حکومت الکترونیکی برای توسعه پایدار - چارچوب نظری و وضعیت پژوهش
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|29459||2013||16 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||10130 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Government Information Quarterly, Volume 30, Supplement 1, January 2013, Pages S94–S109
Electronic Governance (EGOV) research studies the use of Information and Communication Technologies to improve governance processes. Sustainable Development (SD) research studies possible development routes that satisfy the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. Despite substantial progress in advancing both domains independently, little research exists at their intersection — how to utilize EGOV in support of SD. We call this intersection Electronic Governance for Sustainable Development (EGOV4SD). This paper: 1) proposes a conceptual framework for EGOV4SD, 2) proposes EGOV4SD research assessment framework and 3) applies both frameworks to determine the state of EGOV4SD research. The main contribution of the paper is establishing a foundation for EGOV4SD research.
The twentieth century witnessed tremendous increase in the world's population from 1.65 billion in 1900 to 6.79 billion expected in 2010 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division, 2006) and exponential growth in development — industrial output increasing by a factor of 40, energy usage by 16, and carbon and sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 (Dasgupta, 2007). It also witnessed severe environmental consequences of the chosen development paths through air and water pollution, destruction of ecosystems, extinction of wildlife and other forms of ecological degradation; and uneven progress between the nations, some showing significant increase in material wealth while others facing worsening poverty and desperation (Kemp, Parto, & Gibson, 2005). Both problems – ecological degradation and uneven development – gave rise to the concept of Sustainable Development (Kemp et al., 2005). According to the Brundtland Report, Sustainable Development (SD) is the development that satisfies “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). The report recommended urgent actions focusing on population and human resources, industry, food security, species and ecosystems, urban challenges, managing the commons, energy, conflict and environmental degradation. All focal areas were further discussed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, producing, among others, global action plan called Agenda 21 (The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, 1992) and 27 principles for environment and development as part of the Rio Declaration (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992). Other international summits followed. Most recently, governments reaffirmed their commitment to implementing Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration (United Nations, 2012). Following such commitments, many countries around the world are formulating SD strategies and creating structures to facilitate their implementation. However, the implementation faces various challenges, from intrinsic complexity of the SD problems, through the impact of multiple crises affecting the world, to specific local challenges affecting African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, and small island developing states (United Nations, 2012). In addition, the failure of development efforts, the inability of nations to sustain growth in most parts of the world, and limited effects of economic progress, where available, on poverty reduction and social progress all highlight the importance of governance for development. In general, governance represents the means through which government as an institution of the state acts to perform its functions — representation and regulation of societal actors, delivery of public services and policy-making (Coleman, 2008 and Finger, 2005) by interacting with various societal actors (Kemp et al., 2005). Governance for development comprises economic governance with growth promotion, accountability, transparency, and pro-poor growth, all facilitating higher incomes, and political governance with empowerment, participation, access, accountability and transparency, all facilitating service availability (United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs, 2007). Likewise, the report highlights that the linkage between development and economic or political governance is established via good governance: pro-poor policy framework, public administration and civil service reform, and decentralization and service delivery. The World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development also refer to: political stability, rule of law, control of corruption and accountability (Nanda, 2006), and openness, participation, accountability, efficiency and sensitivity to the local context (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2002). Since governance is central to any development effort and good governance is a necessary condition in achieving any form of development, governing the SD process is critical. This includes (Kemp et al., 2005): engaging citizens in the SD process, ensuring long-term inter-generational perspective in policy-making, and facilitating horizontal and vertical policy integration to ensure coherency in government decision-making processes. Increasingly, governance processes are supported by Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), with new governance paradigms emerging due to progress in ICT, globalization and increasing influence of non-governmental organizations (Coleman, 2008 and Finger, 2005). These include: redistribution of powers hitherto concentrated within government among citizens; enhanced mechanisms for government-wide coordination in policy and information exchange; stronger regulation due to co-production of public goods and services between public- and non-public actors; and relying on social networks for citizens to express their collective voice and pursue action. In general, Electronic Governance (EGOV) entails strategic use of ICT to support governance processes including ICT-enabled transformation in the relationships between government and citizens, businesses and other arms of government. In particular, EGOV helps to: deliver public services over electronic and traditional channels, engage various social actors in decision- and policy-making processes and regulate the activities of such actors (Coleman, 2008 and Finger, 2005), as well as generate and circulate official communication in digital forms (Coleman, 2008) to reduce information asymmetry in the society (Finger, 2005). Given the relevance of governance to SD processes and the relevance of ICT to governance, this paper applies the EGOV concept to support the SD domain — Electronic Governance for Sustainable Development (EGOV4SD). EGOV4SD focuses on the use of ICT to enable the governance of the SD process (Janowski, Ojo, & Estevez, 2010) through: enhancing the efficiency of internal government operations with SD-oriented ICT strategies, processes, architectures and infrastructures; applying ICT to support the provision of accessible services needed by the poor and small businesses, delivered at the minimum environmental cost; using ICT to increase participation of the poor in government decision- and policy-making processes; and others. However, despite substantial progress in advancing the EGOV and SD domains independently, we are not aware of any efforts to define, conceptualize and landscape the EGOV4SD domain, to explore how EGOV could support the SD process. This paper fills this important gap. First, it presents a conceptual framework for EGOV4SD that helps define the boundaries and dimensions of the domain based on the boundaries and dimensions of the main contributing domains — EGOV and SD. Second, it defines a methodology for analyzing EGOV4SD research, based on the conceptual framework. Third, it presents how the methodology was applied to review related literature and the outcome of this review — the landscape of EGOV4SD research. The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides the conceptual framework for EGOV4SD. Section 3 explains the methodology followed in this paper to assess the state of EGOV4SD research. Section 4 proposes the EGOV4SD research assessment framework. Sections 5 documents how the data for EGOV4SD research assessment was collected while Section 6 documents the analysis of this data. Section 7 presents the state of EGOV4SD research, Section 8 contains a discussion, and the final Section 9 provides some conclusions and plans for future work.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
In order to make progress in a new research area like Electronic Governance for Sustainable Development (EGOV4SD), there is a need to build a good understanding of the underlying concepts and to assess the state of this area and its immediate neighborhood. In order to fulfill this need, this paper was set out to achieve three main objectives: 1) to propose a conceptual framework for EGOV4SD, 2) to define a research assessment framework for EGOV4SD based upon the conceptual framework, and 3) to determine the state of EGOV4SD research by applying the research assessment framework. These objectives were fulfilled as follows. First, Section 2 presented a conceptual framework for EGOV4SD, building upon a conceptualization of EGOV and existing SD models. The framework identified two perspectives — EGOV and SD; five dimensions in the EGOV perspective — government, technology, interactions, customers and society; four dimensions in the SD perspective — social, economic, environmental and institutional sustainability; and six underlying domains — Governance (GOV), Sustainable Development (SD), Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Electronic Governance (EGOV), Governance for SD (GOV4SD), and ICT for SD (ICT4SD). Second, Section 4 proposed an EGOV4SD research assessment framework with six major constructs – problem, philosophy, research, data, process and results – to assess the whole research process from problem formulation, through the application of research approaches, methods, processes for collecting and analyzing data, and disciplines; to contributions to theory and practice. Third, 5 and 6 documented how data was collected and analyzed using the research assessment framework, while the state of EGOV4SD research was described in Section 7. The main contribution of the paper is to build a good understanding of the nature and state of the EGOV4SD research domain, and to establish a foundation for further EGOV4SD research. The paper revealed that despite the growing interest in EGOV and SD research and a strong potential for applying EGOV research to further SD objectives, research at the intersection of both domains is scarce and almost entirely practiced within the contributing domains. Due to this fragmentation, research problems are driven by the main focus of such domains, and a truly inter-disciplinary EGOV4SD research agenda is yet to emerge. Future work includes developing a research agenda to advance the state of EGOV4SD research, as captured in this paper; exploring research problems at the intersection of the EGOV and SD dimensions as a basis for inter-disciplinary EGOV4SD research; and applying the assessment framework to other combined domains like e.g. EGOV and Education.