Research paper (paper on: http://bit.ly/2csqTbB) presented at the 15th IFIP Electronic Government (EGOV) and 8th Electronic Participation (ePart) Conference 2016. Slides include some initial findings from the Faroe Islands and Japan to contract governance and eGov setup in Denmark. 5 September 2016, Guimarães (PT) http://www.egov-conference.org/egov-2016

1. PUBLIC POLICY:
IFIB-eGOV-ePART 2016
Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
UNU-EGOV / TTU-RNS
Guimarães (PT), 5 September 2016
GOVERNANCE AND ONLINE SERVICE DELIVERY:
THE DANISH CASE (and a bit more)

2. THE GORDIAN KNOT –
THE eGOVERNMENT CONUNDRUM

3. ICT investments to date has not:
• Achieve the efficiency and effectiveness envisaged.
• Public-sector governance model and multi-stakeholder
cooperation lacking.
• Dispite similarities, different countries have achieved vastly
different results.
CONUNDRUM

4. BACKGROUND
AND KEY QUESTIONS

5. Classical public administration literature
understands government and service delivery.
Fail to merge new public management and joint-
up government, address the role that governance
plays in introducing ICT in PAs and combine
measures for maturity and take-up.
ICT ENABLED PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM

6. Information system management and capability
maturity models address political and legal
dimensions.
Most focus on business processes in single
organisations, not the cross-organisational,
national, or international ones of PA and
eGovernment.
INFORMATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT

7. eGovernment stage models are simple, generic,
sequential, and technologically deterministic.
Lack a clear link between supply and outcomes
and between governance’s role in the successful
implementation and subsequent use of ICT and
eServices solutions.
eGOVERNMENT AND eGOVERNANCE

8. 1. Majority of 42 maturity models identified are technology and supply
orintated and no focus on outcomes (except Andersen&Henriksen and
Klievik&Janssen) – support original suspecions.
2. Most have no real understanding of core government service concepts
e.g. mix up individual service elements (info, transaction, data) as
seperate maturity levels (downloadable forms thus static info).
3. Decision making is not maturity level, but a service type (eDemocracy
issue) and related to democratic maturity.
CHARATERISTICS AND CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED

9. 3. Mix-up front-end service provision and back-office integration (e.g.
portals not a form or transaction but an indicator of integration and
cooperation) (Heeks attempt with two-dimensional model).
4. None incl. governance directly though integration is an aspect
(Waseda incl. management and cooperation) – support original
suspecions.
5. Most models merely restructure or adjust existing ones (exception
Andersen&Hendriksen, Waseda addressing outcomes and
governance issues) – hint at research gap.
CHARATERISTICS AND CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED

10. 1. Does a strong governance and high level of intergovernmental
cooperation lead to successful supply and use (i.e. demand) of core
online citizen services?
2. Can success factors be mapped into a universal governance model
for successful digitisation of public sector core service delivery (i.e.
supply) and eService take-up (i.e. demand) by citizens?
TWO QUESTIONS ASKED

11. THE METHODOLOGY

12. Step 1: Classic literature review
with “berry picking” to identify
theoretical and conceptual
model and/or research gaps
Step 2: Classic qualitative multi-
case country studies on
governance and cooperation
models (iterations)
Step 3: Update country studies
(iterations), conceptual model,
conclusions
OVERALL APPROACH TO THE PH.D.

13. • Exploratory, qualitative multi-country case comparative study (Yin, 2013;
Rohlfing, 2013).
• Framework for within-case analysis to establish the governance
mechanism in play in each of the cases (ideally more X, means more of Y)
• Findings will enable cross-case comparison.
• Objective to determine:
- Correlation between a strong governance and cross-governmental cooperation
model (cause).
- Decision to introduce a eGovernment strategy and citizen eServices (effect 1).
- Citizen use of the eServices option (effect 2).
• Iterations of desk research, semi-structured interviews and validation to
populate the conceptual framework (Benbasat, 1987; Plummer, 2001;
Krimmer, 2012)
METHODOLOGY

14. BACKGROUND INDICATORS
• Internet access
• Internet use
• eBanking use
• eCommerce use
• eService use
NATIONAL GOVERNANCE AND
COOPERATION MODEL
• Institutional framework and
governance
• Decentralisation of government
authority
EFFECTS
• eServices in place
• Service delivery volumes per
channel
CONCEPTURAL FRAMEWORK
NATIONAL APPROACH TO eGOVERNMENT
Responsibility for eGovernment:
• Strategy
• Action plan
• Initiation, development, coordination,
monitoring and evaluation
• Chair
• Host organisation and secretariate
• Member oragnisations
eGovernment elements:
• Strategy underpinned by action plan and
KPIs
• Legality of strategy and action plan

15. Regional
administrations
MunicipalitiesMinistries and
agencies
CENTRAL REGIONAL LOCAL
KEY INFLUENCING FACTORS
Governance structure
(e.g. entralised / top-down
vs. federal, top-down)
Level of autonomy
(e.g. high vs. low)
Proportion of service provision at each
level of government
(e.g. central vs. decentral)
Society, pre-conditions, attitudes,
level of influence
(e.g. high vs. low)
STAKEHOLDERS
Private sector
vendors, academia,
civic society, end-
users
SOCIETY

16. • Selection of most similar, most different cases with a degree of
influential ones (Barbour, 2001; Benbasat et. al., 1987;
Seawright&Gerring, 2011).
• Geographical parameter (countries, for large federal countries focus
on national level and a region).
• Size (small, medium and large countries).
• General governance model (central and federal countries).
• Experience parameter (considered and/or choice to introduce
eServices).
CASE SELECTION

17. CASE SELECTION
The
Netherlands
United
Kingdom
Singapore
Mexico
Japan
South
Korea
Australia
New
Zealand
Finland Estonia KazakhstanGeorgia
United Arab
Emirates
OmanAustria
Denmark
KEY: Green = Initial cases. Orange = future cases. Grey = potential back-up cases.
Canada
Colombia
Faroe
Islands
Uruguay

18. Public service is service provided by government to people living
within its jurisdiction, either directly (through the public sector)
or by financing provision of services (McGregor et. al., 1982).
Two types of public service: Core public services (i.e. what you
must do as a citizen, thus legally required), and;
Public value adding service (i.e. what you like to do as an
individual or out of civic duty)
Service consist of a combination of
information, transaction and data.
DEFINITIONS

19. eGovernment is the use of IT and technology
in the provision of information and services to citizens
and businesses.
…eGovernance encompass all processes of governing,
thus relating to the processes and decisions oriented toward
defining actions, granting power and verifying performance.
… the e is for electronic.
DEFINITIONS

20. FINDINGS TO DATE -
FAROE ISLANDS, DENMARK, JAPAN

21. Faroe Islands[40] Denmark [41] Japan [41]
Population 49.235 5,581,503 126,919,659
Territorial size 1,399 km2 43,094 km2 377,915 km2
Population density 34 per km2 129.5 per km2 335.8 per km2
Official languages Faroese, Danish Danish Japanese
GDP (billion) € 1.97 (2013) €260.74 bill (est’15) 3,697.82 (est’15)
GDP per capita € 40,977 (2013) €46,715 (est’15) €29,315 (est’15)
GDP growth est. 3+% 1.6% (est’15) 0.6% (est’15)
Unemployment 2.3% (Dec’15) 4.7% (est’15) 3.3% (est’15)
Imports (billion) €0.86 (est’15) €75.12 (est’15) €560.45 (est’15)
Exports (billion) €0.91 (est’15) €84.32 (est’15) €559.03 (est’15)
SIMILAR BUT DIFFERENT, SOCIO-ECONOMIC
DATA 2015

22. Faroe Islands[46] Denmark [52, 53] Japan [52, 53]
National institutional
framework and
governance
Centralised model.
National and local government
level consisting of 30
municipalites.
Centralised model.
National, regional and local
government level. Consists of 5
regions and 98 municipalities.
Centralised model. National,
regional and local government
level. Complex system of 47
prefecturas, multiple sub-
prefectures and districts, 1719
municipalites of four “Kanje” types
incl. cities, towns, wards, non-
municipalities.
Decentralisation of
government authority
Large degree of local autonomy
at local level. C.40% of citizen
services are provided by
municipalities. Local authorities
resist national authorities
Large degree of local autonomy
and decision making incl. tax and
budget spending. C.70-80% of
citizen services are provided by
municipalities. Degree of central
control via annual budget
negotiations.
National government control
prefecturas and municipalities incl.
tax collection, borrowing. C. 70% of
budget is allocated to
municipalities. Lack of progress on
intergov. cooperation and
decentralisation.
GENERAL GOVERNANCE AND INSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK

23. USERS ARE INCREASINGLY ONLINE
2000 2005 2010 2014
Faroe Islands 36,50 / 0,11 85,51 / 11,94 119,90 / 32,63 124,12 / 34,98
Denmark 63,01 / 1,26 100,58 / 24,80 115,67 / 38,44 125,89 / 42,34
Japan 53,12 / 0,68 75,98 / 18,35 96,81 / 28,04 120,23 / 29,31
2000 2005 2010 2014
Faroe Islands 32,92 67,90 75,20 94,66
Denmark 39,17 82,74 88,72 95,99
Japan 29,99 66,92 78,21 90,58
MOBILE / BROADBAND SUBSCRIPTIONS PER 100 INHABITANTS, 2000-2014
INDIVIDUAL USE OF THE INTERNET, 2000-2014

24. eService availability Degree of digitisation (i.e. % of service delivery volume online)
2012 2015
Faroe Islands Denmark Japan Faroe Islands Denmark Japan Faroe Islands Denmark Japan
eID/eSignature MijnLykil NemID yes -- 79.1% -- 22.3% 89.2% *7.9%
Digital post MijnBoks
Digital
Post no -- -- -- 29.5% 89.2% --
Tax declaration yes Yes yes -- 100% *51.4% *70% 100% *56.5%
Register for school yes yes n/a -- #57% -- **68% 96% --
Register for university no yes n/a -- 80% -- -- 100% --
Apply for student grant no yes n/a -- 100% -- -- 100% --
Change address no yes yes -- 63% 0.0000021% 88% --
Housing subsidy no yes n/a -- 77% -- -- 79% --
Apply for pension no yes yes -- 94% -- -- 95% --
Report vermin (fix my street) no yes n/a -- #56% -- -- 73% --
Report theft no yes n/a -- 41% -- -- 84% --
2010 2015
Faroe Islands Denmark Japan Faroe Islands Denmark Japan
Online banking -- 71% -- -- 85% *16%
Online commerce -- 68% *55% -- 79% *62%
Interacted with government online -- 78% -- -- 88% --
Obtained info. from a gov. website -- 76% -- -- 86% --
Submitted a complete form (eService) -- 51% -- -- 69% --
INDIVIDUAL USE OF eSERVICES, 2012-2015
INDIVIDUAL USE OF INTERNET CONTENT, 2012-2015

25. STONG MANDATE, CONSENSUS, COORDINATION ,
AND FOLLOW-UP.
STREAMLINED BUT NOT YET TESTED.

26. ‘
Danish Regions
(5 regions)
Management
committee of Danish
Regions
Cabinet
committee of
coordination
Cabinet
committee on
economic affairs
Ministries
Ministry of Finance:
Agency for Digitisation
(regulatory and mandated body)
Secretariat for
steering committee
and STS
Local Government
Denmark
(98 municipalities)
Management
committee of LGDK
Private industry
and civic society
Industry and civic
groups
Governmentcabinet
Steering committee for the eGovernment strategy
Representatives from the Ministry of Finance (chair), key ministries like Economy, Taxation, Justice,
Science, Health and Interior, Danish Regions and Local Government Denmark
Joint committee for cross government cooperation (STS)
Permanent secretaries from the Ministry of Finance (chair), Economy, Taxation,Science, Health and
Interior, Managing Directors from the Danish Regions andLocal GovernmentDenmark
STONG MANDATE, COORDINATION, CONSENSUS
AND FOLLOW-UP.
ENTRENCED, TESTED BUT COULD BE STREAMLINED.

27. WEAK MANDATE, NATIONAL BUT FRAGMENTED
COORDINATION, LIMITED FOLLOW-UP, KEY
ACTORS EXCLUDED

28. CONTACT
MORTEN MEYERHOFF NIELSEN
United Nations University, Operational Unit on Policy-Driven Electonic Governance /
Tallinn University of Technology, Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance
Tel (DK): +45 23 92 22 91
Tel (PT): +351 93 059 70 09
Tel (EE): +372 59 06 07 09
Mail: mortenmeyerhoff@gmail.com
Twitter: @mortenmeyerhoff
LinkedIN: mortenmeyerhoff