Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Digital Government in the USA

View through CrossRef
Recently, digital government is a prevailing concept in public sectors around the world. Regarding digital governments’ contributions to the democratic administration or democratic society (Leigh & Atkinson, 2001), a fundamental question has emerged: How can e-government cultivate citizen participation and citizen competence for public affairs? This question stems from a more basic philosophical question on how we set the relationship between the state and the citizen in the information age (Beachboard, McClure, & Wyman, 1997). The prevailing efficiency-oriented application of e-government has caused side effects and different opinions,1 because digital government strategies just focus on information providers’ interest rather than public interest, and focus more on the managerial side of the digital government than on substantial contribution to increasing citizen participation, citizen competence, responsibility or responsiveness, and transparency or openness (Dunleavy & Margetts, 2000; West & Berman, 2001; Cullen & Houghton, 2000; Relyea, 2002; Beachboard, McClure, & Wyman, 1997). Digital government strategies mainly focused on providing information or simple transaction functions, and they did not pay much attention to interaction with people via digital government systems (Leigh & Atkinson, 2001). Therefore, it is not surprising that a new way of thinking of digital government is emerging, in terms of increasing democratic values like citizen participation and citizen competence for the democratic administration and democratic society (Relyea, 2002). Since the White House established the Web in 19932, there are three perspectives on digital government strategies in the United States (U.S.): policy environment and operational requirements; chronological procedures; and the four-stage model (Relyea, 2002; Beachboard, McClure, & Wyman, 1997; Leigh & Atkinson, 2001; Layne & Lee, 2001). For example, Leigh and Atkinson (2001) explained the e-government development situation based on chronology. They divided the digital government of the U.S. into three phases: Using the Internet to share information (Phase one; 1993-1998), online transactions, service provision (Phase two; 1998-2001) and integration (2001-?)3. In addition, we can see digital government development with the four-stage model. Layne and Lee (2001) analyzed the e-government procedures with four-stage models based on state government in the U.S.: Catalog, transaction, vertical integration and horizontal integration. In the case of catalog, the initial efforts of government Web are focused on establishing an online presence for the government. With transaction as the second stage, digital government initiatives will focus on connecting the internal government system to online interfaces and allowing citizens to transact with government electronically. In the stage of vertical integration, for example, once a citizen filed for a business license at the city government, this information would be transmitted to the state’s business licensing system and to the federal government to obtain an employer identification number. The final stage, horizontal integration, is defined as integration across different functions and services. Some scholars suggest there are four usage criterions for digital government strategies: information dissemination, social equality, privacy rights and public interests, with two broad criteria, such as information-content criteria and ease-of-use criteria (Kaylor, Deshazo, & Van Eck, 2001). These criteria have been applied to the assessment case study for the New Zealand government Web site in 1998 (Cullen & Houghton, 2000)
Title: Digital Government in the USA
Description:
Recently, digital government is a prevailing concept in public sectors around the world.
Regarding digital governments’ contributions to the democratic administration or democratic society (Leigh & Atkinson, 2001), a fundamental question has emerged: How can e-government cultivate citizen participation and citizen competence for public affairs? This question stems from a more basic philosophical question on how we set the relationship between the state and the citizen in the information age (Beachboard, McClure, & Wyman, 1997).
The prevailing efficiency-oriented application of e-government has caused side effects and different opinions,1 because digital government strategies just focus on information providers’ interest rather than public interest, and focus more on the managerial side of the digital government than on substantial contribution to increasing citizen participation, citizen competence, responsibility or responsiveness, and transparency or openness (Dunleavy & Margetts, 2000; West & Berman, 2001; Cullen & Houghton, 2000; Relyea, 2002; Beachboard, McClure, & Wyman, 1997).
Digital government strategies mainly focused on providing information or simple transaction functions, and they did not pay much attention to interaction with people via digital government systems (Leigh & Atkinson, 2001).
Therefore, it is not surprising that a new way of thinking of digital government is emerging, in terms of increasing democratic values like citizen participation and citizen competence for the democratic administration and democratic society (Relyea, 2002).
Since the White House established the Web in 19932, there are three perspectives on digital government strategies in the United States (U.
S.
): policy environment and operational requirements; chronological procedures; and the four-stage model (Relyea, 2002; Beachboard, McClure, & Wyman, 1997; Leigh & Atkinson, 2001; Layne & Lee, 2001).
For example, Leigh and Atkinson (2001) explained the e-government development situation based on chronology.
They divided the digital government of the U.
S.
into three phases: Using the Internet to share information (Phase one; 1993-1998), online transactions, service provision (Phase two; 1998-2001) and integration (2001-?)3.
In addition, we can see digital government development with the four-stage model.
Layne and Lee (2001) analyzed the e-government procedures with four-stage models based on state government in the U.
S.
: Catalog, transaction, vertical integration and horizontal integration.
In the case of catalog, the initial efforts of government Web are focused on establishing an online presence for the government.
With transaction as the second stage, digital government initiatives will focus on connecting the internal government system to online interfaces and allowing citizens to transact with government electronically.
In the stage of vertical integration, for example, once a citizen filed for a business license at the city government, this information would be transmitted to the state’s business licensing system and to the federal government to obtain an employer identification number.
The final stage, horizontal integration, is defined as integration across different functions and services.
Some scholars suggest there are four usage criterions for digital government strategies: information dissemination, social equality, privacy rights and public interests, with two broad criteria, such as information-content criteria and ease-of-use criteria (Kaylor, Deshazo, & Van Eck, 2001).
These criteria have been applied to the assessment case study for the New Zealand government Web site in 1998 (Cullen & Houghton, 2000).

Related Results

Access Denied
Access Denied
Introduction As social-distancing mandates in response to COVID-19 restricted in-person data collection methods such as participant observation and interviews, researchers turned t...
Blunt Chest Trauma and Chylothorax: A Systematic Review
Blunt Chest Trauma and Chylothorax: A Systematic Review
Abstract Introduction: Although traumatic chylothorax is predominantly associated with penetrating injuries, instances following blunt trauma, as a rare and challenging condition, ...
The influence of micro influencers and digital marketing on product purchasing decisions at tiktok shop in bengkulu city
The influence of micro influencers and digital marketing on product purchasing decisions at tiktok shop in bengkulu city
THE INFLUENCE OF MICRO-INFLUENCERS AND DIGITAL MARKETING ON PURCHASE DECISIONS OF TIKTOK SHOP CUSTOMERS IN BENGKULU CITY Andhes Tiani Putri, Meylaty F   12Faculty Of Economic E...
Emerging Evidence of IgG4-Related Disease in Pericarditis: A Systematic Review
Emerging Evidence of IgG4-Related Disease in Pericarditis: A Systematic Review
Abstract Introduction Immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD) is a recently identified immune-mediated condition that is debilitating and often overlooked. While IgG4-RD has be...
Digital Leadership Competencies for Digital Government
Digital Leadership Competencies for Digital Government
Organisations of all types and sizes are having to implement rapid digital transformation and digital government programs in response to the ever-changing technology landscape and ...
The intersection of digital practices and environmental orientations: exploring digital-environmental habitus
The intersection of digital practices and environmental orientations: exploring digital-environmental habitus
Purpose This study aims to examine how environmental dispositions and digital expertise influence sustainable digital behaviors. Drawing on Bourdieu’s theory of...
Giant Sacrococcygeal Teratoma in Infant: Systematic Review
Giant Sacrococcygeal Teratoma in Infant: Systematic Review
Abstract Introduction Sacrococcygeal teratoma (SCT) is a rare embryonal tumor that occurs in the sacrococcygeal region, with an incidence of about 1 in 35,000 to 40,000 live births...
DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNANCE IMPACTS OF DIGITAL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IN ETHIOPIA (DPI ETHIOPIA)
DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNANCE IMPACTS OF DIGITAL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IN ETHIOPIA (DPI ETHIOPIA)
Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) is the foundation for digital transformation of economies. The goal of digital transformation in government is to create a more transparent, eff...

Back to Top