re-engaging the public in the digital age: e-consultation initiatives in the government 2.0...

(QF\FORSHGLDRI,QIRUPDWLRQ6FLHQFHDQG7HFKQRORJ\7KLUG(GLWLRQ

0HKGL.KRVURZ3RXU,QIRUPDWLRQ5HVRXUFHV0DQDJHPHQW$VVRFLDWLRQ86$

$YROXPHLQWKH

(

Copyright 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

&DWHJRU\(OHFWURQLF*RYHUQPHQW

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-5888-2.ch271

5H(QJDJLQJWKH3XEOLFWKURXJK(&RQVXOWDWLRQLQWKH*RYHUQPHQW/DQGVFDSH

,1752'8&7,21

Over the last two decades, there has been increased questioning of traditional democratic politics in Western liberal democracies, largely due to a decline in and a lack of opportunity for public participation in these processes. Such concerns are largely thought to be manifest in, amongst other phenomena, low voter turnout during elections: a trend particularly notice-able amongst young people where only half of those eligible to vote actually do so (Fagan et al., 2006). This is especially problematic for national governments, as it speaks of growing political apathy and a broader, more general disillusionment with current political institutions, actors, and practices.

Whilst it is impossible to comprehensively untangle all the reasons behind the decline in civic participation, there is little doubt that many citizens feel distanced from any sense of political relevance or power, often labouring under the impression that not only will their votes and individual voices be drowned out in the clamour of the crowd but also that the rules which govern their daily lives are drawn up by politicians and bureaucrats whom they will never meet and who are usually extremely difficult to contact (Eggers, 2005). The fundamental flaw lies in traditional decision-making practices which are, in their current form, often democratically inadequate as they fail to provide extensive and relatively equal opportunities for citizens, communities, and groups to contribute towards the shaping of decision-making agendas (Sclove, 1995).

%$&.*5281'

The focus of discourse and scholarly activity, both in academic and policy circles, has thus gradually shifted

away from a more centralised, top-down conception of government, those formal institutions and pro-cesses which operate at the level of the nation state to maintain public order and facilitate collective action, towards the notions of governance, an idea which, whilst traditionally synonymous for government has been captured in recent theoretical work as signifying a change in the meaning of government referring to a new process of governing; or a changed condition of ordered rule; or the new method by which society is governed (Rhodes, 1996, p. 652).

Governance is thus seen to be ultimately concerned with crafting the conditions for ordered rule and col-lective action, or the creation of a structure or an order which cannot be externally imposed, but which is the result of the interaction of a multiplicity of govern-ing and each other influencing actors (Kooiman & van Vliet, 1993, p. 64). It is thus a conceptual way of capturing shifts in the character of political rule that has been stretched to encompass a range of different transformations including an emphasis on drawing citi-zens and communities into the process of collaborative participation in political processes and the creation of new forms of governable subjects (Newman, 2005).

The idea of governance may therefore be said to comprise of two distinct but complementary elements: that of government, which encompasses all the formal institutional and legal structures of a country, and de-mocracy, which can be said to refer to the participative and deliberative processes which operate within those structures (Virkar, 2007). In this view, facilitating the involvement of different sections of society in the process of government is now seen as a democratic prerequisite in many advanced liberal democracies, with commentators such as Fishkin (1995) highlighting the need for mass deliberation, and emphasising the

Shefali VirkarDepartment of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford, UK


(

5H(QJDJLQJWKH3XEOLFWKURXJK(&RQVXOWDWLRQ

need for people and their representatives to be brought together to collaborate on issues of mutual interest.

(1*$*,1*7+(38%/,&

5H(QJDJLQJWKH3XEOLFWKURXJK(&RQVXOWDWLRQ&DWHJRU\(OHFWURQLF*RYHUQPHQW

(

users of the services, to target the opinions of those at whom a policy is aimed, and to seek general citizen input on matters of national importance is gradually being recognised. The speed and immediacy of ICT networks allow people to communicate, give feedback, ask questions, complain, exchange information effec-tively, and build relationships with their representatives.

Governments too may benefit from any informa-tion they obtain by using it to enhance the quality of policymaking and general administrative functions. Broad guidelines for conventional written consulta-tion by more traditional means are already in place in most of the Western world, and these are now being used as a basis for e-consultation, with this type of e-democracy encompassing what may be referred to as a continuum of consultation ranging from low level information gathering and aggregation towards a fuller quasi-deliberative level of interaction (OECD, 2003).

Despite contrary claims from scholars such as Rash (1997) and Bimber (1998), however, the consultative model is not without its problems as it is sometimes presented as facilitating direct, unmediated access to government for special interest groups of a sort that may distort opinion on particular issues. Information gathered from the consultative process is usually regarded as a passive resource, largely due to the fact that communication by direct questioning is based on the need to generate quantifiable and comparable responses to particular policy innovations. The result is that the consultative model may only allow for inputs that fit within parameters already set down by policy makers, with a marked danger that opinions which question the necessity or legitimacy of a policy or otherwise be outside the ambit of pre-defined issues, are deliberately marginalised or excluded altogether, particularly if discussions are moderated.

&217,188062)(/(&7521,&&2168/7$7,21$&/$66,),&$7,21

Since the early 1990s a wealth of online applications have emerged which have transformed the original purely text-based read-only medium of the Internet into one that supports dynamic and modifiable rich-media content and enhanced interactions between people regardless of temporal and spatial constraints. While these technologies are used most extensively in

a consumer and leisure context, some are beginning to make inroads into and make an impact in the political arena but are, in comparative terms, still to be taken seriously as tools for facilitating greater public par-ticipation (Ferguson, 2006). These may be categorised according to their frequency of use:

1. Frequent-Use Technologies and Applications: Those already used by government in its day-to-day functioning include e-mail, online polls, online surveys, online forms, mailing lists and newsgroups, and asynchronous bulletin boards.

2. Occasional-Use Technology and Applications: These are occasionally used by government to engage with the public, although they are primar-ily used in leisure and commercial contexts, and include blogs, forums, and instant messaging.

3. Rarely Used Technology and Applications: These technologies and applications have po-tential to engage citizens, particularly younger generations who use them, but they are rarely used in policymaking and to foster public partici-pation. They include: file-sharing programmes, virals, wikis, online games, mash-ups, budget policy simulations, social networking sites, virtual online environments and MMORPGs, and chat-bots.

The emergence of new web-based media such as weblogs, online forums, wikis, and web-chats (collec-tively known as Web 2.0 media, social software or participative media), which support user-generated content and are inherently network-oriented, have further altered old relationship equations between government and its citizens, principally by transforming their roles in participative deliberation. The recasting of citizens, in particular, from passive consumers of that information into citizen-users or active entities in the process of information broadcasting people who upload, rather than merely download, information online has broken down government monopoly on the distribution of that information.

It is an inescapable fact that, despite the great hype surrounding the use of the Internet and other technolo-gies in reforming democratic processes and involving citizens in policy consultations, there are still relatively few examples of such initiatives in any one country. In order to further the analysis of issues affecting the impact of ICTs on existing democratic frameworks, this


(


paper sets out a three-fold categorisation of noteworthy cases across the world along different axes depending on their duration, the level of the participating government organisation, and the audience from whom feedback is sought. e-Consultation initiatives may be classified into three categories, discussed briefly below:

1. Duration: Projects when classified according to duration may be examined under three sub-categories long term, short term, and one-off consultations depending on the length of time that they lasted for.a. Long Term Consultations: include those

consultation initiatives which were either specifically set up as long-lasting initiatives or which became permanent initiatives after an initial trial period.

b. Short Term Consultations: include those initiatives that seek citizen opinions on spe-cific political events or during a designated fixed period of time. These initiatives are thus intentionally short-term, are focused on getting citizen input for a specific pur-pose, and come to a close once the event or time period is at an end.

c. One-off Consultations: are highly spe-cialised issue-based e-consultations which are held on an ad hoc basis for a fixed period of time. Such consultations tend to be used by government as a means of gathering information from a well-defined target group on a specific, often pressing issue and, of the three types of consultation discussed so far, are the most likely to have a visible impact on government policy.

2. Level of Government: Case studies may also be classified according to the level of government at which they are implemented; more specifically as projects implemented by local government agencies, at the level of national government and at the inter-governmental or supranational level.a. Local Government: e-Consultation proj-

ects of note initiated at the level of local government.

b. National Government: e-Consultation initiatives begun within national govern-ment ministries and associated institutions.

c. Inter-Governmental or Supranational Initiatives: Initiatives that involve col-laboration and cooperation across borders between sovereign governments.

3. Nature of the Target Audience: Projects may also be categorised and discussed according to their target audience or in terms of the section of the population from whom feedback is sought. Whilst most initiatives are generally concerned with obtaining feedback from the general public on a variety of issues, a small number seek to obtain specific information from a carefully targeted, often specially selected group.

3$57,&,3$7,21,17+(',*,7$/$*(1(:23325781,7,(62/'352%/(06

The development of the Internet and more generally the constantly-evolving concept of the Information Society are structurally changing public policies in a number of ways, particularly affecting those dealing with access to public information (Catinat & Vedel, 2000), introducing into the political system new ways of conceptualising old values such as transparency and new styles of public administration.

With the current generation of citizens being not only information-consumers, but increasingly acting as producers of web content, the innovative use of Information and Communication Technologies offers up the possibility of new consultation spaces and the potential to increase the breadth and depth of citizen participation in the public sphere. There is thus a need to recognise top-level applications as being not simply a means of communication but of two-way engagement, and the citizens who use them to be not just passive receivers of information, but instead active participants interacting within already-existing creators of space, tools, and data. Governments thus need to start focus-ing beyond the technology and begin engaging with people in the spaces they create.

Representative democracy in its most traditional form is therefore being increasingly challenged as citizens demand more participation in public affairs, including new forms of accountability and control of government, and as the Internet and its associ-ated technologies make the logistical distribution of


(

public information much easier and less costly. In ad-dition, protection against the infringement of certain fundamental rights particularly those pertaining to privacy and personal data is often left either to self-regulation or to the market-place, with some arguing that if citizens are concerned about their privacy then they will use technical tools and services available to protect themselves.

This form of laissez-faire regulation is, however, usually based on the assumption that not only are us-ers aware that their information is being monitored and being used in particular ways by those collecting it, but that there does exist ways and means by which they might guard against unnecessary intrusions and fraud. A purely market-driven or individually-regulated approach and the commercialisation of data runs the risk of eventually resulting in some users being rich enough to afford to pay for enhanced information ser-vices such as encryption technology, with most others would have to accept data monitoring to access the same services; thus deepening existing inequalities from the standpoint of geographical, social, and demographical imbalances in access to network technologies (Catinat & Vedel, 2007).

)8785(5(6($5&+',5(&7,216

Issues surrounding user authentication and information security thus have the potential to impact the ability of a deliberative process to generate trust and increase participation by determining access to information, the protection of citizen identity, and the prevention of abuse of government systems. Whilst it is generally agreed that citizens should have full access to public data which inform them about the goings on of their government, just as government is in a position to collect data on individual citizens, there is a need for this to be balanced out with data disclosure legalities and other data storage requirements (Catinat & Vedel, 2000).

At the same time, legal barriers and inconsisten-cies, political apathy amongst citizens, and problems of digital and social exclusion are still very much stum-bling blocks that governments need to contend with. Just as a government should not take on extra-legal powers to increase surveillance or impinge on privacy without strong justification and/or explicit consent of its citizens, similar standards should also apply to

the collection and handling of citizens data. This is because whilst certain types of data ought perhaps to be available for use by all government departments, it is clear that as individuals are citizens of the State not of the current administration, the custodianship and control of their data should reside with an inde-pendent body that might adequately guard it and set appropriate permissions on the use of those data in a manner devised to enable, empower and facilitate the continuing involvement of citizens in public affairs (Royal Academy of Engineers, 2007).

Solutions to tackle contingencies and issues arising from the use of new technologies from a government perspective might involve designing a new process or system, or adding to an existing system in a man-ner that clearly demonstrates pro-activity and a clear improvement on what has gone before; rather than mere cut-and-paste activity which involves the direct translation of an offline institution or practice to an online one without clearly indicating that this is the case. At the same time, there is a need to find a means of tactfully reminding citizens that some institutions have been built over hundreds of years and are not going to change dramatically overnight. From this perspective too, it is perhaps necessary to ensure that some basic principles and standards are embodied in national and supra-national laws and regulations, making them mandatory.

From case studies documented in existing e-Consultation literature, the key to successful projects appears to be the ability of governments to combine not only the creative use of new technologies with a balanced understanding of the Internet and of what actually works online, but also to adequately understand citizens and their motivations and be able to antici-pate and tackle the (often unrealistic) expectations of citizens, politicians, and other government servants regarding the technology. To this end, the timing of a consultation is also of paramount importance: if held too early or too late in the policy process there is likely to be little policy impact, and outcomes may result in disaffection for the Government and a backlash against the technology that is not wholly justified.


(


&21&/86,21

From discussions of ICTs and public decision-making it is amply clear that the process of governance, par-ticularly in the digital age, is not simply a one-way or top-down process: it has come to involve give-and-take from both government and citizen and a definite expectation from both parties regarding the exchange of information. When neither party trusts the other and where each feels that the other is not providing them with adequate information to allow for a trouble-free flow of ideas and services, then governance breaks down as neither is likely to be willing to sign up to anything the other might put forth, regardless of whether it might improve a system or not. The rela-tionship between technology and trust thus needs to be explored and dealt with thoroughly within the context of e-Consultation if a meaningful and sustained two-way interaction between a government and its citizens is to be developed and maintained whilst balancing existing notions of privacy, data protection, and new and emerging variants of Digital Rights.

In conclusion, any government that chooses to use ICTs to increase citizen participation in decision-making processes would be wise to ensure that public engagement in the Digital Age does not either com-pletely supplant the offline decision-making processes of elected representatives, or altogether reject online public participation. Instead the Internet, together with its associated technologies and applications, should be harnessed to help elected representatives strengthen their democratic mandate and develop better-informed, popular policy proposals to further strengthen State institutions. ICT-based public engagement may not, in the long-term, wholly replace conventional, more personalised methods of government-citizen interac-tion, but can definitely be used to complement them so as to overcome their shortcomings and provide government with new methods and innovative ways through which it might reach out, communicate, and interact with its citizens now and in the future.

5()(5(1&(6

Blumler, J. C., & Coleman, S. (2001). Realising De-mocracy Online: A Civic Commons in Cyberspace. IPPR Citizens Online Research Publication No.2. London, UK.

Catinat, M., & Vedel, T. (2000). Public Policies for Digital Democracy. In K. L. Hacker, & J. van Dijk (Eds.), Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice (pp. 184208). London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446218891.n11

Coleman, S., & Gotze, J. (2001). Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation. Hansard Society and BT.

Eggers, W. D. (2005). Government 2.0: Using Tech-nology to Improve Education, Cut Red Tape, Reduce Gridlock and Enhance Democracy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Fagan, G. H., Newman, D. R., McCusker, P., & Mur-ray, M. (2006). eConsultation Research Project Final report: evaluating appropriate technologies and processes for citizens participation in public policy. Retrieved from http://www.e-consultation.org/files/ecrp_report.pdf

Ferguson, R. (2006). Digital Dialogues: Interim Report (December 2005 August 2006). The Hansard Society and the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. Yale University Press.

Kooiman, J., & van Vliet, M. (1993). Governance and Public Management. In K. A. Eliassen, & J. Kooiman (Eds.), Managing Public Organisations (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Margolis, M. (2007). E-Government and Democratic Politics. In P. G. Nixon, & V. N. Koutrakou (Eds.), E-Government in Europe: Rebooting the State (pp. 118). London: Routledge.

Newman, J. (1995). Introduction. In J. Newman (Ed.), Remaking Governance: Peoples Politics and the Public Sphere. Bristol: The Policy Press.

OECD. (2001). Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policymak-ing. OECD Press.


(

OECD. (2003). Promise and Problems of E-Democra-cy: Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement. OECD Press.

Rosen, T. (2001). E-Democracy in Practice: Swedish Experience of New Political Tool. Retrieved from www.svenkom.se/skvad/e-democracy-en.pdf

Sclove, R. (1995). Democracy and Technology. New York: Guilford Press.

Virkar, S. (2007). (Dis) Connected Citizenship? Explor-ing Barriers to eConsultation in Europe. Report to the European Commission for the The Breaking Barriers to eGovernment: Overcoming Obstacles to Improving European Public Services. Project.

Virkar, S. (2011) The Politics of Implementing e-Government for Development: The Ecology of Games Shaping Property Tax Administration in Bangalore City. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis) University of Oxford.

$'',7,21$/5($',1*

Barber, B. R. (1998). Strong Democracy: Participa-tory Politics for a New Age. Berkley: University of California Press.

Barber, B. R. (2000). Which Technology for Which Democracy?, International Journal of Communica-tions. Law & Policy, (Issue 6), 18.

Bellamy, C., & Taylor, J. A. (1998). Governing in the Information Age. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Bimber, B. (1998). The Internet and Political Transfor-mation: Populism, Community and Accelerated Plural-ism. Polity, 31(Issue 1), 133160. doi:10.2307/3235370

Blondel, J., Sinnot, R., & Svensson, P. (1998). People and parliament in the European Union. Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/0198293089.001.0001

Coleman, S., Can the New Media Invigorate Democ-racy? (1998) The Political Quarterly, Volume 7 Issue 1, pp. 16 22.

Delwit, P., Kulachi, E., & Pilet, J.-B. (2005). Elec-tronic Voting In Belgium: A Legitimised Choice? Politics, 25(Issue 3), 153164. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9256.2005.00240.x

Dutton, W. H. (2004). Social Transformation in an Information Society. UNESCO.

Fieldhouse, E., Tranmer, M., & Russel, A. (2006). Something about Young People or Something about Elections? Electoral Participation of Young People in Europe: Evidence from a Multilevel Analysis of the European Social Survey. European Journal of Political Research, 46, 797822. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00713.x

Gamson, W. A. (2001)Promoting Political Engage-ment in W. Lance Bennett and Robert M. Entman (eds.) Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56 74.

Geoghegan, T. (2007) The petition, the prat and the political ideal, BBC News Magazine: February 13, 2007, Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6354735.stm

Goodhart, M. (2007). Europes Democratic Deficits through the Looking Glass: The European Union as a Challenge for Democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 5(Issue 3), 567584. doi:10.1017/S1537592707071551

Hacker, K. L., & van Dijk, J. (2000) Introduction: What is Digital Democracy? in Kenneth L. Hacker and Jan van Dijk (eds.) Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice, London: Sage, pp. 1 9.

Hagen, M. Digital Democracy and Political Systems in Kenneth L. Hacker and Jan van Dijk (eds.) (2000) Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice, London: Sage, pp. 54 69.

Hague, B. N., & Loader, B. D. (Eds.). (1999). Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision-making in the Information Age. London: Routledge.

Heeks, R. (2000). The Approach of Senior Public Officials to Information-Technology Related Re-form: Lessons from India. Public Administration and Development, 20, 197205. doi:10.1002/1099-162X(200008)20:33.0.CO;2-6


(


Held, D. (1996). Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

H.M.Government. (2002). In the Service of Democ-racy A Consultation Paper on a Policy for Electronic Democracy, Published by the Office of the e-Envoy. London: Cabinet Office.

Hoff, J. (2006) The Shaping of Digital Political Communication Creating e-Democracy in a Danish Municipality: Intentions and Realities in Hans Krause Hansen & Jens Hoff (eds.). Digital Governance://Networked Societies. Creating Authority, Community and Identity in a Globalized World, Samfundslitteratur Press/NORDICOM: Copenhagen, pp. 261-299, 2006.

Hurwitz, R. (2004) Who Needs Politics? Who Needs People? The Ironies of Democracy in Cyberspace in Henry Jenkins and David Thorburn (eds.) Democracy and New Media, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 101 112.

Jankowski, N., & van Selm, M. (2000) The Prom-ise and Practice of Public Debate in Cyberspace in Kenneth L. Hacker and Jan van Dijk (eds.) Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice, London: Sage, pp. 149 165.

Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004) Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy: Hypotheses, Variables and Methodologies, e-Democracy Centre e-Working Pa-pers No. 1.

Jenkins, H., & Thorburn, D. (2004) Introduction: The Digital Revolution, The Informed Citizen and the Culture of Democracy in Henry Jenkins and David Thorburn (eds.) Democracy and New Media, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Koopmans, R. and P. Statham (2002) The Transforma-tion of Political Mobilisation and Communication in the European Public Spheres: A Research Outline, Report to the European Commission dated 18th February 2002

Lord, C. (1998). Democracy in the European Union. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L., & Stoker, G. (2001). Trends in Local Government: Part 1 Local Government Per-spectives. Public Administration, 79(Issue 1), 205222. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00253

Macintosh, A., Malina, A., & Farrell, S. (2002) Digital Democracy through Electronic Petitioning in Wil-liam J. McIver, Jr. and Ahmed K. Elmagarmid (eds.) Advances in Digital Government: Technology, Human Factors and Policy, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishing, pp. 137 162.

Nixon, P. G., & Koutrakou, V. N. (2007) Introduction in Paul G. Nixon and Vassiliki N. Koutrakou (eds.) E-Government in Europe: Rebooting the State London: Routledge, pp. xviii - xxviii.

Parkinson, J. (2004). Hearing Voices: Negotiating Representation Claims in Public Deliberation. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6(Issue 3), 370388. doi:10.1111/j.1467-856X.2004.00145.x

Peters, B., Sifft, S., Bruggmann, M., & Konigslow, K. (2005)National and Transnational Public Spheres: the case of the EU in Stephan Liebfried and Michael Zurn (eds.) Transformations of the State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pleace, N. (2007) E-Government in the United King-dom in Paul G. Nixon and Vassiliki N. Koutrakou (eds.) E-Government in Europe: Rebooting the State London: Routledge, pp. 61 74.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The New Governance: Governing without Government. Political Studies, 44, 652667. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x

Scharpf, F. W. (1996). Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as Theory: Five Propo-sitions. International Social Science Journal, 50(Issue 155), 1728. doi:10.1111/1468-2451.00106

The Electoral Commission. (2005). Election 2005: Engaging the Public in Great Britain an Analysis of Campaigns and Media Coverage. London: The Electoral Commission.

The Royal Academy of Engineering. (2007) Dilemmas of Privacy and Surveillance: Challenges of Technologi-cal Change. Report available at: www.raeng,org.uk/policy/reports/default.htm


(

Thomassen, J., & Schmitt, H. (1999) Introduction: Po-litical Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union in Hermann Schmitt and Jacques Thomassen (eds.) Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3 21.

West, D. M. (2004). E-Government and the Transforma-tion of Services and Citizen Attitudes. Public Adminis-tration Review, 64(Issue 1), 1527. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00343.x

Wheeler, B. (2007) Is e-Democracy now a Reality? BBC News Politics: March 2, 2007. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6383717.stm

Whyte, A., & Macintosh, A. (2003) Analysis and Evalu-ation of E-Consultations, e-Service Journal, pp. 9 34.

.(

re-engaging the public in the digital age: e-consultation initiatives in the government 2.0...

Documents