Significance of socio-cultural, political and historical factors for the introduction of e-participation in Switzerland
Pages 524 - 527
Abstract
The arrival of new technologies in the public sector and the connected re-definition of ways public administrations interact with citizens is currently a burning topic. Despite numerous research projects exploring the introduction of electronic government (e-Government) from the citizens' perspective, insights on the topic from the point of view of public officials and politicians stay vastly unexplored. The objective of the present project is to respond to this gap. By evaluating the influence of factors such as the political tradition, institutional system or organisational culture, we aim to explain the relative underdevelopment of electronic participation (e-Participation) tools in Switzerland. Despite the excellent potential that Swiss authorities have at their disposal in this regard, the level of e-Participation development ranks the country far behind the leaders in the field. The main outcome of the present research will be, in the first place, exposure of principal problematic points connected to the aforementioned factors that impact on the comparative immaturity of e-Participation instruments in Switzerland and, secondly, suggestions of solutions that could open a way towards the further advancement of digital democracy.
References
[1]
Benkler, Y. 2006., cited in Hindman, M. 2009. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
[2]
Bourdieu, P. 1994. Raisons pratiques. Sur la th�orie de l'action. Paris, Seuil.
[3]
Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London, Tavistock.
[4]
Cahlikova, T. 2013. Comparative Analysis of Obstacles to e-Government Development in Switzerland: Case of Electronic Health Records. Master thesis, Master in Public Management and Policy, Lausanne, IDHEAP.
[5]
Clark, B. R. 1960. The open-door colleges: A case study. New York, McGraw-Hill.
[6]
Dachler, H. P. Commentary -- Taking qualitative methods a (radical) step forward? In Symon, G., Cassell, C., and Dickson, R. 2000. Qualitative methods in Organizational Research and Practice. Psychology Press.
[7]
Dalton, M. 1959. Men Who Manage. New York, Wiley.
[8]
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 2, 147--160.
[9]
Donaldson, L. 2001. Contigency Theory of Organizations. Thousand Oaks, California, SAGE publications.
[10]
Emery, Y. and Giauque, D. 2005. Paradoxes de la gestion publique. Paris, L'Harmattan.
[11]
Emmanouil, S. and Konstantina, T. 2011. Evaluating the quality of e-Democracy processes: An empirical study in the Greek context. Fourth International Conference on Information Law and Ethics, 20--21 May 2011.
[12]
Gouldner, A. W. 1954. Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. New York, Free Press.
[13]
Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C. R. 1996. Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Brinding together the Old and the New Institutionalism. The Academy of Management Review, 21, 4, 1022--1054.
[14]
Hacker, K. L. and Dijk, I. 2000. Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice. London, Sage.
[15]
Kast, F. E. and Rosenzweig, J. E. 1985. Organization & management: A systems and contingency approach. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, fourth edition.
[16]
Macintosh, A. 2004. Characterizing E-Participation in Policy-Making. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
[17]
Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., and Schneeberger, A. 2009. eParticipation: The Research Gaps. In Macintosh, A. and Tambouris, E. (Eds.) Electronic Participation. Proceedings of the first International Conference ePart, Linz, Austria, September 2009, 1--11, Berlin, Springer.
[18]
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. 1984. The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. American Political Science Review, 78, 738--749.
[19]
Peters, B. G. 2012. Institutional theory in political science. London & New York, Continuum International Publishing Group. 3rd edition.
[20]
Ricci, A. 2003. The Political Internet: Between dogma and reality. In Servaes, J. 2003. The European Information Society: A Reality Check. Bristol, Intellect Books.
[21]
Selznick, P. 1949. Foundations of the Theory of Organization. American Sociological Review, 13, 1, 25--35.
[22]
Volberda, H. W., van der Weerdt, N., Verwaal, E., Stienstra, M., Verdu, A. J. 2012. Contingency Fit, Institutional Fit, and Firm Performance: A Metafit Approach to Organization-Environment Relationships. Organization Science, 23, 4, 1040--1054.
[23]
Woodward, J. 1965. Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Cited in Donaldson, L. 2001. Contigency Theory of Organizations. Thousand Oaks, California, SAGE publications.
Index Terms
- Significance of socio-cultural, political and historical factors for the introduction of e-participation in Switzerland
Recommendations
From participation to e-participation: the German case
ICEGOV '08: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Theory and practice of electronic governanceThis paper informs about the public policies on e-Participation in Germany. At the moment e-Participation happens in political niche arenas and does not have real impact or importance on political decision-making. Activists and researchers promote the ...
New Trends in E-Government: Comparative Analysis of E-Participation systems in the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation
IMS2017: Proceedings of the International Conference IMS-2017This paper is focused on the analysis of new trends in electronic government systems of the Russian Federation and Great Britain. E-participation in this research means the use of ICTs for the purpose of involvement of various groups of citizens in ...
Electronic Citizens Participation: Systematic Review
ICEGOV '15-16: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceCitizen participation is considered as one of the core elements of transparency of Governments with regard to their citizens. In these participations, Governments generally ask people to give their opinions with regard to particular subjects. ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
October 2014
563 pages
ISBN:9781605586113
DOI:10.1145/2691195
- Program Chairs:
- Elsa Estevez,
- Marijn Janssen,
- Lu�s Soares Barbosa
Copyright � 2014 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
- Macao Foundation, Macao SAR Govt: Macao Foundation, Macao SAR Government
- Municipio de Guimar�es: Municipio de Guimar�es
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 27 October 2014
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
ICEGOV2014
Sponsor:
- Macao Foundation, Macao SAR Govt
- Municipio de Guimar�es
ICEGOV2014: 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance
October 27 - 30, 2014
Guimaraes, Portugal
Acceptance Rates
ICEGOV '14 Paper Acceptance Rate 30 of 73 submissions, 41%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 350 of 865 submissions, 40%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 102Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)4
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 21 Oct 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in