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)

THE GORDIAN KNOT –

THE eGOVERNMENT CONUNDRUM

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

BACKGROUNDAND KEY QUESTIONS

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

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

eGovernment stage models are simple, generic, sequential, and technologically deterministic.

Lack a clear link between supply and outcomesand between governance’s role in the successful implementation and subsequent use of ICT and

eServices solutions.

eGOVERNMENT AND eGOVERNANCE

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 (eDemocracyissue) and related to democratic maturity.

CHARATERISTICS AND CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED

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

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

THE METHODOLOGY

Step 1: Classic literature reviewwith “berry picking” to identify

theoretical and conceptual model and/or research gaps

Step 2: Classic qualitative multi-case country studies on

governance and cooperationmodels (iterations)

Step 3: Update country studies (iterations), conceptual model,

conclusions

OVERALL APPROACH TO THE PH.D.

• 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

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 eGOVERNMENTResponsibility for eGovernment:• Strategy• Action plan• Initiation, development, coordination,

monitoring and evaluation• Chair• Host organisation and secretariate• Member oragnisationseGovernment elements:• Strategy underpinned by action plan and

KPIs• Legality of strategy and action plan

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 eachlevel 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

• 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

CASE SELECTION

The Netherlands

United Kingdom

Singapore

Mexico

Japan

South Korea

AustraliaNew

Zealand

Finland Estonia KazakhstanGeorgia

United ArabEmirates

OmanAustria

Denmark

KEY: Green = Initial cases. Orange = future cases. Grey = potential back-up cases.

Canada

Colombia

FaroeIslands

Uruguay

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

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

FINDINGS TO DATE -

FAROE ISLANDS, DENMARK, JAPAN

Faroe Islands[40] Denmark [41] Japan [41]Population 49.235 5,581,503 126,919,659Territorial size 1,399 km2 43,094 km2 377,915 km2Population density 34 per km2 129.5 per km2 335.8 per km2Official languages Faroese, Danish Danish JapaneseGDP (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

Faroe Islands[46] Denmark [52, 53] Japan [52, 53]

National institutional framework and governance

Centralised model.National and local government

level consisting of 30municipalites.

Centralised model.National, regional and local

government level. Consists of 5regions and 98 municipalities.

Centralised model. National,regional and local governmentlevel. Complex system of 47prefecturas, multiple sub-prefectures and districts, 1719municipalites of four “Kanje” typesincl. cities, towns, wards, non-municipalities.

Decentralisation of government authority

Large degree of local autonomyat local level. C.40% of citizenservices are provided bymunicipalities. Local authoritiesresist national authorities

Large degree of local autonomyand decision making incl. tax andbudget spending. C.70-80% ofcitizen services are provided bymunicipalities. Degree of centralcontrol via annual budgetnegotiations.

National government controlprefecturas and municipalities incl.tax collection, borrowing. C. 70% ofbudget is allocated tomunicipalities. Lack of progress onintergov. cooperation anddecentralisation.

GENERAL GOVERNANCE AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

USERS ARE INCREASINGLY ONLINE

2000 2005 2010 2014Faroe Islands 36,50 / 0,11 85,51 / 11,94 119,90 / 32,63 124,12 / 34,98Denmark 63,01 / 1,26 100,58 / 24,80 115,67 / 38,44 125,89 / 42,34Japan 53,12 / 0,68 75,98 / 18,35 96,81 / 28,04 120,23 / 29,31

2000 2005 2010 2014Faroe Islands 32,92 67,90 75,20 94,66Denmark 39,17 82,74 88,72 95,99Japan 29,99 66,92 78,21 90,58

MOBILE / BROADBAND SUBSCRIPTIONS PER 100 INHABITANTS, 2000-2014

INDIVIDUAL USE OF THE INTERNET, 2000-2014

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 JapaneID/eSignature MijnLykil NemID yes -- 79.1% -- 22.3% 89.2% *7.9%

Digital post MijnBoksDigital 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 2015Faroe 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

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

‘

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

Government cabinet

Steering committee for the eGovernment strategyRepresentatives 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 and Local GovernmentDenmark

STONG MANDATE, COORDINATION, CONSENSUS AND FOLLOW-UP. ENTRENCED, TESTED BUT COULD BE STREAMLINED.

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

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