The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.

htm

BPMJ 12,1

A framework for e-government: privacy implications

France Belanger
Center for Global Electronic Commerce, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, and

48

Janine S. Hiller
Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
Abstract
Purpose The paper proposes a conceptual framework of the stages of electronic government that describes and integrates the unique relationship between the government and its varied constituents, and identies and applies the global constraints that affect the implementation of e-government at each stage. Design/methodology/approach Building on and expanding stages of e-government suggested in prior literature, a framework is designed to recognize that the ve stages of e-government will have differing impacts when considering six different categories of constituents. In addition, the framework considers three global constraints superimposed on these stages and relationship; laws and regulations, technical feasibility, and user feasibility. The paper then provides an example of implementation of the framework by exploring the issue of privacy in electronic government. Findings The relationships mapped the stages of e-government, affected by global motivators and constraints, are unique and complex. Policy and implementation of e-government should take account of these complexities. Privacy in e-government issues differs signicantly when global motivators and constraints are viewed across the complex framework of government stages by constituency. Research limitations/implications The relationships between constituents and stages of e-government, together with the global constraints, should be incorporated into the process of decision-making when government is considering the movement from one stage of e-government to another. The framework provides new lenses through which e-government implementation can be studied by researchers. Practical implications The framework can be used to guide planning and decision-making for electronic government and aid in the identication of issues unique to each stage and constituency. Originality/value The use of framework allows researchers and practitioners to identify issues that may not be highlighted in a general discussion of e-government that does not take into account the complexities of the e-government environment. Keywords Electronics industry, Design, Privacy Paper type Conceptual paper

Business Process Management Journal Vol. 12 No. 1, 2006 pp. 48-60 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1463-7154 DOI 10.1108/14637150610643751

1. Introduction Worldwide, local and national government agencies are facing the challenging era of electronic government. Forrester Research predicts that more than $600 billion of government fees and taxes will be processed through the web by
Portions of this paper build on previous research partially funded by the PriceWaterhouseCoopers Endowment for The Business of Government and published as their Privacy Strategies for Electronic Government report.

2006 (James, 2000). United States Federal Government spending alone is predicted to reach $2.33 billion by 2005 (Gartner Group, 2000a, b, c). This is more than the expected spending by consumers from retail businesses ($ 2.24 billion). A survey of government nance ofcers reveals that e-government is one of their top concerns (Bornstein, 2000). While there seems to be substantial growth in the development of e-government initiatives (Bednarz, 2002; Friel, 2002), it is not clear that citizens will embrace the use of such services. Some key concerns can limit this growth, including privacy (Thibodeau, 2000). Citizens may be skeptical and mistrust e-government initiatives, believing that these initiatives result in invasion of citizen privacy by government (James, 2000). This paper proposes an e-government framework and discusses privacy and the complex social questions that it presents for the successful utilization of e-government. The framework can be utilized to process and analyse other complex issues. A total of 26 e-government categories are identied. The categories take into account the complexity of e-governments by recognizing the various constituents and the different stages of implementation of e-government, incorporating both electronic government and electronic governance relationships. The framework can be used to facilitate decision-making unique to each stage and constituency of e-government. Three global motivators and constraints complement the framework in identifying factors for successful e-government implementation. This process is useful because it operationalizes the inherent differences in the complex functions of government. 2. E-government framework Watson and Mundy (2001) propose a model for e-government comprising initiation, infusion, and customization. Symonds (2000) discusses four stages to e-government: one-way communications, two-way communications, exchanges, and portals. It could be thought of as a more granular approach to stages of e-government than Watson and Mundys model. Both of these frameworks focus on the evolution of e-government systems through their respective stages. However, these models do not include the complex governmental relationships with a variety of constituents. Other models focus on the relationships rather than the stages. The US General Accounting Ofce categorizes e-government using the typology of government-to-citizen (G2C), government-to-employee (G2E), government-to-government (G2G), and government-to-business (G2B). The US Ofce of Management and Budget (OMB) categorizes e-government as G2C, G2B, G2G, and internal efciency and effectiveness (IEE). IEE initiatives bring commercial best practices to key government operations, particularly supply chain management, human capital management, nancial management and document workow (OMB, 2002). We propose an e-government framework that builds on Symonds stages, adding a fth stage to represent electronic political participation by citizens. Our framework also takes into account the complexities of government relationships by mapping the stages to varied constituent relationships both identied above as well as newly proposed ones. We also consider in the development of our model a set of additional constraints on governmental actions. This allows us to capture the different requirements and design elements that are necessary to initiate e-government with each of the constituents.

A framework of e-government

49

BPMJ 12,1

50

In addition, we deviate from the traditional classication of the one-way inferred from the use of to in the categorization. For example, B2C generally means business to consumer, a connotation that businesses are marketing products, and creating demand for those products (e.g. B ! C). Instead, we use the conjunction with that more accurately reects the essence of the governmental relationship with its constituencies, and the fact that these relationships are fundamentally different than those of business (e.g. Government with Citizens G $ IC). This approach is supported by the ndings of Steyaert (2000) in the study of government use of the internet in Flanders, Belgium. Electronic government will reach its full potential by focusing on the citizen not only as a consumer, but also as a participant in governance (Mintrom, 2003; Thomas and Streib, 2003). Our proposed categorization of e-government types includes: . Government with individuals delivering services (GwIS). The government establishes or maintains a direct relationship with citizens to deliver a service or benet. An example is the US Social Security Administration in its delivery of benets. This can involve two-way communications as individuals request information about benets, and government may need information in order to process benets. . Government with individuals political process (GwIP). This is the relationship between the government and its citizens as part of the democratic process. It is perhaps the most essential relationship between a government and any entity. Examples include voting online, and participating in requests for comments online during the regulatory process. . Government with business as a citizen (GwBC). Although businesses will not vote, and thus the relationship between businesses and the government will not look exactly like the GwIP, there are still opportunities for business to relate to the government in a citizen-like capacity. Providing securities exchange commission lings online in the US, and paying taxes online in several countries worldwide would be examples of the relationship between government and businesses in this category. . Government with business in the marketplace (GwBMKT). While businesses can receive many online services from government, a major portion of online transactions between governments and businesses involve procurement, or the hiring of contractors or acquisition of goods and services by the government. E-procurement is one of the fastest growing areas of e-business because it can save time and money (Symonds, 2000). Some savings reported include 70 percent more efciency at Australias Department of Natural Resources and Environments purchasing department by deploying a paperless system (Symonds, 2000). . Government with employees (GwE). Online relationships between government agencies and their employees face the same requirements as that of the relationships between businesses and their employees. For example, an intranet can be used to provide information to employees, or online transactions with their employees can be performed if agencies have the proper technological architectures. This relationship should be distinguished from the same individuals relationship under GwIP and GwIS.

Government with government (GwG). Government agencies must often collaborate and/or provide services to one another. There are substantial gains from conducting some of these transactions online, between federal, state and local agencies. An example of an inter-governmental level e-government application is the US National Science Foundations online funding request system called FastLane (www.nsf.gov). The potential for GwG to benet agencies involved is tremendous there are over 20,000 web sites for the US Federal Government alone (Thibodeau, 2000). 2.1 Stages of electronic government The stages in our proposed framework are presented below, beginning with the least and moving to the most advanced stage of e-government implementation. 2.1.1 Information. Information dissemination is the simplest form of e-government where governments post information on web sites for constituents. Thousands of such sites exist. The biggest challenge with these sites, however, is to ensure that the information is available, accurate and timely (Gartner Group, 2000a, b, c). Examples include the US White House informational web page (www.whitehouse.gov/) or the European Union central page (www.europa.eu.int/). 2.1.2 Two-way communication. In this stage, government sites allow constituents to communicate with the government and make simple requests and changes. Several of these sites are based on e-mail exchanges, and there are thousand of those as well. Agencies allowing online requests provide sites with ll-in forms but the information is not returned immediately online. It is sent by regular mail or e-mail. An example of this is the US Social Security Administration web site where constituents can apply for new medicare cards or request benet statements (www.ssa.gov/). 2.1.3 Transaction. At this stage, governments have sites available for actual transactions with constituents. Individuals interact and conduct transactions with the government completely online, whereas these web-based self-services used to be performed by public servants. Actual online transacting is the most sophisticated level of e-government currently widely available. There are several hundreds of these sites. Examples include renewing licenses, paying nes, and applying for nancial aid. Benets of such sites can be very large. For example, the State of Arizonas system to renew vehicle registration online has dramatically reduced waiting lines at department of motor vehicle ofces (Thibodeau, 2000). 2.1.4 Integration. In this stage, all government services are integrated. This can be accomplished with a single portal that constituents can use to access services they need no matter which agencies or departments offer them. One of the biggest obstacles to more online transactions between the government and its constituents is the lack of integration of all online and back-ofce systems. Government agencies spend expensive and time-consuming resources to have face-to-face interactions with individuals. For example, in the Kentucky Governors ofce up to 90 percent of customer interactions are face-to-face (Thibodeau, 2000). Integrating online systems and back-end systems to support these customer requests could save time and money for the agencies involved, as well as improve customer service. Examples of national portals include the US FirstGov (http://rstgov.gov/), Australias State of Victorias MAXI system (www.maxi.com.au/), and Singapores eCitizen Centre (www.ecitizen. gov.sg/index_low.html).
.

A framework of e-government

51

BPMJ 12,1

52

2.1.5 Participation. These are government sites that provide voting online, registration online, or posting comments online. Although this could be seen as a subset of the two-way communication stage, it is so signicant as to warrant a separate category. It is helpful to view this as distinct because of the unique sensitivity of providing this online feature. There are few government sites that provide for this level of electronic sophistication. One of the most prominent future uses of e-government with the federal government may be for individuals to vote over the internet. A California Internet Voting Task Force reported in 2000 that this must use a phased in approach with great care for authentication and security. Online voting will require technologies to support the privacy of individual voters while allowing re-counts and authentication of identity (Figure 1).

Stages of e-government Stage 1 Type of government Government with IndividualServices Government with IndividualPolitical Process Government with BusinessCitizen Information Description of medical benefits Stage 2 Two-way communication Request & receive individual benefit information Receive election forms Stage 3 Transaction Pay taxes online Stage 4 Integration All services and entitlements Stage 5 Political participation N/A

Dates of elections

Receive election funds & disbursement

Register to vote -federal, state & local (file) All regulatory information on one site

Voting online

Regulations online

SEC filings

Pay taxes online Apply for and receive program funds Agricultural allotments

Filing comments online

Government Posting RFPs Request clarifications or with Business specs Marketplace Government with Employees Pay dates and holiday information Requests for employment benefit statements Requests from local governments

Online vouchers & payments Electronic paychecks

Marketplace for vendors

N/A

Figure 1. Electronic government framework with examples

One stop shop for info on job, retirement, vacation, etc.

N/A

Government with Government

Agency filing requirements

Electronic funds transfers

N/A

3. Global e-government constraints Superimposed upon the framework are global constraints that apply in every decision-making and planning process, affecting how the government will accomplish its objectives. These include laws, regulations and policies; technical capabilities; and user feasibility. These are not proposed as the only items that would constrain the implementation of e-government, but are three that are supported in the literature, described briey below and more fully in the sections following. The law and policy constraint asks whether the action comports with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, and whether it is within the power of government. Regulations may limit government powers to institute and complete e-government projects (Chen and Perry, 2003). For example, the US federal government is limited to interstate commerce or other powers granted in the US Constitution. Technical capability asks whether the hardware, software, and expertise exist to implement the project. E-government initiatives require appropriate investments in hardware, software, and expertise. Insufcient funds or a shortage of personnel may hinder e-government implementation. As initiatives move towards integration and political participation, they become increasingly more technologically complex. In a recent study of municipal e-government initiatives, Moon (2002) nds that few local governments conduct online transactions with citizens (stage three), and even fewer, if any, have integration. Municipalities perceive the lack of technical, personnel, and nancial capabilities as major barriers to the development of e-government. His overall evaluation (from a survey of 1,471 municipalities) is that the state of e-government at the municipal level is primitive. The third constraint is the capability and willingness of the intended user to use the electronic government project (user feasibility). For example, the digital divide that has been described so capably by others has been found to affect user willingness to use e-government web sites (Thomas and Streib, 2003). Trust is also an important factor in determining in general whether an individual chooses to, or chooses not to, acquire goods or services via the web (Belanger et al., 2002; Doney and Cannon, 1997; Hoffman et al., 1999; Quelch and Klein, 1996). The information systems literature abounds with studies describing how the resistance of users to a new system because of trust or other factors invariably hinders its implementation. (Adams et al., 2004; Aladwani, 2001; Setzekorn et al., 2002). Citizens willingness and capability to use the system will, therefore, affect the implementation of e-government. 3.1 Privacy and laws, regulations, and policies The intersection of privacy interests and the implementation of information technology and e-government to enhance the efciency and ease of use for citizens is dynamic and multifaceted. Paradoxically, but understandably, laws and executive orders both mandate action and restrict the government in its pursuit of these goals. In June 2000, US federal agencies were directed to limit the use of cookies on their sites, with the statement: Because of the unique laws and traditions about government access to citizens personal information, the presumption should be that cookies would not be used at Federal Websites. Only when there is a compelling reason, approval from the agency head, and the web site uses clear and conspicuous language to give notice of the practice may an agency use cookies. In 2002, President Bushs Technology Agenda included within its goals the expansion of electronic

A framework of e-government

53

BPMJ 12,1

54

government, to be citizen-centered, and specically enumerating its commitment to strengthen privacy rights. Overall, the Privacy Act (1974) regulates federal government data collection. Any agency that maintains a system of records that collects information about an individual that is identiable by name, identiable number, or other identier must give notice of new records, make them accessible, ensure accuracy, allow individual inspection, obtain permission to share the information and inform the individual of the uses for the information. There are numerous exceptions to the act, including intra-agency use on a need to know basis, and for routine uses that are consonant with the reasons the information was collected. The wide interpretations given these exceptions, resulting in widespread sharing without consent, have been criticized and led to perceptions by citizens that their privacy is not well protected from government uses (Bevier, 1995). The Privacy Act was amended in 1988 by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act. Applicable to debt collection or benet decisions made through computer matching, the act requires notice to the individual, and an opportunity to correct information. Additionally, agencies must have data integrity boards perform cost-benet analyses, and report their matching activities. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 1966) allows access to government information under the goal of openness and accountability. Privacy exceptions to the FOIA are relevant to a study of privacy in e-government. The FOIA requires the disclosure of public records, with the exception of personal data that would amount to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and business trade secrets. In 1998, agencies were directed to review their systems of records in light of the internet, appointing a senior agency member to be responsible for privacy. Resulting guidelines emphasize the necessity for review of agency records and security features in the electronic environment. Accuracy and completeness, inappropriately combin[ing], records and considering the purpose and security of information sharing under the routine use exception of the Privacy Act were emphasized. Several states have statutes that specically address posting of information on government web sites. 3.2 Privacy and technical capability Collection of data about individuals has always invoked issues of privacy. Online technology increases privacy concerns as it allows for faster, easier storage of more data, aggregation of that data, and possibly without the customers knowledge. At the same time, in the electronic commerce world, the serious privacy concerns are often outweighed by several advantages for consumers and businesses. Data collection allows personalization and customization of the consumers interaction with the organizations on the internet and a more efcient allocation of business resources to meet the needs and desires of the consumer. Consumers then often agree to give personal information on the web if it means they can get better service, convenience, or benets on that particular web site (Sweat, 2000). Government agencies have access to the same technologies that businesses do with respect to collecting, aggregating, and cross-referencing individuals data. Government collection of personal data, however, is often seen as an invasion of privacy. Although businesses also collect and aggregate personal data, sometimes without consent, a survey of 1,000 adults undertaken after the security breach at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in 1999

found that consumers were more likely to trust business to secure their private information, and had concerns about the misuse of information in governments hands (ITAA, 2000). 3.2.1 Faster and easier data collection. Current technology allows easy loading of data forms on web sites directly into databases. For companies this is a major advantage since the data are loaded immediately (faster) and accurately (no transcribing errors and no problems dealing with unreadable writing). Data are also easier to collect since tools have been developed, such as cookies, for collecting information from users, even information the average user does not know (such as an IP address). Contrary to businesses, though, government agencies must report their data collection practices and/or must notify individuals that data are collected and describe how the data will be used. 3.2.2 Cross-referencing (aggregation). One of the biggest public outcries concerning online privacy happened following the merger of two companies, DoubleClick and Abacus Direct Corp, in November 1999. The rst company provides internet network advertising and collects anonymous online purchasing data and browsing habits through cookies (Anstead, 2000). The second company provides specialized consumer data and analysis for direct marketing and has a database of 88 million buyer proles collected by 1,500 direct marketers and online retailers (Punch, 2000). After the merger the companies announced the decision to merge the two databases. Cross referencing real ofine consumer data with their online purchasing habits (collected with or without their knowledge) led to privacy advocates raising serious privacy issues. DoubleClick temporarily stopped their plans to merge the two databases after the public uproar. Potential for cross-referencing online data with other online data (between several web entrepreneurs, for example) is also a concern of privacy advocates (Melillo, 1999). In 1999, US Bancorp rented customer information, in conict with the companys privacy statement. Bancorp ultimately settled a case brought by the Minnesota Attorney General, but in doing so stated that it was following industry wide practice[s] (Money, 2000). Cross-referencing of data contained in computer records of federal agencies is not new either, but it is the amount of data collected that is now the issue. Agencies share information with other agencies for various purposes, such as debt collection (for example, the Department of Education matches data with the Postal Service to identify postal employees delinquent on student loans), eligibility verication (e.g. the Department of Education matches data with the Social Security Administration to verify social security numbers and citizenship of student aid applicants), fraud and/or ineligibility detection (for example, the Department of Education matches data with the Internal Revenue Service to locate taxpayers who have defaulted on student loans), and data reconciliation (e.g. two agencies share data to update records). A recent report from a privacy public-policy group reveals that the US Government announces new information-sharing programs more than once every two weeks. 3.2.3 Hidden data collection. Besides the issue of cross-referencing data between online and ofine databases, collection of data without consent is the biggest issue privacy advocates are raising with online web sites. As users customize their web browsers with personal information, they do not always realize that this information can be accessed by web sites they are visiting and then stored in the web sites

A framework of e-government

55

BPMJ 12,1

databases. Usually this is accomplished by means of cookies. US government agencies were directed not to use cookies without prior approval and clear and conspicuous notice. 3.3 Privacy and user feasibility As the technical capabilities of governments to collect such data increases, and therefore, the level of data being collected increases, privacy concerns become a key issue that must be addressed. Few studies, however, have focused on the privacy concerns of the constituencies of e-government. However, there are many studies of consumer online privacy concerns and privacy practices of businesses. These studies shed light on the overall concern of individuals about sharing information electronically. A Business Week/Harris poll of 999 consumers in 1998 revealed that privacy was the biggest obstacle preventing them from using web sites; above the issues of cost, ease of use, and unsolicited marketing (Green et al., 1998). A later study by Forrester Research shows that two-thirds of consumers are worried about protecting personal information online (Branscum, 2000). In a 2000 National Consumers League survey, respondents ranked personal privacy above health care, education, crime and taxes as concerns (Paul, 2001). A 2001 survey by Harris Interactive found that individuals who have not bought over the internet list security of information storage, and transmission and use of personal information as the top reasons why they have not purchased (Harris, 2001). Fears of privacy violations were also documented in 2001 by an American Demographics survey, which listed childrens privacy breaches as the most feared, followed by misuse of private information, nancial theft, and identity theft (Paul, 2001). Lastly, another survey showed that 65 percent of people support deliberative electronic government development. When asked to rate the reasons for implementing electronic government, greater accountability to the citizens outranked better delivery of government services by almost triple (NUA Internet Surveys, 2000). Yet, a survey of federal and state web sites shows that privacy and security statements are lacking on those sites (West, 2000). 4. Framework and privacy: an example The policy of a consumer-centric e-government focuses on citizen opinion. Considering the general concerns of citizens with online privacy, then e-government initiatives must specically analyse e-government decisions with regards to privacy of information. For example, consider the e-government question: should public records be posted online? When government web sites rst began, hours of operation, phone numbers, and a listing of events highlighted their pages. Today, local governments are posting real estate records, property valuations, and court documents online. The technical ability to efciently process and express the information (such as new and better techniques for mapping) increases the governments ability to put this information on the web. The increase in the availability of this information, however, has led one constituency, citizens, to complain that the information is readily available to anyone around the world, including those who would use social security numbers, addresses and maiden names to perpetrate identity theft. What has always been publicly available becomes

56

publicly accessible once posted on the web, and citizen complaints have affected this effort of e-government. As a result of citizen outcry, several states have passed legislation that limits the posting of individually identiable information on the internet by state or local governments. Virginia is the most recent state, in 2003, to limit the disclosure of personally identiable records, the same ones that are available in person at the courthouse, on a government web site. The simplied example of how the framework will aid in the analysis of the complex issue of privacy and e-government begins with the rst stage: the posting of information. It is not enough to ask what stage of government is involved, it is also necessary to identify the unique constituency interests within the global motivators and constraints. Businesses will not have the same interests in limiting the individual information available online at government web sites; in fact, they will likely support the posting of information in an electronic form that they can use to contact and court customers. However, business interests in proprietary information weigh against the posting of certain information relating to government contracts. And, in the effort to track and deter terrorism, government exhortations for businesses to share information through online reporting mechanisms create concerns about competitive disadvantages of doing so. Therefore, to use the framework for privacy decisions in e-government, the process would rst identify the constituency affected, the stage of government, and then map the global constraints to each of these (Figure 2 shows privacy issues for GwIS). This process will ensure that the unique concerns of each of the constituencies are considered in the decision-making of instituting e-government at each step. As illustrated in the above example and discussion, privacy in e-government issues differ signicantly when global motivators and constraints are viewed across the complex framework of government stages by constituency. The relationships and stages of e-government are complex. These relationships and the global motivators of policy/law, technical capability, and user feasibility, should be incorporated into the process of decision-making when government is considering the movement from one stage of e-government to another. The use of the framework also allows us to identify privacy issues that may not have been highlighted in a general discussion of e-government.

A framework of e-government

57

5. Conclusion Local and national governments worldwide are investigating and implementing e-government initiatives. In this paper we proposed a framework that explores the complexities of e-government by recognizing the various constituents and the different stages of implementation of e-government, incorporating both electronic government and electronic governance relationships. The framework highlights the complex relationships that exist in e-government between the constituents and the government as various stages of e-government are implemented. We illustrated the use of the framework to identify issues of privacy in e-government, analyse the effect of global motivators and constraints, and facilitate decision-making. This process is important to evaluate in depth complex issues, such as privacy, in electronic government.

58

BPMJ 12,1

Figure 2. Mapping of privacy issues to government with individual services

Stages 1 - Information 2 - Two-way communication 3 - Transaction 4 Integration Focus on creating customer centric Web sites Against surreptitious use of cookies memo; policy favors privacy; however policy must be posted If no record created, Privacy Act does not apply Record may or may not be Record will be created; necessary; Privacy Act may Privacy Act applies. or may not apply Limiting use of cookies and posting privacy policies easily implemented Sharing information between agencies; Computer Matching Act applies More difficult More complex choices implementation; providing for technology access to different platforms; security is crucial and encryption is platforms may result in privacy and security being required more difficult to ensure Users are reluctant to conduct transactions; concerned about payment security Users may not understand how integrated information and customization impacts their privacy Must provide security for identifiable data; more complex technology implementation; can technology allow anonymity in communication? Posted privacy policy Type of information (such notice may increase trust as national ID) may increase privacy concerns

Constraint

Policy

Law and Regulations

Technical Feasibility

User feasibility

References Aladwani, A. (2001), Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation, Business Process Management Journal., Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 266-76. Anstead, M. (2000), Taking a tough line on privacy, Marketing, 13 April, p. 31. Adams B., Berner, E.S., Wyatt, J.R. (2004), Applying strategies to overcome user resistance in a group of clinical managers to a business software application: a case study, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 55-64. Bednarz, A. (2002), Getting plugged in to e-government, Network World, Vol. 19 No. 27, pp. 36-9. Belanger, F., Hiller, J. and Smith, W.J. (2002), Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: the role of privacy, security, and site attributes, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 11 Nos 3/4, pp. 245-70. Bevier, L.R. (1995), Information about individuals in the hands of government: some reections on mechanisms for privacy protection, William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 455-504. Bornstein, I.W. (2000), Keeping our sights on the horizon: GFOAs survey on emerging issues, Government Finance Review, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 40-3. Branscum, D. (2000), Guarding on-line privacy, Newsweek, Vol. 135 No. 23, pp. 77-8. Chen, Y. and Perry, J. (2003), Outsourcing for e-government, Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 404-21. Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 35-51. Friel, B. (2002), GovBenets.gov, Government Executive, Vol. 34 No. 15, p. 38. Gartner Group (2000a), E-government security: voting on the internet, Research Notes, Strategic Planning Assumption, 18 January. Gartner Group (2000b), E-government strategy: cubing the circle, Research Notes, Strategic Planning Assumption, 20 April. Gartner Group (2000c), Key Issues in e-government strategy and management, Research Notes, Key Issues, 23 May. George, W. Bush (2000), Protecting your nancial privacy: your nances are less secure than you think. But the web can help you ght back, Money, 1 June, p. 161. Green, H., Yang, C. and Judge, P.C. (1998), A little privacy, please, Business Week, Vol. 3569, pp. 98-9. Harris Interactive (a) (2001), Consumer privacy attitudes and behaviors survey wave II, The Privacy Leadership Initiative, available at: www.understandingprivacy.org/content/ library/harris2-execsum.pdf(accessed July 2001). Hoffman, D., Novak, T.P. and Peralta, M. (1999), Building consumer trust online, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 80-5. ITAA (2000), Keeping the faith: government information security in the internet age, available at: www.itaa.org/infosec/faith.pdf James, G. (2000), Empowering bureaucrats, MC Technology Marketing Intelligence, Vol. 20 No. 12, pp. 62-8. Melillo, W. (1999), Private lives?, Adweek, Vol. 40 No. 45, pp. IQ22-8. Mintrom, M. (2003), Market organizations and deliberative democracy; choice and voice in public service delivery, Administration and Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 52-81.

A framework of e-government

59

BPMJ 12,1

60

Moon, J. (2002), The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality?, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 424-33. NUA Internet Surveys (2000), Electronic government wins public condence, available at: www.nua.ie/surveys (accessed 2 October 2000). OMB, Ofce of Management and Budget (2002), E-government strategy, 27 February. Paul, P. (2001), Mixed signals, American Demographics, Vol. 23, pp. 44-9. Punch, L. (2000), Big brother goes on-line, Credit Card Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 22-32. Quelch, J.A. and Klein, L.K. (1996), The internet and international marketing, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 60-75. Setzekorn, K., Sugumaran, V. and Patnayakuni, P. (2002), A comparison of implementation resistance factors for DMSS versus other information systems, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 48-54. Steyaert, J. (2000), Local government online and the role of the resident-government shop versus electronic community, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 3-16. Sweat, J. (2000), Privacy paradox: customers want control and coupons, Information Week, Vol. 781, pp. 52-3. Symonds, M. (2000), Government and the internet: no gain without pain, The Economist, Vol. 355, pp. S9-S14. Thomas, J. and Streib, G. (2003), The new face of government: citizen-initiated contacts in the era of e-government, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 82-102. Thibodeau, P. (2000), E-government spending to soar through 2005, Computerworld, Vol. 34 No. 17, p. 12. Watson, R.T. and Mundy, B. (2001), A strategic perspective of electronic democracy, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 27-30. West, D.M. (2000), Assessing e-government: the internet, democracy, and service delivery, available at: www.insidepolitics.org/egovreport00.html (accessed September 2000). Further reading Anonymous (n.d.), President Bushs technology agenda: promoting innovation and competitiveness, available at: www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/technology/tech4.html Fox, S. (2001), Trust and privacy online: why Americans want to rewrite the rules, Pew Internet & American Life Project. Corresponding author France Belanger can be contacted at: belanger@vt.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints