EPRS | European Par liamentary Research Service Author: Ron Davies Members’ Research Service September 2015—PE565.890 EN eGovernment Usingtechnology… [600944]

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
EPRS | European Par liamentary Research Service
Author: Ron Davies
Members' Research Service
September 2015—PE565.890 EN
eGovernment
Usingtechnology to improve
public service sand
democratic participation

This publication provides a n overview of eGovernment services and the various policies,programmes
and funding mechanisms in the European Union supporting the irdevelopment .Italsosummarises
benchmarks of EU progress in this area, and describes future challenges in establishing opendigital
government.
PE 565.890
ISBN 978-92-823-6814-5
doi: 10.2861/150280
QA-01-15-228-EN-N
Original m anuscript , in English, completed in July2015.
Disclaimer
The content of th is document is the sole responsibility of the author and any opinions
expressed therein do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.
It is addressed to the Members and staff of the EP for their parliamentary work. Reproduc tion
and translation for non -commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is
acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy.
© European Union, 2015.
Photo credits: © fotoschool / Fotolia.
[anonimizat]
http://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu (intranet)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank (internet)
http://epthinktank.eu (blog)

eGovernment Page1of24
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
eGovernment refersto efforts by public authorities to use information and communication
technologies (ICTs)to improve public services and increase democratic participation.
eGovernment a ims toimprove government efficiency through the reduced c ost of
electronic information management and communication s, the reorganisation of
government agencies and the reduction of administrative silos of information . Even more
importantly, it can reduce administrative burdens on citizens and businesses bymakingtheir
interactions with public authorities faster,more convenient and less costly ,therebyspurring
competitiveness and economic growth .More recently, open data and collaboration with
third part ieshas offered governments new insights into issues and possiblenew services. In
addition,theopportunities that eGovernment provide sfor citizens to dialogue with public
authorities (to suggest, comment on and influence policies and policy agendas) can increase
transparency and foster greater participation in democratic public life.
Much of the responsibility for implementing eGovernment practices rests with EU Member
States. However the EU has a role to play in encouraging the exchange of best practic es and
technologies amongst Member States .Citizenswhoexercisetheir right to work or live in
other Member States ,as well as businesses thatprovideservices across the EU,need to
interact with governments in other countries . Ensuring efficient and eff ective cross -border
services, including theinteroperability needed to providethoseservices, is crucial to
ensuring an efficient and effective single market. EU institutions themselves also
communicate with citizens , businesses and Member States and need to make efforts to
ensure that they make best use of ICTs in doing so.
Formore than 15 years, the EU has supported the building of infrastructure, the sharing of
best practices, and researchintohow eGovernment services can be delivered efficiently and
effectively. Benchmarking atboth the global and European level has shown that progress
has been made: many services are now available electronically, andcitizen use of
eGovernment appears to have increased, with the goal set in the 2010 Digital Agenda fo r
Europe–for 50% of citizens to be using eGovernment by 2015 –close to being achieved .
However l argegaps also remain between Member States, some of whichare world leaders
in digitalserviceswhile otherslag considerably behind. Moreover , services to businesses are
more advanced than services to citizens.
Many other challenges and opportunities in cr eatingtrue eGovernment remain.
Governments must do more to create a sense of security and trust . They need to encourag e
interoperability to support the single market .Theycantry todevelopelectronic means for
citizens to participate in public life while not excluding those who do not have the means,
abilities or skills to do so . Theyhave an opportunity to exploit open government data ,to
collaborate morewithbusinesses and citizens indevelopingenhanced services, and tomake
effective use of new technologies such as cloud computing.

eGovernment Page2of24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Background ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 3
2. The impact of eGovernment ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ..4
2.1. Advantages ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 4
2.2. Disadvantages ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 6
3. eGovernment in the EU ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………7
4. Past and current EU policies and programmes ………………………….. ………………………….. ……9
4.1. TheDigital Agenda for Europe ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 9
4.2. European eGovernment Action Plan 2011 -15………………………….. ………………………… 11
4.3. Interoperability programmes ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 11
4.4. Research ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 12
4.5. Structural and investment funds ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………… 12
4.6. Recent and future legislative initiatives ………………………….. ………………………….. …….13
5. Benchmarking eGovernment in the EU ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 14
5.1. UN eGovernment survey ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 14
5.2. EU eGovernment benchmarks ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 15
5.3. Digital Agenda scoreboard ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 17
6. Future challenges and opportunities ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 18
6.1. Electronic identification, security and trust ………………………….. ………………………….. ..18
6.2. Cross -border services and interoperability ………………………….. ………………………….. ..19
6.3. eParticipation ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 19
6.4. Public sector information and open data ………………………….. ………………………….. …..21
6.5. New technologies ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………21
7. Main references ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 23

eGovernment Page3of24
1.Background
eGovernment anddigital government are terms used to describe the application of
information and co mmunication technologies (ICTs) to improve public services and to
increase citizen participation in democratic government .1eGovernment hasbeenthe
dominant term used in policy -making in the European Union (EU); the term puts the
emphasis on user -centricservices that can be integrated to support easy and efficient use of
public services by citizens and businesses. Recently however,commentators have alsobeen
talking about digital government , a concept which extends the eGovernment model by
building on th e notion of new services that public sector 'open data' can support , as well as
thecollaborative community ofpublic authorities ,businesses, citizens and civil society
which can develop them. However in line with the European Commission's Digital Single
MarketStrategyfor Europe ,2the term eGovernment will be preferred here.
Different commentators have developed models of eGovernment interaction and service
delivery. Some models have four different phases or types of interaction , some have five ,3
but there is a large degree of agreement at least on the initial three phases :
(1)informational (in which information is delivered to citizens, such as through downloading
reports and brochures from websites); (2)interactional (where citizens have the ability t o
ask questions , make complaints orsearch for information sources); and (3)transactional
(where users can complete online all the different steps of a complex interaction). The one
or two subsequent phases may eitherbe deemed participatory (where citize ns provide
input tothe formulation of policies);transformational orintegrated (where government's
internal organisation is modified as a result of the need to deliver services in an integrated,
client-centric way) ;orconnected (combining features of bo th).4In addition, eGovernment
interactions are sometimes classified as government -to-citizens or G2C (such as when
citizens file income tax declarations); government -to-business or G2B (such as when
businesses seek permits); or government -to-government or G2G (as when different
branches or levels of government exchange information).
These issues are important because as ICTs transform our society, future interaction swith
governments will increasingly take place online. B ased on a survey of users in selec ted
developed and developing countries in 2013-14, the Boston Consulting Group reports that
one tenth of citizentransactions with governments was performed online; they predict that
by 2020one third of transactions will be done online .5
1'Government 2.0' is another term used to refer to 'more open, social, communicative, interactive and user –
centred version of e -government' where services and policies are designed cooperatively by governments,
citizens and civil society. See, for example, Government 2.0: key challenges to its realization / A. Meijer et
al. Electronic journal of e -Government v. 10 no. 1, 2012, p. 59.
2A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe / European Commission, 6 May 2015. COM(2015) 192 final.
3See, for example, Understanding e -Government in Europe / P. Nixon, V. Koutrakou, R. Rawal, 2010, p. 271 –
272; Understa nding e-government / V. Homburg, 2008, p. 93; Ingredients for the Success of an e –
Government website / S. Mellouli, Public administration review v. 74, no. 2, p. 283-284.
4Social media and the next generation of e -services: 7 social media use cases for public agencies /
M.Pellegrino, PWC, 2012.
5Digital government: turning the rhetoric into reality / M. Carrasco, P. Goss, BCG perspectives, 2014.

eGovernment Page4of24
2.The impact of eG overnment
2.1.Advantages
ICT provides tools for faster and more efficient processing of data within public
administrations ; efficient public services can result in significant cost savings, or the
development of new kinds of services at the same cost. In 2012,the European Commission
estimated that all EUpublic administrations using e -procurement procedures could save at
least€100 billion per year and that e -government (online communication between citizens
and governments) could reduce costs by 15 to 20%.6With a seamless electronic tax system,
the Austrian tax authority is estimated to have saved €2 per transaction over the cost of
conventional processing.7
Cost savings are increased by a strategy known as 'digital by default '. Services that are
'digital by default' are designed from the beginning to be so compelling that everyone who
can use them will choose to do so. This m eans that the vast majority of transactions will be
handled electronically . Only a minority of citizens will stillneed to communicate with
government via more costly channels, such as through mailed paper forms, face -to-face
interaction in an office or ov er the telephone. For instance, i n its Government Digital
Strategy, t he UK estimates that about 18% of itspopulation will need help through an
'assisted digital service ' where intermediaries act as an interface between the citizen and
the digital service ;moving a variety of services to digital channels is expected save the
government £1.7 to£1.8 billion annually.8The European Commission estimates that at the
EU level, a 'digital by default' strategy could save between €6.5 and €10 billion annually.9
More important than government cost reductions, however, is the opportunity to reduce
administrative burdens . Administrative burdens are the costs that citizens and businesses
beartocomply with information and reg istration requirements established by government
regulation. These costs can be reduced by making it faster and less expensive for citizens to
fulfiltheir obligations, such as applying for permits or paying taxes. Reducing time and effort
is possible beca use of the convenience and rapidity of online provision of information, the
integration of ICT tools and processes, and the repurposing of information supplied by
citizens and businesses. In a 2012 Eurobarometer survey, more than two thirds of
respondents had noted over the previous three years the introduction of an option for their
company to complete government forms over the internet . Although not necessarily just
because of online services, fourout of 10 surveyrespondents said they had noted a
reductionin the time and effort needed by their company to complete government form s,
and one in four said that government services had responded faster.10The amounts saved
through a reduced administrative burdencanalsobe significant. For example, the SIMPLE X
programme for administrative simplification and eGovernment in Portugal is estimated to
6Digital'to-do'list: new digital priorities for 2013 -14/ European Commission, 2012 .
7Feasibility and scenarios for the long -term sustainability of the Large Scale Pilots, including ex -ante
evaluation: executive summary / Deloitte, European Commission, 2013, p. 9 .
8Government digital strategy: December 2013 / Cabinet Office, UK, 2013.
9Study on eGovernment and the reduction of administrative burden: final report / EY, Danish Technology
Institute, European Commission, 2014.
10Innovation in the public sector: flash Eurobarometer 343 / European Commission, 2012.

eGovernment Page5of24
have generated €56.1 million in savings for citizens and businesses .eProcurement initiatives
in Lithuania were expected to save businesses at least €1.2 billion over fiveyears.11
In reducing administrative burdens, two commonly -discussed strategies are of particular
relevance:
'Once only 'registration of data means that businesses and citizens are required to supply
common information only once . Information previousl y supplied is reused for other
applications, reducing the amount of work that the citizen has to do. For example, a
person's address data entered as part of a driving licenceapplication could be used when
theyapplyfor social security assistance. When acitizen logs in to a public website, the
information provided or the navigation facilities can be personalised, saving them time and
effort.The European Commission estimates that currently in less than half the cases (48%)
do public administrations re -useinformation they already have about citizens or companies.
Of course p ublic authorities need to take the steps necessary to protect personal data
appropriately and to share data between different agencies, departments or levels of
government in a secure f ashion.However i mplementation of this approach at the EU level ,
with appropriate data protection, is expected to save around €5 billion per year by 2017.12
A'whole-of-government 'approach13is a complement to the 'once only' strategy. In this
approach, dif ferent public agencies work across their portfolio boundaries to create an
integrated response to programme management and service delivery. For example, a citizen
reporting a death may need to contact a wide variety of different government actors,
potentiallyincluding thetax authorit y,thepension department, othersocial security
administration s,thedriver licensing agency, thepassport office a s well as local authorities.
Similarly someone wanting to create a business may have to contact a range of pu blic
administrations to get the necessary registrations and permissions. A whole-of-government
approach would aimto simplify these processes for end-usersbycoordinating the needs of
the public authorities involved, reducing duplication and integrating I CT-based services .
While some countries have aggregated large amounts of information in central data stores,
it ismore common thatdifferent levels of government or agencies cooperate bysharing or
exchanging the information that they hold. This means tha t different services need to be
interoperable ,in other words to have the technical infrastructure and informational capacity
to exchange databetween their different applications . The absence of a whole -of-
government approach can undermine efficiencies in eGovernment services and inhibit
progress in reducing administrative burdens.
For example, the Danish Basic Data Programme applies the 'once only' principle to personal,
business, property, address, geographic and income data stored in 10 different electr onic
repositories across different levels of government. Public authorities share this data
internally and in a secure manner so that the burden on citizens and businesses on
supplying this data is reduced. The potential savings for municipalities, regions and central
11Trends and challenges in public sector innovation in Europe: executive summary / European Commission,
December 2012 .
12Digital Single Market Strategy / European Commission, 2015. COM(2015) 192 final.
13A similar concept is that of 'joined up' government, where new methods or forms of organisation are
developed to overcome traditional boundaries between government entities or information silos so as to
work more efficiently and provide better services.

eGovernment Page6of24
government amount to as much as €100 million per year by 2020. In addition, data are
expected to be of higher quality (e.g. less risk that data will be outdated); making non –
sensitive parts of this data available to other parties for commercial use can also create
efficiencies , open the door to innovative applications, and stimulate economic growth. It is
estimated that extending this 'once only' approach to the EU level could result in annual net
savings of as much as €5 billion per year.14
Looking at a process through the eye s of a citizen or business also provides an opportunity
forredesign or rethinking organisational structures and procedures so as to promote
efficiency within public services. This is particularly true when different departments or
agencies shar edata, services and resources in a more integrated way, and offerservices
that take the user seamlessly from the beginning to the end of a particular process. In this
context ICTs provide an opportunity to re -examine and reform organisational structures. In
fact, the online implementation of a public service is considered by the European
Commission to beone of the most important stimuli for innovation in the public sector .15
FinallyeGovernment can offer advantages by increasing transparency . Governments that
put large quantities of data online provide citizens and enterprises with the opportunity to
analysethat data ,to ensure that government actions are well aligned with society's goals.
By opening up channels for citizens to develop new services as well as tosuggest, comment
on and influence policy development, governments can encourage greater citizen
participation in government. eGovernment services are alsosometimes considered a way of
reducing corruption througheliminating intermediaries between the citizen and the actual
service provided.16They are also considered to contribute to reducing the carbon footprint
of government ,by reducing travel and paper -based processes.
2.2.Disadvantages
On the other hand, eGovernment presents a number of real or potential pro blems.
Providing services that are digital by default may exclude those on the wrong side of the
'digital divide ', i.e. those in society who do not have easy access to the internet because of
poverty, physical handicaps, age, limited digital literacy or re sidence in areas such as rural
communities with little or no access to broadband connections. Maintaining alternate
channels of communication, such as face -to-face or telephone service desks, acts against
social exclusion but can cut into cost savings.
Governments may need to support digital skills training , not only as a way of supporting the
labour market and helping citizens to improve their job prospects, but also to ensure that all
citizens can use eGovernment services . Publicofficialsmay also need additional training and
time to learn new skills so that they can adap t to support electronic service; others may
need tobe re-assigned to other roles.
14Study on eGovernment and the reduction of administrative burden: final report / EY, Danish Technology
Institute, European Commission, 2014, p. VI.
15Powering European public sector innovation / Expert group on public sector innovation, European
Commission, 2013.
16SeeThe strategy and the progress made on e -Government Services in the EU / L Protopappas, A. Sideridis
In:E-democracy, security, privacy and trust in a digital world, 2014, p. 192 -201.

eGovernment Page7of24
Citizens' privacy can be compromised as governments collect and share more data in order
topersonalis eservices or support 'register only once' data registration. Personal data stored
by governments may be exposed to risks of data theft. If particular care is not taken,
providing open access to different sets of government -collected data may in some
circumstances permitcross-referencing from one set to another in a way that allows the
identification of individuals, even if the separate datasetshavebeen'anonymised '. Lack of
trust in how the government manage their personal data, and fears about inadequa te
security and privacy safeguards, can discourage citizens from using electronic services.
Publishing open government data while maintaining security and privacy also comes with
coststo the governments providing that data.
Projects to introduce eGovernme nt services also face risks related to introducing major
changes in complex and politically sensitive areas. Barriers include leadership failures,
limited investment to develop new service s, negative attitudes of civilservants,
organisational inflexibilit y and difficulties in coordination across jurisdictional,
administrative or geographic boundaries. Government's frequently top -down, hierarchical
structure can also inhibit communication with citizens and the promotion of new electronic
services. While man y Member States are currently implementing the once -only principle ,
approaches varydue to regulatory complexity and different ways ofthinkingabout
organisational reform and collaborat ionacross different organisational boundaries .17
3.eGovernment in the E U
For almost 15years, the European Union (EU)
hasdeveloped policies to foster the use of ICTs
in the provision of government services to
citizens.Whilst not explicitly mentioned by the
Treaties, cross-border public services that
support EU policies have become a necessary
condition for a fully realised single market ,
supporting the rights of citizens to live and work
anywhere in the Union and of businesses to
offer services across the EU. As the 2006
Austrian Presidency of the EU succinctly stated,
'if[Member States] do not act in concert, we
could face a potentially embarrassing irony: that
we erect electronic barriers to the exercise of
those EU -wide freedoms of movement because
of an exclusively national focus on our
eGovernment strategies, and this precisely in the
one domain –Cyberspace –that knows no
natural borders' .18
17eGovernment and reduction of administrative burden: applying the 'once only' principle / Deloitte,
epractice.eu, 2014.
18E-Government in Europe: re -booting the state / P. Nixon, V. Koutrakou, 2007 , p. 272.The e-Commission
In a 2012 Communication, the European
Commission set out its p lans for an e –
Commission 2012 -15. This programme,
like a similar predecessor e -Commission
programme, sought to apply
eGovernment principles to the
Commission itself; in other words, to use
ICT to enhance the efficiency,
effectiveness and transparency of th e
Commission by rationalising and
modernising many of the IT
infrastructures which underlie its
policies and internal business. Targeted
applications included public websites,
procurement, machine translation,
document management, open data
portals and Eur opean Citizens'
Initiatives .

eGovernment Page8of24
eGovernment can also contribute to the Europe 2020 goal of making the EU a smart,
sustainable and inclusive economy. Public authorities can use ICT to reduce expenses
related to paper-based collection, filing, processing, storage and retrieval of information ; to
cut costs of printingand distributi ngof information; to streamline internal processes and
improve data sharing ; and to improve the efficiency of public administration thro ugh
components such as integrated financial management systems.19Online services canreduce
the administrative burden on European citizens and enterprises, making Europe more
competitive and fostering economic growth. By creating a more open and transparen t
public administration, and opening the door to citizen s'involvement in priority setting and
policy making, it can also be possible to create a more open, inclusive and participatory
democracy.
Digital Single Market Strategy
In May 2015, the European Com mission unveiled its Digital Single Market Strategy which described
16 key actions , of which the final item promised ,in 2016,a new eGovernment action plan for the
periodup until 2020 .The action plan will include initiatives that aim to modernise admini strations,
increase interoperability and make it easier for citizens and business es to interact with governments,
in particular :
-Interconnecting business registers across the EU in order to allow businesses to launch cross –
border services within a month of deciding to do so.
-A pilot project in conjunction with Member States toimplement the 'once only' principle.
-Integration of EU and Member State portals, networks, and services in the Commission's planned
new web presence so asto provide a more us er-friendly 'one -stop shop' called the Single Digital
Gateway.
-Speeding up Member States 'implementation of e -procurement and e -signatures.
The European Parliament and Council have also been supportive of eGovernment initiatives.
In 2011, Parliament f inanced a study on e -Public, e-participation and e -voting in Europe and
in 2013, STOAissued a report on the security of eGovernment systems.20A report on the
potential and impact of clo ud computing and social networks also considered the impact on
government services. For a number of years, the Presidencies of the Council have a nnually
organised a ministerial meeting or other high -level conference bring ingtogether experts
from around the EU to discuss eGovernment issues .21Arguably the most important of th ese
high-level meetings was thatin Malmö in 200 9at which Ministers signed a Declaration
which recognised that eGovernment was important for delivering European policy goals ,
and set goals for 2015 including citizen empowerment, increased availability of public-sector
information, and better cross -border eGovernment services.22
19SeeIntroducti on to e-Government / World Bank, 2011. The financial crisis has put greater pressure on
government budgets, but post -crisis the majority of European countries did not decrease eGovernment
spending, and some, like Estonia, Germany, the Netherlands, Slovaki a and Slovenia, reported increased
eGovernment investments ( United Nations e -Government survey , 2014, p. 31 ).
20Security of eGovernment sys tems: final report / A, Jacobi et al., Science and Technology Options
Assessment, European Parliament, 2013.
21Recent meetings have been held in Malmö, 2009; Grenada, 2010; Poznan, 2011 ;Nicosia, 2012; and Vilnius,
2013.
22Ministerial declaration on eGovernment , 18 November 2009, Malmö, Sweden.

eGovernment Page9of24
TheEuropean Council
In the Conclusions from its October 2013 meeting, the European Council encouraged the
modernisation of public services through swift implementation of public se rvices such as
eGovernment, eHealth, eInvoicing and eProcurement. In particular, the European Council
highlighted the potential of open data to stimulate innovation and prosperity, said that public sector
information and interoperability should be promoted , and called for efforts to apply the 'once only'
principle in terms of data collection. In response to the European Commission's Digital Single Market
Strategy, in June 2015 the European Council indicated that action needed to be taken on
encouraging eGov ernment.
According to a global UN survey, as a region Europe is in the forefront in terms of the
potential for successfu l implementation of eGovernment .In particular, p rogresshas been
madein making use of eGovernment services .In 2010, the Digital Agen da for Europe set a
targetfor50% ofcitizens touse eGovernment services, andin 2014, levels were 4 7% for the
EU as a whole. Despite a fairlyslow rate of increase and some variation in measured levels
over the previous few years, itnowappearspossiblethat this target will be reached in
2015.23However t here remain great disparities between the levels of eGovernment
provision ,and use and progress in take -up of eGovernment services ,in different EU
Member States. The following sections discuss EUpolicies and programmes in regard to
eGovernment, how they rank in terms of other countries ,targets for eGovernment use, and
futurechallenges in implementing effective eGovernment solutions.
4.Past and current EU policies and programmes
The European Union has long been involved in initiatives encouraging the application of ICTs
to public administration. Currently support focuses on an interoperability programme, the
Digital Agenda for Europe, an eGovernment Action plan, and the Horizon 2020 research
programme. An eCommission programme applying eGovernment principles to the European
Commission and support for eGovernment projects through the European structural and
investment funds also contribute to eGovernment implementation in the EU.
4.1.The Digital Agenda for E urope
The Digital Agenda for Europe, the EU's digital policy for the 2010-15period, contains a
number of actions related to eGovernment, including creating and deploying digital services
in key areas of public interest (Action 110); supporting seamless cr oss-border eGovernment
services in the single market (Action 84); making eGovernment services fully interoperable
(Action 89) ,with points of single contact functioning as eGovernment centres (Action 90);
and exploring efficiency gains from moving public s ervices into the Cloud (Action 122).
The ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP), one of three specific programmes of the
Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) for the 2007-13period, has
supported the realisation of the Digital Agenda fo r Europe. By providing funding for
innovations that have moved beyond the research phase, this programme put particular
emphasis on efficient public administrations in the light of slow uptake of innovations in the
23Digital Agenda targets: progress report 201 5/ European Commission, 201 5, p. 8.eGovernment: Digital
Agenda scoreboard 2015 / European Commission, 2015.

eGovernment Page10of24
public sector. While some large-scalepilot projects (LSPs) are complete and some are still
on-going,amongtheseveneGovernment -related projects that havereceived support since
2008 are:
STORK (Secure Identity Across Borders Linked) and its successor STORK 2.0 aimed at
creating a single Europ ean identification and authentication area by interconnecting
systems for electronic identification of persons and legal entities.
SPOCS (Simple Procedures Online for Cross -border Services) set up single contact
points at Member State level to support cont acts between enterprises and
authorities and online completion of procedures.
PEPPOL (Pan -European Public Procurement Online) sought to make it easier for
companies to bid on public sector contracts throughout the EU.
epSOS (European PatientsSmart Open S ervices) was designed to create cross -border
interoperability between health-record systems to help citizens needing medical
assistance in another Member State.
e-CODEX(e-Justice Com munication via Online Data Exchange )aims to improve cross –
border access to the judicia l system of other Member States by establishing an
interoperability layer for eJustice communication.
eSens (Electronic Simple European Networked Services) will improve technical
solutions for cross -border eGovernment services such as settin g up a business or
using electronic procurement, legal or health services.
A CIP call in 2013 led to funding for projects specifically looking at the application of cloud
computing to public services:
The Cloud approach for innovation in public services (CLIPS) focuses on a scenario of
a family moving within Europe to demonstrate re -use of open data and services and
interoperability so as to reduce costs and improve the customer experience.
StormClouds defines guidelines, case studies of usesand best pra ctices related to
the shift of public-service provision to the cloud.
CloudOpting contributes to strategies and standards by providing a shared platform
for pilot projects that allow spublic authorities to migrate existing applications.
Strategic will dev elop cloud infrastructures and tools that will help public-sector
organisations migrate services to the cloud, as well as 'localising' services developed
elsewhere.
European cloud marketplace for intelligent mobility (ECIM) aims to use cloud
computing to m ake transport services more innovative, cost effective and accessible.
Virtual registry of the ( 'under-on-above')[sic]ground infrastructures (VirgoRegistry)
project will create a cloud -based virtual registry of infrastructure, including maps and
information on geographic coverage and types of utilities.
TheConnecting Europe Facility 2014 -2024(CEF)contributes to financing the basic
infrastructure needed by eGovernment in the EU. The Telecom objective of the CEF provides
funds for broadband networks but alsoinvestsin projects that fill in the missing links in
Europe's digital infrastructures. In particular the CEF hasbeenandwill be used to finance
'mature' digital infrastructure such as eIdentification, eAuthentication, eProcurement,
24CEF Regulation, No (EU)1316/2013 .

eGovernment Page11of24
eInvoicing and eDelivery (the secure delivery of documents) as well as Open Data and
Cybersecurity .Anticipated f unding in these areas in 201 5totals nearly €28million.25
4.2.European eGovernment Action Plan2011-15
In 2010, the European Commission adopted its European eGovernment Action Plan for the
2011-15period. The plan contributes to achieving two important targets of the Digital
Agenda in Eu rope: first, that 80% of businesses and 50% of citizens make use of
eGovernment services; and second, that a number of key cross -border services be offered
online by 2015. Priorities include empowering citizens and business; promoting mobility in
thesinglemarket; making public administrations more efficient and effective; and aiding in
the establishment of 'key enablers' for eGovernment services such as eIdentifiers and
eSignatures. The plan seeks to reduce administrative burdens by 25% in each country an d,
in the longer term ,across borders and at EU level.
In an own initiative resolution reacting to this plan ,26the European Parliament supported
the targets for increased use of eGovernment services, but called for a coherent EU legal
framework for eAuthen tication, eIdentification and eSignatures. It also stressed the
importance of digital training; the need for increased use of electronic submissions for
public procurement; and development of electronic invoices so that these become the
dominant form of in voice in the EU by 2020.
In conjunction with this eGovernment Action Plan, the Commission proposed a European
Interoperability Strategy27and aEuropean Interoperability Framework . TheStrategy
provides guidance regarding cooperation between European public authorities in relation to
delivering services across borders and sectors. It focuses on three 'clusters' dealing
respectively with trusted information exchange (including eIDs and eSignatures),
interoperability architecture and the assessment of theimplications for ICT of new EU
legislation. While promoting awareness and sharing of best practices, the Strategy is
continuallyupdated to take into account new developments and project progress. On the
other hand, the Framework is an approach agreed with sta keholders that specifies common
elements for interoperability and provides guidance to European public administrations in
terms of stakeholder expectations, an interoperability model (including service
components), and interoperability agreements.
4.3.Interoperability programmes
For nearly 20years, the EU has supported a series of programmes promoting
interoperability for European eGovernment Services. A 1995 -99 programme ,called the
Interchange of Data between Administrations (IDA) ,sought to develop trans -European
networks to allow the exchange of data between public administrations in the EU and
Member States. Its successor programmes, IDA II (1999 -2004) and IDABC (2005 -09),
extended the approach to the interoperability of services and included businesses a nd
citizens (BC) as target clients; it also included sharing best practices among Member States.
25Connecting Europe Facility, Trans -European telecommunication networks: work programme 201 5/
European Commission, 2014.
26Competitive digital single market –eGovernment as a spearhead , 2011/2178(INI) , resolution of 20 April
2012.
27European interoperability strategy / European Commission. COM(2010) 744 final Annex 1.

eGovernment Page12of24
Forthe2010-15period,a programme on Interoperability Solutions for European Public
Administrations (ISA) has given impetus to a number of initiatives, incl ude ePrior (an IT
system for procurement and e -invoicing documents), IMI (an internal market information
system) and MT@EC (a machine translation system for the EU institutions and Member
States), as well as a system for collecting signatures to support Eu ropeanCitizens'Initiatives,
a mechanism introduced with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. A proposal for a
continuation of this programme (ISA 2) is currently being considered by Parliament and
Council(see the section on 'Recent and ongoing legislat ive initiatives 'below).
4.4.Research
As well as the above programmes, since 1998 the EU has funded more than 80 research
projects in the area of eGovernment through itsframework research programmes. For the
period 1998 -2002, the emphasis was on ICTs which c ould make services more user -friendly
and accessible; for the subsequent framework programme, it was on services to business
and citizens and encouraging organisational change; and for the 2007-13period (the
SeventhFramework Programme) , eGovernment -related research focused mainlyonICT for
governance and policy modelling.
Under the Horizon 2020 programme, innovation in applying ICT sto public sector services
will be supported through three initial calls:
'Europe in a changing world –Inclusive innovativ e and reflective societies' (SC6)
supports research into new technologies such as mobile access, personalised
services and open data, the eParticipation of youth in decision -making and the
creation of innovative mobile applications by small and medium -sized enterprises.
'Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies' (L EIT) focuses on the creation of
services built on the 'cloud of public services' by public administrations, users and
other stakeholders.
'Secure societies –Protecting freedom and secu rity of Europe and its citizens' (SC7) will
look at managing personal data and preserving privacy in an open government context.
Later calls will cover personalised public services that enhance transparency and increase
trust and accountability; applying emerging technologies to improve the efficiency,
effectiveness and quality of public services; and the design of innovative mobile applications
to improve the interaction of citizens and businesses with public administrations.
4.5.Structural and investment fun ds
The EU also supports eGovernment projects through structural and investment funds such
as the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). One of the thematic priorities for the
ERDF is enhancing access, use and quality of ICT, including strengthening ICT applications for
e-government. Some recent projects:
DLA aimed to creat ea common methodology for the implementation of a Digital
Local Agenda .
eCitizen II proposed facilitating citizen -centred eGovernment in European cities and
regions.
OSEPA sought to encourage the use of free and open source software in public
administrations .
I-SPEED demonstrated how ICT can be used in the tourism sector.

eGovernment Page13of24
PIKE sought to promote innovation and the knowledge economy through
implementing successful approaches developed i n other regions .
IMMODI helped to implement eGovernment and eHealth services in mountain areas.
An analysis of these ERDF -funded projects found that digital policies needed to be more
connected to 'mainstream' policies; it also stressed the need to redesig n public
organisations and processes in order to deliver effective eGovernment services, while calling
for a more 'open government' approach withcitizens more involvedin the development of
new services.28In a review of an earlier (2000 -06) group of ERDF -funded eGovernment
projects in four Member States, the European Court of Auditors found that benefits were
not always well defined and often ended up being much lower than could have been
expected; according to the Court, eGovernment projects needed cleare r objectives and
should have been selected for funding on the basis of anticipated costs and benefits.29
4.6.Recentand future legislative initiatives
Directive 2014/55/EU on electronic invoicing in public procurement was adopted by
Parliament and Council in 2 014. It calls for the development of a European standard for
eInvoices and mandates that public governments accept eInvoices in a new European
eInvoicestandard when dealing with public procurement. This addresses the problem that
national standards adopte d by some Member States are not compatible with one another.
Thanks to this Directive, businesses will have the assurance that if their e -invoicing process
supports the European standard, their e -invoices will be accepted throughout the EU.
In June 2014 ,the outgoing European Comm ission adopted a proposal for the above-
mentioned new programme on interoperability solutions for European public
administrations, businesses and citizens known as ISA 2. This programme would extend the
current ISA programme. The a im of the programme, which is intended to run from 2016 to
2020 with a financial envelope of €131million,is to help Member States modernise their
legislation and provide interoperable digital services at the European level as well as at that
of the Membe r States. In particular, it aims to cut costs for public administrations and to
reduce administrative burdens for businesses and citizens, while avoiding barriers hindering
citizens and businesses that need to usepublic services across borders. The propos al affects
a number of different EU policy areas including the internal market, public procurement,
customs and taxation, health and the environment.
TheISA2proposal is currently being considered by Parliament and Council. In June 2015,
Council adopted ageneral approach (including new measures not in the Commission's
proposal) in preparation for an informal trilogue and eventual first -reading agreement. The
report of the Industry, Research and Energy Committee (ITRE) of the European Parliament
which was adopted in June 2015 is scheduled for consideration atthe October 2015
plenary.30
28E-government services: analysis report / INTERREG IVC, 2014.
29Have the e -Government projects supported by ERDF been effective? / European Court of Auditors, 2011.
30Programme on interoperab ility solutions for European public administrations, businesses and citizens
(ISA2). 2014/0185(COD). The rapporteur for the ITRE Committee is Carlos Zorrinho (S&D, Spain). For
Council, s eeitsgeneralapproach ( ST 9366/15 INIT ) andpreparation for the first informal trilogue ( ST 10240
2015 INIT ).

eGovernment Page14of24
Other eGovernment -related legislation that wasgiven a first reading by the EP prior to the
2014 European election butwhich is not yet adopted,as ofJuly2015,includesadirective
that aims to ensure the accessibility of websites of public sector bodies (2012/0340(COD)
anda directive on a high common level of network and information security across the
Union(2013/0027(COD) for which informal trilogue discussions with the Commission and
Councilwereon-going.
As part of its Digital Single Market Strategy , the Commission has also promised to introduce
a new eGovernment action plan covering the period 2016 -20. This initiative will include the
interconnection of business reg isters in Member States by 2017, launch a pilot 'once only'
project with Member States, extend and integrate EU and Member State portals to create a
better 'one stop shop' and accelerate the move to full electronic procurement and
interoperable electronic signatures.
The OECD recommendation on digital government strategies
In July 2014, the Council of the Organisation for Economic Co -operation and Development adopted
what is said to be the first international legal instrument on digital government. The
recommendation is not legally binding, but the 21EU Member States who are members of the OECD
(Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Rep ublic, Slovenia, Sweden, Spain
and the UK)are expected to implement it. Taking a whole -of-government approach, the
Recommendation mandates that governments develop strategies that ensure greater transparency,
openness and inclusiveness; that they encourag e the participation of public, private and civil society
stakeholders in policy -making as well as service design and delivery; and that they create a data –
driven culture in the public sector. Of particular relevance to the EU, it also calls on member
countries to strengthen cooperation with other governments in order to serve citizens and
businesses across borders, and to share knowledge and coordinate digital government strategies.
5.Benchmarking eGovernment in the EU
5.1.UN eGovernment survey
The United Nation s sponsors a bi -annual survey of eGovernment in the world. The survey
includes a composite index that ranks countries based on three very broad dimensions: the
provision of online services, the presence of telecommunication sinfrastructure and
available hu man capacity. (The latter two aspects are seen as measures of potential or
'readiness' for eGovernment rather than an evaluation of actual eGovernment
performance). The actual benchmark values change from one report to the next as ICTs and
services evolve, which means that this report is useful for comparing different countries in a
single report, but not for measuring progress in absolute terms over time.

eGovernment Page15of24
Figure 1-UN eGovernment survey rankings for EU Member States
Source:United Nations e -Government survey 2014 , p. 34
In the 2014 survey, Europe was the highest -ranking region overallfor eGovernment.31
France, the Netherlands, the U nitedKingdom (UK) and Finland were the highest ranking EU
Member States, but 11 other Member States were also in the top 30 countries worldwide
for eGovernment. In specific areas such as eParticipation, France, the Netherlands and the
UK were also world leaders. Spain, Ireland, Italy and Latvia were highlighted as countries
that had risen quickly in the rankings compared to the previous survey. The surveyalso
notes general progress in eParticipation, the use of mobile technology, the increased role of
social medi a, and greater availability of government Open Data. A new UN survey will be
published in 2016.
5.2.EU eGovernment benchmark s
As promised by the Commission in its Communication, p rogress in the EU's eGovernment
Action Plan is regularly measured by a series of annual eGovernment Benchmark reports ,
although no t all aspects are measured in each annual report. Recentreportsuse a
framework to evaluate how well Member States' systems respond to a series of 'life events'
31This regional ranking is somewhat misleading, in that highly ranked United States and Canada were not
considered part of a 'North American' region but instead were takentogether with lower ranked Latin
American countries in a region called 'the Americas'.

eGovernment Page16of24
(e.g.starting a new business , finding a job or moving); this 'life events' evaluation tests how
well eGovernment services are integrated (i.e. rather than justbeing made available in a
separate, unconnected way). The benchmark also relies on a survey that asks citizens across
the EU about their ex perience and reactions to eGovernment services.
Whilstrecenttop-levelbenchmark s32have shown progress in achieving eGovernment, a
closer look reveals mixed results .Tests of 'user centricity' (to what extent a service is
provided online and how it is per ceived) show good results (7 3%) across the EU28, although
specific ratings for ease and speed of use trail badly behind the onlineavailability of services
and thenumber of usability features. While availability was up sixpoints in 2014, ease a nd
speed of use did not change between 2012 and 2014. Governments are not highly rated
(51%) for transparency in relation to their own responsibilities, performance, service
delivery and personal data. Whilstcross-border mobility (international services) has
improvedsteadilyover time, scores are still low with 16Member States below 50%; across
the EU,online services across borders are only available in 4 8% of cases, compared to 72%
when citizens request the same services within their country, and cross -border transactional
services (where a citizen can complete an entire process online) are very rare.In addition,
thebenchmark notes that services to citizens suffer from a significant gap(on average about
10 or 11 percentage points )below the level of services o ffered to businesses ,across all
countries and all indicators.
Europe has also been very slow i n terms of adopting five key enabling technologies
(technical elements which are essential to supporting public online services) .SomeMember
States (e.g.Malta,Estonia,Portugal, and Spain) provide good examples andothers, like
France,score well with some technologies but poorly for others . However most individual
countries showed almost no progress from 2012 -13 to 2013 -14, andeven the most common
of these te chnologies (eIdentification) was only deployed in 6 3% ofthecasesexamined in
2014.
According to the 2014benchmark, citizenswhoused online public services most often saw
the perceived benefits to be in time saved, flexibility in terms of time and place , money
saved and a simplified process for getting service. They saw the most important barriers to
using eGovernment services to be a preference for personal contact and the expectation
that a personal visit or paper was required anyway. Other barriers we re not being aware of
the service or expecting that other channels would be easier .Concerns about data
protection and security, lack of skills or technical difficulties in accessing the service were
much less important. The survey component also show edthatmore than one thirdof EU
citizens (38%) refuse or choose not to go online to use public services.33
32Future-proofing eGovernment for a Digital Single Market: final insight report / D. Tinholt et al., European
Commission, 2015.
33Delivering on the European advantage? How European governments can and should benefit from
innovative public services: eGovernment benchmark / D. Tinholt et al., European Commission, 2014.

eGovernment Page17of24
5.3.Digital Agenda scoreboard
The Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE) includesactions and targets related to eGovernment.
Like other DAE targets, these are re gularly measured and communicated through a Digital
Agenda Scoreboard. One of 13 specific goals of the DAE is that half of EU citizens should use
eGovernment services by 2015, with more than half of these returning digital forms. After
decreasing in 2013, usage rebounded in 2014 when47% of the population used
eGovernment services, leading the Commission to predict that the goal would be met. In
2014,26% of the EUpopulation used interactive eGovernment services, meaning that target
has been achieved. Some Member States have very high levels of citizens submitting filled –
informs over the internet (50% or more in Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden)
but some Member States have low levels and haveshownlittle progress in terms of
catching-up (Italy, Bulgaria and Romania).
In all EU countries, scores have been much better for businesses ,both in terms of the
proportion of businesses that interact with government and the greater degree of
interactivity.
Based on 2013 data, c itizens who use online pu blic services are usually highly satisfied with
the experience (75%). They appreciate most frequently the usefulness of the information
(87%), the ease of finding it (84%) and the ease of using online services (79%). However
citizens who do not submit offi cial forms online tend to doso because they miss personal
contact; they trust sending paper more; they feel that the services will require paper or a
personal visit anyway; or they are concerned about protection of personal data.34
Figure 2-Individuals/b usinesses interacting online with public authorities in past 12 months
(% of population or businesses ), 2013-14
Data source: Euro statisoc_bde15ei ,isoc_bde15ee, 2014.Business interactions are derived figures for 2013.
34eGovernment: Digital Agenda scoreboard / European Commission, 201 5.

eGovernment Page18of24
6.Future challenges and opportunities
6.1.Electronic identification, security and trust
Various commentators have highlighted the disparity between the 'supply side' and the
'demand side' of eGovernment ;that is to say, the gap between the availability of
eGovernment services and their actual uptake and use. For example, Austria has almost
100% of common public services available online, but actual usage by individuals isonly
slightly over 50%.35One of the problems depressing demand is that users do not trust
eGovernment services, particularly those more sophisticated, transactional services that
require that they identify themselves and reveal private or personal data ;36they have
doubts about the security of their access and the degree to which their data areprotected.
For example, a Boston Consulting Group studyfound that 47% of users of government
digital services want greater assurance that their data areprivate.37Denmark, Finland,
Sweden and the Netherlands were frequently among the Member States where trust in
public authorities was the highest.
Trust is difficult to establish in an online environment, where the competence, benevolence
and honesty of the different interlocutors is moredifficult to evaluate than in face -to-face
interaction. Trust online depends on electronic identity information, which may vary in
completene ss depending on the environment .The EU is making efforts in this regard. At the
sixthMinisterial eGovernment Conference in Poznan in 2011, Ministers concluded that an
electronic identity issued by one Member State to citizens and businesses should be able to
be used in all public and private transactions in other Member States through a process of
mutual recognition. In 2014, the EP and Council adopted Regulation 2014/910 on electronic
identification and trust services that provides for mutual recognition of electronic
identification to facilitate greater interoperab ility in cross -border service s.
Yet security cannot be looked at in isolation. In 2011 the EP's Science and Technology
Options Assessment service looked at security issues related to three cross -border
applications, highlighting the trade -offs that existed between privacy and security on the
one hand, and usability, interoperability and the cost of eGovernment systems on the other.
Greater security may make a service more difficult to use ,and differing security systems can
impede interoperability, particularly in cross -borderapplications.38Similarly, citizens have
the right to be informed when personal data arebeing collected, and of the purpose for
which this is being done. But these privacy requirements can conflict with the 'government
as a whole' strategy and the desire to share information between different agencies, or
different levels of government, so as to avoid entering data multiple times or to provide
35Perspectives on e -government in Europe / S. Archmann, J. Iglesias in: Information communication
technologies and the virtual public sphere: impacts of network structures on civil society / R. Cropf,
W.Krummenacher, 2011, p. 195 -206.
36It is interesting to note, however, that a Flash Eurobarometer in 2008 showed that more citizens trusted
the data pro tection policy of organisations like the police (80% of respondents), social security (74%), tax
authorities (69%) and local authorities (67%) than trusted banks and financial institutions (66%) (although
medical services and doctors were trusted by more, 82%).
37Governments are going digital / BCG, 2014.
38Borderless eGovernment services for Europeans /sixthEuropean Ministerial eGovernment Conference,
Poznan, 1 -18 November, 2011.

eGovernment Page19of24
efficient, personalised services. If citizens areunsure what other parts of government may
have access to the information they provide online, trust in the service and in the
government as a whole may suffer.
6.2.Cross-border services and i nteroperability
Citizens and businesses that want to take advantage of the European single market to
travel, work, live or provide services in other Member States also need to use online public
services in those Member States. Businesses want to register, obtain permits, pay value
added tax(VAT), and trade across borders without experiencing problems. A student
wishing to study in a foreign uni versitywants to be able to follow the same online
enrolment procedures as a student in that country . Interoperability (not just compatibility in
the technical infrastructure or in the format of data sent and received, but also compatibility
of legal frame work and organisational structure) is critical to overcoming barriers to citizens
wishing to use those services from anywhere in the EU.
However the need for interoperability may not be evenly distributed across the population.
One study found that incenti ves for cross -border services are most often found in big cities
with a mobile international population, small countries with an open international economy,
andregions with a lot of cross -border activity , as well as international public-sector
organisatio ns;39butoutside those confines, incentives are not necessarily widespread. In a
similar vein, a Slovenian study showed that those who had lived abroad had a stronger
interest in pan -European eGovernment services than those who had remained in Slovenia .40
Perhapsthisconstrained demand (it has been estimated that there are in the EU only
1.2million users of online cross -border services per year41)has led to suggest ionsthat
Member States do not give a high priority to interoperability.42On the other hand, the
additional costs for enabling cross -border usage of an online service are not high,
representing on average less than 5% of the total implementation cost of a new se rvice.
However a study on the sustainability of the digital infrastructures dev eloped by thelarge-
scalepilotsthat fell under the ICT programme of the CIPfound that further investments at
European level would be required in the future , starting with the development of a political
vision and the recommended creation of a suitable agencytoensure stakeholder
engagement.
6.3.eParticipation
Electronic participation ,oreParticipation ,is the use of ICT to facilitate political participation
by enabling citizens to communicate with each other, civil society, their elected
representatives and their government. Much more than government simply consulting
citizens through surveys and petitions, eParticipation actively involves citizens in the policy
process so that they can raise issues, modify agendas and change government initiatives.
39Pan-European eGovernment services study / Euregov, 2007 as quoted in Best practices in eGover nment: on
a knife-edge between success and failure / T. Undheim, European Journal of ePractice no. 2,2008.
40Pan-European services in Slovenia / J. Berce et al. Electronic journal of e-government v. 9 ,no. 2, 2011,
p.122-131.
41Study on analysis of the needs for cross -border services an d assessment of the organisational, legal,
technical and semantic barriers: final report / Capgemini et al., European Commission, 2013, p.3.
42Delivering on the European advantage? How European governments c an and should benefit from
innovative public services: eGovernment benchmark / D. Tinholt et al., European Commission, 2014 .

eGovernment Page20of24
Stronger onlin e participation through technology has the potential to improve the quality of
political decisions and to increase the perceived legitimacy of the decisions taken. Some
commentators see this aspect of eGovernment as ushering in a new era of democratic
involvement, greater transparency and accountability; others note that governments have
given little priority to technologies that enable citizens to contribute to decision -making,
going so far as to call digital democracy and eParticipation the 'myths of e -government' .43
A variety of different technologies can contribute to eParticipation, including web –
streaming, social media (especially Facebook and Twitter), blogs, discussion forums,
decision support systems and electronic voting systems. In particular socia l media can be
useful because of the potential for interactive, two -way communication and the very strong
network effects, and its tendency to blur public and personal domains. However a 2010
survey of European eParticipation projects found that ,mostly,general-purpose ICT tools
were used, rather than specific eParticipation applications. The internet was the dominant
medium (in particular portals, discussion forums, and newsletters), although some special
consultation software was also used. The project a lso identified a number of success factors
for eParticipation projects, including strong government support (including a commitment
to act on input received); a user -friendly interface; the use of different channels of
communication (offline as well as onl ine); appropriate security and privacy provisions
(ranging from anonymous responses to fully identified participants); and a political issue
that can be addressed in a way understandable by non -experts.
Certainly problems remain in terms of involving EU ci tizens in eParticipation. The digital
divide (in terms of income, digital skills or place of domicile) means that some citizens have
a limited ability to participate while others (e.g. young 'digital natives') may feel much more
at ease.Not wishing to i dentify oneself online may inhibit some c itizensfrom participating
freely and openly .44In addition , only 35% of government websites inform citizens about
their ability to participate in policy -making.45Governments may have a public service culture
that discourages innovation by punishing mistakes more than rewarding innovations, and
they have to accept the cost of monitoring and replying to social networks or the overhead
of technical setup for one -off interventions such as publicmeetings. While social netw orks
would seem to be an ideal medium for encouraging transparency, increased engagement
and citizen empowerment, an EP STOA study concluded that such expectations are likely to
be misleading and the effects are mostly over -estimated.46Finally, at least fo r discussions of
policy at European level, managing a discussion in a multilingual community can be a
challenge. In part because of these problems, there is as yet no strong consensus that
eParticipation is really effective in reinforcing democratic partic ipation. Nevertheless,
eParticipation is seen as an area for bothfurther research and experimentation.
43See for example, The Fifth Estate / W. Dutton in Nixon, Kouttakou, Rawal, op. cit, p. 10; The myths of e –
government: looking beyond the assumptions of a new and better government / V. Bekkers, V. Homburg,
The information society v. 23 ,2007,p. 373.
44Towards e -ECI's European part icipation by online Pan -European mobilization / S. Carrara, Perspectives on
European politics and society v. 13, no.3, p. 252-369.
45Future-proofing eGovernment for a Digital Single Market: final insight report / D. Tinholt et al., European
Commission, 2015, p. 12.
46Potential and impacts of cloud computing services and social network websites / Science and Technology
Options Assessment, European Parliament, 2014 ,p. 105.

eGovernment Page21of24
6.4.Public sector information and open data
Open data aredata that arefreely distributed to everyone in a convenient and modifiable
form under terms that allow for theiruse, reuse and redistribution. Open government data
area particularly important resource for two reasons: first, the verylarge quantity of dataof
information that governments hold and that can be mined and analysed to provide insights
and support decision -making;andsecond,the fact that theircollection has been paid for
with public funds. Making government data 'open' is considered by many to provide greater
returns on public investment, help policy -makers address complex problems, imp rove public
policies and the effici ency of public services, create economic growth and wealth through
new downstream applications, and involve citizens in policy development and service
delivery while increasing transparency and democratic control. For exa mple, the high -level
conference on eGovernment held under the Lithuanian presidency in 2013 stated that 'open
data is an untapped resources with a huge potential for building stronger, more
interconnected societies which satisfy the needs of citizens bette r and allow innovation and
prosperity to flourish'.47
Yet as some European researchers have pointed out, there has been little systematic
research into the costs and benefits of open data .48Much of the focus of current discussions
is on the supply side (get ting governments to publish data), rather than how or for what
purpose the data can be used, and there has been little consideration of barriers such as
changing government culture, filtering data to eliminate sensitive or personal data, the
complexity of using large quantities of data, lack of information on data quality or
significance, or the absence of standard formats and metadata. Simply publishing open data
will not necessarily result in a more open, transparent government. The most commonly
mentione d problems related to open government data include data not being easily or
freely available, insufficient description of data or lack of metadata, insufficient knowledge
about the data, theirprovenance or how to use them; the effort needed to correctly l ink
data;and different policies, definitions and terminology.49Though open data proponents
argue that costs savings can result through improved services developed by citizens,
businesses and civil society, the need for improving the quality of government information,
changing government culture and responding to questions related to data interpretation
and re-use may also create additional costs.
6.5.New technologies
ICTs change rapidly ,and governments must keep up to date with those changes.
Increasingly cit izens and businesses are using mobile technology such assmartphones and
tablets to in teract with digital government. For example, in 2013, more than 300 000French
citizens used smartphones to maketaxpayments via a mobile app .50While offering new
opportunities to look at how technology can offer functionality such as location-related
47The Presidency report on High level eGovernment conference and exhibition on 14 -15 November 2013 ,
Vilnus/ Lithuanian Presidency, 2013.
48Benefits, adoption barrier s and myths of open data and open government / M.Janssen, Y. Charalabidis ,
A.Zuiderwijk, Information systems management v. 29 ,no.4, 2012, p. 258 -268.
49Socio-technical impediments of Open Data / A. Zuiderwijk et al. Electronic journal of e -Government v. 10 ,
no. 2, 2012, p; 156 -172.
50Impôt sur le revenu: dernier délai ce lundi pour payer le troisième tiers / BFM Business, 2014.

eGovernment Page22of24
services, mobile computing willrequire new and on -going investments to exploit mobile
application sand toensure that services are being delivered in an effective manner for all
types of devices. Currently only 1 in 4 public service websites in European countries is
mobile-friendly.51
Another technology with potentially huge impact on eGovernment iscloud computing .
Cloud computing is a model for using configurable pools of c omputer resources (such as
networks, servers, storage and applications) that are accessible through the internet. Cloud
computing can be used in different configurations (e.g. private, public or hybrid clouds) and
in different ways (e.g. with the capabilit y delivered to the customer at the level of
infrastructure, platform or software). Cloud computing offers the prospect of reducing the
cost of ICT sfor public authorities through economies of scale (estimates range widely, from
10-30% according to some sou rces to as much as 25 -50% according to others52), while at the
same time supporting rapid deployment of new andinnovative public services. In 2011,
Digital Europe, representing the digital technology industry in Europe, recommended that
cloud computing sho uld be a crucial element of the eGovernment Action Plan. The
organisation als o recommended that Member States' experiences with cloud comput ingbe
shared through a portal, and thatpublic sector cloud computing should be given
prominence forfundingfromthe Connecting Europe Facility .53
While the potential is great, there are many issues that confront public authorities wishing
to use cloud computing. The EP's STOAUnit has highlighted in particular the need to
guarantee security, protect privacy and ensur e interoperability between systems in different
Member States. (The importance of security was very publicly highlighted by news reports
in August 2014 that private photos of celebrities stored in the cloud werestolen and
published on variousInternetsites, although in this particular case it has been suggested
thataccesswas gained through user names, passwords and security questions rather than
hackinga specific technology.54)Other issues include specifying legal and procurement
terms, mandating techn ical standards (e.g.to facilitate shifting services from one cloud
provider to another) andestablishing trustin government services delivered through the
cloud.To address some of these issues, the first work programme for theHorizon 2020
research prog rammeincludes an activity aimed at boosting public sector productivity and
innovation through the use of cloud computing (ICT8 –2015).Thisactivity will define
common terms of reference for publicprocurement of cloud computing services ,andwill
organise joint procurement for public administrations. Increasingly as businesses move their
applications to the cloud, governments will follow, but there are a number of challenges to
resolve.
51Future-proofing eGovernment for a Digital Single Market: final insight repo rt/ D. Tinholt et al., European
Commission, 2015, p. 8.
52The lower figures come from Potential and impacts of cloud computing services and social network
websites / T. Leimbach et al., Scientific and Technical Options Assessment, European Parliament, 2014 ,p.
4; the higher estimate is reported in Building a long -term strategy for growth through innovation [meeting
proceedings] / Brookings Institution, 2011.
53Cloud computing: DigitalEurope's perspective / DigitalEurope, 2011.
54Update: what Jennifer Lawrence can teach you about cloud security / S.Gallagher, ars technica,
1September 2014.

eGovernment Page23of24
7.Main references
Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government / M. Janssen,
Y.Charalabidis, A. Zuiderwijk, Info rmation systems management v. 29 ,no. 4, p. 258-268.
A Digital Single Market strategy for Europe / European Commis sion. 6 May 2015. COM(2015)
192final.
Delivering on the European advantage? How European gov ernments can and should benefit from
innovative public services: eGovernment benchmark / D. Tinholt et al., European Commission, 2014.
Design principles for e -Government architecture / A. Sandoz In: Handbook of research on e -services
in the public sector: e -government strategies and advancements / A. T. Al Ajeeli, Y. A L. Al -Bastaki,
2011, p. 244-250.
Digital government: turning rhetoric into reality / M. Carrasco, P. Goss, BCG, 2014 .
E-government and innovation: the socio -political shaping of ICT a s a source of innovation /
V.BekkersIn:Handbook of innovation in public services / S. Osborne, L. Brown, 2013, p. 253 -268.
eGovernment : Digital Agen da scoreboard / European Commission, 2014.
E-government: reforming through information and communication technologies /OECDIn:Reaping
the benefits of ICTS in Spain / OECD, 2013.
E-government services: analysis report / INTERREG IVC, 2014.
eParticipation in Europe: current state and practical recommendations / E. Tambouris et al. In:
E-Government suc cess around the world: cases, empirical studies and practical recommendations /
J.Gil-Garcia, 2013.
ePractice Factsheets: an overview of the eGovernment and eInclusion situation in Euro pe/
epractice.eu, [2014].
Future-proofing eGovernment for a Digital Single Market : final insight report / D. Tinholt et al.,
European Commission, 2015.
Government 2.0: key challenges to its realization / A. Meijer et al. Electronic journal of e –
Government v. 10 ,no. 1, 2012, p. 59 -69.
Government approach to assisted digital: policy paper / Government Digital Service, UK, 2013.
ICT and innovation in the public sector : European studies in the making of e -Government /
F.Contini, G. Lanzara, 2009.
Have the e -Government projects supported by ERDF been e ffective? / European Court of Auditors,
2011.
ICT-enabled public sector innovation in H2020 / European Commission, 2014 .
Innovation of eParticipation strategies using Living Labs as intermediaries / B. Cleland et al. ,
Electronic journal of e -Government v. 10 ,no. 2,2012,p. 120-132.
Introduction to e -Government: overview of key concepts / World Bank, [nodate].
Joinup/ European Commission, 2014. [website]As of 3 December 2014, this site includes the former
ePractice.eu site.
The myths of e -government: looking bey ond the assumptions of a new and better government /
V.Bekkers, V. Homburg, The information society v. 23 ,2007,p. 373-382

eGovernment Page24of24
Perspectives on e -government in Europe / S. Archmann, J. Iglesi as in:Information communication
technologies and the virtual public sphere: impacts of network structures on civil society / R. Cropf,
W. Krummenacher, 2011, p. 195 -206.
Potential and impacts of cloud computing services and social network websites / T. Leimbach et al.,
Scientific and Technical Options Assessment, European Parliament, 2014. PE 513.546.
Re-thinking e -Government services: user -centred approaches / Organisation for Economic Co -operation
and Development, 2009.
Security of eGovernment systems /A. Jacobi et al., Science and Technology Options Assessment
Unit, European Parliament, 2013. PE 513.510
Socio-technical impediments of Open Data/ A. Zuiderwijk et al. ,Electronic journal of e -Government
v. 10,no. 2,2012, p. 156 -172.
Study on analysis of the needs for cross -border services and assessment of the organisational, legal,
technical and semantic barriers: final report / Capgemini et al., European Commission, 2013.
Study on cloud and service oriented architectures for e -government: final report summary /
P.Wauters et al., Deloitte, European Commission, 2011.
Study on eGovernment and the reduction of administrative burden: final report / EY, Danish
Technology Institute, European Commis sion, 2014.
Study on impact assessment for legislation on mutual recognition and acceptance of e -Identification
and e-Authentication across borders: final report / N. Ducastel et al., European Commission, 2011.
Study on the feasibility and scenarios for the long -term sustainability of the Large Scale Pilots,
including 'ex -ante' evaluation / Deloitte, European C ommission, 2013.
Towards e -ECI's European participation by online Pan -European mobilization / S. Carrara,
Perspectives on European politics and society v. 13, n .3,2012p. 252-369.
Towards a cloud of public services / European Commission, 2014.
Understanding e -democracy: government -led initiat ives for democratic reform / J. Freeman,
S.Quirke, Journal of e -democracy and open government v. 5,no. 2,2013.
Understanding e -government in Europe: issues and challenges / P. Nixon, V. Koutrakou, R. Rawal,
2010.

Governments implement eGovernment and digital
government policies with the aim of introducing
efficiencies, reducing administrative burdens on
citizens and businesses, stimulating economic growth
and fostering public participation in democratic public
life. The European Union facilitates cross -border
services for mobile citizens and businesses that offer
services across the single market and encourages the
exchange of best practices between national , regional
and local authorities in Member States.
While Europe has made progress over the past
15years,thishas not been enough to meet its own
targets for the uptakeof digital government services.
Much remains to be done, including building up
security and trust, promoting interoperability for cross-
border services ,encouraging citizens to engage with
governments through digital channels, exploiting open
data, and ensuring the effective use of technologies
such as cloud computing.
This is a publication of the
Members' Research Service
Directorate -General for Parliamentary Research Services, European Parliament
PE565.890
ISBN 978-92-823-6814-5
doi: 10.2861/150280
The content of this document is the sole responsibility of the author and any opinions
expressed therein do not necessarily represent the official posit ion of the European
Parliament. It is addressed to the Members and staff of the EP for their parliamentary work.QA-01-15-228-EN-N