United Nations E-Government Survey 2012

United Nations E-Government Survey 2012 Survey methodologyTable 7.6 Environment IndexCountry Index value Country Index value Country Index value Country Index valueGermany 1.0000 Slovakia 0.7059 Guyana 0.4118 Sao Tome and Principe 0.1176Republic of Korea 1.0000 South Africa 0.7059 Seychelles 0.1176Singapore 1.0000 Spain 0.7059 Samoa 0.4118 Somalia 0.1176United States 1.0000 Costa Rica 0.6471 Sudan 0.1176Austria 0.9412 Cyprus 0.6471 Saudi Arabia 0.4118 Zimbabwe 0.1176Israel 0.9412 Czech Republic 0.6471 Comoros 0.0588Japan 0.9412 Georgia 0.6471 Senegal 0.4118 Congo 0.0588Malta 0.9412 Hungary 0.6471 The former Yugoslav 0.4118 Lesotho 0.0588Mexico 0.9412 India 0.6471 Rep. of Macedonia 0.3529 Malawi 0.0588New Zealand 0.9412 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 0.6471 Bahamas Timor-Leste 0.0588Russian Federation 0.9412 Jamaica 0.6471 Afghanistan 0.0000United Kingdom 0.9412 Mauritius 0.6471 Barbados 0.3529 Algeria 0.0000Australia 0.8824 Namibia 0.6471 Burundi 0.0000Canada 0.8824 Republic of Moldova 0.6471 Cape Verde 0.3529 Central African Republic 0.0000Finland 0.8824 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0.6471 Chad 0.0000France 0.8824 Tunisia 0.6471 Côte d’Ivoire 0.3529 Dem. People’s Rep. of Korea 0.0000Mongolia 0.8824 Ukraine 0.6471 Equatorial Guinea 0.0000Norway 0.8824 Viet Nam 0.6471 Ethiopia 0.3529 Guinea 0.0000Portugal 0.8824 Armenia 0.5882 Guinea-Bissau 0.0000Belgium 0.8235 Belarus 0.5882 Lebanon 0.3529 Iraq 0.0000Chile 0.8235 Brunei Darussalam 0.5882 Liberia 0.0000Denmark 0.8235 Bulgaria 0.5882 Montenegro 0.3529 Libya 0.0000Netherlands 0.8235 Colombia 0.5882 Marshall Islands 0.0000Peru 0.8235 Dominican Republic 0.5882 Morocco 0.3529 Myanmar 0.0000Poland 0.8235 El Salvador 0.5882 Niger 0.0000Sweden 0.8235 Estonia 0.5882 Nigeria 0.3529 Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.0000Switzerland 0.8235 Gabon 0.5882 San Marino 0.0000Turkey 0.8235 Jordan 0.5882 Papua New Guinea 0.3529 Sierra Leone 0.0000Brazil 0.7647 Kenya 0.5882 Solomon Islands 0.0000China 0.7647 Maldives 0.5882 Qatar 0.3529 South Sudan 0.0000Greece 0.7647 Rwanda 0.5882 Swaziland 0.0000Iceland 0.7647 United Arab Emirates 0.5882 Suriname 0.3529 Syrian Arab Republic 0.0000Ireland 0.7647 Uzbekistan 0.5882 Togo 0.0000Italy 0.7647 Angola 0.5294 Zambia 0.3529 Tuvalu 0.0000Kazakhstan 0.7647 Antigua and Barbuda 0.5294Latvia 0.7647 Azerbaijan 0.5294 Belize 0.2941Liechtenstein 0.7647 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.5294Lithuania 0.7647 Mozambique 0.5294 Bhutan 0.2941Pakistan 0.7647 Panama 0.5294Slovenia 0.7647 Paraguay 0.5294 Dem. Rep. of the Congo 0.2941Thailand 0.7647 Vanuatu 0.5294Trinidad and Tobago 0.7647 Venezuela 0.5294 Djibouti 0.2941Albania 0.7059 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 0.4706Andorra 0.7059 Fiji 0.4706 Haiti 0.2941Bangladesh 0.7059 Kiribati 0.4706Croatia 0.7059 Madagascar 0.4706 Lao People’s Dem. Rep. 0.2941Cuba 0.7059 Mali 0.4706Indonesia 0.7059 Tajikistan 0.4706 Nepal 0.2941Kyrgyzstan 0.7059 Uganda 0.4706Luxembourg 0.7059 Uruguay 0.4706 Philippines 0.2941Malaysia 0.7059 Argentina 0.4118Romania 0.7059 Ecuador 0.4118 Saint Lucia 0.2941Serbia 0.7059 Ghana 0.4118 Sri Lanka 0.2941 Tonga 0.2941 Bahrain 0.2353 Benin 0.2353 Botswana 0.2353 Burkina Faso 0.2353 Egypt 0.2353 Gambia 0.2353 Guatemala 0.2353 Kuwait 0.2353 Monaco 0.2353 Regional and Economic Groupings Nicaragua 0.2353 Africa 0.2418 Americas 0.5025 Oman 0.2353 Asia 0.4914 Europe 0.7182 Turkmenistan 0.2353 Oceania 0.3403 World 0.4633 United Republic of Tanzania 0.2353 Eritrea 0.1765 Grenada 0.1765 Honduras 0.1765 Nauru 0.1765 Developed countries 0.7443 Developing countries 0.4455 Yemen 0.1765 other than LDCs 0.2120 Least developed countries 0.3355 Cambodia 0.1176 Small island developing States Cameroon 0.1176 Dominica 0.1176 Mauritania 0.1176 Micronesia (Federated States of) 0.1176 Palau 0.1176 135

Notes United Nations E-Government Survey 2012136 Notes Chapter 1 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 1 World Bank Institute (2010). 1 See Christensen and Laegried (2007). 1 Multichannel service delivery has been used by 2 World Bank (2011c). As of July 2011 the World 2 OECD (2006). the private sector for more than 30 years (e.g., Bank classified a country with a gross national 3 Bharosa and others (2010). ATMs have been in use in the financial sector income per capita of greater than USD 12,276 4 LaVigne (2001) and Raffat (2006). since the late 1960s. as high income. 5 Busson and Keravel (2005). 2 European Commission (2008). 3 For details on the four stages, see the 6 United Nations (2008). 3 Voigt (2011). methodology section of the statistical annex. 7 For the additional characteristics see Krenner, 4 Ecotec Research and Consulting (2009). 4 Oceania’s jump in the 2008 average was due Johanna and others. 5 World Bank (2011a). to the exclusion of four countries from the 8 For the stages see Wimmer, Maria A. (2002). 6 Justmeans (2010). ranking due to unavailability of key indicators, 9 W3C (2009). 7 According to ITU, there are nearly six billion which pulled up the index. 10 Pascual (2003) on issues of how to build an mobile cellular subscriptions worldwide 5 Seychelles: National ICT Policy. appropriate government information and and more than four billion of those are in 6 The usa.gov website is discussed in more software architecture. developing countries. In addition, more than detail in Chapter 3 on whole-of-government. 11 This section draws on Busson and Keravel 90 per cent of the world’s population now 7 Egov Magazine (2011). (2005). lives within range of a cellular network, a 8 ictQatar Supreme Council of Information & 12 See Sethi and Sethi. figure that has doubled in the past ten years. Communication Technology (2011). 13 Ibid. People are moving rapidly from 2G to 3G 9 European Commission Community Research 14 See Chatzidimitriou and Koumpis (2008). platforms in both developed and developing and Development Information Service (2011). 15 Ibid. countries. In 2011, a total of 159 economies 10 European Commission Information Society 16 See Kubicek and Hagen (2000). worldwide launched 3G services commercially (2011). 17 Busson and Keravel. and the number of active mobile-broadband 11 Teisesforumas (2012). 18 See “Online Collaboration” in Fortune subscriptions increased to almost 1.2 billion. 12 United Nations Statistics Division grouping magazine, vol. 164, no. 6, 17 October 2011, 8 OECD and ITU (2011). (2011c) (4 October) is basis for LDCs special advertising section. 9 GSM Association (2011). classification. 19 Ibid. 10 Singapore (2011). 13 UNDP Crisis Prevention and Recovery Report 20 See Wimmer and Traunmüller (2002) 11 Malaysia (2011). 2008 (http://www.undp.org/cpr/content/ 21 Roy and Longford (2008). 12 Malta (2011). economic_recovery/PCERreport.pdf). 22 See Franzel and Coursey (2004). 13 Çam (2010). 14 Klievnik and Jannsen (2008). Chapter 2 23 Rabaiah, Abdelbaset and Vandijck (2009). 15 Ibid. 1 A transactional service is defined as a two-way 24 Ibid. 16 Mexico (2011). interaction between the government and the 17 Bold (2011). citizen, for example involving online payments. 18 New Zealand, Citylink (2011). 2 United Nations (2011a). 19 Ontario Ministry of Government Services 3 For a full list, see UNEP Ministries of (2011). Environment website at http://www.unep.org/ 20 European Commission (2004). resources/gov/MEnvironment.asp. 21 See Von and Haldenwang (2002). 4 See in particular Agenda 21 (principle 10) and 22 Ibid. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (paras. 110, 112 and 128). 23 Mahapatra and Sahu (2008). 5 UNEP (2005). 24 ITU (2011a). 6 UNEP (2010). 25 Ibid. 26 W3C (2008). 27 Susanto and Goodwin (2010). 28 ITU (2010). 29 Hall (2008). 30 See Botterman (2008) and Millard (2009). 31 van Veenstra and Janssen (2010). 32 See many studies and stories at http://www. ukonlinecentres.com. 33 European Commission. (2004). 34 W3C (2009). 35 See Singh and Sahu (2008); Chen, Huang, and Hsiao (2006); Ebbers, Pieterson, and Noordman (2008)

United Nations E-Government Survey 2012 Notes 137Chapter 5 through time – to minimize the effect of any 7 Pavilenene (2011). occasional errors or oversight on the part of 8 Deloitte (2010). 1 Segger and Khalfan (2004). website maintainers. 9 OECD (2009). 24 Estonia, Finland and Spain have declared 10 World Bank (2011b). 2 See World Bank (2009). access to the Internet as a legal right of their 11 Smith (2010). citizens. See, for example, ITU (2010). 12 Norazah, Suk and Ramayah (2010). 3 Barzilai-Nahon (2006). 25 Web Accessibility Initiative. 13 European Commission (2010a). 26 Olaya (2010). 14 Katims (2011). 4 Chen and Wellman (2005). 27 ComScore Press Release (2010). 15 Howard (2011). 28 Ibid. 16 Al-Jaghoub, Al-Yaseen and Al-Hourani (2010); 5 Corrocher and Ordanini (2002). 29 Adult economic activity rate refers to the percentage of the population aged 15 and over Al-Sobi, Faris, Vishanth Weerakkody and 6 Sciadas (2005). that is economically active. See United Nations Al-Shafi (2009); Yonazi, Jim, Sol and Boonstra Statistics Division (2011b). (2010); Vencatachellum and Pudaruth (2010). 7 Norris and others (Eds.) (2001) and 30 The higher average of female economic 17 Australian Government Information Mossberger and others (2003). Reference is activity in Africa can be explained by the Management Office (2008) and (2009). made to the different applications and uses of small-N factor: only two African countries, 18 Foresee (2011); online information to engage and participate Ethiopia and Botswana, offer vulnerability Morris and Alawadhi (2009). in public life. sections on their national websites. These 19 Smith (2010). two countries have high degrees of female 20 Wang (2009). 8 DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001). economic activity – 80.7 per cent and 72.3 per 21 Norway (2011). cent of their populations, respectively. 22 Ross, Hutton and Peng. (2004). 9 Modarres (2011); Segev and Ahituv (2010). 31 Dasgupta and others (2005). 23 Yong (2004). 32 Tolbert and Mossberg (2006). 24 ForeSee Results, Inc. (2011). 10 One common analogy is the 80/20 factor: 80 33 For instance, a disability often results in 25 Cap Gemini (2009). per cent of profit is made by serving the most poverty, and conversely, living in poverty 26 EU (2009). affluent 20 per cent, thus pushing IT designers increases the likelihood of acquiring a 27 Dwivedi, Selamat and Lal (2011); to create products specifically for the affluent. disability. See, for example, D’Aubin (2007). Yeo (2011). See, for example http://www.digitaldivide.org. 34 ITU (2011b). 28 ITU (2011c). 35 See World Bank data at http://data. 29 Smith (2010). 11 The content of table 1 is not exhaustive. worldbank.org/about/country-classifications. 30 European Commission (2010b). It is based on Barzilai-Nahon (2006). For 36 See World Bank data at http://data. 31 Public Technology (2005) more on the theory of social construction of worldbank.org / indicator / NY.GDP.PC AP.CD. 32 Madden and Zickuhr (2011). technology, see Pinch and Bijker (1984); Dijk 37 UNDP (2011). 33 Pew Research Center (2010). and Hacker (2003); Corrocher and Ordanini 38 ITU (2011d). 34 Nielsen Wire (2010). (2002); Selhofer and Mayringer (2001); 39 ITU (2011e). 35 European Commission, Directorate General Sciadas (2005); Modarres (2011); and Segev 40 IFAD. Communication (2010). and Ahituv (2010). 41 ITU (2011b). 36 Human Capital Institute (2010). 42 ILO (2011). 37 Social media strategy (2010). 12 Pick and Azari (2008). 43 Yung and others (2010). 38 Human Capital Institute (2010). 44 Schluter and Kragelj (2007). 39 Shah (2010). 13 Charalabidis and Loukis (2011). 45 Barzilai-Nahon (2006). For more on the theory 40 Hopkins (2011). of social construction of technology, see Pinch 41 United Kingdom (2011). 14 Modarres (2011). and Bijker (1984). 42 United Kingdom, Cabinet Office (2011). 46 Stoiciu (2011). 43 Pizzicannella (2010). 15 Rao (2000). 47 Vicente and Lopez (2010). 44 Boyle and Harris (2009). 45 UNDP (2008). 16 Wolff and Castro (2003). Chapter 6 46 Bart (2011). 1 United Nations (2010). 47 Niehaves (2008). 17 Torsen (2005). 2 Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne 48 See Dubai Government. (2002). 49 Prima and Rolianabt (2011). 18 Vicente and Lopez (2010). 3 Society of IT Management (2008). 50 In comparison, only 43 countries (22 per 4 In Bahrain, e-government services are not cent) have a self-promotional section, such 19 A security feature consisting of a string of used regularly by the respondents, and this as asking users to link to the site or providing distorted letters and numbers that users are can be clearly shown in their responses to information on events related to promoting the supposed to read and retype before they the question. Most of them (75 per cent) portal. More than half of these 43 countries register for a new service or send an e-mail. choose the answer “when needed.” See Alzaki are developing countries and one (Sierra (2009); Sahraoui (2005); and AlSobhi, Kamal Leone) is even a least developed country. 20 See http://accessibility.egovmon.no/en/ and Weerakkody (2010). 51 See United States Internal Revenue Service pagecheck. 5 Yih-Jeou Wang (2009). website at http://www/irs.gov/efile/ 6 Australian Government Information ar ticle / 0,,id =11986,00.html. 21 W3C launched the Web Accessibility Initiative Management Office (2009). 52 World Economic Forum (2011). in April 1997. WAI has developed a detailed set of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines – WCA Guidelines 1.0 and associated checklists, which aim to promote accessible designs and to make content understandable and navigable. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. A word of caution is in order. First, the actual number of tests carried out on each site varies widely from site to site due to the fact that the number of testable features varies from site to site. For example, a very complex, feature-rich website may have hundreds of testable features. A very simple site, by contrast, may have only a handful of testable features. Thus, all else being equal, it is likely that simple sites will pass a higher proportion of tests than more complex sites. This fact renders cross-country comparisons difficult. Second, websites are highly dynamic; they change frequently as content is updated, revised, and retired. Thus, to thoroughly assess a country’s commitment to accessibility via the e-accessibility checker, it would be necessary to repeat test runs

References United Nations E-Government Survey 2012138 References Al-Jaghoub, S., Al-Yaseen, H. and Al-Hourani, M. (2010). Chatzidimitriou, Marios and Adamantios Koumpis (2008). Evaluation of Awareness and Acceptability of Using Marketing One-stop E-Government Solutions: the E-Government Services in Developing Countries: The Case European OneStopGov Project. IAENG International of Jordan. The Electronic Journal of Information Journal of Computer Science, 35:1, IJCS_35_1_11. Systems Evaluation, vol. 13, issue 1, pp. 1-8. (Advance online publication: 19 February). Alzaki, Ali Aduljalil Abbas (2009). Evaluation of E-Government Chen, W. and B. Wellman (2005). Charting Digital Divides: Services in Bahrain. Open University Malaysia, Centre for Comparing Socioeconomic, Gender, Life Stage, and Graduate Studies. Rural-Urban Internet Access and Use in Five Countries. Transforming Enterprise, ed. by W. Dutton, and others. Al-Sobi, Faris, Vishanth Weerakkody and Shafi Al-Shafi Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Available from (2009). European and Mediterranean Conference on http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/. Information Systems (12-13 April), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Christensen, Tom and Per Laegreid (2007). The Whole-of- Government Approach to Public Sector Reform. Australian Government Information Management Office Public Administration Review (November/December): (2008). Interacting with Government – Australians’ pp. 1059-1066. Use and Satisfaction with E-Government Services – 2009. ComScore Inc. (2010). Social Networking Sites Reach a Bart, Sandra (2011). Electronic Government Equals Sustainable Higher Percentage of Women than Men Worldwide, Development for Guyana, DiploFoundation, 28 July 2010. Available from http://www.comscore.com/ Internet Governamce Capacity Building Programme. Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/7/Social_Network- ing_Sites_Reach_a_Higher_Percentage_of_Women_ Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and Bits: Conceptualizing than_Men_Worldwide. Measurements for Digital Divide/s. The Information Society 22: pp. 269-278. Corrocher, N. and A. Ordanini (2002). Measuring the Digital Divide: A Framework for the Analysis of Cross-country Bharosa, Nitesh, and others (2010). Guiding Integrated Differences. Journal of Information Technology, Service Delivery: Synthesizing and Embedding Principles 17: pp. 9-19. Using Role-Playing Games. Delft University of Technology, Netherlands. Dasgupta, S., and others. (2005). Policy Reform, Economic Growth and the Digital Divide. Oxford Development Boyle, David and David M. Harris (2009). The Challenge of Co- Studies 33, 2: pp. 229-243. Production. New Economic Foundation discussion paper. D’Aubin, A. (2007). Working for Barrier Removal in the ICT Busson, Alain and Alain Keravel (2005). Interoperable Govern- Area: Creating a More Accessible and Inclusive Canada. ment Providing Services: Key Questions and Solutions The Information Society 23: pp. 193–201. Analyzed through 40 Case Studies Collected in Europe. École des Hautes Études Commerciales de Paris. Deloitte (2010). User Expectations of a Life Events approach for Designing E-Government Services: Final Report Bold, Ben (2011). Estonia Enjoys IT Conference Boom. prepared for the European Commission, DG Information Society and Media. Conference and Incentive Travel Magazine. 6 September 2011. Available from http://www.citmaga- Dijk, J.V. and Hacker, K. (2003). The Digital Divide as a zine.com/news/1089374/Estonia-enjoys-conference- Complex and Dynamic Phenomenon. The Information boom/. Accessed January 2012. Society, 19, 4: pp. 315-356. Çam, Ali Rıza (2010). SMS Information System: Mobile access DiMaggio, P., and E. Hargittai. (2001). From the ‘Digital to justice. European Journal of ePractice, no. 10 Divide’ to Digital Inequality: Studying Internet Use as (September 2010). Available from http://www.sms.uyap. Penetration Increases. Working paper 15, Princeton gov.tr/english/smsinfo.pdf. Accessed January 2012. University, Princeton, New Jersey. Cap Gemini, S.A., and others (2009). Smarter, Faster, Better Dubai Government. Official Portal. eGovernment. 8th Benchmark Measurement, November Available from http://www.dubai.ae/. 2009. Prepared for European Commission Directorate General for Information Society and Media. Dwivedi, Yogesh K., Mohamad Hisyam Selamat and Banita Lal (2011). “Broadband Adoption and Usage Behavior Charalabidis, Y. and E. Loukis (2011). Transforming Govern- of Malaysian Accountants. International Journal of Elec- ment Agencies’ Approach to E-participation through tronic Government Research, 7(2), (April-June 2011) Efficient Exploitation of Social Media. ECIS 2011 Proceed- pp. 1-14. ings Paper 84. Available from http://aisel.aisnet.org/ ecis2011/84.

United Nations E-Government Survey 2012 ReferencesEcotec Research and Consulting (2009). MC-eGov: Study on Hall, Nicola (2008). How Do Socially Disadvantaged Citizens Multichannel Delivery Strategies and Sustainable Business Prefer to Access Public Services? MC-eGov Study on Multi- Models for Public Services Addressing Socially Disadvan- channel Delivery Strategies and Sustainable Business taged Groups (June 2009). Models for Public Services Addressing Socially-Disadvan- taged Groups, think paper 5, Autumn 2008. Prepared byEgov Magazine (2011). Technology High on National Agenda. ECOTEC Consulting Ltd. for the DG Information Society of (September). Available from http://egovonline.net/ the European Commission. articles/current-article.asp?fm=3&yy=2011. Hopkins, Curt (2011). Kenya Launches Sub-Saharan Africa’s FirstÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (2002). Why and how National Open Data Initiative. ReadWriteWeb, 8 July 2011. the environment has to be taken into account at the World Available from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/ Summit on the Information Society, Geneva 2003 – Tunis kenya_launches_africas_first_national_open_data_in.php. 2005. Contribution to the WSIS Working Group on the Impact of ICT on the Environment. WSIS/PC-2/CONTR/43-E. Howard, Alex (2011). New York City launches 311 on- line service request. gov20.govfresh. (16 FebruaryEuropean Commission (2004). Multichannel Delivery of 2011). Availablefrom http://gov20.govfresh. com/ eGovernment Services. Interchange of Data between new-york-city-launches-311-online-service-request-map/. Administrators. (June 2004). Human Capital Institute (2010). Social Networking in Govern- (2008). Study on Multichannel Delivery Strategies and ment: Opportunities and Challenges. Sustainable Business Models for Public Services Address- ing Socially Disadvantaged Groups. Ecotec Research and ictQatar Supreme Council of Information & Communication Consulting Ltd. (August 2008). Technology (2011). National Programs, E-Government. Available from http://www.ictqatar.qa/en/department/ (2010a). E-Government statistics, Eurostat, 2010. national-programmes/e-government/hukoomi. Accessed January 2012. (2010b). Eurostat, May 2010. International Fund for Agricultural Development (2011). RuralEuropean Commission Community Research and Development Poverty Report. Rome, Italy. Available from http://www. Information Service (2011). Seventh Framework Program, ifad.org/rpr2011/report/e/overview.pdf ICT. Available from http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/ home_en.html. Accessed January 2012. International Labour Organisation (2011). ILO warns of a generation “scarred” by a worsening global youthEuropean Commission, Directorate General Communication employment crisis. Press release 19 October 2011. (2010). Digital Agenda: Household Survey Reveals more Available from http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/ Europeans on-line but concerned about costs and secu- press-and-media-centre/news/WCMS_165465/. rity. Press release, 13 October 2010. International Telecommunication Union (2010). The World inEuropean Commission Information Society (2011). ICT and 2010. Available from http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/mate- Society, E-Government, Policy Available from http:// rial/FactsFigures2010.pdf. Accessed January 2012. ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/egovern- ment/policy/index_en.htm. Accessed January 2012. (2011a). Estimates – Key Global Telecom Indicators for the World Telecommunication Service Sector.European Union (2009). More effective e-services when (December 2011). Available from http://www.itu.int/ Companies and Authorities Cooperate. eGovmonitor, ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/KeyTelecom.html. 18 November 2009. Accessed January 2012.ForeSee Results, Inc. (2011). Federal Social Media Usage and (2011b). ICT Facts and Figures. Citizen Satisfaction Update: Foresee ACSI E-Government Satisfaction Index (Q3) 2011. (2011c). Measuring the Information Society.Franzel and Coursey (2004). Government Web Portals: (2011d). Available from http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/sis/ Management Issues and the Approaches of Five States. newslog/2011/05/13/MobileMiracleContinuesToTrans- In David G. Garson and Alexei Pavlichev, Digital formLivesInTheWorldsPoorestNations.aspx. Government: Principles and Best Practices. Hershey, PA 17033: Idea Group Publishing, p. 68. (2011e). Available from http://news.idg.no/cw/art. cfm?id=109F444A-1A64-67EA-E4688EC85C411727.GSM Association (2011). Africa Now the World’s Second Largest Mobile Market, Reports GSMA. GSM World, Justmeans (2010). Cell Phones and Sustainable Development: 9 November 2011. Available from http://www.gsma.com/ The Future Is Mobile. (9 April 2010). Available from articles/africa-now-the-world-s-second-largest-mobile- http://www.justmeans.com/editorials?action=readeditori market-reports-gsma/20866. Accessed January 2012. al&p=13113. Accessed January 2012. 139

References United Nations E-Government Survey 2012 Katims, Laura (2011). New York City Unveils Real-Time Nielsen Wire (2010). Social Media Dominates Asia Pacific 311 Request Map. Government Technology, Internet Usage. (9 July) 17 February 2011. Norazah, Mohd Suk and T. Ramayah (2010). User Acceptance Klievnik, Bram and Marijn Jannsen (2008). Improving Govern- of the E-Government Services in Malaysia: Structural Equa- ment Service Delivery with Private Sector Intermediaries. tion Modelling Approach. Interdisciplinary Journal of European Journal of ePractice, No. 5 (October 2008). Information, Knowledge, and Management, vol. 5. Available from http://www.epractice.eu/files/5.2.pdf. Accessed January 2012. Norris, P., and others, (Eds.) (2001). On “democratic divide” as a type of “digital divide”. Digital divide: Civic engage- Krenner, Johanna, and others. Reflections on the ment, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Requirements Gathering in a One-Stop Government Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press Project. University of Linz, Institute of Applied Computer Science. Norway (2011). Norway: Citizens have their say in development of new egovernment portal. eGov monitor Kubicek, Herbert and Martin Hagen (2000). One-Stop Govern- (28 July). ment in Europe: An Overview, University of Bremen. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development LaVigne, M. (2001). Five Kinds of “Know-How” Make E- (2006). Whole-of-Government Approaches to Fragile Government Work. State University of New York at Albany, States. Paris. Center for Technology in Government. Available from http:// www.netcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/e-govtkn.pdf. (2009). The Financial and Economic Crisis: Impact on E-Government in OECD Countries. 5th Ministerial Madden, Mary and Kathryn Zickuhr (2011). Sixty-five Per cent eGovernment Conference. (19-20 November, 2009) of Online Adults Use Social Networking Sites: Women Malmö, Sweden. Maintain their Foothold on SNS Use and Older Americans are Still Coming Aboard. Washington, D.C., Pew Research OECD and ITU (2011). M-Government: Mobile Technologies Center (26 August 2011). for Responsive Governments and Connected Societies. Paris, OECD Publishing. Mahapatra, Ashis Kumar and Sukanta Kumar Sahu (2008). Challenges of Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Gov- Olaya, D. (2010). Gender and ICT. World Summit on the ernment. India – KIIT University (December 2008). Information Society Forum. Geneva. Available from http:// www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/papers/2010/PresentationGender- Malaysia, Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry WSIS.pdf (2011). MySMS Service. Available from http://www.doa. gov.my/web/guest/khidmat mysms. Accessed January 2012 Ontario Ministry of Government Services (2011). Service Ontario. Available from http://www.ontario.ca/en/ser- Malta (2011). My Alerts. Available from https://mygov.mt/ vices_for_residents/. Accessed January 2012. notify/. Accessed January 2012. Pascual, Patricia J. (2003). E-Government. E-Asian Task Force, Mexico (2011). Mexico’s E-Government Strategy. Available from UNDP-ARDIP (May). http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/ un-dpadm/unpan047378.pdf. Accessed January 2012. Pavilenene, Danuta. Over half Lithuanians still do not use e-services. The Baltic Course. 25 July 2011. Modarres, A. (2011). Beyond the Digital Divide. National Civic Review: pp. 4-7 (Fall). Pew Research Center (2010). Computer and Cell Phone Usage Up Around the World – Global Publics Embrace Social Morris, Anne and Suha Alawadhi (2009). Factors Influencing Networking. Global Attitudes Project (15 December). the Adoption of E-Government Services. Kuwait, Journal of Software, vol. 4 (August 2009). Pick, J. B. and R. Azari (2008). Global Digital Divide: Influence of Socioeconomic, Governmental, and Accessibility Fac- Mossberger, K., and others. (2003). Virtual Inequality: tors on Information Technology. Information Technol- Beyond the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown ogy for Development 14, 2: pp. 91-115. University Press. Pinch, T.J. and W.E. Bijker (1984). The Social Construction of New Zealand, Citylink (2011). Cbdfree, Wellington’s free Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and Wifi. Available from http://cbdfree.co.nz/. the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Accessed January 2012. Social Studies of Science 14: pp. 399-441. Niehaves, Bjoern, and others. (2008). You Got E-Govern- Pizzicannella, Roberto (2010). Co-production and open data: ment?’ A Quantitative Analysis of Social In- and Exclusive- the right mix for public service effectiveness? Paper sub- ness of Electronic Public Service Delivery. ECIS 2008 mitted for consideration to 10th European Conference on Proceedings. Paper 32. E-Government (17-18 June 2010), Limerick, Ireland.140

United Nations E-Government Survey 2012 ReferencesPrima, Silviana and Rolianabt Ibrahim (2011). Citizen Sethi, Neerja and Vijay Sethi. E-Government Implementation: Awareness to E-Government Services for Information A Case Study of Dubai E-Government. E-Government Personalization. International Journal of Innovative in Practice. Computing, vol. 1, no. 1, 2011. Seychelles. National ICT Policy. Available from http://www.ict.Public Technology.Net (2005). E-Government needs to Reach gov.sc/resources/policy.pdf. Disadvantaged People – Planning is Needed, 13 October 2005. Available from http://www.publictechnology.net/ Shah, Bimal (2010). Increasing E-Government Adoption through content/3827. Social Media: A case of Nepal. University of Norway.Rabaiah, Abdelbaset and Eddy Vandijck (2009). A Strategic Singapore (2011). Go Mobile with Government. Available from Framework of E-Government: Generic and Best Practice. http://www.ecitizen.gov.sg/mobile/index.html. Accessed Electronic Journal of E-Government. ETRO Research January 2012. group, Virje Universitiet, Brussels, Belgium, vol.7, issue 3, pp. 241-258. Available from http://www.ejeg.com/. Smith, Aaron (2010). Government Online: The internet gives citizens new paths to government services andRaffat, Rabee M. (2006). Developing a Successful E-Govern- information. Pew Internet and American Life Project. ment. University of Sydney. (27 April 2010).Rao, M. (2000). Struggling with the Digital Divide: Internet Social media strategy (2010). Social media isn’t a prerequisite Infrastructure, Content, and Culture. Is a progressive for open government. (19 February 2010). Internet environment enough to close the gap between North and South? Internet Society. (October). Available Society of IT Management (2008). Green ICT? Current from http://www.isoc.org/oti/articles/1000/rao.html. research into the environmental impact of ICT. Report for the Department for Communities and Local government.Ross, N., L. Hutton and L. Peng (2004). Revolutionary E-Gov- ernment Strategies across Asia-Pacific – Strategy White Stoiciu, A. (2011). The Role of E-governance in Bridging the Paper. Alcatel Telecommunication Review (3rd Quarter). Digital Divide. UN Chronicle, 18 November 2011. Available at http://wwwupdate.un.org/wcm/content/site/Roy, Jeffrey and Longford, John (2008). Integrating Service chronicle/cache/bypass/home/archive/thedigitaldividend/ Delivery across Levels of Government: Case Studies of theroleofegovernanceinbridgingthedigitaldivide. Canada and Other Countries. IBM Center for the Business of Government. Susanto, T. D. and R. Goodwin (2010). Factors Influencing Citizen Adoption of SMS-Based E-Government Services.Sahraoui, and others (2005). Current state of e-services in Electronic Journal of E-Government. vol.8, Issue 1, Saudi Arabia: The case of intermediaries in facilitating pp. 55 - 71. Available from http://www.ejeg.com/. government services in Medina city. Information Systems Journal (2010), vol.: 2009, EMCIS (2009), pp. 1-15. Teisesforumas (2012). Valdžios elektroniniai vartai (e-govern- ment portal). Available from http://www.teisesforumas.lt/Schluter, E. and B. Kragelj (2007). Digital Divide Reconsidered: index.php/it-teise/224-valdzios-elektroniniai-vartai.html. A Country- and Individual-Level Typology of Digital In- Accessed January 2012. equality in 26 European Countries. Presented at the QMSS Conference, Prague: Czech Republic (June). Available from Tolbert, C. and K. Mossberg (2006). New Inequality Frontier: http://www.s3ri.soton.ac.uk/qmss/conf07/schedule.php. Broadband Internet Access. EPI Working Paper 275. Economic Policy Institute. Available from http://www.epi.Sciadas, G. (2005). Infostates Across Countries and Over Time: org/page/-/old/workingpapers/wp275.pdf. Conceptualization, Modeling, and Measurements of the Digital Divide. Information Technology for Development Torsen, M. (2005). The domination of the English language in 11, 3: pp. 299-304. the global village: efforts to further develop the internet by populating it with non-Latin-based languages. Rich-Segev, E. and N. Ahituv (2010). Popular Searches in Google mond Journal of Law and Technology 12, 1. Available and Yahoo!: A ‘Digital Divide’ in Information Uses? from http://law.richmond.edu/jolt/v12i1/article2.pdf. The Information Society 26: pp. 17-37. United Nations Development Programme (2008). Gender Respon-Segger, M.C. and A. Khalfan (2004). Sustainable develop- sive E-governance: Exploring the Transformative Potential. ment in policy and in law. Sustainable Development Law: Principles, Practices, and Prospects, pp. 45-50. (2011). Country Profiles and International Human Devel- opment Indicators. Available from http://hdr.undp.org/Selhofer, H. and H. Mayringer (2001). Benchmarking the en/countries/. Information Society Development in European countries. Communications and Strategies, 43(3): pp. 17–56. United Nations Environment Programme (2005). Register of International Treaties and Other Agreements in the Field of the Environment. (UNEP/Env.Law/2005/3). 141

References United Nations E-Government Survey 2012Frutiger 45 (2010). Auditing the Implementation of Multilateral Wimmer, Maria and Roland Traunmüller (2002).Light Environmental Agreements: A Primer for Auditors. Data Integration – The Next Challenge in E- Government. on treaty participation has been compiled from the United EurAsia-ICT, Shiraz-Iran, (29-31 October).142 Nations treaty database and websites of the various convention secretariats. Wolff, L. and C. Castro (2003). Education and Training: the Task Ahead. After the Washington Consensus: Restarting United Kingdom (2011). Delivering Open Public Services – Growth and Reform in Latin America. P. Kuczynski and and Open Data. J.Williamson, Eds., Washington, D.C.: Institute for Interna- tional Economics. United Kingdom, Cabinet Office (2011). Open Public Services White Paper. World Bank (2009). Information and Communication for Development: Extending Reach and Increasing Impact. United Nations (2008). United Nations E-Government Survey Washington, D.C. 2008. United Nations, New York, p.4. (2011a). Mobile Phones Help Liberia Map Rural Water (2010). Objective and themes of the United Nations Confer- Points and Informs Poverty Reduction Strategy. (16 June ence on Sustainable Development. Report of the Secretary- 2011). Available from http://go.worldbank.org/Q97TZ- General. (22 December 2010) A/CONF.216/PC/7. VXGI0. Accessed January 2012. Rio+20 Secretariat (2011a). Discussion paper prepared (2011b). Paying taxes. for the high-level dialogue on institutional framework for sustainable development held at Solo, Indonesia. (19-21 World Bank Instituted (2010). Available from http://wbi. July 2011). worldbank.org/wbi/devoutreach/article/375/mobile- technology-one-core-lesson-many-possible-solutions. Statistics Division (2011b). Social Indicators. New York. Available from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/ World Economic Forum (2011). Global Agenda Council on the products/socind/inc-eco.htm. Future of Government: The Future of Government Lessons Learned from around the World. Cologne and Geneva. Statistics Division (2011c). Grouping (4 October). Avail- able from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/ (2008). Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0. (July 2008) Avail- m49regin.htm#least. able from http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/. Accessed January 2012. United States, Internal Revenue Service. Available from http:// www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=118986,00.html. (2009). Improving Access to Government through Better Use of the Web: W3Interest Group Note. (May van Veenstra, A. and M. Janssen (2010). Migration Strategies 2009). Available from http://www.w3.org/TR/egov- for Multichannel Service Provisioning in Public Agencies. improving/#multichannel. Accessed January 2012. Electronic Journal of E-Government, vol.8, Issue 2, pp. 215-226. Available from http://www.ejeg.com/. Yeo, Vivian (2011). Asia speeds up E-Government efforts. ZDNet Asia, 14 June 2011. Vencatachellum, I. and S. Pudaruth (2010). Investigating E-Government Services Uptake in Mauritius: A User’s Yih-Jeou Wang (2009). Rethinking E-Government Services, Perspective. International Research Symposium in Service Presentation at the OECD-India meeting, New Delhi, Management, Mauritius (24-27 August 2010). India. (4 December 2009) Vicente, M. R. and A.J. Lopez (2010). A Multidimensional Yonazi, Jim, Henk Sol and Albert Boonstra (2010a). Exploring Analysis of the Disability Digital Divide: Some Evidence for Issues Underlying Citizen Adoption of eGovernment Internet Use. The Information Society 26: pp. 48-64. Initiatives in Developing Countries: The Case of Tanzania. Electronic Journal of E-Government, vol. 8, Issue 2 Voigt, Kevin (2011). Mobile phone: weapon against global (2010): pp. 176-188. poverty. CNNTech, 9 October 2011. Available from http:// articles.cnn.com/2011-10-09/tech/tech_mobile_mobile- (2010). The Role of Intermediaries in facilitating phone-poverty_1_mobile-phone-cell-phone-rural- E-Government Diffusion in Saudi Arabia. villages. Accessed January 2012. Yong, James S.L. (2004). Promoting Citizen-Centered Von Haldenwang (2002). Allocative efficiency measures how well Approaches to E-Government Programmes – Strategies service of infrastructure bundles match consumer preferences. and Perspectives from Asian Economies. Paper presented at the Second APEC High-Level Symposium on Wang, Yih-Jeou (2009). OECD Rethinking E-Government E-Government, Acapulco, Mexico. (6-8 October 2004). Services: User-centred Approaches. Yung, J., and others. (2010). Low Income Minority Seniors’ Wimmer, Maria A. (2002). Integrated Service Modelling for Online Enrolment in Cybercafé: Psychological Barriers to Crossing One-stop Government. Electronic Markets, Volume 12 (3): pp. the Digital Divide. Educational Gerontology 36: p. 194. 149-156. Available from http://www.electronicmarkets.org/.

United Nations E-Government Survey 2012 Regional groupingsMap 7.1 Regional groupingsAmericas Europe Africa Asia OceaniaCaribbean Eastern Europe Eastern Africa Central Asia Australia and New Zealand Antigua and Barbuda Belarus Burundi Kazakhstan Australia Bahamas Bulgaria Comoros Kyrgyzstan New Zealand Barbados Czech Republic Djibouti Tajikistan Cuba Hungary Eritrea Turkmenistan Melanesia Dominica Poland Ethiopia Uzbekistan Fiji Dominican Republic Republic of Moldova Kenya Papua New Guinea Grenada Romania Madagascar Eastern Asia Solomon Islands Haiti Russian Federation Malawi China Vanuatu Jamaica Slovakia Mauritius Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Saint Kitts and Nevis Ukraine Mozambique Japan Micronesia Saint Lucia Rwanda Mongolia Kiribati Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Northern Europe Seychelles Republic of Korea Marshall Islands Trinidad and Tobago Denmark Somalia Micronesia (Federated States of) Estonia Uganda Southern Asia NauruCentral America Finland United Republic of Tanzania Afghanistan Palau Belize Iceland Zambia Bangladesh Costa Rica Ireland Zimbabwe Bhutan Polynesia El Salvador Latvia India Samoa Guatemala Lithuania Middle Africa Iran (Islamic Republic of) Tonga Honduras Norway Angola Maldives Tuvalu Mexico Sweden Cameroon Nepal Nicaragua United Kingdom of Great Britain Central African Republic Pakistan Disclaimer: The designations nations em- Panama and Northern Ireland Chad Sri Lanka ployed and the presentation of material on Congo this map do not imply the expression ofNorthern America Southern Europe Democratic Republic of the Congo South-Eastern Asia any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Canada Albania Equatorial Guinea Brunei Darussalam Secretariat of the United Nations concern- United States of America Andorra Gabon Cambodia ing the legal status of any country, terri- Bosnia and Herzegovina São Tomé and Príncipe Indonesia tory, city or area or of its authorities, orSouth America Croatia Lao People’s Democratic Republic concerning the delimitation of its frontiers Argentina Greece Northern Africa Malaysia or boundaries. Bolivia Italy Algeria Myanmar Brazil Malta Egypt Philippines Chile Montenegro Libya Singapore Colombia Portugal Morocco Thailand Ecuador San Marino Sudan Timor-Leste Guyana Serbia South Sudan Viet Nam Paraguay Slovenia Tunisia Peru Spain Western Asia Suriname TFYRO Macedonia Southern Africa Armenia Uruguay Botswana Azerbaijan Venezuela Western Europe Lesotho Bahrain Austria Namibia Cyprus Belgium South Africa Georgia France Swaziland Iraq Germany Israel Liechtenstein Western Africa Jordan Luxembourg Benin Kuwait Monaco Burkina Faso Lebanon Netherlands Cape Verde Oman Switzerland Côte d’Ivoire Qatar Gambia Saudi Arabia Ghana Syrian Arab Republic Guinea Turkey Guinea-Bissau United Arab Emirates Liberia Yemen Mali Mauritania Niger Nigeria Senegal Sierra Leone Togo

United Nations E Government Survey 2012E Government for the People e United Nations global survey of e-government presents e United Nations E-Government Survey is a product ofa systematic assessment of the use and potential of informa- the United Nations Department of Economic and Social A airs.tion and communication technologies to transform the publicsector by enhancing e ciency, e ectiveness, transparency, ac- e Department, through its Division for Public Administrationcountability, access to public services and citizen participation and Development Management, has published this world reportin the 193 Member States of the United Nations, and at all levels on e-government since 2003 and is regularly called upon to ad-of development. By studying broad pa erns of e-government vise national administrations in all regions on ways to expandaround the world, the report identi es leading countries in use of information and communication technologies in govern-e-government development. It also suggests a way forward for ment to advance the internationally-agreed development goals,those that have yet to take advantage of its tremendous power. including the Millennium Development Goals. e 2012 edition of the survey was prepared in a context of For more information, please visit:multiple challenges of an open, responsive and collaborative gov-ernment for the people. e report examines the institutional United Nations Department of Economicframework for e-government and nds that the presence of a na- and Social A airstional coordinating authority can help overcome internal barriers h p://www.un.org/desaand focus minds on integrated responses to citizen concerns ! animportant lesson for sustainable development actors. e Survey United Nations Division for Publicalso argues that e-government provides administrators with pow- Administration and Development Managementerful tools for grappling with problems of social equity and the h p://www.unpan.org/dpadmdigital divide. e caveat is that governments must nd e ectivechannels of communication that t national circumstances while United Nations E-Governmentalso taking steps to increase usage of online and mobile services Development Databasein order to realize their full bene t to citizens. is Survey, the h p://www.unpan.org/e-governmentsixth in the series, sheds light on the global state of e-governmentdevelopment and provides options on how best to move forward. USD 52.00 ISBN: 978-92-1-123190-8Printed at the United Nations, New YorkFebruary 2012