⁸ OECD, e-government Studies, "The e-government Imperative", 2003, www.oecd.org

²⁹ EU, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – The Role of eGovernment for Europe's Future, 26 September 2003

³⁰. World Bank, 2002 – www.worldbank.org

³¹ Olowu Dele, "Bridging the Digital Divide in Africa: Making the Governance Discourse Relevant", in Africa Networking: Development Information, ICTs and Governance, UNECA, Addis Ababa, 2004

³² For a complete definition of Public Value see United Nations, "World Public Sector Report 2003: e-government at the Crossroads", New York, 2003, www.unpan.org (Box 2, pag. 3).

³³ Gartner Group, www.gartner.group.com

³⁴ United Nations, "World Public Sector Report 2003: e-government at the Crossroads", New York, 2003, www.unpan.org

³⁵ UNDESA/DPADM, www.unpan.org, 2005.

³⁶ Idem.

³⁷ This is a working definition that comes out of the evolutionary research framework developed by the author in collaboration with his colleagues within the framework of the Executive Master in e-governance at EPFL. For an overview of this conceptual framework see: Gianluca Misuraca Matthias Finger, Pierre Rossel, "Governance with and of ICTs: the need for new institutional design in a changing world", egov magazine, Volume II – Issue 5, May 2006, and also http://egov.epfl.ch

³⁸ www.iadb.org/ict4dev/governance.htm

³⁹ www.portal-unesco.org, 2003

⁴⁰ www.pimanagement.org

⁴¹ For these definitions and discussions see: Gordon T.F., eGovernance and its value for Public Administration", White paper, e-government Competence Centre, Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communications Systems (FOCUS), Berlin, Germany, May 2006; Gurstein Michael, "From e-government to e-governance: an approach from effective use", Canadian Civil Society and the WSIS Conference on Paving the Road to Tunis, May 2005; and www.digitalgovernance.org

⁴² CAFRAD, e-Africa 2002: Building e-governance capacity in African countries, 2002, Project Proposal, edited with technical assistance of Mr Gianluca Misuraca.

⁴³ See for example, Finger Matthias, Pecoud Gaëlle, "From e-government to e-governance? Towards a model of e-governance", 3rd European Conference on e-government, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, 3-4 July 2003. See also EPFL-e-Gov, working papers; and Rossel, Finger, From e-government to e-governance: implications for technology management, 2005

⁴⁴ For a discussion about the State Transformation see, among others, Finger Matthias.

⁴⁵ Gilbert Riley Cathia, "The Changing Role of Citizen in the e-governance & e-Democracy Equation", CceG, 2003, www.electronicgov.net

⁴⁶ On this see also Sheridan and Riley (2006) and Riley 2003.

⁴⁷ Okot-Uma Rogers W'O., "Electronic Governance: Re-inventing Good Governance", Commonwealth Secretariat, London, 2000.

⁴⁸ Finger, Pecoud, op. cit.

⁴⁹ The claim for new institutional designs is the results of both the professional activities I have carried out and the research I am involved within the framework of the Executive Master in e-governance at EPFL.

⁵⁰ This is a working definition that comes out of the evolutionary research framework developed by the author in collaboration with his colleagues within the framework of the Executive Master in e-governance at EPFL. For an overview of this conceptual framework see: Matthias Finger, Gianluca Misuraca and Pierre Rossel, "Governance with and of ICTs: the need for new institutional design in a changing world", egov magazine, Volume II – Issue 5, May 2006, and also http://egov.epfl.ch

⁵¹ Gilbert Riley Cathia, "The Changing Role of Citizen in the e-governance & e-Democracy Equation", CceG, 2003, www.electronicgov.net

⁵² Richard Heeks - Institute for Development Policy and Management of the University of Manchester www.man.ac.uk/idpm.

⁵³ United Nations Millennium Declaration, A/RES/55/2, 18 September 2000, www.un.org/millennium

⁵⁴ United Nations, "World Public Sector Report 2003: e-government at the Crossroads", New York, 2003, www.unpan.org.

⁵⁵ United Nations, "UN Global Survey on e-government", New York, 2003, www.unpan.org.

⁵⁶ For a comprehensive analysis on this issue see Gilbert Riley Cathia, "The Changing Role of Citizen in the e-governance & e-Democracy Equation", CceG, 2003, www.electronicgov.net, Other definitions of e-Democracy are available on www.portal-unesco.org or from the International Teledemocracy Centre, Scotland, the UK-based Dialogue by Design, or by Ake Gronlund, from Umea, University of Sweden.

⁵⁷ For a deeper analysis of e-Democracy, see also the e-Democracy Centre www.edc.org

⁵⁸ IDEA, Conference on "Democracy and the Information Revolution, Stockholm, June 2001, www.idea.int

Document(s) 5 of 16