ho 2002 reinventing local governemnent and the e-government innitiativer

434 Public Administration Review July/August 2002, Vol. 62, No. 4

Alfred Tat-Kei HoIowa State University

Reinventing Local Governments and theE-Government Initiative

The Internet provides a powerful tool for reinventing local governments. It encourages transfor-mation from the traditional bureaucratic paradigm, which emphasizes standardization, depart-mentalization, and operational cost-efficiency, to the e-government paradigm, which empha-sizes coordinated network building, external collaboration, and customer services. Based on acontent analysis of city Web sites and a survey of Web development officials, this article showsthat many cities are already moving toward this new paradigm. These cities have adopted one-stop shopping and customer-oriented principles in Web design, and they emphasize externalcollaboration and networking in the development process rather than technocracy. The articlealso analyzes the socioeconomic and organizational factors that are related to cities progres-siveness in Web development and highlights future challenges in reinventing government throughInternet technology.

IntroductionWhen the Department of Defense invented the Internet

in the 1960s as a communication network for defense re-search purposes, no one could have foreseen how it wouldtransform society three decades later. Today, the Internethas become a part of the daily life of many Americans.Between 1990 and 1998, the number of computers attachedto the Internet grew exponentially, from less than 1 mil-lion to about 30 million (Comer 1999, 811). Between 1989and 1997, the use of network services from either home orwork increased from 6 percent of individuals to 23 percent(Neu, Anderson, and Bikson 1999, 11923). By 2000, thenumber of Internet users was estimated to be over 110million (GAO 2000, 1).

Explosive growth in Internet usage and rapid develop-ment of e-commerce in the private sector have put grow-ing pressure on the public sector to serve citizens elec-tronically, which is often known as the e-governmentinitiative. The initiative is to provide public services andto empower citizens and communities through informa-tion technology, especially through the Internet. In theearly 1990s, city governments began to use electronicmail, listserv, and the World Wide Web to deliver infor-mation and services. By the end of the 1990s, Web-basedservices were already an integral and significant part of anew e-government.

However, the Internet has brought more than a tech-nological breakthrough in service delivery. It has stimu-lated a transformation in the philosophy and organiza-tion of government. This article first sets the stage for ananalysis of this trend by contrasting the traditional bu-reaucratic paradigm with the new e-government paradigm.It then presents an analysis of the official city Web sitesof the 55 largest cities in the United States and the resultsof a survey of city Web masters, which demonstrate thatthe transformation is already under way. The article alsoanalyzes socioeconomic and organizational barriers to thetransformation and challenges government leaders tothink differently in the twenty-first century to overcomethese barriers.

A Paradigm Shift of Public ServiceDelivery in the Internet Age

Alfred Ho is an assistant professor in the Program of Public Policy and Ad-ministration of the Political Science Department at Iowa State University. Hisresearch focuses primarily on state and local finance and policies and infor-mation technology management. His publications have appeared in theAmerican Review of Public Administration, Public Administration Quarterly,and Research in Public Administration. In 1999, Ho was a member of theGovernment Section of the Iowa Governors Y2K Council. Email: [email protected].

Reinventing Local Governments and the E-Government Initiative 435

Challenges to the Traditional Model ofBureaucracy

People usually think of government as a hierarchicalbureaucracy. This model, commonly known as theWeberian model of organization, focuses on internal andmanagerial concerns and emphasizes departmentalization,specialization, standardization, and routinization of theproduction process (Weber 1947; Simon 1976; Schachter1994). Officials who perform similar functions aregrouped and organized into the same administrative unitor department. Each unit is responsible for understand-ing its clients, assessing the demand for its services, de-livering those services, and setting administrative goalsfor planning and evaluation purposes. To ensure that de-partmental plans are consistent with each other and fis-cally feasible, the budget office, city managers or mayorsoffice, and the city council are responsible for central-ized control and coordination.

One advantage of the Weberian bureaucracy is that thetransaction costs of official communication and coordina-tion are reduced through departmentalization androutinization (Williamson 1975; Galbraith 1977). This ap-proach encourages professional specialization and maxi-mizes efficiency and potential economies of scale (North1981). Furthermore, through rules, regulations, and hierar-chical supervision, the bureaucratic model reduces thechances of unintentional errors, fraud, negligence, and op-portunistic behaviors by officials (Williamson 1975; Perrow1986) and ensures the equitable treatment of clients.

However, the Weberian bureaucracy is often criticizedfor its rigidity, proceduralism, inefficiency, and incapabil-ity to serve human clients, who have preferences andfeelings (Hummel 1992; Rainey, Paney, and Bozeman1995; Bozeman 2000). A simple example of these draw-backs is the fact that a newcomer to a city may have to fillout many different forms for the utility department, theassessors office, and the recorders office, even thoughthe forms ask for similar information, such as name, ad-dress, and household characteristics.

The reinventing government movement, which startedin the late 1980s, is an effort to reorient the focus of gov-ernment operations from an inward-looking approach toan outward-looking one by emphasizing the concerns andneeds of end users. Under the model proposed by Osborneand Gaebler (1992), citizens are regarded as customerswho become the central focus in designing governmentservice delivery.1 This model also emphasizes the principlesof catalytic government and community-ownership.Public officials are challenged to think about how to em-power citizens to take ownership of community problems.The approach urges officials to partner with citizen groupsand nonprofit organizations to identify solutions and de-liver public services effectively.

However, a major obstacle to the reinventing govern-ment reform is the burden of transaction costs imposed onpublic officials and citizens. Government officials may findcitizen engagement time consuming and costly. Given thetime pressure they already face in the daily operation ofgovernment, networking with citizens and proactively so-liciting public input seem an unnecessary and unwantedburden. Citizens also may be reluctant to participate in thedecision-making process of the government. Attendingmeetings, writing formal feedback, and responding to sur-veys about public services may require a time commit-ment that many citizens are not willing to give regularly.As Schachter (1995) suggests, more fundamentally, manyindividuals do not understand why they might want to takethe trouble to seek [out] information [about governmentperformance]. If we envision citizens as owners, then itis a problem that the proprietors lack the psychologicaland informational resources to mind their own business(53536).

The Role of the Internet in ReinventingGovernment

It is in addressing these challenges that information tech-nology has played an increasingly important role in publicadministration (Gore 1993; Bellamy and Taylor 1998;Heeks 1999). Before the Internet emerged in the late 1980s,the government was already actively pursuing informationtechnology to improve operating efficiency and to enhanceinternal communication (Kraemer and King 1977; King1982; Fletcher et al. 1992; Norris and Kraemer 1996;Brown 1999). However, the focus of e-government in thisera was primarily internal and managerial.

The arrival of the Internet and the World Wide Webmarked a watershed in information technology usage byshifting the focus of governance to its external relation-ship with citizens (Scavo and Shi 1999; Seneviratne1999). Technology certainly played an important role infostering the change. From the newsgroup and commer-cial email technology started in the mid-1980s, to thedevelopment of the World Wide Web and Web browsertechnology in the early 1990s (Zakon 2000), the Internetgradually has matured into a cost-effective and user-friendly platform for officials to communicate directlywith citizens and to deliver massive quantities of infor-mation to the public.

The rise of e-commerce in the private sector further re-inforced the shift in the focus of government. The Internetallows not only companies but also individual citizens toexchange information and conduct business transactionscost-efficiently. The flexibility of the Internet in providingaccess to goods, services, and information raises citizensexpectations of customer service in a range of contexts,including interactions with government. Many now expect


to find what they need to know about the government onthe Web around the clock, seven days a week.

As a result of technological advancement and economicchanges, policy makers have had further incentive to shiftthe focus of information technology usage from internalmanagerial needs to external linkages with the public. TheNational Performance Review report (Gore 1993) sug-gests that e-government will allow citizens broader andmore timely access to information and services throughefficient, customer-responsive processesthereby creat-ing a fundamental revision in the relationship betweenthe federal government and everyone served by it. Theseremarks clearly reflect a new way of thinking about pub-lic service delivery.

The Reemergence of One-Stop Service CentersThe philosophical change outlined above rejuvenated

the idea of one-stop service centers. To be sure, the ideaof client-based organization is not new. In the 1970s and1980s, agencies involved in social services already wereexperimenting with this alternative organization model asa way of integrating government services and operations(Calista 1986; Rainey and Rainey 1986). However, suchefforts often faced bureaucratic resistance and slack re-source constraints (Rainey 1990). As a result, bureaucraticsystems based on functional operations persisted in manypublic services.

In the Internet age, the idea of one-stop shopping hasresurfaced as an alternative to functional departmentaliza-tion. As Reschenthaler and Thompson (1996) suggest, com-puters erode economies of scale in hierarchical organiza-tion and offer new justification for the establishment ofresponsibility centersan arrangement similar to the one-stop service center. The state of Washington (1996), in itsstrategic information technology plan notes, In the pri-vate sector, customers expect one-stop shoppingthe abil-ity to obtain diverse services in a timely, convenient anduser-friendly manner from a single source. Increasingly,

this same kind of one-stop service is demanded by citizensseeking government services and information (7).

A one-stop service center is an umbrella organizationthat operates on top of existing functional departments andis intended to maximize the convenience and satisfactionof users through service integration. As the gateway forspecific client groups such as businesses, residents, or visi-tors, the center collects information about user demand forinquiries and service assistance and processes the infor-mation centrally. It then coordinates with functional de-partments such as local police, city planning, and trans-portation to deliver public services and carry out wholisticplanning (see figure 1).

Unlike early client-based reforms in social servicesduring the 1980s, the creation of one-stop service centerstoday does not require a massive reorganization and con-solidation of personnel. With the help of information tech-nology, such as local area networks and project manage-ment software, public managers at the service center easilycan coordinate with functional departments to conduct cen-tral planning and provide integrated services. By avoidingmassive reorganization, the reform is less likely to encoun-ter bureaucratic resistance in implementation.

The emergence of the World Wide Web further facilitatesthe growth of a one-stop service center model because agovernment Web site can itself serve as a convenient andcost-effective platform for centralized service provision.Businesses, residents, visitors, and intergovernmental liai-sons easily can access public information and services re-lated to their specific needs simply by clicking on differentWeb links in the city Web site. They can also contact gov-ernment officials directly through email or online requestforms to give feedback about specific issues.

As a result, information technology and the Internetare transforming public administration in the digital era(see table 1). In the traditional bureaucratic paradigm,public managers focus on internal productive efficiency,functional rationality and departmentalization, hierarchi-

Stages ofservicedelivery

Demandperception

Needassessmentand internal

capacityanalysis

Productionplanning andappropriation

Serviceprovision

Output,outcome,

and impactevaluation

Citizens(users orclients)

Department 1 Need

Department 2 Need

Department 4 Need

Department 3 Need

Need

Need

Need

Need

Centralintegrationmechanism

(e.g., mayorsoffice, budget

office)Service

center forthe usergroup

Figure 1 Public Service Delivery as One-Stop Shopping


cal control, and rule-based management (Kaufman 1977;Bozeman 2000). In contrast, under the e-government para-digmlike the paradigm of information-technology-based organizations in the business world (Applegate1994; Wigand, Picot, and Reichwald 1997)public man-agers shift from emphasizing producer concerns, such ascost-efficiency, to focusing on user satisfaction and con-trol, flexibility in service delivery, and network manage-ment with internal and external parties. The new para-digm stresses innovation, organizational learning, andentrepreneurship so that government can continue to re-invent itself. In addition, public service is no longer stan-dardized in the new model. With the help of informationtechnology, e-government can customize services basedon personal preferences and needs.

The new paradigm transforms organizational principlesin government. While the bureaucratic model emphasizestop-down management and hierarchical communication,the new model emphasizes teamwork, multidirectionalnetwork, direct communication between parties, and afast feedback loop (Reschenthaler and Thompson 1996;Rosell 1999, 1315). Citizens no longer need to knowwhich departments are responsible for what in the net-work production of services. The functional departmentalstructure and production process of public services be-hind the operation of the one-stop service center be-comes invisible to users. This is not to suggest that cen-tral leadership is unimportant in e-government. However,leadership in the new paradigm encourages facilitationand coordination among parties, rather than hierarchicalcommand and control.

Paradigm Shift Reflected inCity Web Sites

The orientations of city Web sites provide evidence thatthis paradigm shift is indeed taking place in city govern-ments. If a city adopts the traditional bureaucratic para-digm, its Web site organization tends to be administrativelyoriented. Information is organized primarily according tothe administrative structure of the government and doesnot reflect substantial rethinking of the bureaucratic pro-cess and organization in public service delivery. City gov-ernments commonly adopted this approach when they be-gan to form their first Internet presence in the 1990s.

Cities that have shifted from the bureaucratic paradigmto the e-government paradigm design their Web sites dif-ferently. They tend to use two common approaches, com-monly referred to as portal designs. The first one is theinformation-oriented design, and the second is the user-oriented design. Both require a breakdown of departmentalthinking and a reorganization of information according tothe users perspective and interest.

The information-oriented approach applies the conceptof one-stop shopping service by offering a tremendousamount of content on the home page, such as the city bud-get, demographics, calendar of local activities, major tour-ist attractions, official contacts, press releases, and employ-ment opportunities. This approach emphasizes directnessand extensiveness in information presentation, and givesusers the greatest discretion in browsing without pre-cat-egorizing the materials by departments or user groups.

The user-oriented portal design goes one step furtherby categorizing information and services on the Web ac-

cording to the needs of different user groups. Forexample, a Web page for resident users may haveinformation about community events and devel-opment, employment opportunities, local taxa-tion, public services availability, and city depart-mental contacts. A separate business Web pagemay have information about local economicstructure, major employers, amenities, businesstaxation, development incentives, and licensing,while a visitor Web page may provide informa-tion about city history, attractive tourist sites, andlocal festivals and cultural events. By integrat-ing commonly used information on the same Weblocation, the user-oriented design gives usersconvenient and efficient access to needed infor-mation and services. Even though the informa-tion on the Web site comes from different de-partments or external sources, such as communityorganizations or business groups, users are un-aware of the organizational boundaries of theproviders in the cyberworld.

User satisfaction andcontrol, flexibility

Horizontal hierarchy,network organization,information sharing

Flexible management,interdepartmental teamwork with centralcoordination

Facilitation and coordina-tion, innovative entrepre-neurship

Multidirectional networkwith central coordination,direct communication

Formal and informal,direct and fast feedback,multiple channels

Electronic exchange, nonface-to-face interaction(so far)

User customization,personalization

Production cost-efficiency

Functional rationality,departmentalization, verticalhierarchy of control

Management by rule andmandate

Command and control

Top-down, hierarchical

Centralized, formal, limitedchannels

Documentary mode, andinterpersonal interaction

Standardization, impartiality,equity

Table 1 Shifting Paradigms in Public Service Delivery

Bureaucratic paradigm E-government paradigmOrientation

Process organization

Management principle

Leadership style

Internal communication

External communication

Mode of service delivery

Principles of servicedelivery


An analysis of the Web sites of the 55 most populouscities, conducted in the summer of 2000, shows that manycity governments already have shifted their thinking fromthe traditional bureaucratic paradigm to the e-governmentparadigm. At that time, only a few cities, such as New Or-leans, Columbus, and Miami, still were adopting an ad-ministrative orientation in their Web sites. Several cities,such as Fort Worth, Minneapolis, and St. Louis, adoptedan informational orientation. The majority, however, haddifferent degrees of user focus. Baltimore, Cleveland, Phila-delphia, Seattle, and Washington, DC, had strong user ori-entation in their Web design. Other cities, such as Chi-cago, Denver, and New York, had a good balance betweenthe user and informational orientations.

In addition to changes in Web design orientation, thisshift toward the e-government paradigm was also reflectedin the communication channels between citizens and offi-cials available on city Web sites. Only a few cities stillrequired users to navigate to individual departmental Webpages to get contact information about specific public ser-vices. Many cities had already abandoned departmentalboundaries altogether and adopted the one-stop shoppingapproach by centralizing communication. Some cities, such

as Omaha and Las Vegas, encouraged citizens to commu-nicate through the Web masters. Other cities, such as Bos-ton, Charlotte, Colorado Springs, Indianapolis, New York,Oklahoma City, and Tulsa, used a centrally managed onlineservice request system. Charlotte has one of the most com-prehensive online request systems: Its Web site offers manyoptions for online services, including getting permit appli-cation forms, contacting elected officials and policy mak-ing bodies, complaining about community and environ-mental problems, reporting crimes and traffic regulationviolations, submitting resumes for city job applications,requesting various types of safety inspections, and gettingpayment forms for utility services. This mechanism breaksdown the departmental mentality and allows citizens tocommunicate easily and effectively with different officialsthrough a one-stop center.

Paradigm Shift Reflected in an OpinionSurvey of Web Masters

The shift away from the traditional bureaucratic paradigmis further reflected in responses to a survey of city Web mas-ters in the summer of 2000. Between April and June 2000, a

New Orleans, LAColumbus, OH

Miami, FL

Buffalo, NYMemphis, TN

Santa Ana, CAOmaha, NBAtlanta, GA

Portland, ORDetroit, MI

San Francisco, CADallas, TX

Milwaukee, WISan Jose, CAKansas City, MO

Oklahoma City, OKLos Angeles, CA Honolulu, HI

Houston, TX

San Antonio, TXSacramento, CA

Tucson, AZ

El Paso, TX

New York, NY

Phoenix, AZDenver, CO

Boston, MA

Mesa, AZ

Charlotte, NCJacksonville, FL

Indianapolis, IN

Albuquerque, NMSan Diego, CAOakland, CA

Philadelphia, PA Nashville, TNBaltimore, MD

Washington, D.C.

Cleveland, OH

Cincinnati, OH

Fort Worth, TXMinneapolis, MN

Austin, TX St. Louis, MO

Fresno, CALas Vegas, NV

Colorado Springs, COSeattle, WA

Tulsa, OKToledo, OHChicago, IL

Wichita, KSLong Beach, CA

Virginia Beach, VAPittsburgh, PA

InformationalOrientation

UserOrientation

AdministrativeOrientation

Figure 2 Orientations of City Web Sites

Note: The analysis was based on cities Web site design in JuneJuly 2000. Cities may have modified the orientation of their Web sites significantly by the time this article ispublished.


survey was sent to the city Web masters or officials respon-sible for Web development for the 55 most populous citiesin the United States. The survey asked officials about thecharacteristics of the Web development process and why acity was interested in using Web-based services.2

The results show that many city officials have abandoneda departmental mentality in Web management. Among the46 cities that responded to the survey, 31 (67 percent) hadformal interdepartmental committees consisting of informa-tional technology staff and user departments to take chargeof Web development. Interdepartmental collaboration wasespecially valued by Web management officials in cities withan administratively oriented Web site (see table 2). This re-sult might be surprising but understandable. Because theseofficials had to build city Web sites following the traditionaldepartmental structure, they were highly dependent on de-partmental input to supply the necessary information anddepartmental focus. Without interdepartmental collaboration,their jobs would be extremely difficult.

Table 2 shows that many cities were open to externalinput and collaboration and put less emphasis on technoc-racy in Web development. This trend was especially evi-dent in cities that adopted the nonadministrative Web de-signs. Although the differences were not statisticallysignificant, these cities were slightly more open to exter-nal cooperation and networking, in that they emphasizedthe importance of citizen inputs and collaboration withnongovernmental organizations. Officials in these citieswere also more user-oriented and believed more stronglythat the Web is a tool to enhance customer service for citi-zens. In addition, they tended to deviate more from thetraditional thinking of technocrats, as they were more likelyto disagree that information technology management ispurely a technical job.

Why Did Cities Adopt theParadigm Shift?

An inevitable question is, why were some of these cit-ies more progressive in adopting the paradigm shift? Theo-ries of organizational change and innovativeness suggestseveral hypotheses. Several studies have found that largercities tend to be more innovative, possibly because theyface a more diverse environment that always demands in-novative solutions, or because they have more organiza-tional freedom to try new ideas (Mytinger 1968; Smithand Taebel 1985; Damanpour 1992). Time and experiencemay be another factor. Cities may have a learning curve inWeb development and need time to move gradually fromthe traditional bureaucratic paradigm to the e-governmentparadigm. In addition, the support of senior officials mayplay a critical role in spearheading technological changein an organization (Mechling and Fletcher 1996; Taylor etal. 1996). Their support for Web-based services may notonly enhance the organizational awareness of the new para-digm of service delivery, but also provide the necessaryresources to facilitate organizational changes.

The digital divide literature has found that differentsocioeconomic backgrounds influence the extent to whichcitizens use the Internet and computers (NTIA 1999; Neu,Anderson, and Bikson 1999; Riedel et al. 1998; Wilhelm2000). Households with higher incomes are more likelyto use computers and the Internet, while poorer, oftenminority households are less likely to tie to the digitalworld. Based on these findings, it is hypothesized thatcities with larger minority populations and a lower percapita income are less likely to adopt progressive Webdesign because there may be insignificant citizen demandfor Web-based services.

The following analysis examines how these factors areassociated with cities with differentapproaches to Web design. Table 3shows the three groups of cities didnot differ significantly in population,per capita income, and the ratio ofelderly population. However, citieswith an administrative-oriented Website tended to have a higher ratio ofminority population. This result isconsistent with the digital divide lit-erature and suggests that racial dif-ferences not only influence privateusage of computers and the Internet,they may also affect the progressive-ness of city governments in Web de-velopment.

The results also lend support to thelearning-curve hypothesis. Cities with

Table 2 Web Management Characteristics of Cities, by Orientations of WebSite Design

NonadministrativeAdministrative Informational User

approach approach approach(n=13) (n=20) (n=18)

4.64 4.55 4.33(0.50) (0.94) (1.14)

3.50 3.15 2.94(0.85) (1.31) (1.14)

3.92 4.20 4.22(0.76) (1.06) (1.17)

3.64 4.10 4.11(1.15) (0.72) (0.68)

3.21 3.40 3.78(0.97) (1.14) (1.11)

Note: Six cities, namely, Chicago, Denver, Sacramento, Seattle, Toledo, and Tulsa, are in both informational anduser-oriented categories because their Web site designs are equally balanced between the information and userorientations.

Responses to the following statements are measured on afive-point scale; 5 is strongly agree, 4 is stronglydisagree, 3 is neutral, 2 is disagree, and 1 isstrongly disagree. Standard deviations are inparentheses.

Interdepartmental cooperation is important in theprocess of Web design and management.

Information technology management is a technical job.

The city administration regards the city Web site as atool to improve customer service for citizens.

Citizen feedback is important to the design of the cityWeb site.

The collaboration with citizen, business, or communityorganizations is very critical to the design and mainte-nance of the city Web site.


an administrative focus in Web design, on average, onlyhosted an official Web site for 4.5 years, compared to 5.4years among cities that used the informational approach,and almost 6 years among cities that used the user approach.As a city gains more experience in Web development, it ismore likely to adopt a sophisticated design that reflectsthe new e-government paradigm.

Table 4 compares several internal organizational fac-tors of cities. Although cities that adopted nonadministra-tive approaches tended to receive more support for Webdevelopment from elected officials than cities that adoptedthe administrative approach, the difference was not statis-tically significant. However, departmental support wascorrelated with the progressiveness of Web development.Cities that adopted the administrative focus perceived less

support from departmental staff. Insufficient departmentalcollaboration might be a motivating factor that explainswhy cities pursue a transformation from the traditionalbureaucratic model to the e-government paradigm, whichemphasizes the customer-driven mentality andinterorganizational collaboration and coordination.

Resource constraints were another factor that may haveprevented some cities from making progressive changesin Web design. The survey results showed that cities adopt-ing the administrative approach perceived more seriousconstraints in staffing and funding priorities for Web de-velopment and maintenance, compared to cities with anonadministrative focus in Web design. The difference wasmore significant when compared to cities that adopted theinformational approach. This lack of funding and staff wasspecifically related to Web development and maintenance,because cities in all three groups had shown moderate sup-port for general information technology development inthe past five years.

The survey also asked the extent to which the rise of e-commerce in the private sector had put pressure on citiesto develop Web-based services. The results show that cit-ies with a nonadministrative design perceived more pres-sure in this area than cities with an administrative approach.This was especially true among cities that used the userapproach. However, this difference among the three groupsof cities was not statistically significant.

ConclusionThe new e-government paradigm, which emphasizes

coordinated network building, external collaboration, andone-stop customer services, contra-dicts the traditional bureaucratic para-digm, which emphasizes standardiza-tion, departmentalization, and divisionof labor. Based on a content analysisof city Web sites and a survey of Webdevelopment officials, this articleshows that many cities have started tomove toward the new paradigm intheir Web-based services and informa-tion technology management.

However, socioeconomic and orga-nizational barriers to the transforma-tion remain. Insufficient staff, lack offunding, and the problem of digitaldivide among racial groups are majorhindering factors. Future efforts toreinvent government through Internetusage need to go beyond purely tech-nical concerns in shaping informationtechnology management (Dawes et al.

Table 3 Background Characteristics of Cities, by WebSite Orientation

Admini- Nonadministrativestrative Informational User


Average population size 583,857 1,054,250 642,304(246,824) (1,570,774) (530,399)

Average percentage 74.9** 82.1 81.0of white population (10.9) (12.8) (7.8)

Average percentage of population 11.3 10.9 11.7older than 65 years old (2.3) (1.8) (1.9)

Average per capita income $23,629 $21,855 $23,10511(3,757) 11(3,444) 11(2,556)

Average years of having a city 4.5** 5.4 5.9Web site (counting from the (1.7) (1.1) (2.7)beginning to 2001)Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses.**Indicates statistical significance at the 5 percent level.

Table 4 Internal Organizational Characteristics of Cities, by Orientations ofWeb Design

NonadministrativeAdministrative Informational User


3.46 4.00 3.94(1.20) (1.38) (1.21)

3.38** 4.10 3.89(0.96) (0.91) (0.90)

1.62** 2.65 2.06(0.87) (1.27) 1.11

2.08** 3.00 2.72(0.86) 1.20 1.49

3.46 3.60 3.06(0.88) (1.31) (1.43)

3.54 3.95 4.06(1.27) (1.00) (1.11)

Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses.** Indicates statistical significance at the 5 percent level.

Responses to the following statements are measured on afive-point scale; 5 is strongly agree, 4 is stronglydisagree, 3 is neutral, 2 is disagree, and 1 isstrongly disagree. Standard deviations are inparentheses.

Elected officials (city council members and the citymayor) have been supportive of using the Web to deliverpublic information and services.

Non-IT departmental staff have been supportive ofusing the Web to deliver public information andservices.

Web development in my city is sufficiently staffed.

Web development and maintenance has high fundingpriority in my city.

For the past five years, the city has always beensupportive of information technology development.

The city is under pressure to use the Web to deliverpublic information and services because of the rise of e-commerce in the private sector.


1999). Rather, information technology management re-quires a new vision and determination by government lead-ers to prioritize resources for technological change, a newapproach toward organizing departmental operations thatcan be more cost-effective, and a greater social concernwith the economic and racial disparities in the digital soci-ety.

Finally, some envision that Internet technology will en-hance local democracy by allowing for more direct citizeninput in policy making, expanding the scope of policy de-liberation, and reducing intermediate barriers to informa-tion dissemination (Raab et al. 1996; Korac-Kakabadse andKorac-Kakabadse 1999; Moore 1999). Reflecting this per-spective, Robert ONeill, Jr., president of the NationalAcademy of Public Administration, recently remarked,The new technologies will allow the citizen new accessto the levers of power in government. As more informa-tion reaches the citizen, the greater the potential for themto influence and make informed choices regarding howgovernment touches their lives. That potential gives newmeaning to a government of the people, by the peopleand for the people (ONeill 2001, 6).

Unfortunately, the Web site analysis in this article showsthat many city governments have not yet actualized thispotential. So far, Internet initiatives have focused prima-rily on customer services. Although many cities activelyseek citizen input on how they should design city Web sites(Cook 2000), only a few cities engage citizens in onlinepolicy dialogues or partner with community organizationsto strengthen citizen participation at the neighborhoodlevel.3 Some basic features of public accountability andcitizen empowerment, such as performance measures ofpublic services, online discussion groups, or informationabout grassroots organization activities, are seldom foundin city Web sites. Hence, the question of how to move be-yond the focus on customer service is another challengefor cities effort to reinvent government through informa-tion technology. Officials should be conscious of the dan-ger of focusing too much on the economic elites interestsand convenience (Moore 1999). Instead, a broad partner-ship with different social interests and community organi-zations is necessary to reorient Internet initiatives towardcitizen empowerment.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the city Web masters who partici-pated in this research and gave the author feedback on an earlierdraft of the paper. The author also thanks Monika Klimek forher excellent research assistance. This research was funded by afaculty development grant from the College of Liberal Arts andSciences, Iowa State University.

Notes

1. Although this model has been criticized for neglecting thecitizenry (Frederickson 1994; Cox 1995; Schachter 1995), itis a powerful conceptualization of how to break the internalbureaucratic focus in government.

2. To ensure the survey reached the correct person, the researcherfirst made phone contacts with the cities and talked to theWeb masters or city officials responsible for Web site devel-opment to make them aware of the survey. Then the surveywas sent by fax or electronically to these officials email ad-dresses. In the summer of 2000, nonrespondents were con-tacted by phone and asked to do the survey over the phone.The survey instrument can be made available to readers uponrequest.

3. For example, to further enhance direct two-way communica-tion between officials and citizens, the city of Las Vegas of-fers a real-time online chat service. The city Web sites ofBoston and St. Louis provide tremendous information aboutneighborhood events, grassroots activities, and communityorganizations for interested citizens.


References

Applegate, Lynda M. 1994. Managing in an Information Age:Transforming the Organization for the 1990s. In Transform-ing Organizations with Information Technology, edited byRichard Baskerville, Steve Smithson, Ojelanki Ngwenyama,and Janice I. DeGross, 1594. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Bellamy, Christine, and John A. Taylor. 1998. Governing in theInformation Age. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Bozeman, Barry. 2000. Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown, Douglas M. 1999. Information Systems for ImprovedPerformance Management. Development Approaches in U.S.Public Agencies. In Reinventing Government in the Informa-tion Age. International Practice in IT-Enabled Public SectorReform, edited by Richard Heeks, 11334. London:Routledge.

Calista, Donald J. 1986. Reorganization as Reform: The Imple-mentation of Integrated Human Services Agencies. In Bu-reaucratic and Governmental Reform, edited by Donald J.Calista, 197214. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Comer, Douglas E. 1999. Computer Networks and Internets. 2nded. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cook, Meghan E. 2000. What Citizens Want from E-Govern-ment. Center for Technology in Government, State Univer-sity of New York at Albany, Occasional Paper.

Cox, Raymond W. 1995. Getting Past the Hype: Issues in Start-ing a Public Sector TQM Program. Public AdministrationQuarterly 19(1): 89103.

Damanpour, F. 1992. Technology and Productivity: A Contin-gency Analysis of Computer in Local Governments. Admin-istration and Society 11(2): 14471.

Dawes, Sharon S., Peter A. Bloniarz, Kristine L. Kelly, andPatricia D. Fletcher. 1999. Some Assembly Required: Build-ing a Digital Government for the 21st Century. New York:Center for Technology in Government, State University ofNew York at Albany.

Fletcher, Patricia T., S.I. Bretschneider, D.A. Marchand, H.Rosenbaum, and J.C. Bertot. 1992. Managing InformationTechnology: Transforming County Governments in the 1990s.Syracuse, NY: School of Information Studies, Syracuse Uni-versity.

Frederickson, H. George. 1994. The Seven Principles of TotalQuality Politics. PA Times 17(1): 9.

Galbraith, Jay R. 1977. Organizational Design. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Gore, Albert. 1993. Reengineering Through Information Tech-nology. Accompanying Report of the National PerformanceReview. Available at http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/li-brary/reports/it.html. Accessed May 15, 2001.

General Accounting Office (GAO). 2000. Electronic Govern-ment. Federal Initiatives Are Evolving Rapidly but They FaceSignificant Challenges. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

Heeks, Richard. 1999. Reinventing Government in the Informa-tion Age. In Reinventing Government in the Information Age.International Practice in IT-Enabled Public Sector Reform,edited by Richard Heeks, 921. London: Routledge.

Hummel, Ralph P. 1992. The Bureaucratic Experience. 2nd ed.New York: St. Martins Press.

Kaufman, Herbert. 1977. Red Tape: Its Origins, Uses, andAbuses. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

King, John. 1982. Local Government Use of Information Tech-nology: The Next Decade. Public Administration Review42(1): 2536.

Korac-Kakabadse, Andrew, and Nada Korac-Kakabadse. 1999.Information Technologys Impact on the Quality of Democ-racy. Reinventing the Democratic Vessel. In ReinventingGovernment in the Information Age, edited by Richard Heeks,21130. London: Routledge.

Kraemer, Kenneth L., and John L. King, eds. 1977. Computersand Local Government. New York: Praeger.

Mechling, J., and T. M. Fletcher. 1996. The Need for New Lead-ership. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Govern-ment, Harvard University.

Moore, Richard. 1999. Democracy and Cyberspace. DigitalDemocracy: Discourse and Decision Making in the Informa-tion Age, edited by Barry N. Hague and Brian D. Loader, 3962. London: Routledge.

Mytinger, Robert E. 1968. Innovation in Local Health Services:A Study of the Adoption of New Programs by Local HealthDepartments with Particular Reference to New Health Prac-tices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health Educa-tion and Welfare, Public Health Services, Division of Medi-cal Care Administration.

Neu, C. Richard, Robert H. Anderson, and Tora K. Bikson. 1999.Sending Your Government a Message: Email Communica-tion between Citizens and Government. Santa Monica, CA:Rand.

Norris, Donald F., and Kenneth L. Kraemer. 1996. Mainframeand PC Computing in American Cities: Myths and Realities.Public Administration Review 56(6): 56876.

North, Douglas C. 1981. Structure and Change in EconomicHistory. New York: W.W. Norton.

ONeill, Robert J., Jr. 2001. The Levers of Power. In 21st Cen-tury Governance, supplement to Government Technology,January, 6.

Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Govern-ment. How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming thePublic Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Perrow, Charles. 1986. Complex Organizations, A Critical Es-say. 3rd ed. New York: Random House.

Raab, Charles, Christine Bellamy, John Taylor, William H.Dutton, and Malcolm Peltu. 1996. The Information Polity:Electronic Democracy, Privacy, and Surveillance. In Infor-mation and Communication Technologies: Visions and Re-alities, edited by William H. Dutton, 283300. Oxford: Ox-ford University Press.


Rainey, Glenn W., Jr. 1990. Implementing and Managerial Cre-ativity: A Study of the Development of Client-Centered Unitsin Human Service Programs. In Implementation and the PolicyProcess: Opening Up the Black Box, edited by Dennis J.Palumbo and Donald J. Calista, 89106. Westport, CT: Green-wood.

Rainey, Glenn W., Jr., and Hal G. Rainey. 1986. Breaching theHierarchical Imperative: The Modularization of the SocialSecurity Claims Process. In Bureaucratic and GovernmentalReform, edited by Donald J. Calista, 17196. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

Rainey, Hal, Sanjay Paney, and Barry Bozeman. 1995. Publicand Private Managers Perceptions of Red Tape. Public Ad-ministration Review 55(6): 56774.

Reschenthaler, G.B., and Fred Thompson. 1996. The Informa-tion Revolution and the New Public Management. Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory 6(1): 12543.

Riedel, Eric, Libby Dresel, Marc J. Wagoner, John L. Sullivan,and Eugene Borgida. 1998. Electronic Communities: Assess-ing Equality of Access in a Rural Minnesota Community.Social Science Computer Review 16(4): 37090.

Rosell, Steven A. 1999. Renewing Governance: Governing byLearning in the Information Age. New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Scavo, Carmine, and Yuhang Shi. 1999. World Wide Web SiteDesign and Use in Public Management. In Information Tech-nology and Computer Applications in Public Administration:Issues and Trends, edited by G. David Garson, 24666.Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Schachter, Hindy L. 1994. The Role of Efficiency in Bureau-cratic Study. In Handbook of Bureaucracy, edited by AliFarazmand, 22740. New York: Marcel Dekker.

. 1995. Reinventing Government or Reinventing Our-selves: Two Models for Improving Government Performance.Public Administration Review 55(6): 53037.

Seneviratne, Sonal J. 1999. Information Technology and Orga-nizational Change in the Public Sector. In Information Tech-nology and Computer Applications in Public Administration:Issues and Trends, edited by G. David Garson, 4161.Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Simon, Herbert. 1976. Administrative Behavior. 3rd ed. NewYork: Free Press.

Smith, A.C., and D.A. Taebel. 1985. Administrative Innovationin Municipal Government. International Journal of PublicAdministration 7(2): 14977.

Taylor, John, Christine Bellamy, Charles Raab, William H.Dutton, and Malcolm Peltu. 1996. Innovation in Public Ser-vice Delivery. In Information and Communication Technolo-gies: Visions and Realities, edited by William H. Dutton, 26582. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Telecommunicationsand Information Administration. 1999. Falling Through theNet: Defining the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Commerce.

Washington Department of Information Services. 1996. Strate-gic Information Technology Plan. Olympia, WA: Departmentof Information Services, State of Washington.

Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organi-zation. Translated and edited by A.M. Henderson and T. Par-sons. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wigand, Rolf, Arnold Picot, and Ralf Reichwald. 1997. Infor-mation, Organization and Management. Chichester, UK: JohnWiley.

Wilhelm, Anthony G. 2000. Democracy in the Digital AgeChallenges to Political Life in Cyberspace. New York:Routledge.

Williamson, Oliver. 1975. Markets and Hierarchy: Analysis andAntitrust Implications. New York: Free Press.

Zakon, Robert H. 2000. Hobbes Internet Timeline v.5.2. Avail-able at http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/. Ac-cessed May 15, 2001.


Appendix Cities Surveyed in the Study

Year ofPopulation, first Web

City 1996 Official Web sites site Department responsible

New York 7,381,000 http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/ 1996 NYC.GOVLos Angeles 3,554,000 http://www.ci.la.ca.us/ 1994 Information Technology AgencyChicago 2,722,000 http://www.ci.chi.il.us/ 1995 Business and Information ServicesHouston 1,744,000 http://www.ci.houston.tx.us/ 1996 Department of Finance and AdministrationPhiladelphia 1,478,000 http://www.phila.gov/ 1995 Mayors Office of Information ServicesSan Diego 1,171,000 http://www.sannet.gov/ 1994 Department of Information Technology and CommunicationsPhoenix 1,159,000 http://www.ci.phoenix.az.us/ 1995 Department of Information TechnologySan Antonio 1,068,000 http://www.ci.sat.tx.us/ 1995 Decentralized to individual departmentsDallas 1,053,000 http://www.ci.dallas.tx.us/ 1996 Communications and Information ServicesDetroit 1,000,000 http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/ 1998 Department of Communications and Creative ServicesSan Jose 839,000 http://www.ci.san-jose.ca.us/ a Department of Information TechnologyIndianapolis 747,000 http://www.indygov.org/ 1996 Information Service Agency, CIO DepartmentSan Francisco 735,000 http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/ 1995 Department of Telecommunications and IT ServicesJacksonville, FL 680,000 http://www.ci.jax.fl.us/ 1995 Department of Public Information and ITBaltimore 675,000 http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/ a Bureau of Information Technology and ServicesColumbus 657,000 http://www.ci.columbus.oh.us/ 1993 Decentralized to individual departments and Department of

TechnologyEl Paso 600,000 http://www.ci.el-paso.tx.us/ 1997 Department of Public Works/Information ServicesMemphis 597,000 http://www.ci.memphis.tn.us/ 1999 Information Service AgencyMilwaukee 591,000 http://www.ci.mil.wi.us/ 1996 Department of Public Relations and CommunicationsBoston 558,000 http://www.ci.boston.ma.us/ 1996 Mayors OfficeWashington, DC 543,000 http://www.washingtondc.gov/ a Office of Chief TechnologyAustin 541,000 http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/ 1995 Public Information OfficeSeattle 525,000 http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/ a Information Technology OfficeNashvilleDavidson 511,000 http://janis.nashville.org/ 1986 Department of Information SystemsCleveland 498,000 http://www.cleveland.oh.us/ 1999 Community and Cultural LiaisonDenver 498,000 http://www.denvergov.org/ 1995 Office of Television and Internet ServicesPortland 481,000 http://www.ci.portland.or.us/ 1995 Bureau of Information TechnologyFort Worth 480,000 http://www.ci.fort-worth.tx.us/ a Information Technology Solution DepartmentNew Orleans 477,000 http://www.new-orleans.la.us/ 1998 Chief Administrative Office, MIS Division and Mayors Office of

CommunicationsOklahoma City 470,000 http://www.okc-cityhall.org/ 1995 Bureau of Business and Community TechnologyTucson 449,000 http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/ 1997 Department of Information TechnologyCharlotte 441,000 http://www.charmeck.nc.us/ 1996 Corporate Communications UnitKansas City 441,000 http://www.kcmo.org/ 1996 Department of Information TechnologyVirginia Beach 430,000 http://www.virginia-beach.va.us/ 1996 Department of Information TechnologyHonolulu 423,000 http://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/ 1994 Department of Information TechnologyLong Beach 422,000 http://www.ci.long-beach.ca.us/ a Department of Technology ServicesAlbuquerque 420,000 http://www.cabq.gov/ 1994 Currently no centralized position or departmentAtlanta 402,000 http://www.ci.atlanta.ga.us/ 1996 Department of Administrative ServicesFresno 396,000 http://www.fresno.gov/ 1998 Department of Information Technology ServicesTulsa 378,000 http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ 1995 Department of TelecommunicationsLas Vegas 377,000 http://www.ci.las-vegas.nv.us/ 1996 Department of Information TechnologySacramento 376,000 http://www.ci.sacramento.ca.us/ a Department of Telecommunications, Technology DivisionOakland 367,000 http://www.oaklandnet.com/ a Office of Information TechnologyMiami 365,000 http://www.ci.miami.fl.us/ 1997 Department of Information TechnologyOmaha 364,000 http://www.ci.omaha.ne.us/ 1996 Department of Administrative Services/MISMinneapolis 359,000 http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/ 1995 Department of Information and Technology (199598 Public Affairs)St. Louis 352,000 http://stlouis.missouri.org/ 1995 The Economic Development Branch and the Research and Planning

AgencyPittsburgh 350,000 http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/ 1998 Department of City Information SystemsCincinnati 346,000 http://www.ci.cincinnati.oh.us/ a Department of Regional Computer CenterColorado Springs 345,000 http://www.colorado-springs.com/ 1996 Information Technology UnitMesa 345,000 http://www.ci.mesa.az.us/ 1995 Department of Information ServiceWichita 320,000 http://www.ci.wichita.ks.us/ 1995 Department of FinanceToledo 318,000 http://www.ci.toledo.oh.us/ 1997 Department of FinanceDivision of Computing/Information ServicesBuffalo 311,000 http://www.ci.buffalo.ny.us/city/ 1998 Department of Management Information SystemsSanta Ana 302,000 http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/ 1998 City Managers Office

a. Cities that did not respond to the survey or did not know when they hosted their first Web site for public access.

ho 2002 reinventing local governemnent and the e-government innitiativer

Documents