Download Theories of E

A META‐THEORY OF E‐GOVERNMENT Victor Bekkers Erasmus University Rotterdam [email protected] Albert Meijer Utrecht University [email protected] Paper for EGPA 2012, Bergen (NO) (September 5 – 7, 2012). Permanent Studygroup on E‐government Draft: Do not cite this paper without permission from the authors! Note: This paper is a draft version of an essay on theories of e‐government. This version is still in a preliminary phase. Comments on this version are needed and most welcome. 1
A META‐THEORY OF E‐GOVERNMENT Abstract The high level of fragmentation is a key problem to the further development of the field of e‐
government studies. This paper argues we should not have the ambition to develop a comprehensive theory of e‐government but rather a meta‐theory that can function as an umbrella for positioning the various approaches. One the basis of key publications in the philosophy of the social sciences (Burrell & Morgan, 2000; Hollis, 2007) a meta‐theory of e‐government is developed that consists of three dimensions: explanations – understanding, holism – individualism and change – maintenance. The three dimensions result in eight ideal‐typical theoretical approaches and these approaches are illustrated on the basis of key publications in the field. The paper concludes that a meta‐theory can serve four different functions: challenge researchers to highlight their perspective, develop an agenda for e‐government research, influence the societal agenda and, most importantly, develop more balanced education programs. 1. Introduction During the last twenty years the internet has changed the outlook and functioning of public administration by transforming government processes and external interactions. This transformation has also been labelled by policy makers as well as by scholars, stemming from different disciplines, as electronic government or e‐government. E‐government can be seen as one of the cornerstones in government modernization since the use of new technologies is thought to rationalize and improve government. E‐government can be described as the use of ICT in order to design new or to redesign existing information processing practices in order to achieve a better government, especially in the field of electronic service delivery to companies and citizens (OECD 2003; Moon 2004).1 Many studies of e‐government are based on a ‘technical’ (information or project management) approach but, from our view point, this perspective is fails to acknowledge the value‐laden nature of social reality and a social science approach is more appropriate. Weber has described the mission of the social sciences as the study of social actions that are oriented on the ‘the other’. That explains why these actions are social: they constitute a relationship between actors. The ‘others’ may be individual persons and may be known to the actor as such, or may constitute and indefinite plurality (like a group or an organization) and may be entirely unknown as individuals (Weber, 1977: 53, 38). These actions may be instrumentally rational (‘Zweckrationalität’), in terms that they can be seen as ‘conditions’ or ‘means’ for attaining specific and calculated ends that are being pursued by an actor. The development of a web portal, for example, can be analyzed as the outcome of social actions, as one would do on the basis of theories of information and project management. Weber (1977: 53) stresses that this is not the only type of rationality: social actions may also be value‐rational (‘Wertrationalität’) because they are determined by a conscious belief in the value for its own sake of 1
We realize that the term ‘e‐governance studies’ would be a more appropriate term since much of our academic research is about governance rather than about government. However, the term e‐government has become institutionalized in the names of journals and conferences. For this reason, we have chosen to use the term e‐government in this paper. 2
some ethical, aesthetic, religious or other form of behaviour, independently of its prospects of success. The development of a web portal will also create a complex network of actions and reactions, in which not only the goals and means are being discussed, but also the inherent values that lay behind these goals and lay behind these technologies. That is why Kling (187) defines computerization as an on‐going social and political process and why Meijer & Zouridis (2006) call e‐
government an institutional innovation. Although e‐government has inspired many policy makers and scholars, some eminent scholars claim that e‐government as a field of scholarly attention lacks scientific rigor because it is under‐theorized (e.g. Grönlund & Andersson 2006). Many e‐government studies have difficulty to explain forms and practices of and e‐government as a body of knowledge has difficulty to account for these ICT‐driven changes that occur in public administration (Bekkers, 2011). One may wonder, however, whether e‐
government is under‐theorized or whether it is actually over‐theorized. Many different theoretical approaches such as innovation theory, institutional theory, social constructivisms, principal agent theory, social systems and property rights theory are used to explain and understand e‐government but this fragmentation results in conceptual confusion. Scholl (2006) argues that e‐government studies are rather fragmented, which also obstruct the influx of new theoretical concepts. In this paper we make an effort to reduce this level of fragmentation by developing a metatheoretical framework. This metatheoretical framework aims to create some kind of order in the diversified field of e‐government studies. Our ambition is not to present a comprehensive and overarching theory of e‐government that everybody should refer to. It would be nice if we could develop such a theory but we believe e‐
government studies will benefit from different theoretical understandings. Our ambition is rather to present a meta‐theory of e‐government. We believe that the core problem for our academic community is not so much the lack of theoretical approaches but rather the confusion that is being created by the diversity of approaches. The value of a metatheoretical framework is that it can reduce this conceptual confusion by providing a framework that can be used to position various approaches. Additionally, the metatheoretical framework can help to identify a consistent and comprehensive set of research questions and to analyze whether certain questions are over‐ or understudied. In order to to develop a metatheory of e‐government we first have to address the theoretical fragmentation of e‐government. Section two deals with this issue. In section three we look into the philosophy of the social sciences and we will develop a meta‐theory of e‐government. Following Hollis (2007) and Burrell & Morgan (2000) we will distinguish eight major theoretical perspectives and traditions that try to explain and understand the nature and outcomes of social actions (section three). Section four puts the metatheoretical framework to the test by showing how it can help to position various important research publications in the field of e‐government studies and bring some order in a confusing research field. In section five some conclusions will be drawn. Moreover, we will address the issue how to move further. 3
2. E‐government as a fragmented research field During the last fifteen years e‐government has been one of the many buzzwords that policy makers have used to modernize public administration (Dunleavy et al. 2005; Bekkers & Homburg 2007; Margetts 2009). Although e‐government is primarily focussed on delivering better and more efficient public services to companies and citizens (OECD 2003; Moon 2004), we want to use a broader definition. E‐government refers to the use of ICT, especially network technologies, to facilitate or to redesign the interactions between government and relevant stakeholders in its internal and external environment in order to achieve added value. Relevant stakeholders are citizens, companies, non‐
governmental organizations, other government organizations as well as civil servants. The interactions between these stakeholders relate to different services such as information services (referring to the disclosure of government information), contact services (referring to the possibility to contact public administration), transaction services (focussing on the electronic intake and handling of requests and applications), participation services (offering a channel for electronic voting and public deliberation) and data transfer services (referring to the exchange and transfer of basic and standard information). Added value can be found in the following goals: increasing the access of government, facilitating the quality of public service delivery, stimulating internal efficiency, supporting public and political accountability, increasing the political participation of citizens, and improving interorganizational co‐operation and relations (Chadwick & May 2003; Moon 2004; Bekkers & Homburg 2007; Margetts 2009). When we look at the types of explanation provided by e‐government studies some observations can be made. First, in many e‐government studies the emphasis is put on the conditions under which successful e‐government projects (in terms of the realization of these the goals) can be accomplished (Kraemer & King, 2006; Heeks & Bailur 2007; Dawes 2008). These explanatory approaches take a socio‐deterministic perspective is the sense that a managerial and project orientation prevails. Empirical studies strongly focus on the influence of specific organizational, financial, technological and other conditions on the successful implementation of a one stop shop concept, a government portal or a central databases (Heeks 1999; OECD 2003; Dawes, 2008). The central issue is identifying how and when change management and implementation strategies were successful and the emphasis is being put on the presentation and comparison of best or good practices (Heeks & Bailur, 2007). In terms of theoretical foundations, these studies focus on the adoption of these best practices and lean heavily on the adoption of technology literature (Dawes, 2008). Some scholars argue criticize the dominance of an information system approach and/or an e‐
business approach in e‐government studies. When using these ideas they are modified in a small way so that they fit into the public sector context (Heeks & Bailur, 2007:253). In this modification process no real attention is given to especially the political nature of the public sector, the grown and value driven practices within this sector and the governance issues that are dominant in this sector. The dominance of information system approach can also be explained by the fact, that although e‐
government studies in essence represent a cross‐disciplinary research object, that in other disciplines like the public administration and new public management (Dunleavy, et al 2005; Lips & Schupan, 2009), governance studies (Heeks & Bailur, 2007) but also innovation studies (Bekkers, 2011; Sannarers et al, 2006), a rather small number of people are engaged in studying e‐government; small numbers of researchers who seem to be locked into their own mother disciplines. As a result, these studies form important contributions to our understanding of IT project management or IT adoption 4
but they provide little insight in the specific transformations that occur in e‐government and in external relations between government and its environment. Secondly, all kinds of lists or models are being presented that tell what to do, how to act, how to proceed. This also includes the so‐called stage model of e‐government, which tells us what stage government have to go through in order to achieve a full integrated form of e‐government. The model starts with being present on the web, which evolves into vertical and horizontal integrated services that leads to a transformation of government in terms of forms of whole joined‐up government (Heeks & Bailur, 2007:55; Gil‐Garcia & Martinez‐ Moyano,2007). As a result of this model also all kinds of rankings have been established which try to help to understand how e‐
government looks from the perspective of these phases (Margetts, 2009). In essence these models try to understand the maturity of e‐government: the outlook of e‐government in a country is being explained by the maturity of the services that are provided. These explanations are of a techno‐
deterministic nature and they pay little attention to contextual and institutional differences. They are helpful as starting points for international comparisons but they based on simplistic and naïve conceptions of government and, therefore, they have limited value for explaining and understanding specific transformations. Thirdly, due to the public and political embracement of the assumption that ICT will contribute to a better government, e‐government has been defined as something ‘good’: good in terms of helping to modernize government. The value of e‐government is hardly questioned: resistance is often even ridiculed as being old fashioned or resulting from a lack of understanding of new technologies (Meijer et al., 2009). This bias has led to an increased attention for the question, how to achieve the proclaimed blessings of e‐government. That is why e‐government studies have a normative connotation (Bekkers & Homburg 2007; Margetts, 2009). This normative bias is also been strengthened by the dominant starting point in many e‐government policy documents and studies. Although many e‐government studies and policy documents define citizens as a consumer, a government‐centric approach prevails. The emphasis lies on how governments, from their perspective, might use these new technologies to interact with citizens and companies (Taylor & Lips 2008). Finally, strong conceptual and empirical work has been conducted on the basis of a social science perspective of e‐government. Pollitt (2011) makes an important contribution to the field by presenting a comprehensive overview of studies into the relation between technology and government. His review of the literature results in the identification of five dimensions. Four of these dimensions focus on the effects from the perspectives of different groups (citizens, service providers, politicians and suppliers/contractors). The fifth dimension concerns the shifts in perceptions of space and time. His framework is comprehensive in the sense that the perspectives of different stakeholders are taken into account. However, Pollitt (2011: 380, 381) acknowledges that there is a variety of theoretical positions and his framework does not aim to integrate or order these positions. As a consequence, the framework does not bring a comprehensive theory of e‐government. Others authors have explicitly tried to develop a comprehensive theory of e‐government. Important has been the work of Jane Fountain (2001) who uses Weick’s work on enactment to develop a technology enactment framework of e‐government. This framework escapes from the traps of being socio‐deterministic, techno‐deterministic and normative and helps to present a precise 5
understanding of e‐government. Although Orlikowski (1994) did not write about e‐government, her theoretical work has been extremely influential and acquired a large number of ‘followers’ in the field of e‐government studies (for a good discussion: Wagenaar & Boersma, 2009). These seminal books have been extremely important for the development of the field but they have not been able to connect their work to the work being done by more technically oriented scholars. Both Fountain and Orlikowski have been trying to develop their own theories which seems to have increased the level of fragmentation. Our ambition is to create some kind of order in this debate. The next section will take us to the level of meta‐theory. 3. A meta‐theory of e‐government We will develop a meta theory of e‐government on the basis of ideas that have been developed in the philosophy of the social sciences. A basic meta theory of e‐government is proposed by Heeks and Bailur (2007) who make a distinction between positivist and social constructionist studies. Our meta theoretical framework regards this distinction as one relevant dimension but also identifies two other dimensions and, as a consequence, our meta‐theory will take the form of a cube with three dimensions that we have distilled from the literature. The first dimension of our cube, explaining versus understanding, is similar to Heeks and Bailur’s (2007) distinction between positivist and social constructionist studies. We already mentioned Weber’s distinction between instrumental and value rationality and this distinction has been mentioned in various forms by a range of other authors. This distinction is often referred to as a distinction in the ambition of scientific work: explaining or understanding as two different ambitions. Explaining is generally regarded as providing an account of a phenomenon on the basis of a outsider’s perspective while understanding takes the actor’s perspective as the central focus of the account (Hollis, 2007: 16, 17). A similar distinction is made by Scott & Davis (2007) who refers to organizations as rational and natural systems. Rational systems are instruments which serve one goal while natural systems serve a variety of goals and can only be understood as having emerged over time. Hollis (2007: 18) highlights that while explaining is based upon the idea that there human beings and societies being to a natural order understanding is about reconstructing the meanings which is about socially constructed purposes, values and ideals of life. Hollis (2007: 17, 18) stresses that more mechanical terms such as ‘agents’ and ‘systems’ are used for explaining while the terms ‘actor’ and ‘game’ are used for understanding to emphasize that human beings are not guided by external rules but actively attribute meanings. The second dimension of our cube is the distinction between individualism and holism (Hollis, 2007). Hollis highlights that certain social science approaches – ‘bottom‐up approaches’ – take the individual actors as the building blocks of society and explain or understand societal phenomenons as the sum of all these individuals actions and understandings (i.e. bottom‐up accounts). The use of social media in government, for example, can be understood on the basis of individual decisions of decision‐makers and individual civil servants. Other approaches – ‘top‐down approaches’ – reverse the relation between individuals and social systems: they see the system as the essential unit of understanding and explain individuals actions and understandings as resulting from collective features such as culture or social constructions or, more in general, social structure. The appreciation that a specific Japanese civil servants has for social media, for example, can be understood on the 6
basis of features of Japanese culture. Hollis (2007: 12) stresses that this difference is directly related to the question of free will: while bottom‐up approaches leave room for human agency top‐down approaches are rather deterministic: social and technological structures leave no room for the idea that people can make individual choices. The third dimension is the distinction between change and maintenance. This distinction refers to Heraclitus all discussion of whether we see social reality as something stable or as something in a continuous flux. Heraclitus managed to present a perspective that combines these two but scientists can study why social reality changes continually but they could also study why so many things stay the same. Why is e‐government so different from previous forms of government? Or, alternatively, why is e‐government still so much like previous forms of government? In terms of power, Burrell & Morgan (2000) make a distinction between those wanting to change the present situation and those that argue for maintaining it (i.e. regulation). We can bring these three dimensions together in the following table: Explanation Understanding Holism System change Change games System maintenance Maintenance games Change agents Change actors Maintenance agents Maintenance actors Individualism Which of these perspectives are predominantly used in e‐government studies? Analyzing publications on e‐government in terms of their social science perspective is complicated since most publications do not contain a reference to concepts of research philosophy such as ontology, positivism, epistemology, paradigms, etc. (Heeks and Bailur, 2007). Furthermore, these perspectives are ideal‐types and most researchers will argue that they combine various perspectives. Still, we feel that the ideal‐types can be helpful to highlight the dominant basis assumptions of research papers. The following characterizations can be used to analyze the epistemological basis of research into e‐
government: 
Explanation – understanding. Explaining as a perspective is characterized by a focus on key variables of e‐government such as technology, work processes, organizational structure and by the ambition to identify general patterns or laws. Understanding implies studying meanings given to processes and artifacts and the ambition to find out how (local) meanings are constructed in social interactions. (Heeks & Bailur, 2007: 249, 250) 
Holism – individualism. A holistic approach implies a focus on social structures such as organizations, institutions and government agencies and the behavior of individuals results from these structures. An individualistic approach means that the researcher focuses on the behavior of individual human beings and explains social structures as resulting from these interactions. 7

Maintenance versus change. A focus on maintenance means that the research puzzle and the conclusions are framed in terms of the lack of change. Why do governments stay the same? In contrast, studies focusing on change reverse the question and aim to identify reasons or determinants for change. Maintenance studies try to understand the ‘laggards’ while change studies are mainly interested in the innovators. We have applied the meta‐theoretical perspective to a host of key publications in the field to show the richness of the field of e‐government studies but also to bring some kind of order in the variety of publications 4. Using the meta‐theory to bring some order to the field of of e‐government studies 4.1. Theories of system change In this perspective, the analysis focuses on explaining (inevitable) changes to the government system. This perspective highlights that new technologies will inevitably lead to new forms of government In this perspective the characteristics which are embedded in the technology have autonomous consequences for social reality and public administration in particular. Frissen (1999) argues that the use of ICT is a greedy process in which technology which is based on functional rationality expands autonomously. This is especially the case in a control‐oriented technological culture, which government bureaucracies in essence have. ICT presupposes standardization and formalization in order to function properly. These are conditions which refer to essence to bureaucracy. Between ICT and bureaucracy there seems to be a kind of ‘Wahlverwandschaft’. As a result the use of ICT in government bureaucracies can be seen as process of mutual reinforcement leading to a change of the government system in which new and more advanced forms of control and discipline are being introduced in order to create stability and predictability. Lyon (1992) makes a similar point. When studying the role of technology in government he shows that technologies have altered the nature of government in enhancing the ability of government to control people by improving the capacties and capabilities to monitor the behavior of people. The system change that technology offers to government organizations is that of creating a ‘surveillance state’, in which the functioning of society can be viewed from a panoptical view. Influential in this respect was also the work of Zuboff (1998). She also has shown that the introduction of ICT in organizations has led to an immanent change of these organizations in the way these organizations process information. ”As information technology is used to reproduce, extend, and improve upon the process of substituting machines for human agency, it simultaneously accomplishes something quite different. The devices that automate by translating information into action also register data about those automated activities, thus generating new streams of information. For example, computer‐based, numerically controlled machine tools or microprocessor‐
based sensing devices not only apply programmed instructions to equipment but also convert the current state of equipment, product, or process into data. Scanner devices in supermarkets automate the checkout process and simultaneously generate data that can be used for inventory control, warehousing, scheduling of deliveries, and market analysis. The same systems that make it possible to automate office transactions also create a vast overview of an organization's operations, 8
with many levels of data coordinated and accessible for a variety of analytical efforts." (Zuboff, 1988; p. 9) Zuboff emphasizes the ínformating in stead of the automating capacities of ICT which inherently enhances the reflexivity of an organization. However, there is also another strand in the ICT literature which promises system change. In this strand the use of ICT in organizations is seen as process of natural growth which leads to a specific form of maturity, thereby going through different stages. The first model to be mentioned is the Nolan stage model. The use of ICT in organizations is been seen as evolutionary process leading to a mature organization in which ICT is fully integrated in the business processes, while at the same time organizations have been able to create a standardized information architecture and infrastructure (Nolan, 1979). The second model, which has it origins in consultancy domain but has been widely adopted, also by policy makers, embraces the idea that system change refers to the idea e‐
government develops itself by following a stage‐model. The model starts with being present on the web, which evolves into vertical and horizontal integrated services that leads to a transformation of government in terms of forms of whole joined‐up government (Heeks & Bailur, 2007:55; Gil‐Garcia & Martinez‐ Moyano,2007). As a result of this model also all kinds of rankings have been established which try to help to understand how e‐government looks from the perspective of these phases (Margetts, 2009). In essence these model try to understand the maturity of e‐government. The last model to be mentioned refers to diffusion and adoption model of innovations. From this perspective the maturity of e‐government can be viewed in terms of a specific adoption rate, in which stages of adoption are being distinguished in combination with specific adopter categories. That is why Rogers (2003) argues that the adoption of innovations follows a specific trajectory: starting with the innovators, followed by ‘early adapters’, ‘early majority’, ‘late majority’ and finished with so‐called ‘laggards’. System change can also be understood, if we look at the more sociological literature regarding the information society (Chadwick & May, 2003). For instance, Castells (1996) has argued that the emerge of the information paradigm (starting in seventies of last century)) that substitutes the industrial production paradigm, will evitable lead to a transformation of society: a shift from a technology predominantly based on cheap inputs of energy to one predominantly based on cheap inputs of information derived from advances in microelectronics and telecommunication technology (Castells, 1996:61). Driving force behind this transformation is the perverseness of information and communication technology in our society. The omnipresence and pervasiness of this new paradigm is viewed as the outcome of an ongoing modernization process in western society which also leads to a an inevitable transformation of government, as being a part of this society. Poster (1990) argues that we live in a technological culture – as an aspect of the capitalist system in which we live ‐ which determines our behaviour. We live in ‘the mode of information’. Our culture is dominated by values and discourses that not only are related to communication and information but also to the relationship between man and machine. The nature of our technological culture is so dominant that it determines human thought and behaviour (Frissen, 1999). In doing so communication and information have become dominant constituents of economic, social and political relationships, which also affects the functioning and appreciation of government. 9
4.2. Theories of system maintenance While the system change perspective focuses on the question why and how ICTs change government, theories of system maintenance aim to explain why in spite of the introduction of all these new technologies government always stays the same. This perspective focuses on the government system as a source of maintenance. The system only aims to maintain itself and resists change: government is inert to change. This perspective stresses that new technologies will be adapted to existing functions of the government system. The evidence for this position is derived from the so‐called reinforcement hypothesis which was present in one of the first systematic research endeavors to understand the role of ICT in American local government (Dutton & Kraemer, 1979). Dutton & Kraemer (1982) show that the use of ICT has changed the relationships in and between organizations. However, what can be noticed is that ICT contributed to a reinforcement of existing policies and attitudes. They talk about the ‘automation of bias’: the idea that the form that technology takes reflects pre‐existing system characteristics – (Dutton & Kraemer, 1979). This reinforcement process can be also be explained by trying to understand how and why present e‐
government practices built upon on existing ICT practices. That is why we also need to take the history of computing in a specific organization or policy sector into account. This implies that present e‐government initiatives follow an already existing trail: they built upon grown practices that can only be understood when taken into account the history and the dominant culture of the involved organizations or policy sector (Kling, 1987; Mason et al, 1997). Very often the trail to be followed when introducing new technologies, also reflects the dominant coalition in an organization or in a policy sector and it’s ideology. That is why Kling (1987) argues that scholars need to make an institutional analysis of the effects of ICT. ICT can be seen as a technical and social intervention in which there are many potential choices, about what technologies to be used, how they are organized and how they are supported, how people work with them and how they alter the character of work life at all. However, because they technologies touch upon grown practices, established ways of interacting, grown interests and positions, challenge existing routines, procedures, it not at forehand clear if the changes that people had in mind will be accomplished. Established practices are an important explanation for the fact that ICT does not lead to system change but to system maintenance. 4.3. Theories of change games While the previous two perspectives focus on explaining structural and functional aspects of government, theories of change games highlight that the informal culture and settings of a polity or government organization will change through the use of information technology. New technologies change ‘the game’ or the ‘playing rules’. Taylor and Bellamy have tried to catch these changing games by making use of the concept of the ‘information polity’. The information polity refers to the idea that new institutional arrangements may emerge: existing flows and relationships are re‐
arranged or ended, while new flows and realationshipa are established, thereby crossing all kinds of boundaries. The information polity idea tries to express that all such changes are direct at the ICT‐
driven re‐allocation of intelligence of public services within and outside public sector organizations. Dutton and Guthrie (1991) talk about the change games in terms of ‘an ecology of games’. It not just one game which is played, but the introduction of ICT in public administration leads a collection of closely and loosely related games that are focused on creating change or preventing change. However, these games are embedded in one single organization or one single policy sector. 10
The idea of a change game is also put forward in the idea of the infocracy (Zuurmond, 1994; see also Zuurmond & Snellen, 1997). The infocracy refers to a paradigm shift from a Weberian reified physical structure of knowledge processing, as a basis for the functions and activities, to a knowledge repository that act as a somewhat indistinct window of opportunity for all kinds of functions and activities that cross organizational borders. As a result of this shift Zuurmond argues that the dominant change game in a government organization or a policy sector is the design of the information infrastructure, which enables the seamless exchange and sharing of information and knowledge within a organization or between organization. As an outcome of this change game also the character of public service bureaucries has changed as well as the role of especially street level bureaucrats within them. Bovens and Zouridis ( ) has demonstrated that due to the dominant role of ICT in the handling of individual cases, street level bureaucracies has changed into system level bureaucracies. In these system level bureaucracies the traditional discretionary power that street level bureacrats have in tasks oriented bureaucracies has been transferred to the people that design how ICT and the supporting ICT infrastructure is being used to take over the decision making process of these street level bureacucracies. In doing massive public service bureacuracies look like information refineries, in which permanently information is being processesed full‐automaticaly, according the design parameters that lay behind refinery process. In this change game we see that the playing rules have changed in bureacuracies in favour of the people who are able to determine under what conditions what kind of information and knowledge is being used, exchanged, processed and shared. There is also another strand in the literature that tries to understand these change games. Some authors define the change in government organizations as a local evolution process, in which development in different internal and external environments co‐evolve. Due to this specific, rather contingent co‐evolution process the game changes. Scholars (e.g. Nardi & O’Day 1999, Davenport, 1997) try to understand the change that occurs, from an ecological process. In doing to technological developments and possibilities are being moulded because they mingle with specific developments in other environments. Dunleavy et al (2005) argue that the nature of e‐government can be understood as the co‐evolution of technological developments with organizational changes in public administration, the embracement of new managerial and governance ideologies and changes in the information behavior in society. Bekkers & Homburg (2005) adapt this idea, but go one step further. They argue that this local co‐evolutionary process can also be seen as a game in which stakeholders attach a specific meaning to these different developments in those different environments, according to their own interests and positions. The interesting question then is, what meaning will be embraced as the dominant one. This can lead to either change or maintenance. 4.4. Theories of maintenance games While theories of change games emphasize changes to the game, theories of maintenance games aim to understand why the game always stays the same. In this perspective, the informal culture of government organizations is stable and new technologies are adapted to existing patterns. Bekkers & Homburg’s (2005) work in the ecology of e‐government build upon Nardi & O’Day’s (1999) work and highlights how system will also preserve certain values and functions and will resist change towards a homogeneous type of technological practice. 11
4.5. Theories of change agents While all previous theories study the (lack of change) in e‐government systems, this perspective – and the other ones that we will discuss later on – focuses on explaining the behavior of individual agents. This perspective highlights how individual agents try to accomplish change in a system. Although agents define technology is as an enabling technology, it’s the development and implementation is somewhat restricted. Fountain (2001:88) has tried to catch this by talking about the ‘enacting technology’. This implies that the capabilities and potential of ICT are enacted by many organizational actors that are aware of this potential, especially if we consider that fact that technology has increasingly become flexible. In doing so they define a technology as being sensemaking. However, this sensemaking process is embedded. Hence, technology enactment is the result of cognitive, cultural, structural and political embeddness. As a result of this embeddness the change that occurs has to deal with the influence of specific socio‐structural mechanisms (like existing rules, routines, norms and power relations) that are present in specific organizational and institutional arrangements (Fountain, 2001. Another perspective can be found in the IT and IT project management literature. In this literature ICT is still seen as powerful instrument in the hand of change agents. However, these change agents have to take in mind that that are a number of disturbing forces which limit or obstruct the possible blessings that technology might bring to change government. For instance, Heeks & Bhatnagar (1999) has developed the so‐called ITPOSMO‐model that should help to bridge the gap between the possible benefits that ‘information age government’ would bring and reality. It is important to overcome barriers that relate to information, technical, processes, the objectives, motivations and values of people , the staffing and skills of people, management and structures. Also policy makers focus on familiar models in order to achieve e‐government. They focus on a number of conditions that explain and predict success and failure. An interesting example is the well know OECD study on the e‐government imperative (OECD 2003). Also the business process redesign (BPR) literature is interesting in this respect (Davenport, 1992). BPR stresses the transformative power of ICT to radically redesign business processes to achiever better outcomes. However, this is only possible if specific conditions are being managed. One of the conditions is the presence of strong leadership 4.6. Theories of maintenance agents Not all agents create change. Theories of maintenance agents aim to explain how some individual agents will make an effort to prevent changes to the system. There is, compared with change agents, relatively little attention for these agents in studies of e‐government. One could identify the laggards in innovation theory as maintenance agents (Rogers, Y2003): they are the ones who are slow to adopt new e‐government technologies. In these theories, however, laggards are generally conceptualized as slow innovators. Their features are not studied in their own right: laggards are conceptualized as the agents who do not have the capacity to be innovators. As mentioned before ecological models (Davenport, 1997; Bekkers & Homburg, 2005, Dunlevay et al, 2005, Margetts, 2009) are used to explain change can also be used to explain maintenance. Maintenance or change depends on the ability, willingness and power of the involved actors: this can either be change of either be maintenance. 12
4.7. Theories of change actors While theories of ‘agents’ aims to explain the behavior of individuals in terms of general rules, theories of ‘actors’ aim to enhance our understanding of the (contextual) meanings these individuals. Theories of change actors study how actors will give new meanings to their work. Meijer’s (2006) work on e‐mail in government fits within this perspective. He shows how civil servants give new meanings to communication within government organizations and with external contacts and, in this process, the redefine bureaucracy. The individual meanings are diverse and heterogeneous and shape technological practices. In doing so, the role that technology play in government organizations can therefore be understood in terms of the social construction of technology (Pinch & Bijker, 1987). The use of ICT in organizations can be seen as process of variation and selection. In the development of new technologies, but also in the introduction of existing but for the organization new technologies, several actors can be distinguished which attach different meanings to a technology, given the specific definition of the problems with which they are confronted with and the specific changes they want to achieve. The question, however, is what kind of technology will adapted. This presupposes a ‘rhetorical closure of the debate’ (Pinch & Bijker, 1987:44). That is why Orlikowski (1991;2000) defines the choice for a specific technology and changes that people have in mind, as the outcome of a ‘framing process’ in which a specific frame about the added value of technology is being adopted. Typical for this position is that idea that change is flexible because the technology that is being used to achieve this technology is flexible and mouldable. That is why Winner (1988) asks himself the question if technological artefacts have politics? According to him the answer is yes: it is important to understand what the assumptions and underlying social and political values that have been that plaid a role in chosing or adopting a specific technological solutions. The choice for a specific technological solution does tell us something about the way groups of people, organizations or society try deal with a number of challenges. The idea that e‐government is the results of a change actors or a coalition of change actors can also be understood by taken a resource dependency perspective on the role of technology in and between organizations (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Kumar & Van Dissel, 1996). E‐ government and the changes that emerge can than be seen as the outcome of resource politics (Kraemer & King, 1986). This idea has been elaborated in several directions. First, it implies that ICT and information is seen as a powerful resource that actors may use to reduce uncertainty and dependency in their interactions with other actors. ICT influences the way the access, the exchange, processing of information and communication as well as the distribution an sharing of information and communications is organized. Secondly, ICT as a powerfull resource is also used to control other resources, like personal and finance. Thirdly, ICT also involves the substantive investments (applications, infrastructure, personnel etc) which may also influence the allocation of money. This implies that the control over ICT, information and communication as resources opens the door for the specific actor to exercise power; power that may lead to change,but also the opposite may occur: a preservation of existing positions and patterns. That is why the shaping of e‐government can be seen as the outcome of process of ‘information poiliticking’( Knight & Murray,(1992) 4.8. Theories of maintenance actors Again, not all individuals may produce new meanings and change. Theories of maintenance actors study how actors will position new technologies in existing patterns of meaning. An example of this 13
perspective is how government agencies often use websites to present the same material that is also available in hard copy folders. The technology does not change patterns of external communication with citizens: the new technology is ‘framed’ in terms of the ‘old technology’. This could be understood by referring to the earlier mentioned resource politics perspective. Kraemer & King 1986 argue that the people who are already in charge in an organization – the dominant coalition or the elite – have the power to allocate the resources (money, tasks, competences, people) in an organization. In doing so they all decide how much resources are to be spent on ICT matters, as well as for what specific goals these resources are to be spent. As mentioned before, the elite in an organizations tends to use ICT to reinforce their own biases (Dutton & Kraemer, 1982). 5. Conclusions In this paper we have developed a meta theory of e‐government that can help to create some order in the confusing debate about e‐government. The high level of fragmentation was identified as a key problem to the further development of the field and we have argued that we should not have the ambition to develop a comprehensive theory of e‐government but rather a meta theory that can function as an umbrella for position the various approaches. The meta theory serves various functions: 
Challenge researchers to highlight their perspective. We hope that this meta theory will challenge e‐government researchers to be more explicit about their basic assumptions (cf. Heeks & Bailur, 2007). What is the e‐government perspective that they work from? What is their epistemological perspective and ambition? Clearly positioning this work will help other researchers to understand and relate to their findings. 
Develop an agenda for e‐government research. Heeks and Bailur (2007) conclude that government has shown that certain perspectives receive very little attention. In terms of our meta‐theory, most work concentrates on system change and activist agents. There is definitely a need for research that answers some of the questions that are not dealt with in these perspectives. 
Influence the societal agenda. Although the societal agenda was not systematically analyzed in this paper, we would argue that the societal agenda is also largely dominated by the system change and activist agents perspectives. Our meta theory can help to provide arguments for other perspectives and, as a result, have more nuanced societal debates about technology in government. 
Develop more balanced education programs. The meta theory can help to design programs for students of e‐government that are more balanced. The meta theory identified both more critical approaches and more prescriptive, change‐oriented work as valid theoretical approaches. A broad understanding of e‐government needs to form the basis for academic programs that train engineers and consultants. We feel that a meta theory can help to develop a richer understanding of e‐government and to acilitate debates and interactions between e‐government scholars. Much interesting work has been 14
done and will be done but we also need some time to reflect on our academic discipline and to develop stronger foundations for the field. We have indicated that we did not aim to develop a comprehensive theory of e‐government but we do hope to have developed a comprehensive meta theory of it. Literature Andersen, K. and J. Danziger, Impacts of IT on Politics and the Public Sector: Methodological, Epistemological, and Substantive Evidence from the “Golden Age” of Transformation, International Journal of Public Administration 25(5) (2001), 129‐159. Andersen, K.V. and Danziger, J. N., Impacts of IT on Politics and the Public Sector: Methodological, Epistemological, and Substantive Evidence from the “Golden Age” of Transformation, in: International Journal of Public Administration, 25(5) (2001), 129‐159. [56] Th. Davenport, Information Ecology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997. Bekkers, V. and V. Homburg, The Myths of E‐Government: Looking Beyond the Assumptions of a New and Better Government, The Information Society 23(5) (2007), 373‐382. Bekkers, V., The three faces of e‐government: innovation, interaction and governance, in: A‐V. Anttiroiko et al. (eds)., Innovations in Public Governance. Series Innovation in the public sector. Amsterdam/Berlin/Oxford/Tokio/ Washington: IOS Press, 2011, pp. 194‐216. Bellamy, C., & J. Taylor (1994), Introduction: Exploiting IT in Public Administration – Towards the Information Polity. In: Public Administration, vol. 72, no: 1, pp. 1‐12. Bovens, M. & S. Zouridis (2002) From street level bureuacry to system level bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 62 (2), pp. 174‐184. Castells, M.(1996), The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge: Blackwell Chadwick, A. and C. May, Interaction Between States and Citizens in the Age of the Internet: E‐
government in the United States, Britain and the European Union Governance 26 (2) (2003), 271‐300. Dawes, S. The Evolution and Continuing Challenges of E‐Governance, Public Administration Review 68(8) (2008), 82‐102. Dunleavy, P., H. Margetts, S. Bastow and J. Tinkler, New Public Management is dead – Long live digital era governance, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (3) (2005), 467‐494. Dutton, W.H. & Kraemer, K.L. (1979). The Automation of Bias: Computers and Local Government Budgeting, Information Privacy, Vol. 1, Nr. 7, pp. 303‐311. Dutton, W. & K. Guthrie (1991), An Ecology of Games. The Political Construction Of Santa Monica’s Public Electronic Network. In: Informatization and the Public Sector, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 279‐301. Fountain, J.E. (2001). Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 15
Frissen , P. (1999), Politics, Governance and technology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Gil‐Garcia, R. and I. Martinez‐Moyano, Understanding the Evolution of E‐Government. The Influence of Rules on Public Sector Dynamics, Government Information Quarterly, 24 (2007), 266‐290. Grönlund, Ä. and A. Andersson, E‐gov Research Quality Improvements Since 2003: More Rigor but Research (perhaps) Redefined, in: Electronic Government. Lecture Notes of Computer Science, Wimmer., M. et al. (Eds.), Springer, Heidelberg, 1‐12. Heeks, R. (ed.) Reinventing Government in the Information Age, Routlege, London/New York, 1999. Heeks, R. & S. Bhatnagar (1999), Understanding success and failure in information age reform, in : Heeks, R. (eds.) Reinventing Government in the Information Age. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 49‐74. Heeks, R. and S. Bailur (2007) Analyzing E‐government Research: Perspectives, Philosophies, Theories, Methods and Practice, Government Information Quarterly 24 (2) (2007), 243‐265. Hollis, M. (2007). The Philosophy of Social Science. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kling, R., Computerization as an Ongoing Social and Political Process in: Computers and Democracy, G. Bjerkness, P. Ehn and M. Kyng (Eds.), Ashgate, Aldershot, 1987, 117‐136 Knights, D. and F. Murray (1992), Politics and Pain in Managing Information Technology: A Case Study in Insurance. In: Organization Studies, 1992, vol. 13, no: 2, pp. 211‐228 Kraemer, K. & J. King (1986), Computing and public organizations. In: Public Administration Review, vol. 46, pp. 488‐496. Kraemer, K. & J. King (2006), Information technology and administrative reform: will e‐government be different? In: International Journal of E‐government Research, vol. 2., no. 1, pp.1‐20. Kraemer, K,. et al (1987), Datawars. New York: Columbia University Press Kraemer & K. W. Dutton (1982), The automation of bias, in: Danziger, J. W. Dutton, R. Kling & K. Kraemer, Computers and politics: New Yoprk: Basic Books, pp. 170‐193. Kumar, K. and H. van Dissel (1996), Sustainable Collaboration: Managing Conflict and Collaboration in Interorganizational Information Systems. In: MIS Quarterly, 1996, vol. 20, no: 3, pp. 279‐300. Lips, M. and T. Schupan (2009) Transforming E‐Government Knowledge Through Public Management Research, Public Management Review 11(9) (2009), 739‐749. Mason, R., J. McKenny & D. Copeland (1997), An Historical Method for MIS Research: Steps and Assumptions, in: MIS Quarterly, vol. 21 , nr. 3, pp. 307‐320. Margetts,H., Public Management Change and E‐government: The Emergence of Digital Era Governance in: Oxford Handbook of Internet Politics, A. Chadwick and P.N. Howard (Eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, 114‐128. 16
Meijer, A. & S. Zouridis, 2006, E‐government is an Institutional Innovation. In: V. Bekkers, H. van Duivenboden & M. Thaens, Information and Communication technology and Public Innovation. Assessing the ICT‐Driven Modernization of Public Administration, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 219 – 229 Meijer, A., K. Boersma & P. Wagenaar (eds)(2009). ICTs, Citizens and Governance: After the Hype, Innovation and the Public Sector, Volume 14, Amsterdam: IOS Press. Moon, M. The Evolution of E‐Government Among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality? Public Administration Review 64(4), 2004, 424‐433. Nardi B. V. O’Day (1999), Information Ecologies. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press OECD (2003), The E‐Government Imperative, Paris: OECD Orlikowski, W. (1991), The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations. In: Organization Science, vol. 3 no: 3, pp. 398‐427. Orlikowski, W. (2000), Using Technology and Constituting Structures. In: Organizational Science, vol. 11, no: 4, pp. 404‐428. Pinch, T. & W. Bijker (1987), The social construction of facts and artefacts, , Bijker, W., T. Hughes, T. Pinch (1987), The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge Mass. : MIT Press, pp. 17‐
50. Pollitt, C. (2011). Mainstreaming Technological Change in the Study of Public Management. Public Policy and Administration 26(4), 377‐397. Poster, M.(1990), The mode of information, Chicago: University of Chicago Press Pfeffer, J. and G.R. Salancik (1978), The External Control of Organizations. New York: Harper & Row. Rogers, E. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press (5th ed.) Sannarnes, M., H.Hendriks & K. Anderson (2006), The e‐government melting pot: Lacking new public management and innovation flavour? In: in Electronic Government. Lecture Notes of Computer Science, Wimmer., M. et al. (Eds.), Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 25‐36. Scholl, H., Is E‐Government Research a Flash in the Pan or Here for the Long Shot? in Electronic Government. Lecture Notes of Computer Science, Wimmer., M. et al. (Eds.), Springer, Heidelberg, 13‐
24. Scott, W.R. & Davis, G.F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Englewood Cliffs: Pearson Prentice Hall. Taylor, J. and A. Lips The Citizen in the Information Polity: Exposing the Limits of the E‐Government Paradigm. Information Polity, 13 (3/4) (2008), 139‐152. Weber, M. Basic Sociological Terms, in Understanding and social inquiry, F. Dallmayer and Th. McCarthy (Eds.), University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame/London, 1977, 38‐55 17
Winner, L. (1988), Do artefacts have politics?, in: M. Kraft & N. Vig (eds.), Technology and politics. Durham/London: Duke University Press, pp. 33‐53. Zuboff, S, (1988), In the Age of the Smart Machine, Oxford: Heineman Zuurmond, A. (1994), De infocratie: Rotterdam: Phaedrus Zuurmond, A. & I. Snellen (1997), From Bureaucracy to Infocracy, in: Taylor, J. et al (eds.), Beyond BPR in Public Administration, Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 205‐224 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
18