The Impact of E-Participation and E-Government - Literature review Example

E-PARTICIPATION AND E-GOVERNMENT By Institution Lecturer Course Date Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 3.0 E-Participation 4 3.1 Definition 4 3.2 Case Studies of E-participation Applications 4 3.3 Importance and Value of E-Participation 6 3.4 Relationship between Citizens and E-participation 7 3.4.1 Decision-Making 8 3.4.2 Information exchange 8 3.4.3 Input probing (policymaking) 9 3.5 Tools Used in E-Participation 9 3.5.1 Online Surveys 10 3.5.2 Online Discussion Forums 10 3.5.3 Web Portals 11 3.5.4 Social Media 11 3.6 Factors Affecting E-participation 14 3.6.1 Ease of use of e-participation tools 15 3.6.2 Trust 15 3.6.3 Accessibility 15 3.6.4.Education 16 3.6.5 Socioeconomic status 16 3.6.6 Culture 17 3.6.7 Online behaviors 17 3.7 User Satisfaction on E-participation 17 3.7.1 Ease of use of the e-participation tool 18 3.7.2 Quality of contribution 18 3.7.3 Quality of Information contained in the E-participation Tool 18 Bibliography 19 3.0 E-Participation 3.1 Definition Various studies support that e-participation, in general, involves public involvement in decision and/or policymaking process, whether for administration, governance, social or political purposes, by providing for government-citizen interaction, service delivery and information sharing. For example, Karkin and Calhan (2002: 105) defined e-participation, from the government and administration perspective, as a process where citizens are involved as collaborates in the decision making process especially with regards to the provision of public services. Ferretti and Lener (2008: 508) defined e-participation, from the policymaking perspective as a tool, used by policy makers, for reaching the public and that enhances information dissemination and transparency in the policy making process. Nam (2011) defined e-participation, from the political perspective, as public involvement in political campaigns through electronic means, such as social media (136). For the purpose of this study, e-participation is defined as the use of ICT to enhance government-citizen interaction, which facilitates public participation in e-government processes, such as decision-making, policymaking, administration, service delivery, through easy access to public information. 3.2 Case Studies of E-participation Applications Several governments all over the world are putting efforts to employ ICT for soliciting inputs from the public in planning and decision-making, as well as disseminating public information. These efforts comprise e-participation initiatives. The impetus for e-participation initiatives may be attributed to increased awareness, by governments, to attain more democratic governance (Obi 2008 & Thomas, Samuels, Kanu and Mbarika 2010) coupled by growing interest, by the public, of the potential of ICT to enhance public empowerment (Phang and Kankanhalli 2008). Further, several countries are considering e-participation as a framework for ensuring sustainable growth rather than a means of delivering public services (Ahmed 2006: 5-8). These countries are increasingly viewing citizens, with respect to services and information, as “active customers of public services whose inputs are paramount in improving governance systems” (United Nations 2012: 10). E-participation in the Republic of Korea, between 1996 and 2007, has resulted into a dramatic change in citizen participation, in government operations (Ahn and Bretschneider 2011). Similar results, of improvement in e-participation in Korea, were given by the United Nations E-Government 2012 Survey, which ranked Korea as second in the world, after Netherlands, in terms of e-participation (United Nations 2012: 10). Other high ranking nations include UK, Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Denmark, USA, France and Sweden (United Nations 2012: 10 & Marius and Calin 2011: 764). Another e-participation initiative is Participa.Net, which is an Italian e-democracy initiative that was envisaged by a consortium led by the Emilia Romagna Region, and whose primary role was to enhance e-participation in the region (Resca 2011: 61). According to Resca (2011: 61), the facility includes an electronic forum, a virtual multimedia dictionary, an electronic polling facility, question posting facility and a facility for managing users’ profiles. This implies that Participa.Net allows for government-citizen interaction by allowing citizens to participate in government processes while obtaining relevant information that facilitates discussions. 3.3 Importance and Value of E-Participation E-participation initiatives are believed to serve to encourage a two-way communication process between citizens and their governments, enhance citizen education with respect to the complexity and rationale of policymaking, legitimate decision-making while providing opportunities for mutual learning (Phang and Kankanhalli 2008). E-participation initiatives are also believed to offer numerous advantages over off line participation channels, which include enhanced accessibility (especially for ICT knowledgeable citizens due to the elimination of time and space constrains) and convenience in participation (users are able to participate during their most convenient time and place) (Phang and Kankanhalli 2008 & United Nations 2012). Saglie and Vabo (2009) concluded that e-participation leads to increased democracy due to increased citizen involvement in government processes. Similarly, Pautz (2010) demonstrated that e-participation leads to increased democracy by providing easy access to public information and enhanced communication channels, which enable citizens to make informed and sound decisions. Therefore, e-participation promises enhanced access to public information and democracy, which leads to increased citizen participation in government processes. The United Nations E-Government 2012 Survey highlighted public empowerment as one of the aims of the e-participation (United Nations 2012), which is achieved when businesses and citizens have increased access to public service information and increased transparency of governments. Public empowerment is also achieved through establishing effective measures that allow the public to participate in policymaking processes (Ferretti and Lener 2008). The value of e-participation, to the government, refers to the advantages of e-participation to the government in terms of efficiency in participation, cost effectiveness and improvement in citizen participation when compared to traditional public participation (European Commission: 2009: 10). Phang and Kankanhalli (2010) highlighted the various objectives that are served by e-participation initializes, from the government point of view. They include probing for the needs of citizens, utilizing citizens’ input in decision-making, generating citizens’ support and informing citizens about the various issues of governance. Further, E-participation provides for 24-7 delivery of public services and information, which has resulted to cost effective delivery of public services and information, as well as public participation in government processes (United Nations 2012). The United Nations E-Government 2012 Survey revealed that e-participation has resulted into increased citizen participation (United Nations 2012). Similarly, Chen, Huang, and Hsiao (2006) concluded that, through ICT, citizens are more willing to lodge complains through e-participation than through other participation channels. Similar results of increased citizen participation were given by Panapoulou et al. (2011) and Paskaleva-Shapira, Azorin and Chiabai (2008). 3.4 Relationship between Citizens and E-participation E-participation, in general, involves a two-way communication platform between citizens and governments through electronic means and tools. Active civic engagement is considered as paramount for the uptake, success and development in e-participation (Chen and Hsieh 2009). Considering that demand for e-participation emanate from the users’ side, it follows, then, that governments do not push users towards using e-participation. Instead, users push governments to establish and improve on e-participation. A study conducted by Chen and Hsieh concluded that active user participation has resulted into extensive development, especially the introduction of innovative internet technologies that enhance e-participation in the United States (Chen and Hsieh 2009). The role of the government, therefore, is to ensure that e-participation tools are accessible to the citizens and that these tools, such as the internet and websites, are useable by the citizens. In such as case, users, especially those with a natural interest of participating in government operations, will readily participate. E-participation is used for a myriad of purposes including sharing ideas, inquiries, airing views, presenting complains, getting public information especially on government operations and processes, participating in government related surveys and participating in government processes, such as policy and decision-making processes (Phang and Kankanhalli 2008; Ferretti and Lener 2008 & Pautz 2010). 3.4.1 Decision-Making This involves collecting opinions from the citizens on pertinent issues, such as the use of a particular public land, which implies that communication is unidirectional, from citizens to the government. E-participation tools for this objective aim at facilitating the collection of citizens’ views about an issue at hand and they include online forums and web portals (Phang and Kankanhalli 2010: 130). 3.4.2 Information exchange Allowing for open communication between citizens and government agencies enables informaaation exchange between the two parties. Web portals are considered excellent for this purpose of e-participation since they allow the government to interact with citizens while providing relevant information through the portals (Phang and Kankanhalli 2010: 129). 3.4.3 Input probing (policymaking) Policies are meant for the public, and public input is required to ensure the policies are implemented effectively. Therefore, input probing involves the collection of opinions from several participants while avoiding interaction between the participants, thereby minimizing noises and biases (Phang and Kankanhalli 2010). 3.5 Tools Used in E-Participation An array of ICT tools has already been applied in e-participation initiatives to ensure that the initiatives meet their intended purposes and objectives. These tools, according to Phang and Kankanhalli (2010), include email, online discussion forums, blogs, online surveys, group support systems, online chat and social media tools, such as Facebook and Twitter (Phang and Kankanhalli 2010 & Lampe, LaRose, Steinfield and Maagd 2011). Other tools that have been used include Blogs, Microblogging, Wiki, Multimedia Sharing Mashup, Really Simple Syndication (RSS), Widgets, Virtual World and Social Bookmarking and Tagging (Chun, Shulman, Sandoval and Hovy 2010). Phang and Kankanhalli (2010) noted that there is an ad-hoc use of e-participation tools. With the continued increase in the number and complexity of e-participation, owing to the continued development in ICT and e-participation tools (Evans-Cowley and Hollander 2010), the ad-hoc use of ICT tools may be salient. Therefore, there is a dire need to address each tool alongside its capabilities and factors that may limit the use of the tool, by citizens, in ensuring that e-participation initiatives are successful and that users are satisfied. 3.5.1 Online Surveys Online surveys include web comment forums, survey questionnaires and data analysis tools. Online surveys are excellent in input probing (policymaking), since they allow for the collection of opinions from several participants while avoiding interaction between the participants, thereby minimizing noises and biases (Phang and Kankanhalli 2010). Online survey, in particular, offers advantages, such as low administration cost and enhanced turnaround time (Phang and Kankanhalli 2010: 130). Further, online surveys provide for data collection and analysis methodologies, such as sampling and instrument design (Phang and Kankanhalli 2010: 130). They offer a passive relationship between policymakers and citizens since citizens only contribute (individually) but do not interact with policymakers or other citizens. 3.5.2 Online Discussion Forums Online discussion forums used for e-participation initiatives include online chat, videoconferencing and teleconferencing tools. Online discussion forums with live chat features are considered excellent for education and support building objectives of e-participation (Phang and Kankanhalli 2010: 130). An example is the Canadian’s Youth Connection Forum (http://www.youth.gc.ca/). The main advantage of online discussion forums, especially with login features, is the security of the information contained in the forums since they restrict nonmembers from using them (Phang and Kankanhalli 2010: 130). However, they can only be used by IT-knowledgeable people and people who have to computing devices and ICT tools, such as the internet. 3.5.3 Web Portals Web portals are perhaps the most common tool used in a majority of e-participation initiatives. Web portals are considered effective in the information exchange objective of e-participation since they allow for open communication between citizens and government agencies (Phang and Kankanhalli 2010: 129). In other words, they act like drop-in centers where interested citizens interact with government agencies and obtain information. Several governments all over the world have created web portals, such as Denmark’s web portal (http:www.rn.dk), which allow for citizen-government interaction. Loukis found out that web portals, especially where visualizations are facilitated, are easy to use and understand the information provided through them, by governments (Loukis 2011). However, people without IT knowhow and those who do not have access to ICT tools, are locked out of the interaction, which implies reduced participation (Leighninger 2011). 3.5.4 Social Media Use of social media in e-participation initiatives involves the use of the various social media tools to enhance communication between governments and citizens. Bryer and Zavattaro define social media as “technologies that facilitate social interaction, makes possible collaboration, and enable deliberation across stakeholders” (Bryer and Zavattaro 2011: 327). Social media tools facilitate the sharing of video, text, photo and audio information (such as Wikis and Blogs) and networking (such as Facebook and Twitter, Myspace and Friendster). 3.5.4.1 Blogs A blog is simply a webpage on which a person or an entity can post information (pictures, video, and/or graphics), news or opinion and provide for reaction from readers in form of commenting on the shared information, news or opinion. A blog is a powerful Web-based communication tool that facilitates two-way communication between users (Murugesan 2007: 35 & Thielst 2007: 287). In the context of e-participation, it facilitates two-way communication between citizens and governments through the use of public blogs. There is little academic literature that has a direct focus on e-participation and blogging. Available literature has tended to focus on political blogging (Merry 2010 & Sullivan and Cheon 2011), factors affecting blog usage (Katz and Lai 2009 & Liu and Chang 2010). According to Merry (2010), blogs, especially from the political perspective, are used for various purposes including interacting with citizens on public policy issues and educating citizens on various issues (642). One of the main advantages of blogs is the ability to interact through a mobile device with Internet connection (Murugesan 2007: 35), which gives users the flexibility to interact. Further, publishing and posting a blog is very easy and cheap, and the posts appear instantly (Muragesan 2007: 35). Merry (2010: 646) highlighted the main characteristics of blogs that are meant for interacting with citizens, which is the ability of a reader to comment on a post through facilities such as archives and category indexes. Nevertheless blogs may not associated with a high level of interaction, determined by the number of comments posted, which depends on the topic and characteristics of the blog post under consideration (Merry 2010: 651). This implies that a blog post may be provided with a commenting capacity yet not receive comments at all. 3.5.4.2 Wikis Wikis facilitate interaction through sharing of information between groups of users. A wiki is a simple system that enables users to create and edit articles speedily and easily (Muragesan 2007: 35). In the context of e-participation, it offers a quick and efficient method through which government agencies and citizens can interact through sharing of information. Wikis have various advantages, such as high communication efficiency, high communication productivity and the ability to share centralized documents for planning purposes (Muragesan 2007: 35). Further, wikis provide excellent means by which users (government and citizens) can discuss issues or annotate information (Muragesan 2007: 35). However, various issues hinder the successful use of wikis, which include the lack of reliability, accuracy, consistency and comprehensiveness of the information contained in wikis (Muragesan 2007: 35). Others include reduced content security and privacy, lack of content reputation and accountability and the inability to control access to information (Muragesan 2007: 35). 3.5.4.3 Facebook Facebook is perhaps the widely used social networking tool of the twenty first century, which allows users to share information in the form of pictures, text, graphics, video and audio. It is increasingly being employed in e-participation initiatives especially for decision-making and policymaking objectives (Lampe, LaRose, Steinfield and Maagd 2011). Facebook offers various advantages including the ability to crowd source (Lampe et al. 2011). Further, Facebook allows government agencies to deliver information and collect opinions from a large number of people (Lampe et al. 2011). 3.5.4.4 Twitter Tweeter is another widely social media tool that involves interacting through sending short messages known as tweets. A user can follow another party (person or institution) on Tweeter by commenting on posts made by the party being followed. Twitter was initially meant for social networking purposes, but its applications have exceeded social networking to include public involvement in government and organizational activities (e-participation). For example, Will, Brenda and Janie (2010) reported that politicians who use Twitter to engage the public gain more political benefit from Twitter that those who use it to inform the public (informative purposes). Tweeter has already been used to involve the public for political activities (Will, Brenda and Janie 2010). However, Twitter has been used more for informative than participative purposes (Will, Brenda and Janie 2010). The use of Twitter for public engagement was also seen during the Haiti earthquake crisis in 2010 in which the public could get update about the rescue program (Auer 2011: 712). Twitter is a widely used social media, which implies that when used for e-participation, it is possible to reach many people. It is also possible to follow a party on twitter and comment on the party’s posts with a mobile device (Auer 2011: 713), which makes it possible for users to participate on activities running on the platform. However, it is impossible access to the information on the platform, which raises concern about security and privacy of information and users. 3.6 Factors Affecting E-participation Several factors determine active citizen participation in e-participation initiatives, which are concerned with the tools used for e-participation and the information contained in e-participation initiatives. They include ease of use of the tools, trust on e-participation initiatives, accessibility of the tools, culture, education and socioeconomic status. 3.6.1 Ease of use of e-participation tools Ease of use of e-participation tools depends on the tools themselves and technical knowhow of the users. According to Gatautis, Stravinnskiene and Gadauskas (2011), technically knowledgeable people find it easy to use e-participation tools, which implies that ease of use of e-participation tools depends with the academic status of an individual. From the tools perspective, complicated tools or tools that require a lengthy procedure require high level of technical knowhow, which might not be available to users (Gatautis, Stravinnskiene and Gadauskas 2011). In such as situation, people will not participate if only one e-participation tool, say a web-portal, is being used. 3.6.2 Trust The term trust is a broad term that refers to the reliability, surety, security and credibility of e-participation initiatives and tools. The internet and other ICT tools provides for an efficient and effective means through which people interact without having a face-to-face meeting. However, despite the numerous advantages of the internet, especially on providing excellent communication means, people are often concerned about the trustworthiness of online communication (Sledgianowski and Kulviwat 2009). For example, wikis are usually associated with reduced content security and privacy, lack of content reputation and accountability and the inability to control access to information (Muragesan 2007: 35). Therefore, users may fear using wikis, despite being effective interactive tools. 3.6.3 Accessibility Accessibility of e-participation tools, by the users, affects e-participation. Accessibility may be viewed from two perspectives: the cost perspective and the education perspective. The cost perspective encompasses all cost factors that affect a person’s access to e-participation tools including the socioeconomic status of the person. The education perspective encompasses all technical issues that affect a person’s access to e-participation tools, such as the level of education and the technical knowhow required to access the tools. 3.6.4.Education Gatautis, Stravinnskiene, and Gadauskas concluded that education (technical literacy) affects e-participation (Gatautis, Stravinnskiene and Gadauskas 2011). In their study, Gatautis, Stravinnskiene and Gadauskas concluded that the highly educated, technically literate and young users have a high tendency to utilize e-participation tools (Gatautis, Stravinnskiene and Gadauskas 2011: 1257-1258). E-participation involves the use of innovative tools, which requires a considerable knowhow in order to use them. 3.6.5 Socioeconomic status From the socioeconomic perspective of accessibility, literature is available to show that accessibility of e-participation tools is affected by the socioeconomic status of individuals. Evans-Cowley and Hollander (2010) concluded that the poor people in the society are, in some cases, shut out of ICT tools, such as high-speed web access, which limit their use of e-participation. Goldfinch, Gauld, and Herbison introduced the concept of the digital divide, which is concerned with public use of e-participation. High users of e-participation are often the well educated (Goldfinch, Gauld and Herbison, 2009: 346). Therefore, high e-participation usage and success will be experienced in developed countries, such as the European countries than it will be the case in developing countries, such as African and Asian countries. 3.6.6 Culture Culture changes from region to region, which may be attributed for the difference in use of e-participation applications in different countries. For example, Chen and Hsieh (2009) found that there is a difference in the use of e-participation applications between Taiwan and the United States, which may be attributed to cultural difference between the two nations. Similarly, Gatautis, Stravinnskiene and Gadauskas (2011) highlighted the issue of culture by concluding that high e-participation users were those with a European ethnicity. Therefore, it is apparent that culture has a significant impact in the use and success of e-participation in e-government. 3.6.7 Online behaviors Sometimes some users behave in ways that serve to prevent others from interacting through e-participation tools, especially where public opinion is required about an issue. Of importance are the factors that prevent active participation, which include online behaviors, such as flaming, trolling, and cyber bullying (Lampe et al. 2011). Sometimes, contributions through social media are abusive and out of content, which either prevents concerned users from participating. 3.7 User Satisfaction on E-participation Are users satisfied with using the aforementioned tools of e-participation? Several factors determine user satisfaction on e-participation especially with regard to e-participation tools. In a study to determine user satisfaction on e-consultation initiative, Loukis found out that users were, in general, satisfied with using the e-participation platform (with respect to the number of posts, visits and use of informative material posted on the platform) (Loukis 2011). However, users who indicated to very satisfied were very few (4 %) (Loukis 2011). 3.7.1 Ease of use of the e-participation tool Ease of use, which determines users’ understanding of the context, was highlighted as a key factor affecting user satisfaction of e-participation tools (Loukis 2011). For example, tools that allow for visualizations are accompanied by high user satisfaction since users understand their contexts easily. They are also interesting (Loukis 2011). 3.7.2 Quality of contribution Loukis found out that the perceived quality of contribution in an e-participation tool determines user satisfaction and the likelihood to contribute or participate in future (Loukis 2011). Quality of contribution can be determined by the extent to which contribution is controlled. For example, if offensive and out of topic contributions are filtered out, quality of contribution may be improved, which means that tool controllability affects user satisfaction. A similar argument was given by Lampe et al. (2011), who concluded that social media tools, particularly Facebook and Blogs, have low user satisfaction due to undesirable online behaviors, such as cyber bullying and flaming. 3.7.3 Quality of Information contained in the E-participation Tool This is especially the case where e-participation is used for education and information provision purposes. Users will be satisfied with the e-participation tool under consideration, and will be willing to use the tool again, if the tool performs its intended purpose, which is the delivery of quality and informative information (Loukis 2011). The same case will also apply to other purposes, such as decision-making and input probing purposes in that users will be satisfied with the tool if information shared through it is used constructively, say used in policymaking. Bibliography Ahmed, N. 2008. “An Overview of E-Participation Models”, United Nation’s Division of Public Administration and Development Management (DPADM) Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), pp. 1-14. Ahn, M.J. & Bretschneider, S. 2011. “Politics of E-Government: E-government and the Political Control of Bureaucracy”, Public Administration Review, vol 71, no. 3, pp. 414-424. Auer, M.R. 2011. “The Policy Sciences of Social Media”, The Policy Studies Journal, vol 39, no. 4, pp. 709-736. Bryer, T.A. & Zavattaro, S.M. 2011. “Social Media and Public Administration: Theoretical Dimensions and Introduction to the Symposium”, Administration Theory & Praxis, vol 33, no. 3, pp. 325-340. Chen, D. Huang, T. & Hsiao, N. 2006. “Reinventing Government Through on-line Citizen Involvement in the Developing World: A Case Study of Taipei City Mayor’s Email Box in Taiwan”, Public Administration & Development, vol 26, pp. 409-423. Chun, S.E. Shulman, S. Sandoval, R. & Hovy, E. 2010. “Government 2.0: Making Connections between Citizens, Data and Government”, Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, vol 15, pp. 1-9. Chen, Y. & Hsieh, J. 2009. “Advancing E-Governance: Comparing Taiwan and the United States”, Public Administration Review, vol 69, pp. S151-S158. Coye, C. 2011. “Online Trust, Trustworthiness, or Assurance?”, Daedalus: The Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, vol 140, no. 4, pp. 49-58. European Commision. 2009. European eParticipation Summary Report”, Information Society and Media, pp. 1-30. Evans-Cowley, J. & Hollander, J. 2010. “The New Generation of Public Participation: Internet- Based Participation Tools”, Planning & Practice Research, vol 25, no. 3, pp. 397-408. Ferreti, M.P. & Lener, M. 2008. “Lay Public or Experts? E-Participation in the Authorization for GMO Products in the European Union”, Review of Policy Research, vol 25, no. 6, pp. 507-525. French, S. Insua, D.R. & Ruggeri, F. 2007. “e-Participation and Decision Analysis”, Decision Analysis, vol 4, no. 4, pp. 211-226. Gatautis, R. Stravinskiene, J. & Gadauskas, R. 2011. “Users Engagement in ICT Based Public Discussions: Evidence from Pilot Action”, Economics and Management, vol 16, pp. 1253-1258. Goldfinch, S. Gauld, R. & Herbison, P. 2009. “The Participation Divide? Political Participation, Trust in Government, and E-government in Australia”, The Australian Journal of Administration, vol 68, no. 3, pp. 333-350. Karkin, N. & Calhan, S.H. 2012. “An Interactive e-Participation Model for the Public Administration System in Turkey: Sibiyo”, Ege Academic Review, vol 12, no.1, pp. 104-123. Katz, J.E. & Lai, C. 2009. “News Blogging in Cross-Cultural Contexts: A Report on the Struggle for Voice”, Know Techn Pol, vol 22, pp. 95-107. Lampe, C. Larose, R. Steinfield, C. & Demaagd, K. 2011. “Inherent Barriers to the Use of Social Media for Public Policy Informatics”, The Innovative Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, vol 16, no. 1, pp. 1-17. Leighninger, M. 2011. “Citizenship and Governance in a Wild, Wired World: How Should Citizens and Public Managers Use Online Tools to Improve Democracy?”, National Civic Review, pp. 20-29. Liu, E.Z. & Chang, Y.F. 2010. “Gender Differences in Usage, Satisfaction, Self-Efficacy and Performance of Blogging”, British Journal of Education Technolgy, vol 41, no. 3, pp. E39-E43. Loukis, E. 2011. “Using Advanced Information Technologies for Increasing Public Participation in the Greek Parliament”, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, vol 13, no. 1, pp. 13-35. Marius, P. & Calin, V. “Development of the E-Government Market in the European Union: An Analysis of the Supply Versus Demand Sides”, Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, vol 20, no. 1, pp. 761-767. Merry, M.K. 2010. “Blogging and Environmental Advocacy: A New Way to Engage the Public?”, Review of Policy Research, vol 27, no. 5, pp. 641-656. Muragesan, S. 2007. “Second-Generation Web Technologies: Understanding Web 2.0”, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 34-41. Nam, T. 2011. “Whose E-Democracy? The Democratic Divide an American Electoral Campaigns”, Information polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, vol 16, no. 201, pp. 131-150. Obi, T. 2008. “2008 Waseda University 2008 World e-Government Ranking Released”, 1-Ways Digest of Electronic Government Policy and Regulations, vol 31, pp. 51-55. Panapoulou, E. Tambouris, E. Sanchez-Nielsen, E. Zotou, M. & Tarabanis, K. 2011. “Learning from eParticipation Initiatives of Regional and Local Level Authorities in Greece and Spain”, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, vol 13, no. 1, pp. 77-96. Paskaleva-Shapira, K. Azorin, J. and Chiabai, A. “Enhancing Digital Access to Local Cultural Heritage through E-Governance: Innovations in the Theory and Practice From Genoa Italy”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, vol 21, no. 4, pp. 389-405. Pautz, H. 2010, “The Internet, Political Participation and Election Turnout: A Case Study of Germany’s www.abgeordnetenwatch.de”, German Politics and Society, vol 28, no. 3, pp. 156-175. Phang, C.W. & Kankanhalli, A. 2008. “A Framework of ICT Exploitation for E-Participation Initiatives”, Communications of the ACM, vol 51, no. 12, pp. 128-132. Resca, A. 2011. “Constructing and Implementing e-Participation Tools in the Emilia Romagna Region: Assemblages and Sense-Making”, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, vol 13, no 1, pp. 59-76. Saglie, J. & Vabo. S.I. 2009. “Size and e-Democracy: Online Participation in Norwegian Local Politics”, Scandinavian Political Studies, vol 32, no. 4, pp. 381-401. Sledgianowski, D. & Kulviwat, S. 2009. “Using Social Network Sites: The Effect of Playfulness, Critical Mass and Trust in a Hedonic Context”, The Journal of Computer Information Systems, vol 49, no. 4, pp. 74-83. Sullivan, J. & Cheon, S. 2011. “Recconecting Representatives in Two East Asian Democracies”, East Asia, vol 28, pp. 21-36. Thielst, C.B. 2007. “Weblogs: A Communication Tool”, Journal of Healthcare Management, vol 52, no. 5, pp. 287-289. Thomas, C. Samuels, D. Kanu, M. & Mbarika, V.W. 2010. “Facilitating Better Governance Through E-Government Initiatives: Successful Cases in Sub-Saharan Africa”, International Journal of Business & Public Administration, vol 7, no. 1, pp. 71-85. United Nations. 2012. “United Nations E-Government Survey 2012: E-Government for the People”, Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations. Will, G.J. Brenda, M. & Janie, B.G. 2010. “Digital Dialogue? Australian Politicians’ Use of the Social Network”, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol 45, no. 4, pp. 579-604. Read More