Arguments in Support of the Resolution - Revision history

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

2007-05-10T16:11:30Z

In Illustrative Example from Closer to Home: OpenCongress

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:11, 10 May 2007
Line 66:		Line 66:
	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.		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==		==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.		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.

AOConnor at 16:10, 10 May 2007

2007-05-10T16:10:49Z

Show changes

Aokada: /* Barriers to Citizen Participation in E-rulemaking */

2007-05-03T03:48:49Z

Barriers to Citizen Participation in E-rulemaking

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:48, 3 May 2007
Line 103:		Line 103:
	'''Privacy and Security Barriers'''		'''Privacy and Security Barriers'''

	People might avoid getting involved with electric process because of privacy protection concerns.		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.)		* 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.)

Aokada: /* Efficiency of Public Service */

2007-05-03T03:42:52Z

Efficiency of Public Service

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:42, 3 May 2007
Line 184:		Line 184:
	* 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.		* 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'''		'''Huge Costs and Overloaded Government Websites[http://topics.developmentgateway.org/egovernment/rc/filedownload.do~itemId=1084780]'''

	* There have been huge investments in e-government.		* There have been huge investments in e-government.

Aokada: /* Efficiency of Public Service */

2007-05-03T03:29:08Z

Efficiency of Public Service

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:29, 3 May 2007
Line 204:		Line 204:
	* 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]		* 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]		* 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 and Underlying Social Conditions==

AOConnor: /* Efficiency of Public Service */

2007-04-23T17:26:04Z

Efficiency of Public Service

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:26, 23 April 2007
Line 177:		Line 177:
	'''Costs to the labor force'''		'''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]		*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'''		'''Computer Literacy within the Government'''

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

2007-04-23T17:25:43Z

E-Government and Underlying Social Conditions

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:25, 23 April 2007
Line 213:		Line 213:
	** 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]		** 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.		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==		==Direct Democracy: A Bad Idea==

AOConnor at 17:22, 23 April 2007

2007-04-23T17:22:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:22, 23 April 2007
Line 163:		Line 163:
	* third parties unauthorized use of collected information		* 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		** 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==		==Efficiency of Public Service==
Line 211:		Line 213:
	** 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]		** 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		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==		==Direct Democracy: A Bad Idea==

AOConnor at 17:09, 23 April 2007

2007-04-23T17:09:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:09, 23 April 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:
	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.		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.		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]]		Quick Link to [[Arguments Opposed to the Resolution]]
Line 165:		Line 167:

	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."		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'''		'''Computer Literacy within the Government'''
Line 186:		Line 197:
	** $23.5 million online university project in UK attracted only 900 students.		** $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.		** $22 million e-voting project in Uganda did not work when elections were held in 2001.


	'''High Failure Rates at High Costs'''		'''High Failure Rates at High Costs'''
Line 200:		Line 210:
	* E-Government may not promote democracy--it may simply reinforce the current form of government.		* 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]		** 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==		==Direct Democracy: A Bad Idea==

	With the desire of connecting people to politics through the internet so strong, this begs the ~~questions~~, 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.		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)		* 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)
Line 223:		Line 235:
	* 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.		* 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 ~~are~~:		Other problems with ballot propositions:
	* They tend to be overly complicated omnibus measures that are difficult for voters to comprehend. (See Karl Manheim &		* 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)).		Edward P. Howard, ''A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California'', 31 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1165, FN 275 (1998)).

Slesowitz: /* The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues */

2007-04-16T23:18:56Z

The Hansard Society: Digital Dialogues

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:18, 16 April 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:
	* 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.		* 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.		* 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>http://www.yngwie.org/images/Magazinecovers/VIRTUOSA2005.jpg</center>

	Recent photo of the 43-year old Malmsteen		<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).		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).