Arguments in support of the resolution

We do not argue that e-government has no value. Rather, we argue that e-government's value is limited.

The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [1] The report included six case studies of governmental use of information and communications technology (ICT). The six case studies were: online surveys conducted by the Department for Education and Skills, Minister of Parliament and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs David Miliband's blog [2], the Department of Work and Pensions' online forum, Department for Communities and Local Government online forum, a webchat conducted by the Department for Communities and Local Government (only local leaders could participate, but anyone could view the chat), and the Food Standard Agency's online forum (forum was open to the public, but specifically was specifically targeted to caterers). The case studies provide strong evidence to the limited impact of e-government.

Limited Interest

The amount of people who actively participated in the government's ICT project was very small.

• In a two month period, only 18 registrants posted a total of 44 messages to The Department of Work and Pensions' online forum.
• Over a 14 week period, only 101 participants posted a total of 152 messages to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs forum.
• Over a two month period, only 32 registrants posted a total of 46 messages to the Food Standard Agency's online forum. Note that participation was this low despite being promoted in the trade press.

Such limited participation suggests that e-government is not producing significant amounts of dialogue between government and citizens and that people have limited interest in taking the time to actually participate in a dialogue with government (even if people indicate a theoretical desire to have a such a dialogue in a survey).

A Lack of Meaningful Dialogue

Complaints were common among participants in the "Digital Dialogues" case studies of a lack of meaningful dialogue between government agents and citizens.

• Users of David Miliband's blog complained that Mr. Miliband did not respond to comments posted by users. "Digital Dialogues" states: "The Minister rarely interacts with the comments made in response to his posts, and does not visit other blogs to comment."
• In the case of the Department for Work and Pensions forum, no members of the pertinent policy team actually participated. Instead a consultation coordinator participated. According to "Digital Dialogues," this consultation coordinator "did not have the necessary depth of policy knowledge required to respond directly to participants' questions and views." Additionally, the coordinator's participation was "irregular." In participant feedback surveys, the participants were disappointed by the low levels of involvement by actual policy experts.
• The Department for Work and Pensions forum was setup to receive input from Britons in preparation for a green paper (policy paper) on welfare reform. The green paper included no material from citizen posters to the forum.
• In the case of the Department for Communities and Local Government online forum, users stated that deliberation between users was more visible than deliberation between users and government officials.
• A notable American blog by a United States politician (and therefore, not part of "Digital Dialogues") is that of Senator Russ Feingold [3]. Feingold's blog is rarely updated and the senator's blog posts do not include comments from users (thus, no deliberation).

Politician Blogs: True Insight or Occasional Campaign Speech?

Two noteworthy blogs, Senator Russ Feingold's and MP David Miliband's, demonstrate how blogs written by politicians are not providing an outlet for truly insightful material. In the case of David Miliband's blog, bloggers reported to "Digital Dialogues" that Miliband's blog was too "on-message." We looked at both Miliband and Feingold's blogs and found little material that was truly insightful. There was little material that was anything more controversial than what would appear in a campaign speech; neither politician has taken the opportunity not afforded by mainstream media to make detailed arguments about an issue; and the arguments tended to be fairly superficial. Note such self congratulatory posts/sound bites as this one from David Miliband: "Around 40,000 farmers should now have received full payments for their 2006 Single Payment, and we are at an advanced stage in our preparations to start making partial payments to farmers with claims over 1000 Euros over the next two to three weeks. This is the RPA doing its job and there remains a lot more work to do, but management and employees have worked hard to deliver on the timetable I announced in my statement to the House of Commons, and I am grateful to them."

Russ Feingold's blog contains a lot of material about his opposition to the Iraq War. However, I do not believe that such a position is controversial anymore, and much of the material on the blog about Iraq looks like it could be derived from transcripts from Feingold arguing with Mary Matalin [4] on CNN.

http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/images/blog/banner.jpg

David Miliband: Face of a mediocre blogger