Arguments in Support of the Resolution

Introduction

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

Our main arguments are that there has been little interest by the public in e-government initiatives that have been launched; the amount of true deliberation and dialogue between citizens and government has been low; politicians have been reluctant to show true candor in formats such as blogs; e-government is disproportionately benefiting highly experienced internet users; users of e-government initiatives have been skeptical as to how much the government has valued their input; and there is evidence of government not valuing the citizen input they receive.

Even if e-government provides slightly better access to information and governnment officials, this marginal increase will likley be ineffectual. Those few citizens who are truly interested in substantive interaction may have a slightly easier time doing so, but technological innovation will not encourage increased participation on a large scale.

Some might argue that e-government's most substantial benefits are economic--that technology can make governments more efficient. Yet, e-government is expensive, costs jobs, and does not always yeild clear results. Thus, even the mundane, practical benefits of e-government might be vastly overstated.

Quick Link to Arguments Opposed to the Resolution

A Starting Point: 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 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 projects 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 the forum being promoted in the trade press.
• In contrast, The Official Yngwie Malmsteen Message Board has 1,058 members. Mr. Malmsteen has never had a gold record.

http://www.yngwie.org/images/Magazinecovers/VIRTUOSA2005.jpg Recent photo of the 43-year old Malmsteen

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 participate in a dialogue with government (even if people indicate a theoretical desire to have 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 MP 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 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 back and forth deliberation between the government official and citizens).

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; the arguments tended to be 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, such a position is not controversial anymore. Additionally 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. The material consists largely of sound bites rather than flowing and insightful arguments.

Additionally, unlike MP Miliband, Senator Feingold updates his blog only about once a month.

Another American blog by a Congressman demonstrates the lack of lucid, insightful analysis in political blogs. Congressman Frank Pallone’s blog has a post about the British, South Koreans, and Danes deciding to begin withdrawing their troops from Iraq.[5] Frank Pallone’s conclusion: “Our dwindling coalition should serve as another wake up call to the Bush administration that its time for a new direction in Iraq.” Congressman Pallone makes a completely uncontroversial statement and does not give any indication of what that “new direction” should be.

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

David Miliband: Face of a mediocre blogger

More Access for Only the Few?

The Hansard Society collected data on the citizens who participated in the various e-government projects. This data suggests that the citizens who participate in e-government initiatives are disproportionately computer savvy. The Pew Research Center study indicated that people who are highly internet savvy are wealthier, younger, and more likely to be white. There is a risk that large groups of the population will be shut out of any benefits of e-government, and may find themselves with less of a voice.

• 60% of participants on David Miliband's blog have their own blog or personal website. In the U.S., the Pew Research Center study indicated that 31% of Americans accessed political news prior to the 2006 election and 8% of this group posted to a blog (we assume that internet usage rates are similar in Britain). Thus, only 2.48% of Americans posted to a blog. However, 60% of the people who visited Mr. Miliband's blog ran their own blog or webpage; presumably the number of such people is significantly lower than the number of people who merely have posted to a blog. The people who visited Mr. Miliband's site were indeed part of an exclusive group of internet users.
• 98% of participants of David Miliband's blog are regular users of the internet; 66% of these users stated that they are "[a]lways on" the internet.
• Every single user of the Food Standards Agency forum described himself or herself as a "frequent" internet user.
• Some of the Food Standards Agency forum users thought that the low levels of participation might have been a result of many small catering businesses not having the necessary hardware to access the forum.

Skepticism that Government is Listening -- They May Be Right

A common theme expressed by participants of the various e-government initiatives was skepticism that their input actually made a difference. For example, in the case of the DCLG forum, "Digital Dialogues" reports that "a large segment [of users] voiced suspicion that their views would not reach ministers and not be addressed." This skepticism has at times been validated: as indicated above, The Department for Work and Pensions did not include any user input in their policy paper.

An Illustrative Example from Closer to Home: OpenCongress

OpenCongress[6] allows users to access the text of bills before Congress and read news coverage and commentary associated with the bill. On the surface, this sounds like a great way to increase the transparency of Congress and ensure a better informed citizenry. However, Open Congress has serious flaws.

Lack of Interest

Similar to the e-government examples in Britain from "Digital Dialogues," it is difficult to argue that OpenCongress is making a big difference when there is such little interest in the site among the public. As of the writing of this wiki, the most hits received by any bill was 1,418. That was the only bill to receive over 1,000 hits. Additionally, the number of hits does not measure how many people actually viewed the text of the bill. It merely is the number of people who went to the bill's main page. It it doubtful that such low amounts of user interest is creating much of a difference. People have been able to ignore C-SPAN for years.

Poor Commentary

I clicked on the bill that generated the 1,418 hits: H.R. 861, a bill that would ease gun control laws.[7] There were only four blog posts about H.R. 861. Furthermore, of these four posts, only one of the four had anything remotely insightful to say about the bill.[8] However, this post was short and made merely one point in support of the law. The main commentary from OpenCongress about the bill was this: "This is just what we need. The nationalization of Florida’s 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you don’t like the look of when you open your front door. A tip of the too-small Kevlar helmet to the amazing ChiDyke." This quote speaks for itself; we do not need to add any additional commentary.

What Explains These Results? Supply and Demand.

Despite the lofty e-governance goals entertained by scholars, information technology is unlikely to transform the way governments govern. Although some believe e-government could radically increase democracy, democracy itself constrains the potential for e-governance. The fact is, people don't want radical change; they (and government) just want to do the same things they used to--only more quickly and efficiently.

What Citizens Want

• One study analyzed the results of several surveys conducted by national and local governments around the world. The surveys generally asked what citizens were looking for from e-government. Among the highlights:

• • renewing drivers' licenses
  • gathering information on state parks
  • obtaining hunting and fishing licenses
  • registering and voting online

See Meghan E. Cook, What Citizens Want from E-Government[9]:

Whatever the merits of online voting may be, it is probably the least likely service to be offered in the forseeable future, and is certainly not the kind of meaningful interaction some scholars hope for. Learning more about important policy issues and communicating with representatives were not on the top of the list.

Additionally, it is doubtful how much of an effect online voting would have in participation. In Switzerland, mail-in voting was introduced that would allow people to easily vote from home. The result? Voting rates went down. See Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, Freakonomics, Revised and Expanded Edition, HarperCollins Publishers, pp. 224-225

Individualized interaction is not what government is looking for either.

• As mentioned above, one citizen blogger complained: "The Minister rarely interacts with the comments made in response to his posts, and does not visit other blogs to comment."
  • Nor should he. It would be a remarkable waste of time to have a high-ranking official do so. Unfiltered interaction between private individuals and government simply isn't practical--it's why we don't live in a direct democracy.
  • That's not to say that people's opinions don't matter. In aggregate they do: most representatives take notice when they receive thousands of letters--they treat it as a poll of the relevant electorate. With the rise e-government, now they get feedback by email(which, on the bright side, makes the canned response cheaper to send).

E-government Act--an exercise in not giving the people what they don't want?

• The E-government Act was intended to bring the U.S. government into the twenty-first century,[10] and in many respects, has been successful.
  • It allowed agencies to interact with their constituencies more efficiently and eliminated a fair amount of paperwork.
• But who saw the benefits of those changes?
  • For example, the federal courts were required to update their operations by instituting electronic document filing systems and by giving courts the option to make PACER free to its users. Although that change may make our lives easier, it's hardly a victory for representative democracy. PACER allows access to cases that were readily available in law libraries.
• Congress did, however, attempt to make it easier for average citizens to interact with their new e-government, by spending $15,000,000 on a centralized federal government internet portal.
  • Yet many people have never used, or even heard of, the site.

In short, Congress was right to focus the E-government Act on pragmatic goals. Technology can make interactions with government easier, but it will probably not cause citizens to interact more often--or in a more meaningful way--than they already do.

Barriers in Practice: Citizen Participation in E-rulemaking

Based on empirical research, some law scholars have skeptical views about the impacts of e-rulemaking on ordinary citizens and analyze the barriers to citizen participation.

Technical Barriers

Even with the development of the "Regulations.gov" portal[11] and other forms of e-rulemaking, a high level of technical sophistication is necessary to understand and participate in regulatory proceedings.

• One study shows that even graduate students at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government on average could find only half of the dockets for the DOT and the EPA rulemakings which a professor instructed to locate (See Cary Coglianese,Citizen Participation in Rulemaking: Past, Present, and Future, 55 Duke L.J. 943 (2006)).

The digital divide might impede the benefits of e-government especially in developing countries. If the IT infrastracture is poor and the number of people who can access the e-government is limited, low-tech solutions might fit in with the existing infrastracture.

• The iGovernment Working Paper[12] points out that most e-government projects in developing countries fail with 35% as total failures and 50% as partial failures.

Knowledge-based Barriers

The most useful comments for rulemaking usually come from organized interest groups, which would have contributed without the Internet anyway. Most comments from ordinary citizens, if any, are not original or sophisticated because they tend to lack enough knowledge about such regulations.

• One study shows that "in 99% percent of dockets, the e-filing option does not seem to cause an increase in individual or interest group participation" with regard to the FCC proceedings during specified time (See John M. de Figueiredo, E-Rulemaking: Bringing Data to Theory at the Federal Communications Commission, 55 Duke L.J. 957). Prof. Figueiredo also points out that an increase in filings does not necessarily mean an increase in individual interest because organized interest groups can make it seem that individuals are participating in filings.

Motivational Barriers

Even if some citizens have knowledge and opinions about specific regulations, little motivation exists for them to actually get involved with policy process. As the Internet provides a lot of other opportunities (e.g.,entertainment), spending time on rulemaking might be considered as opportunity costs. They might also feel that their one comment would unlikely to have any impact on the government.

Privacy and Security Barriers

People might avoid getting involved with electric process because of privacy protection concerns. These concerns discourage public engagement and are not helpful in building trust between governments and citizens.

• According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[13], only 26% of government websites have some form of privacy policy on their site, and 14% have a visible security policy. (Only 20% prohibit the commercial marketing on visitor information; 3% prohibit cookies, 18% prohibit sharing personal information, and 22% share information with law enforcement agents.)

Lack of Accountability

There is scholarly work that indicates that e-government is having mixed effects on government accountability. See Wilson Wong & Eric Welch, Does E-Government Promote Accountability?, 17 Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 275 (2004).

Power of E-Government Often Exagerated

In a study of 14 countries, Wong & Welch do find that accountability increased between 1997-2000 (we note that this conclusion may be a result of the difficulty in separating the effects of the internet generally and e-government specifically, since the level of both activities within a country are likely correlated, and both the internet and e-government expanded widely from 1997 to 2000). However, Wong & Welch concluded that e-government may be responsible for increased gaps in accountability levels between countries. Wong & Welch note that the role the bureaucracy plays in a society affects the influence of e-government: if a country is either dominated by the bureaucracy or has little to no civil service, the effects of e-government are more minimal, and could even be detrimental. The problem with e-government is that the government runs it. Governments (especially autocratic regimes) can block the dissemination of politically harmful material. In addition, "[t]here is a danger that...e-government may simply be used as an additional channel for more political propaganda and political control rather than real accountability enhancement." (290) The reality is that e-government is limited by the structure and culture of government and it is unrealistic to expect e-government to drive major change. "Introducing e-government without the corresponding institutional reform of the civil service system and organizational reform of the agencies may only lead to limited success in enhancing accountability. The effect of technology on organizational change should therefore never be overstated. It is simply a myth that e-government will automatically and dramatically change the accountability nature of public organizations." (291)

Too Much Power to the Bureaucracy?

• Wong & Welch note that in all countries, there is the risk that if an agency creates a website full of information, this will reduce the need of bureaucrats to interact with people. This can lead to bureaucrats further insulating themselves from the public.
• There is the risk that the use of modern technology will increase the power and influence of the non-elected bureaucrats.
• Additionally, ICT can be used by government in ways that appear harmful to democracy. The most blatant of this could be monitoring citizens' internet use to monitor their political activities. While the U.S. is not in danger of turning into China any time soon, it is disconcerting that agencies in the United States continue to use cookies in violation of the law.

http://www.fcw.com/images/bestof2006/01_23_06.jpg

Privacy Concerns

E-government poses serious threats to privacy on at least two fronts, see Maeve McDonagh, 10 Int'l J.L. & Info. Tech 327:

• government use of collected data
• third parties unauthorized use of collected information
  • The information security breaches at the Department of Veterans' Affairs and other government agencies illustrate the risks of centralizing large amounts of personal information in a portable, easily accessable form

Privacy concerns thus impose an additional cost on e-government initiatives. Because e-government initiatives often involve centralizing personal information in portable form, government must budget additional resources to hire IT specialists to protect it. Even then, the risk cannot be reduced to zero. Are the benefits of such data collection worth it? Maybe. But we have to be sure to count both the cost of precautions and residual risk on the "costs" side of the equation.

Efficiency Gains Fall Short of Expectations

Dr D.C. Misra[14] points out that efficient public service delivery has not yet been implemented despite of huge investments and concludes that "the future of e-government may be quite sobering after the initial hype surrounding it settles down."

Weighing Costs and Benefits

• Despite potential gains in efficiency, e-government inititives are extremely expensive. They demand high-tech equipment that does not always perform properly or produce the savings it was intended to. In the United Kingdom, some observers suggest that the UK's e-government initiative actually costs more than it saves, and that it may be more than a decade before the program begins saving the government any money. See Government Computing Conference Report[15]
• In the United States, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness notes that some experts believe that "e-government projects might end up costing taxpayers money" by stimulating public demand for services from federal agencies.[16] Although more citizens receiving services may be a benefit in some circumstances, assuming they already knew about the service, the fact that the additional consumers did not bother calling or writing a letter suggests that they might value the service less (although this point is admittedly debatable). In any case, the government will end up spending more than it did before--it's up to taxpayers and representatives to decide whether the benefits are worth a tax hike (and we know how those debates usually go).

Costs to the labor force

• E-government initiatives also take a heavy toll on the government workforce. Although some may write off lost jobs as a mere market dislocation, retraining and supporting unemployed workers is a social cost that must be taken into account when evaluating programs that are designed to save the community money. In the UK, as many as 20% of civil service jobs may be lost over the next decade. See Jan Wakefield, "E-government to Cost Jobs," BBC[17]

Computer Literacy within the Government

• Although it is essential that policy makers are trained in technological developments, some reports show that few of them have even the most basic understanding of technology.
• Electronizing information itself doesn't necessarily mean efficient decision-making in government. Decision-making in government has not significantly improved because appropriate management information systems have not been put in place.

Huge Costs and Overloaded Government Websites[18]

• There have been huge investments in e-government.
  • US: $65 billion
  • UK: £14 billion
• The result of such costs is, however, only an explosion of government websites which are organized in a way far from citizen-centric. Governments and citizens are flooded with too much unorganized information.
  • US: 368 million pages (top-level domain)
  • UK: 9.28 million pages

Insufficient Monitoring of E-government Investments

• Effective monitoring is necessary in order to prevent unproductive investments and keep efficiency. But that has not been the case in many projects.
  • Half of 200 pilot projects for online services in India worked only for a handful people.
  • $23.5 million online university project in UK attracted only 900 students.
  • $22 million e-voting project in Uganda did not work when elections were held in 2001.

High Failure Rates at High Costs

• Despite the startling costs of e-government initiatives, one study suggests that 60% of projects fail in meeting their budget, functionality, or timeliness goals. United Nations, E-Government at the Crossroads[19]
• In developing countries, the success rate could be much worse: one study suggests that "only 15% of e-government projects could be said to be successful while 35% were total failures." Singh & Sahu, Delivering Social Justic, Equality and Growth to All Citizens Through E-Governance[20]
  • If these countries continue to pursue the mere electronization of the government and limit inconvenient information flows, citizen empowerment through free access to government information would never be achieved.
  • Even if some information becomes public for the first time, the number of people who can reach such information is small in these countries because of low literacy rates and low IT infrastractures. They should invest more in education and telecommunications before e-government.

E-Government and Underlying Social Conditions

E-Government cannot correct--and may exacerbate--underlying social problems.

• Because of disparities in internet access and technological ability, e-government may aggravate existing inequalities in the United States, and especially in developing countries.[21]
• E-government is incredibly costly to implement and may cause some developing countries to divert resources from other priorities, despite the fact that such changes would only benefit the relatively small number of people who are technologically capable.[www.iseing.org/emcis/emcis2005/pdfs/how&20can%20egov%20transform%20society.pdf]
• E-Government may not promote democracy--it may simply reinforce the current form of government.
  • One study suggests that, according to statistical surveys, countries with "high levels of satisfaction with democracy are where e-government is less likely to develop."[22] E-government might simply make bureaucracies more efficient and propaganda cheaper to produce. If people are already satisfied with government, as they are in most democracies, e-government may not add much to the status quo. See, Altman[23]

We do not suggest that all initiatives that increase inequality are bad. But a society that values equality must balance the goals of increasing total utility and maintaining a desireable distribution (however definted) of wealth. It is often tempting to discuss cost savinges and increased opportunities for input as unequivocally good--but in reality they may only be good for an already influential sector of the population.

Direct Democracy: A Bad Idea

With the desire of connecting people to politics through the internet so strong, this begs the question, are there limits to how much citizen participation is good? There are commentators who fear that the use of ICT will lead to new forms of direct democracy.[24] One commentator even wrote an article advocating an internet citizen initiative process (See Tracy Westen, E-Democracy: Ready or Note, Here It Comes, 89 National Civic Review, 217 (2000)). There are good reasons to believe that the use of the internet to facilitate direct democracy would have negative consequences.

• The amount of time people are willing to spend on propositions is limited; there is a danger that the motivation of people to participate will be reduced if they are flooded with too many propositions. (See Jarl K. Kampen and Kris Snijkers, E-Democracy: A Critical Evaluation of the Ultimate E-Dream, Social Science Computer Review 2003: 21; 491, 494)
• Propositions treat policy issues in isolation; in reality various policy matters are interconnected and propositions discourage taking a broader approach to form a single, coherent policy strategy. (Id.)
• People are not policy experts and may have little knowledge of the given issues.
• If it is easy to get matters before the people (as is often the case with state ballot proposition systems), a poorly designed program that fills a popular need may pass merely because it gets before the people before any other proposals do. There would be little opportunity to hash out problems with the text or present a better version. If competing texts were introduced at the same time people may become confused and overwhelmed and have little ability to determine the merits of all proposals.

California: An Example of Problems

California is one of at least 20 states that allow for citizen ballot initiatives to be placed on the ballot. In California, ballot propositions often amend the state constitution, making it very difficult to overturn an initiative.

The California Research Bureau wrote a report highlighting many of the problems associated with ballot propositions.[25] Some of their conclusions were:

• While initiatives are supposed to enable citizens to exert their voices when the government and interest groups are not listening, corporate financing has played a major part in determining the outcomes of propositions. The side that spent the most money wins 76% of the time. The side with corporate spending outspends its opponent 3/4 of the time; 1/2 of the time the side with corporate support outspend its opponent by a 10 to 1 margin. PACs, business, and organized labor account for 82% of spending.
• In an LA Times poll, 72% of respondents believed that "the initiative process has gotten out of

control in California elections."

• The same poll revealed that 60% of respondents believed that "it is better for laws to be written in Sacramento by the

Legislature and the Governor."

• The availability of the initiative encourages the legislature and governor not to compromise, as either side can go directly to the voters if they perceive that they can get a better outcome from the initiative process.

Other problems with ballot propositions:

• They tend to be overly complicated omnibus measures that are difficult for voters to comprehend. (See Karl Manheim &

Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1165, FN 275 (1998)).

• Proposition mandated spending leads to bloated budgets and inflexibility in the budget process. (See Do Budget Chains Bind State, or Is It Politics?, LA Times, A18, January 10, 2003.)

Shorter Lines at the DMV Do Not Improve Democracy

The opponents of the resolution extol the increased efficiencies of ICT for government. They list as examples the increased efficiency by government agencies in tracking payroll and monitoring tax revenues. Does this really improve democracy? The Chinese or North Korean governments would benefit just as much from increased efficiency as any democratic governments would. If China's government improved its ability to monitor tax revenues, would anyone see this as a victory for democracy?