Internet, Law & Politics 2007 - User contributions [en]

Targeting the Youth Vote

2007-05-10T16:39:29Z

AOConnor: /* Insights */

==Event==

'''Targeting the Youth Vote''' 
Presented by the Institute of Politics at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government[http://www.iop.harvard.edu/index.php] 
Students wishing to attend should email Prof. Palfrey. There is a $50 registration fee that may be waived. 
More information at Institute of Politics website[http://www.iop.harvard.edu/events_idi_registration.php].

'''Conference''' 
Friday, March 9, 2007 
9:00 AM â 4:45 PM 
Sheraton Commander Hotel 
16 Garden Street 
Cambridge, MA 02138 
The George Washington Ballroom

==Notes==
A new generation has arrived. 18-29 year-olds are turning out in record numbers. Voting is a habit, which they are acquiring early. Within 9 years they will be 1/3 of the electorate. Partisanship develops during these years, and requires 2-3 election cycles to cement. Connecting with these voters requires both traditional campaign methods and new, innovative methods.

National Journal article dissecting the rise in youth voters: http://nationaljournal.com/njcover.htm

I was only able to attend the afternoon sessions; if anyone attended the morning and can fill in the notes that would be fantastic. 
-jon bashford

===Welcome===
(10:00 â 10:15)
*Governor Jeanne Shaheen, Director, Institute of Politics

===IDI Project Findings===
(10:15 â 11:15)
*Moderated by: John Della Volpe, Polling Director, Institute of Politics
*David King, Lecturer in Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Research Director, Institute of Politics
*Max Anderson, student, Kennedy School of Government
*Nicole Yakatan, Principal, Y Research and Marketing

===Case Study: Michigan Gubernatorial Race===
(11:30 â 12:30)
*Moderated by: Kathy Barks Hoffman, Michigan AP Lansing Correspondent
*Howard Edelson, Campaign Manager, Granholm for Governor
*Greg McNeilly, Campaign Manager, DeVos for Governor

===Lunch and Keynote: Youth Vote and Technology in 2008===
(12:30 â 2:00)
Moderated by: Governor Jeanne Shaheen

====Opening Remarks====
*'''Mike Murphy''', Republican Strategist
**Youth vote is critical
***Has become increasingly democratic: close to 60%
***John Kerry's best demographic group
***Technology is critical, but fundamentally messaging is the most important
****Micro-targeting "fetishism" among Republicans
****Especially important to find your supporters among "independents"
**What is the internet?
***When describing it to older pols, he calls it "free stamps"
***There was a time when a major campaign issue was paying for more stamps than your opponent; the technology changes that balance
*'''Joe Trippi''', Democratic Strategist
**McCain to Dean
***McCain: most significant use of technology up to 2000
****40,000 people signed up after New Hampshire, raised million$
****Lacking some important tools:
*****Meetup.com
*****Broadband
***Dean: took it to a new, unforeseen level
****650,000 people
**Next?
***Trippi thinks the next big tech-candidate will get half a billion dollars from the internet
***New tools:
****Facebook
****YouTube
***Like TV to radio, there is a change of medium
****The JFK-Nixon parallel: Nixon was well-suited for radio but not TV
****Phoniness of 30-second spot to cell-camera authenticity: harder to control message, young people become more engaged because (1) it is their technology, (2) it shows authenticity, which appeals to the young

====Moderated Discussion====
*Shaheen: Q about MySpace: Major Dem candidates have 80,000 friends; Republican candidates have about 2500 friends.
**Murphy: America is more aligned by culture than by class, resulting in a social agenda gap with the under-30s. If Republicans don't start operating there, they're finished. He's noticed the ridiculously early start to 2008, but thinks that as voters and candidates evolve the field could change. Obama is the only candidate who has actually connected with people so far. In 6 months, check back on Facebook to see the growth in the demographic; if the Republicans are still so far behind, he would be concerned.
***Prediction: Hillary will lose in the primary. For Republicans, the new primary calendar may favor Guilliani from Iowa and New Hampshire bump going into California's early primary. Romney and McCain are the others to watch.
**Trippi:
***There are 4 campaigns who are already far ahead of the $400,000 Dean online fundraising for first quarter 2003. Hillary has $1M; Obama; Edwards; Richarson is also ahead of where Dean was at this time (which may be somewhat surprising, and be an early indication of his connection).
***It is not yet clear where the comfortable online place is for normal people; if you went to DailyKos to express appreciation for Hillary's latest speech you'd be flamed. As the election gets closer, some online space will mature for a more moderate forum.
***Text-messaging: Dean was the largest text-messaging network in America in 2004 with 5,000 people. It will be more powerful in '08, it is useful, but it will not be the end-all of American politics (this cycle, at least). Dean used it along with email to increase TV ratings for shows on which Dean appeared, "tricking" the media into extra coverage.
****Shaheen: Hamas used text msgs to get the vote out last year.
***Prediction: it's still anyone's game. With the new calendar: Gephart would have been the nominee in 84 if he had run on this calendar. Iowa and New Hampshire will be MORE important than in the past, because NH vote will be a huge factor in the CA vote.

====Questions from audience====
*Q: which candidates will energize young people?
**Murphy: Romney, McCain, and Guilliani all have a good chance of doing so. Karl Rove will run but lose. Brownback or Huckabee may have a run at it.
**Trippi: Obama definitely appeals to young people. Hillary inspires young women. Edwards also inspires young people. The problem is, the early states are some of the oldest states in the country--the Dean internet organization was not very heavy in Iowa.
*Q from student from Students for Obama: the org began as an internet group, and has been building towards the ground (which is different from ground->net). Power of Facebook seems untapped.
**Trippi: The tools are still evolving. As Dean saw: how do you get the online activity to come offline? The tools are better than they were 4 years ago. It takes resources to build the code, but today you can know where each of your people is and coordinate their actions. Small groups like this that are independent from the campaign and national party are exciting part of the mess of democracy.
**Murphy: All technology eventually becomes push technology. It begins as opt-in, but when it becomes push-tech it is less fun, you have to deal with rejection (see knocking on doors). Internet has turned mailing lists alive, made it possible to converse with them.
*Q: What challenges do peer-to-peer networks face when trying to make them sustainable?
**Trippi: A lot of this is trying to put to much on one thing, like a single Facebook group. How is Obama even going to know that 300,000 would take interest in a group? What the campaign has to figure out is how to empower those group members to take action--perhaps for a start by visiting the campaign website, then maybe even to knock on doors. Trippi sees a field full of Goliaths (the parties, the candidates, the issues) and lots of powerless Davids. The question is not "how do we stay the Goliath" but "how can I give these people slingshots?" Help them slay an opposing candidate, or an issue like global warming.
***My thought: what happens when they train the slingshot on you?
*Q from former Harvard College Dems president: To what extent does the Iowa boost control the momentum in New Hampshire and determine the primary?
**Trippi: New Hampshire can slap down the arrogant or those who don't have "that thing." But those 2 states have everything. In 04, everyone was broke after IO and NH. The surpise in 04 was that Kerry won NH when Dean was expected to take it. If the received wisdom is that Hillary wins in Iowa and someone else takes it, all the money in the world doesn't change the fact that the upstart will win.
**Murphy: The biggest mechanical mistake made in McCain 2000, was trying to move the South Carolina primary back. Picking fight by taking NH, then needed some time to recharge the bank after that. They succeeded in moving the primary, but it turned out that it was Bush who needed the time to recoup, and he was able to come back to win SC--under the previous, or the current calendar McCain would have won. He thinks if someone can be top 2 in Iowa and win NH, they will dry up the money for every other candidate and take it.
**Trippi: on the topic of unintended consequences, in '88 the Dems moved a bunch of Southern states to Super Tuesday in hopes of getting a Southern candidate--the result was Dukakis. ????
*Q: what strategy for candidates to engage (or not engage) the blogosphere?
**Trippi: is "flabbergasted" that the candidates are doing so little. Dean was a terrible blogger; he made his blogging debut on Lessig's blog and made some fairly innane comments ("This is terrific, it's terrific to be blogging here today") resulting in some scrambling by the campaing manager (Trippi), but it resulted in a truly authentic moment. The campaign made a fair amount of hay out of the candidate being his authentic, awkward self--it built a lot of credibility that it wasn't ghost-written.
**Murphy: Internet based on a model that the best stuff will bubble to the top. But: all campaigns have press hacks who spend a lot of time researching bad stuff on the opponents. The hacks send out information (or mis-information) to blogs, and some small blogs pick up on it without checking; the mainstream press can be led around by this when the then report based on those couple of blogs that this is what "the blogosphere" thinks.
*Q: What does it mean that the youth vote favors "authenticity"?
**Murphy: Watching Obama (who he likes), he thinks his campaign could become too cute. Some candidates might try to pre-package authenticity, creating a phony, self-parodying authenticity (see the Hillary announcement video, in which she doesn't come across as human but rather as a poll robot.)
**Trippi: We are already seeing phony authenticity. Thinking back to DeanTV, they were able to keep 24-hour news feed based on videos made by volunteers. One video showed the beginning of a rally, where a student organizer gushed that he was skipping a final to be there, and Dean went from puffed-up presidential material to an authentic worried-father type. Those kinds of authentic moments will come out in this election cycle.
**Murphy: voters are interested in authenticity, but not to the point of offensiveness.
*Q: (1) What is the best message for Republicans with youth voters? (2) How can it be implemented? (3) What use are robo-calls?
**Murphy:
***(1) Best message is freedom & authenticity;
***(2) Republicans need to flood the communication channels, including by putting young voters front-and-center;
***(3) Robo-calls are used by everyone but the public hates them. The only times he thinks they should be used are when there is an especially compelling speaker (i.e. Schwartzeneggar) and they are programmed to leave messages but not to talk to a live person.
*Q: What can parties do to retain younger people as committed members of a party, or are those days over?
**Trippi: Those days are over. Either party can put up attractive, personality-based candidates. See Reagan, who spurred a cohort to sign up as Republican and continue that way. When one of those rare people comes into power, they make long-term changes. While the parties should make every effort to organize and empower youth voters, a single candidate can change the image of the entire party for the long term. We may well see that with the Republicans this cycle. We are also getting close to the point where a 3rd-party candidate could take it, in part because of the technology, and in part because the 2 major parties have ground the public to the point of apathy.
**Murphy: All the trends are towards independent voters. Many always vote one party or the other, but don't want to be beholden or labelled.

===Emerging Election Tactics===
(2:00 â 3:15)
Moderated by: Heather Smith, Director, Young Voter Strategies

====Opening Remarks====
*'''Allison Dale''', University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Ph.D. student (Text messaging)
**Interested in empirical methods of testing campaign strategies. She worked in the NH Dean campaign in '04, leading to a desire to field experiment with text messaging in the '08 election.
**1/4 of Americans under 25 are mobile-phone only; soon 1/3 of the entire electorate will be mobile-only.
**Experiment:
***This requires getting their numbers. Working Assets, Student PIRG, Mobile Voter and others supplied them with a sample of 14,300 cell numbers.
***Half were control group.
***Other half received reminder
***Some received msg: "Polling information at" phone # for People for the American Way, giving polling place addresses.
***Some received "Please vote" message
***Some received "Close election" message
***Results not yet in
**Follow-up survey:
***Asked about how people feel about receiving text messages
***Results:
****Overall, 43% of people thought positively about receiving the messages
****People most prefered to be contacted by text messages, over email, phone, or in-person contact
****A distict minority were bothered by receiving the messages
*'''Professor John Palfrey''', Harvard Law School Berkman Center (Online Video)
**Gap between digital natives and digital immigrants:
**Use of internet in politics and strengthening democracy
***Increased use of video: natives like image accompanied by text, while immigrants think in terms of text accompanied by an image
***Campaigns and tactics:
****Most common use is another form of TV: Clinton and videos feel very much like a campaign video--it may be effective, but is not transformative
****You can think of creating a channel or RSS feed
***Videos by those outside the campaign:
****Candidates are always on, always in a "public" space
***Is it possible to use read/write technologies to engage young voters?
****"Generation Web" video
****It is not clear whether any candidacy will give up control to use this power
*'''Lowell Feld''', Founder of the Raising Kaine blog, former Netroots Coordinator on the Webb for Senate campaign
**Goaded Webb to run
***Through email, he pushed Jim Webb to run. Webb was concerned about fundraising, and about the reception he would get
***Created DraftJimWebb.com, getting 1000 signatures and $40,000 in pledges in 1 month.
***Was eventually hired by the campaign
**Lessons:
***Netroots played a huge role.
***Many candidates think they can jump-start web presence by starting a website, but the process is organic and bottom-up. The model of raising small money from big crowds was successful and led to a perception of "authenticity". It may prove difficult to replicate the model because it is not just a formula.
***Messaging was important, but not micro-targeted in this campaign. It was one message for everyone.
***The "macaca moment" was not an accident. It was a "forced error" in the sense that he was under pressure. He was forced out of Iowa and into Virginia, where he was followed around with a camera.
*'''Ron Bell''', Deval Patrick's Director of Public Liason Department; Founder and Executive Director of Dunk the Vote (Grassroots Organizing)
**Tailoring old-style campaign methods to the new world
***Trust the grassroots: allow people to become their own campaign managers
**Dunk the Vote:
***Voter registration drives at basketball tournament; the first year they registered 1500 participants and viewers during the 3-day tournament
***2006: they registered 40,000 people
***This was a lot of work. Youth voters aren't apathetic, but they need to be approached in a way that engages them, and talk about issues that matter to them.
***Young people ARE voting in Massachusetts, and this is a spreading trend.
*'''Chris Kelly''', CIPP, Facebook (Social Networking)
**What Facebook is:
***Founded at Harvard 3 years ago
***Goals:
****Short term, to track the user's actual social network, not create online social network from scratch.
****Long-term, to grow the networks over time.
***Today, largest photo site on the web
***1

==Insights==

Andrew O'Connor -- a couple insights from the Youth Vote Conference

In light of our discussion about presidential candidates' use of web video, I thought it was interesting that the Republican Michigan Gubernatorial candidate made such good use of "unscripted" video diaries. Each week, the candidate recorded some thoughts, usually while in the car between stops, and a staffer interspersed some B-roll and threw it on the web. Apparently, his "VLOGs" were the must heavily used feature on his site. This suggests that people are looking for the unscripted interaction that the presidential candidates were not willing to provide. Yet, even this was not completely "unscripted"; the candidate was still making the points he wanted to make, and if he had said anything too off message, it could easily be edited out. Nonetheless, the web may provide an excellent opportunity for candidates to present themselves in a more casual light, and at least give the impression that they are being spontaneous. Although this use of the web is more strategic than democracy enhancing, it may still serve to give voters a better sense of a candidate's personality, which is sometimes hard to grasp from brief TV spots.

30% of the youth market in that race lacked a land line phone--that in combination with the statistics regarding preferred method of contact (32% said they wanted to be reminded to vote by text messages, 29% by email) suggests that as this market expands, there is a tremendous potential for cost savings. Although in-person calls may be slightly more effective, text messages are cheap and don't require nearly the same amount of labor as phone banks. Relying on cell phones also helps relieve the perennial problem of updating databases when land line numbers change. As the campaign managers mentioned, the cost effectiveness of email and text messages also allows candidates to stay in contact with voters even between elections.

In response to Trippi's comments about figuring out how to give people "slingshots" to stand up to Goliath (the other party, etc.), aside from getting them to donate money or volunteer, my first thought was to have them put links on their blog or website. But given the power law phenomenon, that doesn't seem like it would be very effective--you'd probably only have a handful of people visit your page. Yet, a handful is better than none, and if lots of people put links up, that would be helpful. But to tie in another reading, Sunstein would suggest that the people who visit your site (probably your friends) are already likely to agree with you. Even if you're not changing people's minds, though, you might still encourage them to become more active or remember to donate money. In the end, I'm guessing that might add a lot of value.

Targeting the Youth Vote

2007-05-10T16:33:21Z

AOConnor: /* Insights */

==Event==

'''Targeting the Youth Vote''' 
Presented by the Institute of Politics at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government[http://www.iop.harvard.edu/index.php] 
Students wishing to attend should email Prof. Palfrey. There is a $50 registration fee that may be waived. 
More information at Institute of Politics website[http://www.iop.harvard.edu/events_idi_registration.php].

'''Conference''' 
Friday, March 9, 2007 
9:00 AM â 4:45 PM 
Sheraton Commander Hotel 
16 Garden Street 
Cambridge, MA 02138 
The George Washington Ballroom

==Notes==
A new generation has arrived. 18-29 year-olds are turning out in record numbers. Voting is a habit, which they are acquiring early. Within 9 years they will be 1/3 of the electorate. Partisanship develops during these years, and requires 2-3 election cycles to cement. Connecting with these voters requires both traditional campaign methods and new, innovative methods.

National Journal article dissecting the rise in youth voters: http://nationaljournal.com/njcover.htm

I was only able to attend the afternoon sessions; if anyone attended the morning and can fill in the notes that would be fantastic. 
-jon bashford

===Welcome===
(10:00 â 10:15)
*Governor Jeanne Shaheen, Director, Institute of Politics

===IDI Project Findings===
(10:15 â 11:15)
*Moderated by: John Della Volpe, Polling Director, Institute of Politics
*David King, Lecturer in Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Research Director, Institute of Politics
*Max Anderson, student, Kennedy School of Government
*Nicole Yakatan, Principal, Y Research and Marketing

===Case Study: Michigan Gubernatorial Race===
(11:30 â 12:30)
*Moderated by: Kathy Barks Hoffman, Michigan AP Lansing Correspondent
*Howard Edelson, Campaign Manager, Granholm for Governor
*Greg McNeilly, Campaign Manager, DeVos for Governor

===Lunch and Keynote: Youth Vote and Technology in 2008===
(12:30 â 2:00)
Moderated by: Governor Jeanne Shaheen

====Opening Remarks====
*'''Mike Murphy''', Republican Strategist
**Youth vote is critical
***Has become increasingly democratic: close to 60%
***John Kerry's best demographic group
***Technology is critical, but fundamentally messaging is the most important
****Micro-targeting "fetishism" among Republicans
****Especially important to find your supporters among "independents"
**What is the internet?
***When describing it to older pols, he calls it "free stamps"
***There was a time when a major campaign issue was paying for more stamps than your opponent; the technology changes that balance
*'''Joe Trippi''', Democratic Strategist
**McCain to Dean
***McCain: most significant use of technology up to 2000
****40,000 people signed up after New Hampshire, raised million$
****Lacking some important tools:
*****Meetup.com
*****Broadband
***Dean: took it to a new, unforeseen level
****650,000 people
**Next?
***Trippi thinks the next big tech-candidate will get half a billion dollars from the internet
***New tools:
****Facebook
****YouTube
***Like TV to radio, there is a change of medium
****The JFK-Nixon parallel: Nixon was well-suited for radio but not TV
****Phoniness of 30-second spot to cell-camera authenticity: harder to control message, young people become more engaged because (1) it is their technology, (2) it shows authenticity, which appeals to the young

====Moderated Discussion====
*Shaheen: Q about MySpace: Major Dem candidates have 80,000 friends; Republican candidates have about 2500 friends.
**Murphy: America is more aligned by culture than by class, resulting in a social agenda gap with the under-30s. If Republicans don't start operating there, they're finished. He's noticed the ridiculously early start to 2008, but thinks that as voters and candidates evolve the field could change. Obama is the only candidate who has actually connected with people so far. In 6 months, check back on Facebook to see the growth in the demographic; if the Republicans are still so far behind, he would be concerned.
***Prediction: Hillary will lose in the primary. For Republicans, the new primary calendar may favor Guilliani from Iowa and New Hampshire bump going into California's early primary. Romney and McCain are the others to watch.
**Trippi:
***There are 4 campaigns who are already far ahead of the $400,000 Dean online fundraising for first quarter 2003. Hillary has $1M; Obama; Edwards; Richarson is also ahead of where Dean was at this time (which may be somewhat surprising, and be an early indication of his connection).
***It is not yet clear where the comfortable online place is for normal people; if you went to DailyKos to express appreciation for Hillary's latest speech you'd be flamed. As the election gets closer, some online space will mature for a more moderate forum.
***Text-messaging: Dean was the largest text-messaging network in America in 2004 with 5,000 people. It will be more powerful in '08, it is useful, but it will not be the end-all of American politics (this cycle, at least). Dean used it along with email to increase TV ratings for shows on which Dean appeared, "tricking" the media into extra coverage.
****Shaheen: Hamas used text msgs to get the vote out last year.
***Prediction: it's still anyone's game. With the new calendar: Gephart would have been the nominee in 84 if he had run on this calendar. Iowa and New Hampshire will be MORE important than in the past, because NH vote will be a huge factor in the CA vote.

====Questions from audience====
*Q: which candidates will energize young people?
**Murphy: Romney, McCain, and Guilliani all have a good chance of doing so. Karl Rove will run but lose. Brownback or Huckabee may have a run at it.
**Trippi: Obama definitely appeals to young people. Hillary inspires young women. Edwards also inspires young people. The problem is, the early states are some of the oldest states in the country--the Dean internet organization was not very heavy in Iowa.
*Q from student from Students for Obama: the org began as an internet group, and has been building towards the ground (which is different from ground->net). Power of Facebook seems untapped.
**Trippi: The tools are still evolving. As Dean saw: how do you get the online activity to come offline? The tools are better than they were 4 years ago. It takes resources to build the code, but today you can know where each of your people is and coordinate their actions. Small groups like this that are independent from the campaign and national party are exciting part of the mess of democracy.
**Murphy: All technology eventually becomes push technology. It begins as opt-in, but when it becomes push-tech it is less fun, you have to deal with rejection (see knocking on doors). Internet has turned mailing lists alive, made it possible to converse with them.
*Q: What challenges do peer-to-peer networks face when trying to make them sustainable?
**Trippi: A lot of this is trying to put to much on one thing, like a single Facebook group. How is Obama even going to know that 300,000 would take interest in a group? What the campaign has to figure out is how to empower those group members to take action--perhaps for a start by visiting the campaign website, then maybe even to knock on doors. Trippi sees a field full of Goliaths (the parties, the candidates, the issues) and lots of powerless Davids. The question is not "how do we stay the Goliath" but "how can I give these people slingshots?" Help them slay an opposing candidate, or an issue like global warming.
***My thought: what happens when they train the slingshot on you?
*Q from former Harvard College Dems president: To what extent does the Iowa boost control the momentum in New Hampshire and determine the primary?
**Trippi: New Hampshire can slap down the arrogant or those who don't have "that thing." But those 2 states have everything. In 04, everyone was broke after IO and NH. The surpise in 04 was that Kerry won NH when Dean was expected to take it. If the received wisdom is that Hillary wins in Iowa and someone else takes it, all the money in the world doesn't change the fact that the upstart will win.
**Murphy: The biggest mechanical mistake made in McCain 2000, was trying to move the South Carolina primary back. Picking fight by taking NH, then needed some time to recharge the bank after that. They succeeded in moving the primary, but it turned out that it was Bush who needed the time to recoup, and he was able to come back to win SC--under the previous, or the current calendar McCain would have won. He thinks if someone can be top 2 in Iowa and win NH, they will dry up the money for every other candidate and take it.
**Trippi: on the topic of unintended consequences, in '88 the Dems moved a bunch of Southern states to Super Tuesday in hopes of getting a Southern candidate--the result was Dukakis. ????
*Q: what strategy for candidates to engage (or not engage) the blogosphere?
**Trippi: is "flabbergasted" that the candidates are doing so little. Dean was a terrible blogger; he made his blogging debut on Lessig's blog and made some fairly innane comments ("This is terrific, it's terrific to be blogging here today") resulting in some scrambling by the campaing manager (Trippi), but it resulted in a truly authentic moment. The campaign made a fair amount of hay out of the candidate being his authentic, awkward self--it built a lot of credibility that it wasn't ghost-written.
**Murphy: Internet based on a model that the best stuff will bubble to the top. But: all campaigns have press hacks who spend a lot of time researching bad stuff on the opponents. The hacks send out information (or mis-information) to blogs, and some small blogs pick up on it without checking; the mainstream press can be led around by this when the then report based on those couple of blogs that this is what "the blogosphere" thinks.
*Q: What does it mean that the youth vote favors "authenticity"?
**Murphy: Watching Obama (who he likes), he thinks his campaign could become too cute. Some candidates might try to pre-package authenticity, creating a phony, self-parodying authenticity (see the Hillary announcement video, in which she doesn't come across as human but rather as a poll robot.)
**Trippi: We are already seeing phony authenticity. Thinking back to DeanTV, they were able to keep 24-hour news feed based on videos made by volunteers. One video showed the beginning of a rally, where a student organizer gushed that he was skipping a final to be there, and Dean went from puffed-up presidential material to an authentic worried-father type. Those kinds of authentic moments will come out in this election cycle.
**Murphy: voters are interested in authenticity, but not to the point of offensiveness.
*Q: (1) What is the best message for Republicans with youth voters? (2) How can it be implemented? (3) What use are robo-calls?
**Murphy:
***(1) Best message is freedom & authenticity;
***(2) Republicans need to flood the communication channels, including by putting young voters front-and-center;
***(3) Robo-calls are used by everyone but the public hates them. The only times he thinks they should be used are when there is an especially compelling speaker (i.e. Schwartzeneggar) and they are programmed to leave messages but not to talk to a live person.
*Q: What can parties do to retain younger people as committed members of a party, or are those days over?
**Trippi: Those days are over. Either party can put up attractive, personality-based candidates. See Reagan, who spurred a cohort to sign up as Republican and continue that way. When one of those rare people comes into power, they make long-term changes. While the parties should make every effort to organize and empower youth voters, a single candidate can change the image of the entire party for the long term. We may well see that with the Republicans this cycle. We are also getting close to the point where a 3rd-party candidate could take it, in part because of the technology, and in part because the 2 major parties have ground the public to the point of apathy.
**Murphy: All the trends are towards independent voters. Many always vote one party or the other, but don't want to be beholden or labelled.

===Emerging Election Tactics===
(2:00 â 3:15)
Moderated by: Heather Smith, Director, Young Voter Strategies

====Opening Remarks====
*'''Allison Dale''', University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Ph.D. student (Text messaging)
**Interested in empirical methods of testing campaign strategies. She worked in the NH Dean campaign in '04, leading to a desire to field experiment with text messaging in the '08 election.
**1/4 of Americans under 25 are mobile-phone only; soon 1/3 of the entire electorate will be mobile-only.
**Experiment:
***This requires getting their numbers. Working Assets, Student PIRG, Mobile Voter and others supplied them with a sample of 14,300 cell numbers.
***Half were control group.
***Other half received reminder
***Some received msg: "Polling information at" phone # for People for the American Way, giving polling place addresses.
***Some received "Please vote" message
***Some received "Close election" message
***Results not yet in
**Follow-up survey:
***Asked about how people feel about receiving text messages
***Results:
****Overall, 43% of people thought positively about receiving the messages
****People most prefered to be contacted by text messages, over email, phone, or in-person contact
****A distict minority were bothered by receiving the messages
*'''Professor John Palfrey''', Harvard Law School Berkman Center (Online Video)
**Gap between digital natives and digital immigrants:
**Use of internet in politics and strengthening democracy
***Increased use of video: natives like image accompanied by text, while immigrants think in terms of text accompanied by an image
***Campaigns and tactics:
****Most common use is another form of TV: Clinton and videos feel very much like a campaign video--it may be effective, but is not transformative
****You can think of creating a channel or RSS feed
***Videos by those outside the campaign:
****Candidates are always on, always in a "public" space
***Is it possible to use read/write technologies to engage young voters?
****"Generation Web" video
****It is not clear whether any candidacy will give up control to use this power
*'''Lowell Feld''', Founder of the Raising Kaine blog, former Netroots Coordinator on the Webb for Senate campaign
**Goaded Webb to run
***Through email, he pushed Jim Webb to run. Webb was concerned about fundraising, and about the reception he would get
***Created DraftJimWebb.com, getting 1000 signatures and $40,000 in pledges in 1 month.
***Was eventually hired by the campaign
**Lessons:
***Netroots played a huge role.
***Many candidates think they can jump-start web presence by starting a website, but the process is organic and bottom-up. The model of raising small money from big crowds was successful and led to a perception of "authenticity". It may prove difficult to replicate the model because it is not just a formula.
***Messaging was important, but not micro-targeted in this campaign. It was one message for everyone.
***The "macaca moment" was not an accident. It was a "forced error" in the sense that he was under pressure. He was forced out of Iowa and into Virginia, where he was followed around with a camera.
*'''Ron Bell''', Deval Patrick's Director of Public Liason Department; Founder and Executive Director of Dunk the Vote (Grassroots Organizing)
**Tailoring old-style campaign methods to the new world
***Trust the grassroots: allow people to become their own campaign managers
**Dunk the Vote:
***Voter registration drives at basketball tournament; the first year they registered 1500 participants and viewers during the 3-day tournament
***2006: they registered 40,000 people
***This was a lot of work. Youth voters aren't apathetic, but they need to be approached in a way that engages them, and talk about issues that matter to them.
***Young people ARE voting in Massachusetts, and this is a spreading trend.
*'''Chris Kelly''', CIPP, Facebook (Social Networking)
**What Facebook is:
***Founded at Harvard 3 years ago
***Goals:
****Short term, to track the user's actual social network, not create online social network from scratch.
****Long-term, to grow the networks over time.
***Today, largest photo site on the web
***1

==Insights==

Andrew O'Connor -- a couple insights from the Youth Vote Conference

In light of our discussion about presidential candidates' use of web video, I thought it was interesting that the Republican Michigan Gubernatorial candidate made such good use of "unscripted" video diaries. Each week, the candidate recorded some thoughts, usually while in the car between stops, and a staffer interspersed some B-roll and threw it on the web. Apparently, his "VLOGs" were the must heavily used feature on his site. This suggests that people are looking for the unscripted interaction that the presidential candidates were not willing to provide. Yet, even this was not completely "unscripted"; the candidate was still making the points he wanted to make, and if he had said anything too off message, it could easily be edited out. Nonetheless, the web may provide an excellent opportunity for candidates to present themselves in a more casual light, and at least give the impression that they are being spontaneous. Although this use of the web is more strategic than democracy enhancing, it may still serve to give voters a better sense of a candidate's personality, which is sometimes hard to grasp from brief TV spots.

30% of the youth market in that race lacked a land line phone--that in combination with the statistics regarding preferred method of contact (32% said they wanted to be reminded to vote by text messages, 29% by email) suggests that as this market expands, there is a tremendous potential for cost savings. Although in-person calls may be slightly more effective, text messages are cheap and don't require nearly the same amount of labor as phone banks. Relying on cell phones also helps relieve the perennial problem of updating databases when land line numbers change. As the campaign managers mentioned, the cost effectiveness of email and text messages also allows candidates to stay in contact with voters even between elections.

In response to Trippi's comments about figuring out how to give people "slingshots" to stand up to Goliath (the other party, etc.), aside from getting them to donate money or volunteer, my first thought was to have them put links on their blog or website. But given the power law phenomenon, that doesn't seem like it would be very effective--you'd probably only have a handful of people visit your page. Yet, a handful is better than none, and if lots of people put links up, that would be helpful. But to tie in another reading, Sunstein would suggests that the people who visit your site (probably your friends) are likely to already agree with you. Even if you're not changing people's minds, though, you might still encourage them to become more active or remember to donate money. In the end, I'm guessing that might add a lot of value.

Targeting the Youth Vote

2007-05-10T16:32:27Z

AOConnor: /* Insights */

==Event==

'''Targeting the Youth Vote''' 
Presented by the Institute of Politics at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government[http://www.iop.harvard.edu/index.php] 
Students wishing to attend should email Prof. Palfrey. There is a $50 registration fee that may be waived. 
More information at Institute of Politics website[http://www.iop.harvard.edu/events_idi_registration.php].

'''Conference''' 
Friday, March 9, 2007 
9:00 AM â 4:45 PM 
Sheraton Commander Hotel 
16 Garden Street 
Cambridge, MA 02138 
The George Washington Ballroom

==Notes==
A new generation has arrived. 18-29 year-olds are turning out in record numbers. Voting is a habit, which they are acquiring early. Within 9 years they will be 1/3 of the electorate. Partisanship develops during these years, and requires 2-3 election cycles to cement. Connecting with these voters requires both traditional campaign methods and new, innovative methods.

National Journal article dissecting the rise in youth voters: http://nationaljournal.com/njcover.htm

I was only able to attend the afternoon sessions; if anyone attended the morning and can fill in the notes that would be fantastic. 
-jon bashford

===Welcome===
(10:00 â 10:15)
*Governor Jeanne Shaheen, Director, Institute of Politics

===IDI Project Findings===
(10:15 â 11:15)
*Moderated by: John Della Volpe, Polling Director, Institute of Politics
*David King, Lecturer in Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Research Director, Institute of Politics
*Max Anderson, student, Kennedy School of Government
*Nicole Yakatan, Principal, Y Research and Marketing

===Case Study: Michigan Gubernatorial Race===
(11:30 â 12:30)
*Moderated by: Kathy Barks Hoffman, Michigan AP Lansing Correspondent
*Howard Edelson, Campaign Manager, Granholm for Governor
*Greg McNeilly, Campaign Manager, DeVos for Governor

===Lunch and Keynote: Youth Vote and Technology in 2008===
(12:30 â 2:00)
Moderated by: Governor Jeanne Shaheen

====Opening Remarks====
*'''Mike Murphy''', Republican Strategist
**Youth vote is critical
***Has become increasingly democratic: close to 60%
***John Kerry's best demographic group
***Technology is critical, but fundamentally messaging is the most important
****Micro-targeting "fetishism" among Republicans
****Especially important to find your supporters among "independents"
**What is the internet?
***When describing it to older pols, he calls it "free stamps"
***There was a time when a major campaign issue was paying for more stamps than your opponent; the technology changes that balance
*'''Joe Trippi''', Democratic Strategist
**McCain to Dean
***McCain: most significant use of technology up to 2000
****40,000 people signed up after New Hampshire, raised million$
****Lacking some important tools:
*****Meetup.com
*****Broadband
***Dean: took it to a new, unforeseen level
****650,000 people
**Next?
***Trippi thinks the next big tech-candidate will get half a billion dollars from the internet
***New tools:
****Facebook
****YouTube
***Like TV to radio, there is a change of medium
****The JFK-Nixon parallel: Nixon was well-suited for radio but not TV
****Phoniness of 30-second spot to cell-camera authenticity: harder to control message, young people become more engaged because (1) it is their technology, (2) it shows authenticity, which appeals to the young

====Moderated Discussion====
*Shaheen: Q about MySpace: Major Dem candidates have 80,000 friends; Republican candidates have about 2500 friends.
**Murphy: America is more aligned by culture than by class, resulting in a social agenda gap with the under-30s. If Republicans don't start operating there, they're finished. He's noticed the ridiculously early start to 2008, but thinks that as voters and candidates evolve the field could change. Obama is the only candidate who has actually connected with people so far. In 6 months, check back on Facebook to see the growth in the demographic; if the Republicans are still so far behind, he would be concerned.
***Prediction: Hillary will lose in the primary. For Republicans, the new primary calendar may favor Guilliani from Iowa and New Hampshire bump going into California's early primary. Romney and McCain are the others to watch.
**Trippi:
***There are 4 campaigns who are already far ahead of the $400,000 Dean online fundraising for first quarter 2003. Hillary has $1M; Obama; Edwards; Richarson is also ahead of where Dean was at this time (which may be somewhat surprising, and be an early indication of his connection).
***It is not yet clear where the comfortable online place is for normal people; if you went to DailyKos to express appreciation for Hillary's latest speech you'd be flamed. As the election gets closer, some online space will mature for a more moderate forum.
***Text-messaging: Dean was the largest text-messaging network in America in 2004 with 5,000 people. It will be more powerful in '08, it is useful, but it will not be the end-all of American politics (this cycle, at least). Dean used it along with email to increase TV ratings for shows on which Dean appeared, "tricking" the media into extra coverage.
****Shaheen: Hamas used text msgs to get the vote out last year.
***Prediction: it's still anyone's game. With the new calendar: Gephart would have been the nominee in 84 if he had run on this calendar. Iowa and New Hampshire will be MORE important than in the past, because NH vote will be a huge factor in the CA vote.

====Questions from audience====
*Q: which candidates will energize young people?
**Murphy: Romney, McCain, and Guilliani all have a good chance of doing so. Karl Rove will run but lose. Brownback or Huckabee may have a run at it.
**Trippi: Obama definitely appeals to young people. Hillary inspires young women. Edwards also inspires young people. The problem is, the early states are some of the oldest states in the country--the Dean internet organization was not very heavy in Iowa.
*Q from student from Students for Obama: the org began as an internet group, and has been building towards the ground (which is different from ground->net). Power of Facebook seems untapped.
**Trippi: The tools are still evolving. As Dean saw: how do you get the online activity to come offline? The tools are better than they were 4 years ago. It takes resources to build the code, but today you can know where each of your people is and coordinate their actions. Small groups like this that are independent from the campaign and national party are exciting part of the mess of democracy.
**Murphy: All technology eventually becomes push technology. It begins as opt-in, but when it becomes push-tech it is less fun, you have to deal with rejection (see knocking on doors). Internet has turned mailing lists alive, made it possible to converse with them.
*Q: What challenges do peer-to-peer networks face when trying to make them sustainable?
**Trippi: A lot of this is trying to put to much on one thing, like a single Facebook group. How is Obama even going to know that 300,000 would take interest in a group? What the campaign has to figure out is how to empower those group members to take action--perhaps for a start by visiting the campaign website, then maybe even to knock on doors. Trippi sees a field full of Goliaths (the parties, the candidates, the issues) and lots of powerless Davids. The question is not "how do we stay the Goliath" but "how can I give these people slingshots?" Help them slay an opposing candidate, or an issue like global warming.
***My thought: what happens when they train the slingshot on you?
*Q from former Harvard College Dems president: To what extent does the Iowa boost control the momentum in New Hampshire and determine the primary?
**Trippi: New Hampshire can slap down the arrogant or those who don't have "that thing." But those 2 states have everything. In 04, everyone was broke after IO and NH. The surpise in 04 was that Kerry won NH when Dean was expected to take it. If the received wisdom is that Hillary wins in Iowa and someone else takes it, all the money in the world doesn't change the fact that the upstart will win.
**Murphy: The biggest mechanical mistake made in McCain 2000, was trying to move the South Carolina primary back. Picking fight by taking NH, then needed some time to recharge the bank after that. They succeeded in moving the primary, but it turned out that it was Bush who needed the time to recoup, and he was able to come back to win SC--under the previous, or the current calendar McCain would have won. He thinks if someone can be top 2 in Iowa and win NH, they will dry up the money for every other candidate and take it.
**Trippi: on the topic of unintended consequences, in '88 the Dems moved a bunch of Southern states to Super Tuesday in hopes of getting a Southern candidate--the result was Dukakis. ????
*Q: what strategy for candidates to engage (or not engage) the blogosphere?
**Trippi: is "flabbergasted" that the candidates are doing so little. Dean was a terrible blogger; he made his blogging debut on Lessig's blog and made some fairly innane comments ("This is terrific, it's terrific to be blogging here today") resulting in some scrambling by the campaing manager (Trippi), but it resulted in a truly authentic moment. The campaign made a fair amount of hay out of the candidate being his authentic, awkward self--it built a lot of credibility that it wasn't ghost-written.
**Murphy: Internet based on a model that the best stuff will bubble to the top. But: all campaigns have press hacks who spend a lot of time researching bad stuff on the opponents. The hacks send out information (or mis-information) to blogs, and some small blogs pick up on it without checking; the mainstream press can be led around by this when the then report based on those couple of blogs that this is what "the blogosphere" thinks.
*Q: What does it mean that the youth vote favors "authenticity"?
**Murphy: Watching Obama (who he likes), he thinks his campaign could become too cute. Some candidates might try to pre-package authenticity, creating a phony, self-parodying authenticity (see the Hillary announcement video, in which she doesn't come across as human but rather as a poll robot.)
**Trippi: We are already seeing phony authenticity. Thinking back to DeanTV, they were able to keep 24-hour news feed based on videos made by volunteers. One video showed the beginning of a rally, where a student organizer gushed that he was skipping a final to be there, and Dean went from puffed-up presidential material to an authentic worried-father type. Those kinds of authentic moments will come out in this election cycle.
**Murphy: voters are interested in authenticity, but not to the point of offensiveness.
*Q: (1) What is the best message for Republicans with youth voters? (2) How can it be implemented? (3) What use are robo-calls?
**Murphy:
***(1) Best message is freedom & authenticity;
***(2) Republicans need to flood the communication channels, including by putting young voters front-and-center;
***(3) Robo-calls are used by everyone but the public hates them. The only times he thinks they should be used are when there is an especially compelling speaker (i.e. Schwartzeneggar) and they are programmed to leave messages but not to talk to a live person.
*Q: What can parties do to retain younger people as committed members of a party, or are those days over?
**Trippi: Those days are over. Either party can put up attractive, personality-based candidates. See Reagan, who spurred a cohort to sign up as Republican and continue that way. When one of those rare people comes into power, they make long-term changes. While the parties should make every effort to organize and empower youth voters, a single candidate can change the image of the entire party for the long term. We may well see that with the Republicans this cycle. We are also getting close to the point where a 3rd-party candidate could take it, in part because of the technology, and in part because the 2 major parties have ground the public to the point of apathy.
**Murphy: All the trends are towards independent voters. Many always vote one party or the other, but don't want to be beholden or labelled.

===Emerging Election Tactics===
(2:00 â 3:15)
Moderated by: Heather Smith, Director, Young Voter Strategies

====Opening Remarks====
*'''Allison Dale''', University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Ph.D. student (Text messaging)
**Interested in empirical methods of testing campaign strategies. She worked in the NH Dean campaign in '04, leading to a desire to field experiment with text messaging in the '08 election.
**1/4 of Americans under 25 are mobile-phone only; soon 1/3 of the entire electorate will be mobile-only.
**Experiment:
***This requires getting their numbers. Working Assets, Student PIRG, Mobile Voter and others supplied them with a sample of 14,300 cell numbers.
***Half were control group.
***Other half received reminder
***Some received msg: "Polling information at" phone # for People for the American Way, giving polling place addresses.
***Some received "Please vote" message
***Some received "Close election" message
***Results not yet in
**Follow-up survey:
***Asked about how people feel about receiving text messages
***Results:
****Overall, 43% of people thought positively about receiving the messages
****People most prefered to be contacted by text messages, over email, phone, or in-person contact
****A distict minority were bothered by receiving the messages
*'''Professor John Palfrey''', Harvard Law School Berkman Center (Online Video)
**Gap between digital natives and digital immigrants:
**Use of internet in politics and strengthening democracy
***Increased use of video: natives like image accompanied by text, while immigrants think in terms of text accompanied by an image
***Campaigns and tactics:
****Most common use is another form of TV: Clinton and videos feel very much like a campaign video--it may be effective, but is not transformative
****You can think of creating a channel or RSS feed
***Videos by those outside the campaign:
****Candidates are always on, always in a "public" space
***Is it possible to use read/write technologies to engage young voters?
****"Generation Web" video
****It is not clear whether any candidacy will give up control to use this power
*'''Lowell Feld''', Founder of the Raising Kaine blog, former Netroots Coordinator on the Webb for Senate campaign
**Goaded Webb to run
***Through email, he pushed Jim Webb to run. Webb was concerned about fundraising, and about the reception he would get
***Created DraftJimWebb.com, getting 1000 signatures and $40,000 in pledges in 1 month.
***Was eventually hired by the campaign
**Lessons:
***Netroots played a huge role.
***Many candidates think they can jump-start web presence by starting a website, but the process is organic and bottom-up. The model of raising small money from big crowds was successful and led to a perception of "authenticity". It may prove difficult to replicate the model because it is not just a formula.
***Messaging was important, but not micro-targeted in this campaign. It was one message for everyone.
***The "macaca moment" was not an accident. It was a "forced error" in the sense that he was under pressure. He was forced out of Iowa and into Virginia, where he was followed around with a camera.
*'''Ron Bell''', Deval Patrick's Director of Public Liason Department; Founder and Executive Director of Dunk the Vote (Grassroots Organizing)
**Tailoring old-style campaign methods to the new world
***Trust the grassroots: allow people to become their own campaign managers
**Dunk the Vote:
***Voter registration drives at basketball tournament; the first year they registered 1500 participants and viewers during the 3-day tournament
***2006: they registered 40,000 people
***This was a lot of work. Youth voters aren't apathetic, but they need to be approached in a way that engages them, and talk about issues that matter to them.
***Young people ARE voting in Massachusetts, and this is a spreading trend.
*'''Chris Kelly''', CIPP, Facebook (Social Networking)
**What Facebook is:
***Founded at Harvard 3 years ago
***Goals:
****Short term, to track the user's actual social network, not create online social network from scratch.
****Long-term, to grow the networks over time.
***Today, largest photo site on the web
***1

==Insights==

Andrew O'Connor -- a couple insights from the Youth Vote Conference

In light of our discussion about presidential candidates' use of web video, I thought it was interesting that the Republican Michigan Gubernatorial candidate made such good use of "unscripted" video diaries. Each week, the candidate recorded some thoughts, usually while in the car between stops, and a staffer interspersed some B-roll and threw it on the web. Apparently, his "VLOGs" were the must heavily used feature on his site. This suggests that people are looking for the unscripted interaction that the presidential candidates were not willing to provide. Yet, even this was not completely "unscripted"; the candidate was still making the points he wanted to make, and if he had said anything too off message, it could easily be edited out. Nonetheless, the web may provide an excellent opportunity for candidates to present themselves in a more casual light, and at least give the impression that they are being spontaneous. Although this use of the web is more strategic than democracy enhancing, it may still serve to give voters a better sense of a candidate's personality, which is sometimes hard to grasp from brief TV spots.

30% of the youth market in that race lacked a land line phone--that in combination with the statistics regarding preferred method of contact (32% said they wanted to be reminded to vote by text messages, 29% by email) suggests that as this market expands, there is a tremendous potential for cost savings. Although in-person calls may be slightly more effective, text messages are cheap and don't require nearly the same amount of labor as phone banks. Relying on cell phones also helps relieve the perennial problem of updating databases when land line numbers change. As the campaign managers mentioned, the cost effectiveness of email and text messages also allows candidates to stay in contact with voters even between elections.

In reponse to Trippi's comments about figuring out how to give people "slingshots" to stand up to Goliath (the other party, etc.), aside from getting them to donate money or volunteer, my first thought was to have them put links on their blog or website. But given the power law phenomenon, that doesn't seem like it would be very effective--you'd probably only have a handful of people visit your page. Yet, a handful is better than none, and if lots of people put links up, that would be helpful. But to tie in another reading, Sunstein would suggests that the people who visit your site (probably your friends) are likely to already agree with you. Even if you're not changings people's minds, though, you might still encourage them to become more active or remember to donate money. In the end, I'm guessing that might add a lot of value.

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-05-10T16:11:30Z

AOConnor: /* In Illustrative Example from Closer to Home: OpenCongress */

==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." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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.

<center>http://www.yngwie.org/images/Magazinecovers/VIRTUOSA2005.jpg</center>

<center>Recent photo of the 43-year old Malmsteen</center>

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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] 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 Palloneâs blog has a post about the British, South Koreans, and Danes deciding to begin withdrawing their troops from Iraq.[http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/nj06_pallone/blog_iraq_22807.html] Frank Palloneâs conclusion: âOur dwindling coalition should serve as another wake up call to the Bush administration that its time for a new direction in Iraq.â Congressman Pallone makes a completely uncontroversial statement and does not give any indication of what that ânew directionâ 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[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] 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.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] 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 Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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[http://www.kablenet.com/kd.nsf/Frontpage/1630A7F2B9A7B96680256D40002EC027?OpenDocument]
*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.[http://www.thecre.com/emerging/20030714_egov.htm] 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''[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1963868.stm]

'''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[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084780]'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]
** 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.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* 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."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

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.[http://www.engagingcommunities2005.org/abstracts/Flew-Terry-final.pdf] 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.[http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/06/97006.pdf] 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?

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-05-10T16:10:49Z

AOConnor:

==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." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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.

<center>http://www.yngwie.org/images/Magazinecovers/VIRTUOSA2005.jpg</center>

<center>Recent photo of the 43-year old Malmsteen</center>

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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] 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 Palloneâs blog has a post about the British, South Koreans, and Danes deciding to begin withdrawing their troops from Iraq.[http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/nj06_pallone/blog_iraq_22807.html] Frank Palloneâs conclusion: âOur dwindling coalition should serve as another wake up call to the Bush administration that its time for a new direction in Iraq.â Congressman Pallone makes a completely uncontroversial statement and does not give any indication of what that ânew directionâ 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.

==In Illustrative Example from Closer to Home: OpenCongress==

OpenCongress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] 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.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] 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 Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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[http://www.kablenet.com/kd.nsf/Frontpage/1630A7F2B9A7B96680256D40002EC027?OpenDocument]
*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.[http://www.thecre.com/emerging/20030714_egov.htm] 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''[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1963868.stm]

'''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[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084780]'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]
** 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.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* 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."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

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.[http://www.engagingcommunities2005.org/abstracts/Flew-Terry-final.pdf] 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.[http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/06/97006.pdf] 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?

Targeting the Youth Vote

2007-05-07T20:16:34Z

AOConnor: /* Insights */

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-04-23T17:26:04Z

AOConnor: /* Efficiency of Public Service */

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]]

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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.

<center>http://www.yngwie.org/images/Magazinecovers/VIRTUOSA2005.jpg</center>

<center>Recent photo of the 43-year old Malmsteen</center>

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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] 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 Palloneâs blog has a post about the British, South Koreans, and Danes deciding to begin withdrawing their troops from Iraq.[http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/nj06_pallone/blog_iraq_22807.html] Frank Palloneâs conclusion: âOur dwindling coalition should serve as another wake up call to the Bush administration that its time for a new direction in Iraq.â Congressman Pallone makes a completely uncontroversial statement and does not give any indication of what that ânew directionâ 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.

==OpenCongress==

OpenCongress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] 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.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] 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 Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] 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.

==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 of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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[http://www.kablenet.com/kd.nsf/Frontpage/1630A7F2B9A7B96680256D40002EC027?OpenDocument]
*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.[http://www.thecre.com/emerging/20030714_egov.htm] 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''[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1963868.stm]

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==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.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* 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."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

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.[http://www.engagingcommunities2005.org/abstracts/Flew-Terry-final.pdf] 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.[http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/06/97006.pdf] 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?

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-04-23T17:25:43Z

AOConnor: /* E-Government and Underlying Social Conditions */

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]]

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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.

<center>http://www.yngwie.org/images/Magazinecovers/VIRTUOSA2005.jpg</center>

<center>Recent photo of the 43-year old Malmsteen</center>

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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] 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 Palloneâs blog has a post about the British, South Koreans, and Danes deciding to begin withdrawing their troops from Iraq.[http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/nj06_pallone/blog_iraq_22807.html] Frank Palloneâs conclusion: âOur dwindling coalition should serve as another wake up call to the Bush administration that its time for a new direction in Iraq.â Congressman Pallone makes a completely uncontroversial statement and does not give any indication of what that ânew directionâ 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.

==OpenCongress==

OpenCongress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] 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.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] 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 Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] 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.

==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 of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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[http://www.kablenet.com/kd.nsf/Frontpage/1630A7F2B9A7B96680256D40002EC027?OpenDocument]
*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.[http://www.thecre.com/emerging/20030714_egov.htm] 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 much as 20% of civil service jobs may be lost over the next decade. ''See'' Jan Wakefield, "E-government to Cost Jobs," ''BBC''[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1963868.stm]

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==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.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* 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."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

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.[http://www.engagingcommunities2005.org/abstracts/Flew-Terry-final.pdf] 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.[http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/06/97006.pdf] 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?

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-04-23T17:22:51Z

AOConnor:

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]]

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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.

<center>http://www.yngwie.org/images/Magazinecovers/VIRTUOSA2005.jpg</center>

<center>Recent photo of the 43-year old Malmsteen</center>

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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] 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 Palloneâs blog has a post about the British, South Koreans, and Danes deciding to begin withdrawing their troops from Iraq.[http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/nj06_pallone/blog_iraq_22807.html] Frank Palloneâs conclusion: âOur dwindling coalition should serve as another wake up call to the Bush administration that its time for a new direction in Iraq.â Congressman Pallone makes a completely uncontroversial statement and does not give any indication of what that ânew directionâ 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.

==OpenCongress==

OpenCongress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] 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.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] 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 Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] 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.

==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 of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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[http://www.kablenet.com/kd.nsf/Frontpage/1630A7F2B9A7B96680256D40002EC027?OpenDocument]
*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.[http://www.thecre.com/emerging/20030714_egov.htm] 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 much as 20% of civil service jobs may be lost over the next decade. ''See'' Jan Wakefield, "E-government to Cost Jobs," ''BBC''[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1963868.stm]

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==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.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* 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."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

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 imput 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.[http://www.engagingcommunities2005.org/abstracts/Flew-Terry-final.pdf] 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.[http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/06/97006.pdf] 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?

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-04-23T17:09:37Z

AOConnor:

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]]

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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.

<center>http://www.yngwie.org/images/Magazinecovers/VIRTUOSA2005.jpg</center>

<center>Recent photo of the 43-year old Malmsteen</center>

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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] 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 Palloneâs blog has a post about the British, South Koreans, and Danes deciding to begin withdrawing their troops from Iraq.[http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/nj06_pallone/blog_iraq_22807.html] Frank Palloneâs conclusion: âOur dwindling coalition should serve as another wake up call to the Bush administration that its time for a new direction in Iraq.â Congressman Pallone makes a completely uncontroversial statement and does not give any indication of what that ânew directionâ 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.

==OpenCongress==

OpenCongress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] 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.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] 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 Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] 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.

==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

==Efficiency of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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[http://www.kablenet.com/kd.nsf/Frontpage/1630A7F2B9A7B96680256D40002EC027?OpenDocument]
*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.[http://www.thecre.com/emerging/20030714_egov.htm] 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 much as 20% of civil service jobs may be lost over the next decade. ''See'' Jan Wakefield, "E-government to Cost Jobs," ''BBC''[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1963868.stm]

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==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.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* 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."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

We do not suggest that all initiatives

==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.[http://www.engagingcommunities2005.org/abstracts/Flew-Terry-final.pdf] 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.[http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/06/97006.pdf] 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?

Von Hippel questions

2007-04-17T20:03:14Z

AOConnor:

Questions for Prof. von Hippel, Apr. 17 class:

*In some instances, manufacturers produce a product with the expectation a user will modify parts of it. For example, Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) software packages such as UG NX and TeamCenter Engineering are built with a suite of tools available that all (or almost all) users find necessary. These programs also allow a high degree of user customization to tailor the product to the particular application. Individual users can re-work sections of code to customize the application. While this is similar in some aspects to open source development, it differs in that the UG kernel is still proprietary and a particular userâs innovations are not generally shared with others (partially because they are so user specific). Additionally, the manufacturer provides some level of support to aid users in customizing portions of the code.
**To what extent are the positive aspects of user innovation realized in this model and to what extent are they limited?
**Are there other (existing or potential) applications of user/manufacturer cooperation on innovation?

*Prof. von Hippel discusses the tendency of some users to reveal their innovations freely to the public. Although there are numerous examples of free revealing, I wonder how significant, on average, these innovations are. It seems that some of the innovations that are most significant to the market at large are often created and protected by large companies--I'm thinking here about medications, major software applications, etc. There seems to be a big difference between marginal modifications of library software and the new Windows platform. Chapter 6 offers some possible motivations to reveal innovations, but to what extent can we really expect innovators to reveal fundamental innovations that might enjoy large market share? As an empirical matter, how often does a freely revealed user innovation actually capture a larger market share than more protected innovations? Aren't user innovations more significant at making improvements at the margins?

Von Hippel questions

2007-04-17T19:59:47Z

AOConnor:

Questions for Prof. von Hippel, Apr. 17 class:

*In some instances, manufacturers produce a product with the expectation a user will modify parts of it. For example, Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) software packages such as UG NX and TeamCenter Engineering are built with a suite of tools available that all (or almost all) users find necessary. These programs also allow a high degree of user customization to tailor the product to the particular application. Individual users can re-work sections of code to customize the application. While this is similar in some aspects to open source development, it differs in that the UG kernel is still proprietary and a particular userâs innovations are not generally shared with others (partially because they are so user specific). Additionally, the manufacturer provides some level of support to aid users in customizing portions of the code.
**To what extent are the positive aspects of user innovation realized in this model and to what extent are they limited?
**Are there other (existing or potential) applications of user/manufacturer cooperation on innovation?

*Prof. von Hippel discusses the tendency of some users to reveal their innovations freely to the public. Although there are numerous examples of free revealing, I wonder how significant, on average, these innovations are. It seems that some of the innovations that are most significant to the market at large are often created and protected by large companies--I'm thinking here about medications, major software applications, etc. There seems to be a big difference between marginal modifications of library software and the new Windows platform. Chapter 6 offers some possible motivation to reveal innovations, but to what extent can we really expect innovators to reveal fundamental innovations that might enjoy large market share? As an empirical matter, how often does a freely revealed user innovation actually capture a larger market share than more protected innovations? Aren't user innovations more significant at making improvements at the margins?

Targeting the Youth Vote

2007-03-20T18:42:56Z

AOConnor:

==Event==

'''Targeting the Youth Vote''' 
Presented by the Institute of Politics at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government[http://www.iop.harvard.edu/index.php] 
Students wishing to attend should email Prof. Palfrey. There is a $50 registration fee that may be waived. 
More information at Institute of Politics website[http://www.iop.harvard.edu/events_idi_registration.php].

'''Conference''' 
Friday, March 9, 2007 
9:00 AM â 4:45 PM 
Sheraton Commander Hotel 
16 Garden Street 
Cambridge, MA 02138 
The George Washington Ballroom

==Notes==
A new generation has arrived. 18-29 year-olds are turning out in record numbers. Voting is a habit, which they are acquiring early. Within 9 years they will be 1/3 of the electorate. Partisanship develops during these years, and requires 2-3 election cycles to cement. Connecting with these voters requires both traditional campaign methods and new, innovative methods.

National Journal article dissecting the rise in youth voters: http://nationaljournal.com/njcover.htm

I was only able to attend the afternoon sessions; if anyone attended the morning and can fill in the notes that would be fantastic. 
-jon bashford

===Welcome===
(10:00 â 10:15)
*Governor Jeanne Shaheen, Director, Institute of Politics

===IDI Project Findings===
(10:15 â 11:15)
*Moderated by: John Della Volpe, Polling Director, Institute of Politics
*David King, Lecturer in Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Research Director, Institute of Politics
*Max Anderson, student, Kennedy School of Government
*Nicole Yakatan, Principal, Y Research and Marketing

===Case Study: Michigan Gubernatorial Race===
(11:30 â 12:30)
*Moderated by: Kathy Barks Hoffman, Michigan AP Lansing Correspondent
*Howard Edelson, Campaign Manager, Granholm for Governor
*Greg McNeilly, Campaign Manager, DeVos for Governor

===Lunch and Keynote: Youth Vote and Technology in 2008===
(12:30 â 2:00)
Moderated by: Governor Jeanne Shaheen

====Opening Remarks====
*'''Mike Murphy''', Republican Strategist
**Youth vote is critical
***Has become increasingly democratic: close to 60%
***John Kerry's best demographic group
***Technology is critical, but fundamentally messaging is the most important
****Micro-targeting "fetishism" among Republicans
****Especially important to find your supporters among "independents"
**What is the internet?
***When describing it to older pols, he calls it "free stamps"
***There was a time when a major campaign issue was paying for more stamps than your opponent; the technology changes that balance
*'''Joe Trippi''', Democratic Strategist
**McCain to Dean
***McCain: most significant use of technology up to 2000
****40,000 people signed up after New Hampshire, raised million$
****Lacking some important tools:
*****Meetup.com
*****Broadband
***Dean: took it to a new, unforeseen level
****650,000 people
**Next?
***Trippi thinks the next big tech-candidate will get half a billion dollars from the internet
***New tools:
****Facebook
****YouTube
***Like TV to radio, there is a change of medium
****The JFK-Nixon parallel: Nixon was well-suited for radio but not TV
****Phoniness of 30-second spot to cell-camera authenticity: harder to control message, young people become more engaged because (1) it is their technology, (2) it shows authenticity, which appeals to the young

====Moderated Discussion====
*Shaheen: Q about MySpace: Major Dem candidates have 80,000 friends; Republican candidates have about 2500 friends.
**Murphy: America is more aligned by culture than by class, resulting in a social agenda gap with the under-30s. If Republicans don't start operating there, they're finished. He's noticed the ridiculously early start to 2008, but thinks that as voters and candidates evolve the field could change. Obama is the only candidate who has actually connected with people so far. In 6 months, check back on Facebook to see the growth in the demographic; if the Republicans are still so far behind, he would be concerned.
***Prediction: Hillary will lose in the primary. For Republicans, the new primary calendar may favor Guilliani from Iowa and New Hampshire bump going into California's early primary. Romney and McCain are the others to watch.
**Trippi:
***There are 4 campaigns who are already far ahead of the $400,000 Dean online fundraising for first quarter 2003. Hillary has $1M; Obama; Edwards; Richarson is also ahead of where Dean was at this time (which may be somewhat surprising, and be an early indication of his connection).
***It is not yet clear where the comfortable online place is for normal people; if you went to DailyKos to express appreciation for Hillary's latest speech you'd be flamed. As the election gets closer, some online space will mature for a more moderate forum.
***Text-messaging: Dean was the largest text-messaging network in America in 2004 with 5,000 people. It will be more powerful in '08, it is useful, but it will not be the end-all of American politics (this cycle, at least). Dean used it along with email to increase TV ratings for shows on which Dean appeared, "tricking" the media into extra coverage.
****Shaheen: Hamas used text msgs to get the vote out last year.
***Prediction: it's still anyone's game. With the new calendar: Gephart would have been the nominee in 84 if he had run on this calendar. Iowa and New Hampshire will be MORE important than in the past, because NH vote will be a huge factor in the CA vote.

====Questions from audience====
*Q: which candidates will energize young people?
**Murphy: Romney, McCain, and Guilliani all have a good chance of doing so. Karl Rove will run but lose. Brownback or Huckabee may have a run at it.
**Trippi: Obama definitely appeals to young people. Hillary inspires young women. Edwards also inspires young people. The problem is, the early states are some of the oldest states in the country--the Dean internet organization was not very heavy in Iowa.
*Q from student from Students for Obama: the org began as an internet group, and has been building towards the ground (which is different from ground->net). Power of Facebook seems untapped.
**Trippi: The tools are still evolving. As Dean saw: how do you get the online activity to come offline? The tools are better than they were 4 years ago. It takes resources to build the code, but today you can know where each of your people is and coordinate their actions. Small groups like this that are independent from the campaign and national party are exciting part of the mess of democracy.
**Murphy: All technology eventually becomes push technology. It begins as opt-in, but when it becomes push-tech it is less fun, you have to deal with rejection (see knocking on doors). Internet has turned mailing lists alive, made it possible to converse with them.
*Q: What challenges do peer-to-peer networks face when trying to make them sustainable?
**Trippi: A lot of this is trying to put to much on one thing, like a single Facebook group. How is Obama even going to know that 300,000 would take interest in a group? What the campaign has to figure out is how to empower those group members to take action--perhaps for a start by visiting the campaign website, then maybe even to knock on doors. Trippi sees a field full of Goliaths (the parties, the candidates, the issues) and lots of powerless Davids. The question is not "how do we stay the Goliath" but "how can I give these people slingshots?" Help them slay an opposing candidate, or an issue like global warming.
***My thought: what happens when they train the slingshot on you?
*Q from former Harvard College Dems president: To what extent does the Iowa boost control the momentum in New Hampshire and determine the primary?
**Trippi: New Hampshire can slap down the arrogant or those who don't have "that thing." But those 2 states have everything. In 04, everyone was broke after IO and NH. The surpise in 04 was that Kerry won NH when Dean was expected to take it. If the received wisdom is that Hillary wins in Iowa and someone else takes it, all the money in the world doesn't change the fact that the upstart will win.
**Murphy: The biggest mechanical mistake made in McCain 2000, was trying to move the South Carolina primary back. Picking fight by taking NH, then needed some time to recharge the bank after that. They succeeded in moving the primary, but it turned out that it was Bush who needed the time to recoup, and he was able to come back to win SC--under the previous, or the current calendar McCain would have won. He thinks if someone can be top 2 in Iowa and win NH, they will dry up the money for every other candidate and take it.
**Trippi: on the topic of unintended consequences, in '88 the Dems moved a bunch of Southern states to Super Tuesday in hopes of getting a Southern candidate--the result was Dukakis. ????
*Q: what strategy for candidates to engage (or not engage) the blogosphere?
**Trippi: is "flabbergasted" that the candidates are doing so little. Dean was a terrible blogger; he made his blogging debut on Lessig's blog and made some fairly innane comments ("This is terrific, it's terrific to be blogging here today") resulting in some scrambling by the campaing manager (Trippi), but it resulted in a truly authentic moment. The campaign made a fair amount of hay out of the candidate being his authentic, awkward self--it built a lot of credibility that it wasn't ghost-written.
**Murphy: Internet based on a model that the best stuff will bubble to the top. But: all campaigns have press hacks who spend a lot of time researching bad stuff on the opponents. The hacks send out information (or mis-information) to blogs, and some small blogs pick up on it without checking; the mainstream press can be led around by this when the then report based on those couple of blogs that this is what "the blogosphere" thinks.
*Q: What does it mean that the youth vote favors "authenticity"?
**Murphy: Watching Obama (who he likes), he thinks his campaign could become too cute. Some candidates might try to pre-package authenticity, creating a phony, self-parodying authenticity (see the Hillary announcement video, in which she doesn't come across as human but rather as a poll robot.)
**Trippi: We are already seeing phony authenticity. Thinking back to DeanTV, they were able to keep 24-hour news feed based on videos made by volunteers. One video showed the beginning of a rally, where a student organizer gushed that he was skipping a final to be there, and Dean went from puffed-up presidential material to an authentic worried-father type. Those kinds of authentic moments will come out in this election cycle.
**Murphy: voters are interested in authenticity, but not to the point of offensiveness.
*Q: (1) What is the best message for Republicans with youth voters? (2) How can it be implemented? (3) What use are robo-calls?
**Murphy:
***(1) Best message is freedom & authenticity;
***(2) Republicans need to flood the communication channels, including by putting young voters front-and-center;
***(3) Robo-calls are used by everyone but the public hates them. The only times he thinks they should be used are when there is an especially compelling speaker (i.e. Schwartzeneggar) and they are programmed to leave messages but not to talk to a live person.
*Q: What can parties do to retain younger people as committed members of a party, or are those days over?
**Trippi: Those days are over. Either party can put up attractive, personality-based candidates. See Reagan, who spurred a cohort to sign up as Republican and continue that way. When one of those rare people comes into power, they make long-term changes. While the parties should make every effort to organize and empower youth voters, a single candidate can change the image of the entire party for the long term. We may well see that with the Republicans this cycle. We are also getting close to the point where a 3rd-party candidate could take it, in part because of the technology, and in part because the 2 major parties have ground the public to the point of apathy.
**Murphy: All the trends are towards independent voters. Many always vote one party or the other, but don't want to be beholden or labelled.

===Emerging Election Tactics===
(2:00 â 3:15)
Moderated by: Heather Smith, Director, Young Voter Strategies

====Opening Remarks====
*'''Allison Dale''', University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Ph.D. student (Text messaging)
**Interested in empirical methods of testing campaign strategies. She worked in the NH Dean campaign in '04, leading to a desire to field experiment with text messaging in the '08 election.
**1/4 of Americans under 25 are mobile-phone only; soon 1/3 of the entire electorate will be mobile-only.
**Experiment:
***This requires getting their numbers. Working Assets, Student PIRG, Mobile Voter and others supplied them with a sample of 14,300 cell numbers.
***Half were control group.
***Other half received reminder
***Some received msg: "Polling information at" phone # for People for the American Way, giving polling place addresses.
***Some received "Please vote" message
***Some received "Close election" message
***Results not yet in
**Follow-up survey:
***Asked about how people feel about receiving text messages
***Results:
****Overall, 43% of people thought positively about receiving the messages
****People most prefered to be contacted by text messages, over email, phone, or in-person contact
****A distict minority were bothered by receiving the messages
*'''Professor John Palfrey''', Harvard Law School Berkman Center (Online Video)
**Gap between digital natives and digital immigrants:
**Use of internet in politics and strengthening democracy
***Increased use of video: natives like image accompanied by text, while immigrants think in terms of text accompanied by an image
***Campaigns and tactics:
****Most common use is another form of TV: Clinton and videos feel very much like a campaign video--it may be effective, but is not transformative
****You can think of creating a channel or RSS feed
***Videos by those outside the campaign:
****Candidates are always on, always in a "public" space
***Is it possible to use read/write technologies to engage young voters?
****"Generation Web" video
****It is not clear whether any candidacy will give up control to use this power
*'''Lowell Feld''', Founder of the Raising Kaine blog, former Netroots Coordinator on the Webb for Senate campaign
**Goaded Webb to run
***Through email, he pushed Jim Webb to run. Webb was concerned about fundraising, and about the reception he would get
***Created DraftJimWebb.com, getting 1000 signatures and $40,000 in pledges in 1 month.
***Was eventually hired by the campaign
**Lessons:
***Netroots played a huge role.
***Many candidates think they can jump-start web presence by starting a website, but the process is organic and bottom-up. The model of raising small money from big crowds was successful and led to a perception of "authenticity". It may prove difficult to replicate the model because it is not just a formula.
***Messaging was important, but not micro-targeted in this campaign. It was one message for everyone.
***The "macaca moment" was not an accident. It was a "forced error" in the sense that he was under pressure. He was forced out of Iowa and into Virginia, where he was followed around with a camera.
*'''Ron Bell''', Deval Patrick's Director of Public Liason Department; Founder and Executive Director of Dunk the Vote (Grassroots Organizing)
**Tailoring old-style campaign methods to the new world
***Trust the grassroots: allow people to become their own campaign managers
**Dunk the Vote:
***Voter registration drives at basketball tournament; the first year they registered 1500 participants and viewers during the 3-day tournament
***2006: they registered 40,000 people
***This was a lot of work. Youth voters aren't apathetic, but they need to be approached in a way that engages them, and talk about issues that matter to them.
***Young people ARE voting in Massachusetts, and this is a spreading trend.
*'''Chris Kelly''', CIPP, Facebook (Social Networking)
**What Facebook is:
***Founded at Harvard 3 years ago
***Goals:
****Short term, to track the user's actual social network, not create online social network from scratch.
****Long-term, to grow the networks over time.
***Today, largest photo site on the web
***1

==Insights==

In light of our discussion about presidential candidates' use of web video, I thought it was interesting that the Republican Michigan Gubernatorial candidate made such good use of "unscripted" video diaries. Each week, the candidate recorded some thoughts, usually while in the car between stops, and a staffer interspersed some B-roll and threw it on the web. Apparently, his "VLOGs" were the must heavily used feature on his site. This suggests that people are looking for the unscripted interaction that the presidential candidates were not willing to provide. Yet, even this was not completely "unscripted"; the candidate was still making the points he wanted to make, and if he had said anything too off message, it could easily be edited out. Nonetheless, the web may provide an excellent opportunity for candidates to present themselves in a more casual light, and at least give the impression that they are being spontaneous. Although this use of the web is more strategic than democracy enhancing, it may still serve to give voters a better sense of a candidate's personality, which is sometimes hard to grasp from brief TV spots.

30% of the youth market in that race lacked a land line phone--that in combination with the statistics regarding preferred method of contact (32% said they wanted to be reminded to vote by text messages, 29% by email) suggests that as this market expands, there is a tremendous potential for cost savings. Although in-person calls may be slightly more effective, text messages are cheap and don't require nearly the same amount of labor as phone banks. Relying on cell phones also helps relieve the perennial problem of updating databases when land line numbers change. As the campaign managers mentioned, the cost effectiveness of email and text messages also allows candidates to stay in contact with voters even between elections.

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-06T00:24:52Z

AOConnor:

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.

In the end, e-government might provide slightly better access to information or even governnment officials. But this marginal increase in access is likley ineffectual. Even if we ingore that few citizens are interested in substantive interaction, those citizens who are will simply have a slightly easier time doing so.

Quick Link to [[Arguments Opposed to the Resolution]]

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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.

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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] 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.

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.

==OpenCongress==

OpenCongress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] 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.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] 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 Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] 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.

==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

==Efficiency of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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."

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==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.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* 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."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T17:57:55Z

AOConnor: /* Accountability */

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.

In the end, e-government might provide slightly better access to information or even governnment officials. But this marginal increase in access is likley ineffectual. Even if we ingore that few citizens are interested in substantive interaction, those citizens who are will simply have a slightly easier time doing so.

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] on CNN.

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

David Miliband: Face of a mediocre blogger

'''More Access for Only the Few?'''

For some of the case studies that they conducted, The Hansard Society collected data on participants. This data suggests that the citizens who participate in e-government initiatives are disproportionately computer savvy. This shows the 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 of 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.

==Open Congress==

Open Congress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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 Open Congress 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] There were only four blog posts about H.R. 861. Furthermore, of these four posts, only one of the four had anything remotely interesting to say about the bill.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] However, this post was short and made merely one point in support of the law. The main commentary from Open Congress about the bill was this: "This is just what we need. The nationalization of Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

To be sure, online voting may be good for democracy, but 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.

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 offical 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 representives 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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] and in many respects, has been sucessful.
**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 a lot easier, it's hardly a victory for representative democracy.
*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 go a long way to making 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.

==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

==Efficiency of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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."

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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 initatives, one study suggests that 60% of projects fail in meeting their budget, functionality, or timeliness goals. United Nations, E-Government at the Crossroads[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==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 aggrevate existing inequalities in the United States, and especially in developing countries.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* E-government is incredibly costly to implement and may cause some developing countries to divert resources from other priorites, despite the fact that such changes would only benefit the relativley 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, countires with "high levels of satisfaction with democracy are where e-government is less likley to develop."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T17:50:13Z

AOConnor: /* Accountability */

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.

In the end, e-government might provide slightly better access to information or even governnment officials. But this marginal increase in access is likley ineffectual. Even if we ingore that few citizens are interested in substantive interaction, those citizens who are will simply have a slightly easier time doing so.

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] on CNN.

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

David Miliband: Face of a mediocre blogger

'''More Access for Only the Few?'''

For some of the case studies that they conducted, The Hansard Society collected data on participants. This data suggests that the citizens who participate in e-government initiatives are disproportionately computer savvy. This shows the 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 of 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.

==Open Congress==

Open Congress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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 Open Congress 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] There were only four blog posts about H.R. 861. Furthermore, of these four posts, only one of the four had anything remotely interesting to say about the bill.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] However, this post was short and made merely one point in support of the law. The main commentary from Open Congress about the bill was this: "This is just what we need. The nationalization of Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

To be sure, online voting may be good for democracy, but 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.

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 offical 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 representives 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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] and in many respects, has been sucessful.
**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 a lot easier, it's hardly a victory for representative democracy.
*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 go a long way to making 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.

==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 person information in a portable, easily accessable form

==Efficiency of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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."

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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 initatives, one study suggests that 60% of projects fail in meeting their budget, functionality, or timeliness goals. United Nations, E-Government at the Crossroads[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==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 aggrevate existing inequalities in the United States, and especially in developing countries.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* E-government is incredibly costly to implement and may cause some developing countries to divert resources from other priorites, despite the fact that such changes would only benefit the relativley 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, countires with "high levels of satisfaction with democracy are where e-government is less likley to develop."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T17:49:40Z

AOConnor: /* Accountability */

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.

In the end, e-government might provide slightly better access to information or even governnment officials. But this marginal increase in access is likley ineffectual. Even if we ingore that few citizens are interested in substantive interaction, those citizens who are will simply have a slightly easier time doing so.

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] on CNN.

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

David Miliband: Face of a mediocre blogger

'''More Access for Only the Few?'''

For some of the case studies that they conducted, The Hansard Society collected data on participants. This data suggests that the citizens who participate in e-government initiatives are disproportionately computer savvy. This shows the 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 of 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.

==Open Congress==

Open Congress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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 Open Congress 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] There were only four blog posts about H.R. 861. Furthermore, of these four posts, only one of the four had anything remotely interesting to say about the bill.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] However, this post was short and made merely one point in support of the law. The main commentary from Open Congress about the bill was this: "This is just what we need. The nationalization of Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

To be sure, online voting may be good for democracy, but 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.

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 offical 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 representives 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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] and in many respects, has been sucessful.
**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 a lot easier, it's hardly a victory for representative democracy.
*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 go a long way to making 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.

==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 to 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 person information in a portable, easily accessable form

==Efficiency of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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."

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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 initatives, one study suggests that 60% of projects fail in meeting their budget, functionality, or timeliness goals. United Nations, E-Government at the Crossroads[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==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 aggrevate existing inequalities in the United States, and especially in developing countries.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* E-government is incredibly costly to implement and may cause some developing countries to divert resources from other priorites, despite the fact that such changes would only benefit the relativley 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, countires with "high levels of satisfaction with democracy are where e-government is less likley to develop."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T17:49:05Z

AOConnor: /* Accountability */

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.

In the end, e-government might provide slightly better access to information or even governnment officials. But this marginal increase in access is likley ineffectual. Even if we ingore that few citizens are interested in substantive interaction, those citizens who are will simply have a slightly easier time doing so.

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] on CNN.

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

David Miliband: Face of a mediocre blogger

'''More Access for Only the Few?'''

For some of the case studies that they conducted, The Hansard Society collected data on participants. This data suggests that the citizens who participate in e-government initiatives are disproportionately computer savvy. This shows the 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 of 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.

==Open Congress==

Open Congress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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 Open Congress 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] There were only four blog posts about H.R. 861. Furthermore, of these four posts, only one of the four had anything remotely interesting to say about the bill.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] However, this post was short and made merely one point in support of the law. The main commentary from Open Congress about the bill was this: "This is just what we need. The nationalization of Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

To be sure, online voting may be good for democracy, but 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.

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 offical 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 representives 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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] and in many respects, has been sucessful.
**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 a lot easier, it's hardly a victory for representative democracy.
*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 go a long way to making 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.

==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 privcy on at least to fronts, see Maeve McDonagh, 10 Int'l J.L. & Info. Tech 327:
* government use of collected data
* third parties unauthorized use collected information
** The information security breaches at the Department of Veterans' Affairs and other government agencies illustrate the risks of centralizing large amounts of person information in a portable, easily accessable form

==Efficiency of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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."

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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 initatives, one study suggests that 60% of projects fail in meeting their budget, functionality, or timeliness goals. United Nations, E-Government at the Crossroads[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==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 aggrevate existing inequalities in the United States, and especially in developing countries.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* E-government is incredibly costly to implement and may cause some developing countries to divert resources from other priorites, despite the fact that such changes would only benefit the relativley 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, countires with "high levels of satisfaction with democracy are where e-government is less likley to develop."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T05:10:57Z

AOConnor:

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.

In the end, e-government might provide slightly better access to information or even governnment officials. But this marginal increase in access is likley ineffectual. Even if we ingore that few citizens are interested in substantive interaction, those citizens who are will simply have a slightly easier time doing so.

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] on CNN.

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

David Miliband: Face of a mediocre blogger

'''More Access for Only the Few?'''

For some of the case studies that they conducted, The Hansard Society collected data on participants. This data suggests that the citizens who participate in e-government initiatives are disproportionately computer savvy. This shows the 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 of 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.

==Open Congress==

Open Congress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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 Open Congress 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] There were only four blog posts about H.R. 861. Furthermore, of these four posts, only one of the four had anything remotely interesting to say about the bill.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] However, this post was short and made merely one point in support of the law. The main commentary from Open Congress about the bill was this: "This is just what we need. The nationalization of Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

To be sure, online voting may be good for democracy, but 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.

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 offical 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 representives 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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] and in many respects, has been sucessful.
**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 a lot easier, it's hardly a victory for representative democracy.
*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 go a long way to making 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.

==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

==Efficiency of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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."

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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 initatives, one study suggests that 60% of projects fail in meeting their budget, functionality, or timeliness goals. United Nations, E-Government at the Crossroads[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==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 aggrevate existing inequalities in the United States, and especially in developing countries.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* E-government is incredibly costly to implement and may cause some developing countries to divert resources from other priorites, despite the fact that such changes would only benefit the relativley 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, countires with "high levels of satisfaction with democracy are where e-government is less likley to develop."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T05:00:50Z

AOConnor: /* Supply and Demand */

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.

In the end, e-government might provide slightly better access to information or even governnment officials. But this marginal increase in access is likley ineffectual. Even if we ingore that few citizens are interested in substantive interaction, those citizens who are will simply have a slightly easier time doing so.

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] on CNN.

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

David Miliband: Face of a mediocre blogger

'''More Access for Only the Few?'''

For some of the case studies that they conducted, The Hansard Society collected data on participants. This data suggests that the citizens who participate in e-government initiatives are disproportionately computer savvy. This shows the 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 of 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.

==Open Congress==

Open Congress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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 Open Congress 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] There were only four blog posts about H.R. 861. Furthermore, of these four posts, only one of the four had anything remotely interesting to say about the bill.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] However, this post was short and made merely one point in support of the law. The main commentary from Open Congress about the bill was this: "This is just what we need. The nationalization of Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

To be sure, online voting may be good for democracy, but 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.

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 offical 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 representives 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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] and in many respects, has been sucessful.
**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 a lot easier, it's hardly a victory for representative democracy.
*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.
**Anyone who knows the address of this portal (without googling it), raise your hand.

In short, Congress was right to focus the E-government Act on pragmatic goals. Technology can go a long way to making 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.

==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

==Efficiency of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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."

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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 initatives, one study suggests that 60% of projects fail in meeting their budget, functionality, or timeliness goals. United Nations, E-Government at the Crossroads[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==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 aggrevate existing inequalities in the United States, and especially in developing countries.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* E-government is incredibly costly to implement and may cause some developing countries to divert resources from other priorites, despite the fact that such changes would only benefit the relativley 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, countires with "high levels of satisfaction with democracy are where e-government is less likley to develop."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T04:59:51Z

AOConnor: /* Supply and Demand */

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.

In the end, e-government might provide slightly better access to information or even governnment officials. But this marginal increase in access is likley ineffectual. Even if we ingore that few citizens are interested in substantive interaction, those citizens who are will simply have a slightly easier time doing so.

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] on CNN.

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

David Miliband: Face of a mediocre blogger

'''More Access for Only the Few?'''

For some of the case studies that they conducted, The Hansard Society collected data on participants. This data suggests that the citizens who participate in e-government initiatives are disproportionately computer savvy. This shows the 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 of 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.

==Open Congress==

Open Congress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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 Open Congress 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] There were only four blog posts about H.R. 861. Furthermore, of these four posts, only one of the four had anything remotely interesting to say about the bill.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] However, this post was short and made merely one point in support of the law. The main commentary from Open Congress about the bill was this: "This is just what we need. The nationalization of Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

To be sure, online voting may be good for democracy, but 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.

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 offical do so. Unfiltered interaction between private individuals and government simply isn't practical--that's why representatives have staffs to collect information (and 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 representives 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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] and in many respects, has been sucessful.
**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 a lot easier, it's hardly a victory for representative democracy.
*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.
**Anyone who knows the address of this portal (without googling it), raise your hand.

In short, Congress was right to focus the E-government Act on pragmatic goals. Technology can go a long way to making 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.

==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

==Efficiency of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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."

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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 initatives, one study suggests that 60% of projects fail in meeting their budget, functionality, or timeliness goals. United Nations, E-Government at the Crossroads[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==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 aggrevate existing inequalities in the United States, and especially in developing countries.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* E-government is incredibly costly to implement and may cause some developing countries to divert resources from other priorites, despite the fact that such changes would only benefit the relativley 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, countires with "high levels of satisfaction with democracy are where e-government is less likley to develop."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T04:52:48Z

AOConnor: /* E-Government and Underlying Social Conditions */

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.

In the end, e-government might provide slightly better access to information or even governnment officials. But this marginal increase in access is likley ineffectual. Even if we ingore that few citizens are interested in substantive interaction, those citizens who are will simply have a slightly easier time doing so.

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] on CNN.

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

David Miliband: Face of a mediocre blogger

'''More Access for Only the Few?'''

For some of the case studies that they conducted, The Hansard Society collected data on participants. This data suggests that the citizens who participate in e-government initiatives are disproportionately computer savvy. This shows the 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 of 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.

==Open Congress==

Open Congress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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 Open Congress 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] There were only four blog posts about H.R. 861. Furthermore, of these four posts, only one of the four had anything remotely interesting to say about the bill.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] However, this post was short and made merely one point in support of the law. The main commentary from Open Congress about the bill was this: "This is just what we need. The nationalization of Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

To be sure, online voting may be good for democracy, but 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.

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 offical do so. Unfiltered interaction between private individuals and government simply isn't practical--that's why we don't live an a direct democracy.
**That's not to say that people's opinions don't matter. In aggregate they do: most representives 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 use 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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] and in many respects, has been sucessful.
**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 a lot easier, it's hardly a victory for representative democracy.
*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.
**Anyone who knows the address of this portal (without googling it), raise your hand.

In short, Congress was right to focus the E-government Act on pragmatic goals. Technology can go a long way to making 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.

==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

==Efficiency of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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."

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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 initatives, one study suggests that 60% of projects fail in meeting their budget, functionality, or timeliness goals. United Nations, E-Government at the Crossroads[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==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 aggrevate existing inequalities in the United States, and especially in developing countries.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* E-government is incredibly costly to implement and may cause some developing countries to divert resources from other priorites, despite the fact that such changes would only benefit the relativley 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, countires with "high levels of satisfaction with democracy are where e-government is less likley to develop."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T04:51:43Z

AOConnor: /* E-Government and Underlying Social Conditions */

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.

In the end, e-government might provide slightly better access to information or even governnment officials. But this marginal increase in access is likley ineffectual. Even if we ingore that few citizens are interested in substantive interaction, those citizens who are will simply have a slightly easier time doing so.

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] on CNN.

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

David Miliband: Face of a mediocre blogger

'''More Access for Only the Few?'''

For some of the case studies that they conducted, The Hansard Society collected data on participants. This data suggests that the citizens who participate in e-government initiatives are disproportionately computer savvy. This shows the 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 of 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.

==Open Congress==

Open Congress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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 Open Congress 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] There were only four blog posts about H.R. 861. Furthermore, of these four posts, only one of the four had anything remotely interesting to say about the bill.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] However, this post was short and made merely one point in support of the law. The main commentary from Open Congress about the bill was this: "This is just what we need. The nationalization of Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

To be sure, online voting may be good for democracy, but 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.

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 offical do so. Unfiltered interaction between private individuals and government simply isn't practical--that's why we don't live an a direct democracy.
**That's not to say that people's opinions don't matter. In aggregate they do: most representives 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 use 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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] and in many respects, has been sucessful.
**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 a lot easier, it's hardly a victory for representative democracy.
*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.
**Anyone who knows the address of this portal (without googling it), raise your hand.

In short, Congress was right to focus the E-government Act on pragmatic goals. Technology can go a long way to making 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.

==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

==Efficiency of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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."

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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 initatives, one study suggests that 60% of projects fail in meeting their budget, functionality, or timeliness goals. United Nations, E-Government at the Crossroads[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==E-Government and Underlying Social Conditions==

E-Governmetn cannot correct--and may exacerbate--underlying social problems.
* Because of disparities in internet access and technological ability, e-government may aggrevate existing inequalities in the United States, and especially in developing countries.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* E-government is incredibly costly to implement and may cause some developing countries to divert resources from other priorites, despite the fact that such changes would only benefit the relativley 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, countires with "high levels of satisfaction with democracy are where e-government is less likley to develop."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T04:51:17Z

AOConnor: /* E-Government and Underlying Social Conditions */

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.

In the end, e-government might provide slightly better access to information or even governnment officials. But this marginal increase in access is likley ineffectual. Even if we ingore that few citizens are interested in substantive interaction, those citizens who are will simply have a slightly easier time doing so.

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] on CNN.

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

David Miliband: Face of a mediocre blogger

'''More Access for Only the Few?'''

For some of the case studies that they conducted, The Hansard Society collected data on participants. This data suggests that the citizens who participate in e-government initiatives are disproportionately computer savvy. This shows the 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 of 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.

==Open Congress==

Open Congress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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 Open Congress 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] There were only four blog posts about H.R. 861. Furthermore, of these four posts, only one of the four had anything remotely interesting to say about the bill.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] However, this post was short and made merely one point in support of the law. The main commentary from Open Congress about the bill was this: "This is just what we need. The nationalization of Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

To be sure, online voting may be good for democracy, but 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.

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 offical do so. Unfiltered interaction between private individuals and government simply isn't practical--that's why we don't live an a direct democracy.
**That's not to say that people's opinions don't matter. In aggregate they do: most representives 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 use 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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] and in many respects, has been sucessful.
**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 a lot easier, it's hardly a victory for representative democracy.
*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.
**Anyone who knows the address of this portal (without googling it), raise your hand.

In short, Congress was right to focus the E-government Act on pragmatic goals. Technology can go a long way to making 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.

==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

==Efficiency of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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."

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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 initatives, one study suggests that 60% of projects fail in meeting their budget, functionality, or timeliness goals. United Nations, E-Government at the Crossroads[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==E-Government and Underlying Social Conditions==

E-Governmetn cannot correct--and may exacerbate--underlying social problems.
* Because of disparities in internet access and technological ability, e-government may aggrevate existing inequalities in the United States, and especially in developing countries.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* E-government is incredibly costly to implement and may cause some developing countries to divert resources from other priorites, despite the fact that such changes would only benefit the relativley 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, countires with "high levels of satisfaction with democracy are where e-government is less likley to develop."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] 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, at least in practice may not add much to the status quo. ''See'', Altman[http://www.puc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/altman_irpa.pdf]

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T04:48:44Z

AOConnor: /* E-Government and Underlying Social Conditions */

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.

In the end, e-government might provide slightly better access to information or even governnment officials. But this marginal increase in access is likley ineffectual. Even if we ingore that few citizens are interested in substantive interaction, those citizens who are will simply have a slightly easier time doing so.

==The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues==

The Hansard Society issued a report on e-government in Britain called "Digital Dialogues." [http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Digital_Dialogues_Phase_One.pdf] 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 [http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx], 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 [http://feingold.senate.gov/news/blog.html]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Matalin] on CNN.

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

David Miliband: Face of a mediocre blogger

'''More Access for Only the Few?'''

For some of the case studies that they conducted, The Hansard Society collected data on participants. This data suggests that the citizens who participate in e-government initiatives are disproportionately computer savvy. This shows the 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 of 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.

==Open Congress==

Open Congress[http://www.opencongress.org/] 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 Open Congress 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.[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h861/show] There were only four blog posts about H.R. 861. Furthermore, of these four posts, only one of the four had anything remotely interesting to say about the bill.[http://felonsforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/hr-861/] However, this post was short and made merely one point in support of the law. The main commentary from Open Congress about the bill was this: "This is just what we need. The nationalization of Floridaâs 'Castle Law.' Yes, indeed, now you too may have the right to shoot to kill anyone you donât 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.

==Barriers to 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[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main] 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[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015488.pdf] 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.

* According to "Global E-Government, 2006" report[http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt06int.pdf], 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.)

==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''[http://www.internetcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/citizen.pdf]:

To be sure, online voting may be good for democracy, but 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.

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 offical do so. Unfiltered interaction between private individuals and government simply isn't practical--that's why we don't live an a direct democracy.
**That's not to say that people's opinions don't matter. In aggregate they do: most representives 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 use 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,[http://www.cio.com/archive/030103/union.html] and in many respects, has been sucessful.
**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 a lot easier, it's hardly a victory for representative democracy.
*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.
**Anyone who knows the address of this portal (without googling it), raise your hand.

In short, Congress was right to focus the E-government Act on pragmatic goals. Technology can go a long way to making 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.

==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

==Efficiency of Public Service==

Dr D.C. Misra[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084787?itemId=1084787] 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."

'''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'''

* There have been huge investments in e-government.
** US: $65 billion
** UK: Â£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 initatives, one study suggests that 60% of projects fail in meeting their budget, functionality, or timeliness goals. United Nations, E-Government at the Crossroads[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012733.pdf]
* 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''[http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/egovernance/papers/32_Singh.pdf]

==E-Government and Underlying Social Conditions==

E-Governmetn cannot correct--and may exacerbate--underlying social problems.
* Because of disparities in internet access and technological ability, e-government may aggrevate existing inequalities in the United States, and especially in developing countries.[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0009.html]
* E-government is incredibly costly to implement and may cause some developing countries to divert resources from other priorites, despite the fact that such changes would only benefit the relativley 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, countires with "high levels of satisfaction with democracy are where e-government is less likley to develop."[http://www.public-policy.unimelv.edu.au/egovernance/papers/05_Bishop.pdf] E-government might simply make bureaucracies more efficient and propaganda cheaper to produce.

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T04:38:40Z

AOConnor:

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T04:27:59Z

AOConnor: /* Efficiency of Public Service */

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T04:16:33Z

AOConnor: /* Supply and Demand */

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T04:14:51Z

AOConnor: /* Efficiency of Public Service */

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T04:12:06Z

AOConnor: /* Efficiency of Public Service */

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T03:44:28Z

AOConnor: /* Supply and Demand */

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T03:41:34Z

AOConnor: /* Supply and Demand */

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T03:23:56Z

AOConnor: /* Supply and Demand */

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T03:20:38Z

AOConnor: /* Supply and Demand */

Arguments in Support of the Resolution

2007-03-04T03:11:22Z

AOConnor:

Debate 2

2007-02-13T21:52:51Z

AOConnor:

Date: Class 5. March 6, 2007

Students presenting: (4-6 people)
* Scott Lesowitz
* Chris Conley
* Atsushi Okada
* Cynthia Robertson
* Andrew O'Connor

==The Question==

"Resolved: E-Government is a lot like Al Goreâs âreinventing governmentâ initiative when he was Vice-President: sounds like something that governments should obviously do, but no one much cares and the impact on society, after lots of effort, is negligible. Thereâs no special magic to governing in a digital age."

Topic: Citizenship and Governance in a Wired World.

Dan Gillmor and Yochai Benkler have each written compelling books that bear on what it means to be a citizen in a digital age. Consider this puzzle from another vantage point. What does is mean to govern in a digital age? Are there any examples that make a compelling case for the imperative that those in power ought to use Internet as a key tool in how they govern (consider what new governor Deval Patrick or new attorney general Martha Coakley are up to locally, in Massachusetts)? Or examples where citizens are using the Internet to improve how those in power govern (like the work of the Sunlight Foundation and those it supports)?