peeking into the black box of e …teep.tamu.edu/npmrc/yildiz.pdf · 59 electronic ticket project...
TRANSCRIPT
PEEKING INTO THE BLACK BOX OF E-GOVERNMENT POLICY-MAKING:
EVIDENCE FROM TURKEY
METE YILDIZ
Visiting Lecturer and Ph.D. Candidate in Public Affairs
Indiana University, Bloomington
(812) 336-6279
Paper prepared for the 7th National Public Management Research Conference,
Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., October 9-11, 2003
Draft: Not for citation or use without the permission of the author
Abstract The concept of e-government, broadly defined as the provision of government information and services by the help of information and communication technologies (ICTs), is a widely researched topic in public administration and political science circles. While most research in this area focuses on the outputs of e-government efforts such as website analyses, the decision-making processes by which various actors come up with the idea of an e-government project, place the idea on the public decision agenda and make operational decisions accordingly are often given less attention. This study explains the dynamics behind the agenda-setting (coming up with the idea of a project, placing the idea on decision agenda) and policy formation (making important operational decisions) processes of e-government projects in Turkey by conducting in-depth interviews with thirty e-government experts from public, private and civil societal sectors in Turkey, as well as with members of the IT media. Interview findings are triangulated by website content and archival analyses. Knowing more about the nature and participants of the decision-making and planning processes, learning if they follow rational, incremental, garbage can or some other decision-making model, examining e-government policy processes with the lens of “policy windows” (Kingdon, 1984) might be useful to e-government policy-makers in Turkey and elsewhere. The preliminary findings show that while agenda-setting stage follows garbage can models, policy-making stage follows incremental models of decision-making.
2
1. Introduction This article is a partial product of my Ph.D. dissertation field research. I still continue to analyze the results; therefore the results found in this article are the preliminary results of my analysis. The objective of this study is to understand why e-government projects are initiated in the first place, and to analyze the agenda setting and policy formulation processes of e-government policy in Turkey. To this end, I will be examining the Turkish case from a social shaping of technology standpoint (Bellamy and Taylor, 1998: 18-22; also named by Kling and Lamb (2000) as the “socio technical approach”). Contrary to the technical determinist approach, which is defined as the “casual technicism, a simple-minded approach… which assumes a unilinear technological impact” (Bellamy and Taylor, 1998: 18); the social shaping of technology perspective:
Emphasize[s] the social shaping of both the infrastructure and … [the] exploitation of [technology]… the social, political and cultural factors which shape the nature, and even the existence of technologies are also, in effect, defining the range of uses to which they can be put (Bellamy and Taylor, 1998: 18-19).
The socio-technical approach employed in this article means that the researcher keeps in mind that technologies shape their environments as well as their environments place various constraints on technology use. I define an e-government project as an effort by a government agency by itself or by partnership with other government agencies, private firms and/or civil societal organizations to use information and communication technologies (hereafter ICTs; they are technologies that capture, transmit and display data and information electronically (OECD, 1998)) to provide government information or services to citizens, businesses, other government agencies or civil societal organizations. While examining e-government projects, my focus is on the time period beginning from the moment that an e-government project emerges as an idea on someone’s mind and becomes an agenda item, to the point that the basic policy decisions (different decisions for different projects) are being made, and the project becomes ready for implementation. My stopping point will be the beginning of the implementation of the projects in question. Therefore, this research does not cover the implementation and/or evaluation phases of e-government projects. The data gathering effort for this article is not only comprised of examining e-government projects. In addition, the environment of these e-government projects, including the members of private firms working in the ICT sector, print and visual media covering the developments in ICTs, civil societal organizations focusing on ICT-related issues, and ICT experts from universities and research facilities are interviewed as well. Such an approach is critical for the success of this research since the data gathered from within the e-government projects might most probably be biased as it might tend to underline the accomplishments and overlook the shortcomings of e-government efforts. Data provided by the other sources in the institutional environment, on the other hand, is more likely to represent a critical look at these e-government efforts. In other words, these two different sets of data could be used for triangulation purposes. The characteristics and the number of basic policy decisions change from one e-government project to the other, since no two projects and their environments are the same. That is why the interviewees in this study are asked which policy decisions are important in their project. Still,
3
several important questions are identified by the researcher such as decisions regarding funding, using proprietary software (i.e. Microsoft products) versus open source software (i.e. Linux), centralized versus decentralized decision-making, automation of existing services versus creating new services/ reengineering, etc. The objective of this study is to examine and explain the “black-boxes” of e-government agenda setting and policy formulation. The processes by which decisions are being made regarding which projects to initiate and how to plan and formulate them; and the issue of which individuals and institutions are included, and which are excluded from these agenda setting and policy formulation processes are critically important. Another important objective is to tap into the understandings/conceptions of e-government held by key Turkish policy makers, since these perceptions will form an important component of their actions in regard to agenda-setting and policy formulation (Heeks, 2003). Only by understanding these processes one can understand the evolution of e-government and use this knowledge to optimize decision-making and planning processes. At this point, it is beneficial to clarify what this study is not as well: This study is not an effort to come up with criteria for success and failure for e-government projects since these projects are not being implemented long-enough to be suitable for an evaluation study. It is simply too early to judge these projects. Nor is this a study examining the diffusion of e-government projects or related technologies because of two reasons. First, most e-government projects are customized solutions for specific problems, necessities and sensitivities of specific government organizations; thus, in a way each project is unique. It is hard to categorize all these different projects under a homogenous innovation category and then analyze its diffusion. Secondly, while the diffusion of innovation literature examines the contextual factors, which affect the sequence of adopters and adoptions (Abrahamson, 1991: 586; Rogers, 1983); the issue of adoption sequence is not the focus of this study. 2. Rationale The Internet was introduced to Turkey in 1993. Since then, the experiences of public organizations with Internet use have accumulated enough to create a fertile ground for research. For example, Ince (2001) lists more than 60 e-government projects being planned, ready to be implemented or already in use by ministerial (national) level Turkish government organizations as of late 2001 in areas as varied as law enforcement, foreign affairs, census processing and local government information integration (See Table 1 below). Not only the supply of e-government information and services are on the rise; so is the demand for them. According to recent surveys by Taylor Nelson Sofres Consulting Firm (TNS, 2001; 2002), while only 3% of people living in Turkey (about two million) used the Internet for accessing government information and/or services during the year 2001; this number has risen to 12% (eight million) in 2002. All indicators point to this percentage rising sharply over the next few years.
4
Table 1: E-Government Projects in Turkey as of Late 2001 Name of Project # Turkish English
Coordinating Organization
1. MIS Management Information Systems Project (Same name)
2. TAP Agricultural Research Project 3. TUYAP Agricultural Implementation, Research
and Diffusion Project
Ministry of Agriculture
4. MEBNET Ministry of Education Management Information System
5. MEBSYS Automation Systems Project Bundle 6. BILDEMER Computer Assisted Mentor Teacher
Project 7. DONERSIS 8. Interactive Distance Education via Cable
Implementation Project 9. Open High School Project 10 EMP Modernization of Education Project
Ministry of Education
11 SSK Social Security Organization Project 12 BAGKUR Tradesmen’s Social Security Organization
Project
Ministry of Labor
13 CBS Geographical Information Systems Project Ministry of Forestry 14 MB Ministry of Finance Project 15 GELNET General Directory of Revenues Project 16 VEDOP Automation of Tax Collection Offices
Project 17 SAYMANLIK Comptroller General Project 18 ES Pension Fund Project 19 HBS Legal Informatics System Project 20 TAKBIS Title-deed, Land Survey Informatics
Project 21 MEP National Real Estates Project
Ministry of Finance
22 IHRACAT-NET
Imports Controlling Project Undersecretary of Foreign Trade
23 HAZINE-NET Treasury Network Project Undersecretary of Treasury 24 ETSOP E-Commerce Strategic Focus Point
Project The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey
25 BILGE-EDI 26 GIBOS
Undersecretary of Customs
27 EFT-1 Electronic File Transfer Project, Phase 1 28 EFT-2 Electronic File Transfer Project, Phase 2 29 EMKT Electronic Securities System Project 30 National Databases Project
Central Bank of Turkey
31 Data Network Among Security Markets Project
32 Data Network Among Trade Offices Project
TOBB (The Union of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Maritime Trade and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey
33 GTP-NET Global Commerce Point Project IGEME (Export Promotion center of
Turkey) 34 Commerce from Office Project Central Anatolian Exporters Union 35 TSIM 36 CKYM
Ministry Of Health
5
37 HBS 38 MERNIS 39 ILEMOD Modernization of Provincial Inventories
Project
Ministry of Interior
40 POL-NET 2000
Police Network Project
41 Mobile Computer Project 42 33 other projects
General Directorate of Security, Ministry of Interior
43 Criminal Records Project General Directory of Criminal Records 44 E-Commerce Project 45 KOSBILTOP Small and Medium Industry Information
Gathering Project
Ministry of Industry
46 KOBINET KOSGEB (Small and Medium Industry Development Organization)
47 Transfer Order-Check Receipt Ticket Window project
48 OCR Optic Character Recognition Project 49 Electronic Weight Measurement and
Computer Project 50 Internet Project
General Directory of Post Offices
51 TCK 52 Road Information Network Project 53 OGS Automated Toll-Road Project 54 TYS Traffic Management System Project 55 Emergency Communications System
Project 56 CBS Geographical Information System Project
General Directorate of Highways
57 Rezervasyon ve OMIS
Reservations and Operational Management Information Systems Project
58 CTC Central Traffic Control System Project
Turkish State Railways
59 Electronic Ticket Project Turkish Airways 60 TURIZM-
NET
61 TURSAB Association of Turkish Travel Agencies Project
62 Automation of Tourism Offices Abroad Project
Ministry of Tourism
Ince, Murat. (2001). E-Devlet: Kamu Hizmetlerinin Sunulmasinda Yeni Imkanlar (E-Government: New Possibilities in Providing Public Services, in Turkish). Ankara, Turkey: State Planning Organization. The study of e-government projects is critically important in theoretical and practical terms, as Internet technology has the potential to help government organizations to be more responsive to citizens’ needs, and to be more transparent, efficient and accountable in the delivery of goods and services. However, developing countries such as Turkey do not have large amounts of resources to commit to ensuring the successful planning and implementation of individual e-government projects. Therefore, careful analysis of the policy processes behind these projects is essential to make sure that the resources are spent for projects with the highest priority, prevent perpetuating previous mistakes, and to maximize gains while minimizing resources spent. Therefore, it is important to learn how e-government policy is being made, how e-government projects emerge on the agenda and get organized, what the mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion are in these projects (i.e. how e-government-related agenda setting and policy formulation networks are formed; who is involved, who is not involved; why). As Kraemer and Perry aptly put it:
6
In order to develop a more complete and grounded understanding of changes in computing in organizations, it will be necessary to identify the mechanisms, and not merely the stages, integral to the evolution of computing in public organizations (1999: 14). … Future research should be oriented toward capturing the policies and motivations underlying public sector adopters’ choices about computers (1999:16).
OOnnllyy wwhheenn wwee uunnddeerrssttaanndd tthhee pprroocceesssseess ooff ppllaannnniinngg aanndd ddeecciissiioonn--mmaakkiinngg,, wwee ccaann eevvaalluuaattee aanndd iiff nneecceessssaarryy mmooddiiffyy ee--ggoovveerrnnmmeenntt iinniittiiaattiivveess..
AA ccrriittiiccaall sseett ooff ggoovveerrnnaannccee qquueessttiioonnss bbeeaarrss oonn tthhee nnaattuurree ooff ppuubblliicc--pprriivvaattee ppoolliiccyy nneettwwoorrkkss aanndd tthheeiirr aapppprroopprriiaattee rroollee iinn tthhee ddeessiiggnn,, ddeevveellooppmmeenntt,, mmaannaaggeemmeenntt,, ccoonnttrrooll aanndd iinn ssoommee rreessppeeccttss oowwnneerrsshhiipp ooff tthhee vviirrttuuaall ssttaattee…… GGoovveerrnnmmeennttss mmuusstt bbee ccaarreeffuull,, iinn tthheeiirr zzeeaall ttoo mmooddeerrnniizzee,, nnoott ttoo uunnwwiittttiinnggllyy bbeettrraayy tthhee ppuubblliicc iinntteerreesstt ((FFoouunnttaaiinn,, 22000011:: 220033))
3. Literature Review 3.1 E-Government: Theory and Practice ICTs increasingly diffuse into every aspect of our lives and nearly every academic discipline. From the standpoint of public administration, Internet stands out among these new technologies because of its numerous uses (Browsing the Web, e-mail, electronic file transfer, electronic discussion groups, etc.) (Menzel, 1998) and more importantly due to the administrative “potential” (for a discussion of limitations and failures of ICT in helping governments in information and service delivery, see Heeks, 1999-a; Heeks, 2001-a) of its networked structure for interconnectivity (McClure, 2000), service delivery (Bekkers and Zouridis, 1999), efficiency and effectiveness (Heeks, 2001-b), interactivity (DiCaterino and Pardo, 1996), decentralization, transparency (La Porte et al., 1999) and accountability (Ghere and Young, 1998; Heeks, 1998; Heeks,1999-b; McGregor, 2001). A very popular catch phrase in public administration nowadays is that of electronic government (e-government). Means and Schneider (2000: 121) define e-government as the relationships between governments, their customers (businesses, other governments and citizens) and their suppliers (again, businesses, other governments and citizens) by the use of electronic means. Similarly, for Hernon (in Duffy, 2000) e-government is:
… simply using information technology to deliver government services directly to the customer 24/7. The customer can be a citizen, a business or even another government entity.
Brown and Brudney (2001: 1) define e-government as the use of technology, especially web-based applications to enhance access to and efficiently deliver government information and services. They categorize e-government efforts into three broad categories of Government to Citizen (G2C), Government-to-Government (G2G) and Government to Business (G2B). One may include two additional categories to this list as Citizen-to-Citizen (C2C) if the interaction among citizens is related to the other three categories of e-government, and Government-to-Civil Societal Organizations (G2CS). For an effort towards categorization, please see Table 2 below. By information presented in this table, it is argued that it is possible to perceive the concept of e-government very differently depending on one’s focus.
7
Table 2: Sub-Categories of E-Government PARTIES OF COMMUNICATION
CONTENT DOMINANT CHARACTERISTICS DEFINITION
EXAMPLE
Among governments (G2G)
Communication, coordination, standardization of information and services
E-Administration
Establishing and using a common data warehouse
Between the citizen and the government (G2C)
Communication, transparency, accountability, effectiveness, efficiency, standardization of information and services, productivity
E-Government Government Organization Web Sites, E-mail Communication between the citizens and government officials
Between the government and the business (G2B)
Communication, collaboration, commerce
E-Government, E-Commerce, E-Collaboration
Posting Government Bids on the Web, E-Procurement, E-Partnerships
Between the government and civil societal organization (G2SC)
Communication, coordination, transparency, accountability
E-Governance Electronic communication and coordination efforts after a disaster
Among citizens (C2C)
Government Information and Services
Communication, coordination, transparency, accountability, grassroots organization
E-Governance Electronic Discussion Groups on Civic Issues
Source: Yildiz, Mete (2003). “E-Government in Turkey”, In Muhittin Acar and Huseyin Ozgul (Eds). Public Administration Reader: New Developments in the Field, Forthcoming in October 2003. Despite all the efforts to do so, there is a certain amount of difficulty in defining exactly what e-government is. This difficulty stems for a couple of reasons: First of all, e-government is a concept defined by the objective of the activity (transfer of government information and services among governments, their customers and suppliers) rather than the specific technology used, provider of the service/ information, or clear-cut activities of the related actors. Hence, many definitions of e-government are rather loose and they gloss over the multiple meanings e-government might have depending on the specific context, regulatory environment, the dominance of a group of actors over others in a given situation, etc. A contrary argument brought by Richard Heeks (2003) in an e-mail correspondence with the author:
… there is a very important implicit debate/difficulty which is that some see e-government as a goal, some see it as a tool for achieving other, broader public sector reform goals.
8
I would also add my own main distinction of definitions – some see e-government as the application of the Internet in government (and thus as something new and different); others – including us here in Manchester – see e-government as all application of digital ICTs in the public sector (and thus as something that has been going on for many decades even though we didn't used to call it e-government).
Second, e-government is one of those concepts that mean a lot of different things to a lot of different groups. For instance, Perri 6 (2001: 7) identifies different parts of e-government as e-service delivery, e-democracy and e-governance. Rapid technological change also makes it difficult to “fully grasp the meaning, opportunities and limits of the concept” (Prins, 2001: 1). Therefore, there are many alternative definitions, which emphasize a particular sub-section of these relationships such as those pertain to issues of accountability, transparency, interactivity, participation, cost-effectiveness etc. For example, in their study of Department of Energy’s dissemination of electronic information, Whitson and Davis (2001: 79) define e-government as:
[E-government is] implementing cost effective models for citizens, industry, federal employees, and other stakeholders to conduct business transactions online. The concept integrates strategy, process, organization and technology.
Such a seemingly limited definition of e-government is perfectly acceptable, since this is the definition that reflects the characteristics of a certain context and application. Third, as if it is not enough for the real substance of the concept to be ambiguous, poorly defined and/or context-dependent; e-government contains much hype and promotional efforts/ literature as well, similar to the concepts of “knowledge management” (Lev, 2000; Lissack, 2000) or “management by objectives” (Miller and Hartwick, 2002). Hype is often accused of raising expectations above realistic levels, preventing people from seeing what is going wrong in an area, and thus delaying corrective action. It is not always dysfunctional, though. Hype can be functional if it mobilizes interest and give people a shared (although sometimes a quite distorted) vision to act upon. Finally, one might ask how substantial a change is required to meet the criteria for a government technology project to be titled as an e-government project. For example, are static websites or e-mail addresses of public managers enough? Or is some level of interaction required? Layne and Lee (2001) reply this question by presenting their stages of e-government growth model. They argue that there are four stages of e-government growth: (1) Cataloguing, (2) Transaction, (3) Vertical Integration, and (4) Horizontal Integration (See Figure 1 in Appendix). As e-government projects develop in terms of integration and technological and organizational complexity; they evolve through these steps (Layne and Lee, 2001: 124; Kim and Layne, 2001: 235). Thus, projects at any of these steps could be defined as e-government projects. A critically important question for this research is to explain how the theory and practice of e-government fit into the larger context of public administration. The most obvious theoretical connections between the public administration and e-government literatures are (1) administrative reform/ reinventing government/ new public management literature, and (2) network theory (especially its variant/ subset of “policy issue networks”). It might be beneficial to briefly review these literatures here and point out their connections with e-government theory and practice.
9
3.2 Administrative Reform- New Public Management- Reinvention and E-government The “new public management” (NPM) concept is an umbrella term for the somehow similar administrative reform movements originating in several Anglo-Saxon countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand since the late 1970s (Kettl, 1997: 446), and to a lesser extent in the United States. This movement later swept through many other countries in the world such as Brazil, Portugal, Sweden, and Korea. The reforms in different countries varied in their primary focus, basic strategies and the pace of the change (Ingraham, 1997; Kettl, 1997; Toonen, 2001) depending on the role of political leadership, historical legacies and institutional constraints (Toonen, 2001: 188), but the overarching core was the same: managerialism. As a summary, Toonen (2001: 185) lists the characteristics of NPM reforms as an ideal type: - A business-oriented approach to government; - A quality and performance oriented approach to public management; - An institutional separation of public demand functions, public provision and public service production functions; - A linkage of public demand, provision and supply units by transactional devices and quality management; - Wherever possible, the retreat of (bureaucratic) government institutions in favor of an intelligent use of markets and commercial market enterprises or virtual markets. In essence, the core concept of the NPM movement–managerialism- can be defined as using private sector techniques and practices in the public sector (Hood, 1995; Boston et al, 1996; Ingraham, 1997). Proponents of the NPM movement employed such economic concepts like “principal agent theory” and “public choice” philosophy in the affairs of government. NPM advocates strongly emphasized transforming the culture of public organizations by underlining the importance of perceiving citizens as customers, concentrating on outputs and outcomes rather than inputs, and providing quality products and service in the public sector. Greater efficiency was sought by decentralization, privatization or contracting out. Contracting out public services and performance contracts with public managers are widely used. NPM movement is also closely tied with the total quality management paradigm (Deming, 1986) as it underlies continuous improvement (Kettl, 1997: 447-448). As stated above, NPM looked at the public sector from an economic point of view. Within this context, monetary gain was seen as the primary motivator of the “rational, utility-maximizing” public manager, thus performance contracts and monetary rewards for performance were offered. The NPM movement is reflected in the United States more incrementally than many others, as a series of reforms beginning with the “Civil Service Reform Act” of 1978 and continued by the “smaller government” initiatives of the Reagan years reflected by downsizing, personnel and budget cuts, which had no coherent program (Ingraham, 1997) The last stage of this series was the “National Performance Review” (NPR) initiative popularly known as “reinventing government”(Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Kamensky, 1996; Osborne and Plastrik, 1997; 2000). Launched and strongly supported by the Clinton Administration for a considerable amount of time (1992-2000) (for a discussion of the problems of sustaining such high-level political support for extended periods of time, see March and Olsen, 1983: 286), reinventing government has gone through three stages: The first stage was reforming governmental processes via customer service and procurement reform. Second stage constituted of asking the basic question: what government should do. The third and the last stage strengthen the movement with new ideas and concentrating on the improvement of “problem agencies” like the IRS (Kettl, 1998: v).
10
NPR initiative received mixed criticisms from its evaluators. Kettl (1994: v-vi) for example, argues that despite its long “life” at the center stage of politics, NPR program had no strategy to deal with the Congress, the support of which is critical in any reform effort. NPR was also criticized for not tying the reinventing management system to budgeting (Kettl, 1997: 457); giving relatively little attention to the high-level managers (Aberbach and Rockman, 2001: 30); creating a denial of democratic citizenship, civic engagement and the public interest (DeLeon and Denhardt, 2000: 96); ignoring the foundation of public law in public administration and thus risking losing the theoretical distinctiveness (Moe and Gilmour, 1995), being an intellectual grab-bag of conflicting ideas (Nathan, 1995: 213), Not all commentators negatively criticize the NPR. Nathan (1995: 215), after underlining its shortcomings, gives credit to the reinventing government program and its godfathers Osborne and Gaebler for creating a new, positive and upbeat tone, in which improving government theme replaced the classical bureaucrat-bashing arguments (Ironically, Osborne’s next book after “Reinventing Government” had the title of “Banishing Bureaucracy” (1997)). The reasons of the worldwide popularity and application of NPM and e-government ideas are quite similar: First of all, the perceived unresponsiveness and rigidity of the traditional bureaucratic structures and the resulting public dissatisfaction with the government (Kettl, 1997: 460; Toonen, 2001: 188) encouraged reformers to embrace managerialist ideas. The strong political support for the culture of “bureaucrat-bashing” strengthened the development of this trend. Making government more responsive is one of the most important reasons for the initiation of e-government projects. Secondly, the financial crisis that swept the world beginning from the oil crises of 1973 forced the welfare states of the West to overhaul their system of government compatible with the changing structure of the world economy (Toonen, 2001: 187). Doing more with less is a critical reason behind especially the automation projects of e-government. ICTs are mentioned as critical enablers of doing more with less in many NPM documents. Third, especially countries like New Zealand were forced to redesign their administrative system due to the increasing global competition, which was diminishing its competitiveness in global markets (Ingraham, 1997). Creating an ICT-enabled citizenry and workforce is a very important motivating factor for many e-government initiatives. For example, the E-Europe initiative of the European Union which reflects the priority objectives and targets of Europe regarding ICT policies, sets the objective of “investing in people and skills” as one of the top three objectives (E-Europe+ 2003, 2001: 2). Fourth, Kettl (1998: vii) argues that reinventing government was a way to struggle with budget, performance and confidence deficits in government. As a result of its implementation, he contends that there were modest improvements in budget and performance deficits, but confidence deficit is still a big problem. Similarly, some scholars see e-government as a big opportunity to deal with the performance and confidence deficits (Nye, 2002). Fifth, administrative reform is sometimes symbolic action. Goodsell (1997) underlines the ritualistic aspects of administrative behavior as it includes repetition, role-playing, stylization, order, staging and creation of meaning. Fox (1996) interprets reinvention and the NPR as forms of symbolic politics, an attempt to manage perceptions. He uses this interpretation to explain why reinventing has achieved some popularity, despite its inconsistencies and shortcomings. A similar
11
argument could be made for e-government. Not all e-government initiatives make the government better. Sometimes, ICT reforms may be symbolic politics similar to other reform movements. Toonen (2001: 184) argues that the use of information and communication technologies in government, commonly known as “e-government” is becoming the symbolic reform ideology of today very much similar to what scientific management in 1930’s and 40’s; PPBS and policy analysis were in 1960’s. As Bugler and Bretschneider (1993: 293) argue, organizational needs and the manager’s area of responsibility (both of which are mostly politically determined factors) determine a public manager’s interest in new ICTs. Therefore, adoption of modern ICT in government is affected by politics as other administrative reforms did. Similarly, Danziger et al. (1982) report the critical importance of politics in technology adoption in local governments. Finally, it will be informative to learn where the pushes for reinventing government/ NPM and e-government are coming from and the relationship between the two; that is whether e-government is a part of the reform movement, the continuation of it, or a totally different phenomenon (Heeks, 2003). On this very last question, Beniger’s (1986) work sheds light on the use of ICTs as a administrative control mechanism. He argues that
Each new technological innovation extend the processes that sustain human life, thereby increasing the need for control and for improved control technology… innovations in matter and energy processing create the need for further innovation in information processing and communication … Foremost among the technological solutions to the crisis of control … was the rapid growth in the late nineteenth century of formal bureaucracy and rationalization (Beniger, 1986: 434- 435).
From this perspective, e-government might be seen as the last step of a series of responses to the control crisis further alleviated by new technological innovations and increasing global mobility of the population. 3.3 Policy Networks and E-government Networks are structures of interdependence involving multiple organizations or parts thereof, where one unit is not merely the formal subordinate of the other in some larger hierarchical arrangement. Networks exhibit some structural stability but extend beyond formally established linkages and policy-legitimated ties (O’Toole, 1997-a: 45). Powell (1990) argues that networks are a distinct new form different than markets and bureaucracies. One of the reasons of the popularity of networks is that they provide us with solutions to problems neither the openness of the markets nor the rigidity of the hierarchy can offer. They have an adaptive efficiency (Alter and Hage, 1993: 39) that may bring quality, flexibility and innovativeness to the problem at hand. In addition, networks based on trust, common purpose, mutual dependency, resource availability and managerial ability decrease the transaction costs between network members since there is less need to use too many resources for monitoring compliance (Alter and Hage, 1993; Powell, 1990: 322). According to Powell (1990:304), networks work well when there is a need for efficient and reliable information, when the value of information is not easily measured; since the information passing through networks is “thicker” than those of the market, and “freer” than those of hierarchies. Wise (1990) offers a more practical reason to understand networks, namely, to understand the organizations within the network, and networks within the organization.
12
Many other reasons are offered for the increasing presence of networks: Some tie it to the coming of the information age and the resulting complexity and diversity (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999: 19; Clegg and Hardy, 1996; Lipnack and Stamps, 1994; Peters, 1992). Others wrote about the increasing occurrence of wicked problems (Rittel and Webber, 1977) -problems with only temporary and imperfect solutions- (Harmon and Mayer, 1986: 9) with which the bureaucratic organizations cannot deal (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999:19; O’Toole, 1997-a: 46). Milward and Provan (1999: 3, 5) argue that hollowing out of the central government and the “steer rather than row” dictum of the reinventing movement (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992) are other purposeful processes through which arranging networks was promoted over managing hierarchies. Yet another explanation for the emergence of networks is that it is political in nature (O’Toole, 1996) as a reaction to increasing layers of mandates, cross-cutting regulations and crossover sanctions (O’Toole, 1997-a: 46-47), as a simpler substitute for administrative reorganizations (O’Toole, 1997-a: 47), or as an extension of political initiatives such as deregulation, privatization, etc. (For examples from the health-care sector, see Provan and Milward, 1991; 1995; Weiss, 1990; for different models of management in this new system, see Agranoff and McGuire, 2001). Such purposeful action from the government may create coercive isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) and thus force or strongly encourage groups of organizations to adopt network structures (Milward and Provan, 1999: 11). Powell (1990) argues that in some instances, network arrangements are reactions to the rapid changes in technology, increasing competitive pressures and uncertainty of a global economy. As a consequence of these technological constraints and financial concerns, the very nature of competition has changed from firm versus firm, to rival transnational groups of collaborators against other groups (Powell, 1990: 314). Related to the increased global competition and uncertainty theme, Agranoff, in his study of rural enterprise alliances, argue that network is a way that alliance members reassert control over their collective fate in a communitarian and post-modern style (1998: 1566-1567). The significance of networks for this study is the emergence of policy issue networks during the agenda setting and policy formulation stages of e-government policy processes. Originated as “issue network” and “policy community” frameworks to understand policymaking (Rhodes and Marsh, 1992; Sabatier, 1984); the proponents of policy issue networks concept argue that surrounding each policy area there are groups of government organizations, various civil societal groups, scientists, private firms trying to affect the policymaking process (Peters, 1996: 56-57). Skok (1995: 329) defines policy issue networks as
… communities loosely composed of specialists representing organized interests, many of which have a stake in the outcome of policy actions.
Klijn’s (1996: 97) definition uses the game theory to explain the functioning of policy issue networks:
[Policy issue networks are] … more or less stable patterns of social relationships between interdependent actors, which take shape around policy problems or policy programs, and that are being formed, reproduced, and changed by an ecology of games between these actors.
The concept of “policy issue networks” poses interesting questions for the study of e-government in a networked setting: First, the issues of the effects of power on reciprocal relationships among network actors, its impact on group problem solution, uses of power unique to the network
13
setting, and the role of power brokers in networks (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999: 2, 18) demand inquiry. There is also a need to learn the consequences of real or perceived power imbalances in networks related to the quality or quantity of the information different partners bring to the table (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999: 7). Power differences might be compounded by capacity differences as Cole (1985) and Pucik (1988) argue is the case for the Japanese firms’ Western partners’ inferior learning capacity in joint ventures. Especially when governments contract out e-government projects to private firms and non-profit agencies, such power differences might cause all kinds of problems, including but not limited to basic principal-agent problems. Related to the power issue is the need to understand how the nature of negotiation is different in networks then in single organizations (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999: 2). Secondly, behavioral issues are critical. Significant adjustment of the conventional wisdom derived from single bureaucratic or market-based organization is necessary (O’Toole, 1997-a: 47). All public, private and non-profit managers, who are already operating within networks or planning to do so in the future, need network skills, if such a unique set of skills are identifiable. In other words, they need more information about the processes of successfully create, maintain and develop networks, initiate healthy long-run relationships with other network members. Therefore, more research about the process or black box of networks is necessary (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999: 1). This is exactly what had been done for this study. Similarly, since leadership is critical in networks (Milward and Provan, 1999: 27), scholars need to discover the managerial decision rules that network managers follow (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999: 4). Moreover, the cohesion forces like trust, common purpose, mutual dependency, resource availability and managerial ability that keep networks together are strategic resources, and as such, their strategic use by network managers and members should be examined (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999: 15). The nature and implications of dual loyalty (Weiner, 1990) of network partners to their home organizations and to their networks should be understood. Finding out the behavioral differences of actors in network, market and hierarchy settings is another area that future research is much needed (Powell, 1990: 327). Finally, network structures can be modeled using game theory approaches (O’Toole, 1997-a: 49; Ostrom, 1990: 211). O’Toole (1997-c) uses game theory to identify a set of actions useful to public managers in promoting public innovations in network settings. Accountability is third. One of the most important challenges of network management to public management is to create an accountability structure which substitutes for the loss of accountability in hierarchical bureaucratic organizations (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999: 2). The issue of accountability needs to be examined closely. For example, if policy issue networks are indeed powerful over the decisions regarding e-government policies, it might be interesting to find out to whom these networks are accountable. A fourth issue is whether networks are producing unique results. This research sub-agenda begins with questioning whether the network is a unique form and continues with issues like how do networks provide the flexibility otherwise would not occur, that ensures rapid adaptation and procedural accommodation (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999: 9), or even go beyond flexibility by offering new ways to deal with problems. It also might be an interesting challenge to examine empirically whether there are some of problems that can only be solved by networks or the preference to use networks is a political or administrative decision (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999: 18). For example, might certain e-government projects/ issues be unique problems, which might be best dealt with policy issue networks?
14
A fifth set of problems is related to the nature of networks. For example, we need to learn more about the features that a network needs in order to reach fruitful collaborative results, such as social capital, legal context, resources, and calculations of mutual gain (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999: 7). Historical analyses of network formation and development are necessary (O’Toole, 1997-a: 48). Development of new and more fluid roles and job descriptions in order to accommodate cross-functional and network configurations is needed (Fountain, 2001: 25). An alternative way to tie networks to the study of e-government would be to examine networks as a new organizational form that is emerging through the implementation of public reforms, including e-government (Heeks, 2003), but this is not the focus of this study. The networks in question are the ones which were created by e-government policy, whereas the networks this study deals with are the ones that formulate the e-government policy (Heeks, 2003). 3.4 Agenda Setting and Policy Formulation The literature on the policy processes is plentiful (Brewer and deLeon, 1983; Jones, 1984; Mazmanian, 1989) and the main framework presented in many sources indicate a linear progression of policy processes such as the perception/ definition of the problem, aggregation, organization, representation, agenda setting, formulation of the proposed solution, legitimation, budgeting, implementation, evaluation and adjustment (Jones, 1984: 27-28). This study only focuses on the agenda setting and policy/ solution formulation stages of the policy processes. Central to this research is the work of John Kingdon (1990) on agendas, alternatives and public choices. In his book, Kingdon identifies the coupling of problems, policies (solutions) and politics (i.e. political receptivity), and the opening of policy windows (an opportunity for the use of a solution for a problem permitted by the politics) as a necessary condition of successful government action. He further identifies the agenda-setting phase as a garbage-can process where the solutions look for problems, and the policy formulation phase as an incremental process. Kingdon’s framework of the coupling among problems, policies and politics, as well as the garbage can and incremental processes of planning and decision-making are perfectly applicable to the making of e-government policy. 4. Methodology The target population for this study was all the e-government projects being planned and implemented at ministerial (national) level in Turkey. To this end, I have conducted 30 interviews Some interviewees were linked directly to a specific e-government project. They brought their experiences and information regarding these projects to the table. Some other interviewees such as academicians, ICT journalists, ICT consultants however, did not belong to a specific e-government project group; instead, they had experience and knowledge about a subset of the e-government project pool. They were able to give me information about e-government in Turkey in general and many different e-government projects in particular. Therefore, my information collection effort was not limited to the six projects I choose to focus on (See Table 3), but others as well. Still, choosing a sample of the projects was useful since I could focus my efforts on projects that have the most potential for discovery. For example, a networking and data-sharing among local governments (i.e. YerelNet) might have more potential for interesting discoveries than a mere automation project. Therefore, the sampling method is theoretical sampling (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 201-215). That is, the critical factors in the sampling decision were the
15
information-richness of the cases (the amount of information that could be provided by the case for the future theory-generation effort). Table 3: E-Government Projects
PROJECT TITLE DESCRIPTION WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
Say2000i (National Public Accountancy Network)
Daily online control of public financial management
Control of public finance, fiscal discipline, less corruption, better use of government resources
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Network
Paperless transactions and information sharing throughout the ministry
Paperless Transactions, Network management
VEDOP (Automation Project of Turkish Tax Offices)
Improvement of tax collection and elimination of tax evasion
Better control of the tax system
UYAP (National Judicial Network Project)
Integrate all the courts in Turkey and ease the transfer of judicial information among them.
Streamlined, more efficient and transparent judicial system, working better, faster and cheaper
YERELNET (Local Government Network)
Provide a data-sharing and discussion forum for Turkish local governments
Encourages better informed and coordinated local governments
MERNIS (Ministry of Interior
Centralized Population Management System
Creates a central database of all population information, centralizes and automated all demographic information
Another sampling method I used for the case and interviewee selection was snowball or chain sampling (Patton, 1990: 182), in which, cases of interest were identified by the help of people, who were knowledgeable about the area in question. Since snowball sampling method was used for the selection of further interviewees, it was possible to conduct interviews with people working for other e-government projects than selected for closer inspection. In other words, there was a two-tiered interview process: After the interview, I asked the interviewees which project should I examine and who should I talk to next. Their answers also helped me to determine which policy network these people belong to. One critical issue was to make sure that the sample represents the breadth of e-government projects (See Table 4) in terms of the level of government involved (central versus local government) and the type of e-government project in question (government to government, government to citizen, government to businesses). Table 4: Breadth of Samples
Type of E-Government Project Level of Government G2C G2G G2B Central Level MERNIS, VEDOP, UYAP,
Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs, VEDOP, UYAP, Say2000i
UYAP, VEDOP, Say2000i
Local Level MERNIS, YerelNet, UYAP YerelNet, UYAP, VEDOP, Say2000i
YerelNet, UYAP, VEDOP, Say2000i
16
Another critical issue in the sampling decision was to strike a balance between the projects perceived both successful and unsuccessful in the Turkish e-government community. Therefore, a selection bias of examining only successful or unsuccessful projects (Kraemer and Perry, 1999: 4-5) could have been overcome. This problem was solved as including some e-government projects such as MERNIS, that was seen as an unsuccessful project. Questions about the generalizability of results derived from this sample to all e-government projects in Turkey might be answered by underlining the fact that some interviewees provided information not only about these six projects but about many others. Therefore, other e-government projects were examined indirectly as well. This research is an exploratory qualitative one; which triangulates the findings of archival search, content analysis and semi-structured, in-depth guided discussions/ interviews. For samples of questions guiding discussions and archival analysis, see Tables 5 and 6 below: TABLE 5: Semi-structured Discussion Guide Questions
Do I understand correctly that Project X is ... and it has evolved from ... to ….? Could you please tell me the historical background and scope of your involvement in this project? Are you involved with other e-government practices in general? If yes, how? How this project was first conceived? Which actors placed it on the agenda? On what grounds? Please define the initiation process. What are the important operational public policy decisions in this e-government project? What are the important operational public policy decisions regarding e-government practices in Turkey? In the policy-making process: who was consulted, what did they say, what happened at key meetings, who opposed and for what reasons, what alternative strategies and project formats were considered, and why were the others rejected? Who was involved? During the initiation phase of this project, which sources did you turn to for technical and managerial support? During the planning phases, which sources did you turn to for technical and managerial support? From whom are you getting your ICT-policy related information at the national level? From whom are you getting your ICT-policy related information at the international level? With whom are you sharing your ICT-policy related information at the national level? With whom are you sharing your ICT-policy related information at the international level? How do you fund this project? Did you explore alternative funding mechanisms? If yes, how? * Who was assigned the task of formulating the policies? What were the approval processes? How the staffing were decisions being made? What new information and services do you plan to deliver/offer through the web over the next one or two years? Over the next three to five years? Who made these decisions? * How do you define e-government? What are the factors that support the development of this project in particular and government ICT projects in Turkey in general? What are the factors that inhibit the development of this project in particular and government ICT projects in Turkey in general? Do you know about other significant e-government projects in Turkey? If yes, what do you think about them? How does your project fit within the big picture of e-government in Turkey? What insights could you offer for the future e-government projects from your experiences? Do you have any additional thoughts or recommendations? Who else should I talk to, which other e-government projects do you advice me to examine? * These questions will be asked only to the project manager/ director/ coordinator, and committee chairs.
17
Table 6: Examples 0f Guiding Questions for Archival and Website Analysis How is e-government defined? Do the archives provide the history of the agenda setting and policy formulation processes regarding the project or e-government in general? What content does the organization provide on the web? What kind of government information and services are provided through the Web? Was a cost-benefit analysis conducted before this project is launched? Was a pilot study conducted to test the project and analyzed its results before it is fully launched? How was the project funded? Who are the stakeholders in the agenda setting and policy formulation stages of this project? How are they selected? By whom? What are their roles and powers? Who are the partners of this organization during the selection and planning of e-government projects? The research effort was guided by a motivation to produce grounded theory (Corbin and Strauss, 1991; Martin and Turner, 1986; Strauss and Corbin, 1990), in which conclusions theory is built on systematically gathered and analyzed data, which lead to the hypotheses. In such an effort, patterns and trends could be found, data could be linked to theory and a logical chain of evidence could be presented to generate novel theory or confirm or oppose the existing ones. The research questions and constructs might be modified as the research develops. The hypotheses are generated during the study while linking the data to the theory. So, there is a continuous interplay between data collection and analysis. Therefore, while the above-mentioned theoretical backgrounds might be relevant to the data produced by this study; other theoretical links might be necessary as well. The research questions are:
• HHooww ddoo ee--ggoovveerrnnmmeenntt pprroojjeeccttss oorriiggiinnaattee iinn TTuurrkkeeyy?? Which problem(s) do they intend to
solve? HHooww ddoo tthheeyy mmoovvee iinnttoo ggoovveerrnnmmeenntt aaggeennddaa?? •• WWhhoo aarree tthhee mmaajjoorr aaccttoorrss iinn tthhee aaggeennddaa sseettttiinngg aanndd ppoolliiccyy ffoorrmmuullaattiioonn pprroocceesssseess?? WWhhiicchh
aaccttoorrss ((iinnddiivviidduuaallss,, ggrroouuppss aanndd iinnssttiittuuttiioonnss)) aarree iinncclluuddeedd,, wwhhiicchh aarree eexxcclluuddeedd?? WWhhyy?? •• WWhhaatt aarree tthhee nnaattuurree ooff tthhee pprroocceesssseess tthhrroouugghh wwhhiicchh tthheessee aaccttoorrss aaffffeecctt aaggeennddaass aanndd
ppoolliicciieess?? 5. Projects Examined for the Study 5.1 YerelNet (Local Government Network) YerelNet (meaning 'LocalNet' in Turkish) is a Web portal and Web-enabled communication platform for local governments in Turkey. It forms a virtual mechanism through which Turkish local government officials and academics interested in local government in Turkey can share data and build knowledge. It has also become a forum through which all Turkish local governments can provide online information about themselves. The Web site contains the following data:
• A list of Turkish local governments. • A list of local government bids and tenders. • Publications and press coverage on Turkish local government. • Local election results since 1963. • Details of Turkish legal developments and of international developments that are relevant
to Turkish local government.
18
• Basic information on fiscal, personnel and infrastructure problems. • An electronic discussion forum, and question and answer sections.
YerelNet was set up because there was no existing online forum through which data about Turkish local government could be shared. It is the first example of its kind. Countries such as Romania and Hungary showed great interest in this project and wanted to mimic its structure with the help of the Turkish personnel. World Bank chose it as an exemplary application for similar projects in the Eastern European countries. YerelNet is the brainchild of a local government project being conducted by the Public Administration Institute of Turkey and the Middle East, and the Centre of Local Government Research and Education. It has received extensive support from the Turkish State Planning Organization. The main operational stakeholders are Turkey's local governments, academics, private firms doing business with local government, and citizens. The main overt costs incurred are the financial payments for human and technical resources to set up and maintain the Web site. The site holds data from 3,216 municipalities, nearly 35,000 villages and more than 1,000 local government associations. The Web should reduce the costs of coordination and collective action between local government, and should also reduce the cost of information dissemination. However, there are no figures available on this. There are a number of other intended benefits – spreading best practice and standardisation through Turkish local government; encouraging greater transparency and accountability; encouraging citizen involvement in local government; supporting collective action by local government. However, it is too early to provide objective evidence on whether or not these have been achieved. It is too early to evaluate whether or not YerelNet is a success or failure. However, it is obvious that a successful exemplary project had been created with very limited financial and human resources. 5.2 VEDOP (Automation of Tax Collection Offices Project)
The idea behind VEDOP was to increase the speed and efficiency of tax collection by automating all the tax collection offices throughout the country. One other benefit of the project is the creation of a unique tax ID number for everyone (Turkish nationals and foreign people doing business in Turkey) to be able to better control the payment of taxes. VEDOP’s final objective was to increase the ease of getting tax information for citizens. For example, taxpayers have been able to see their tax information on the Internet since 1999. VEDOP is not currently compatible with the citizen ID number system provided by the MERNIS project. It uses a different key among its databases, called a “tax ID number”. Unfortunately, MERNIS’s citizenship ID number and VEDOP’s tax ID number are not interchangeable. MERNIS’s citizen ID number applies to only real (living or dead) persons. However, VEDOP’s tax ID number is more comprehensive in its scope. It applies to real persons, statutory persons such as firms and other organizations, and foreign nationals who conduct business in Turkey. Therefore, citizen ID number can substitute for tax ID number for real persons in the future. However, substitution is not possible for the other two categories. This situation might cause confusion and inefficiency in operations in the future. 5.3 UYAP (National Judicial Network Project)
19
Article 141 of the Turkish Constitution gives the Turkish Judiciary the responsibility for the efficient, dependable and cost-effective handling of the judicial matters. In order to use ICTs to better meet these objectives, UYAP, the National Judicial Network Project, is created as a web-based sectoral system project that integrates all the institutions in the judicial system such as the numerous departments of the ministry of justice, prosecutor offices, all levels and types of courts, jails, law offices … and allow them to share and exchange information both within this system and outside the system with other government agencies by the use of e-document and e-data flow. It also includes an intranet system for the employees of the Ministry of Justice. UYAP was planned as having two stages. The first stage is the connection of all central offices in the capital city, Ankara such as Ministry of Justice administrative offices to the system. The second stage is the connection of local branches of the judicial system such as local courts and law offices. The IT department was established in the Ministry of Justice in 1999. The year 1999 had been spent with consulting other government agencies, private IT firms and banks regarding the critical decisions to make such as the system architecture (central or decentral), how to outsource the projects, coming up with a master plan and places to test the project. Connection of all central units, orientation of their personnel and the process analyses for software design were finished in 2000. On August 10, 2001, Havelsan was chosen as the outsourcing firm. It provided both hardware and software, and created UYAP as a turnkey project. If there will not be any more budget cuts, all courthouses will be connected by the end of 2004. Although the bulk of the project is a government-to-government (G2G) e-government application, there are some government-to-citizen (G2C) applications as well such as the ability of the citizens to learn the date of their court date from the Internet. The total cost of UYAP will be 16.7 trillion (16.674.853.905.386) Turkish Liras (US$100 million). At the end of the project, 70.000 people will get access to UYAP. 30,000 of these users will be government judicial personnel, the other 40,000 are attorneys. All these users will also get an e-mail address to use within the system.
5.4 Foreign Affairs Ministry Project This project’s objective is to create an integrated system that connects the domestic offices of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its field offices in other countries such as embassies. The project created an intranet system in which all the ministy staff can electronically communicate to each other about professional and personal matters such as official correspondance, sharing of a foreign affairs database and communication of informal personal correspondance (Koru, 2001: 3-6). Such a system substantially decreased the cost of communication and coordination, and resulted in easier, faster and more systematic sharing of information throughout the Ministry.
5.5 Say2000i ( Computerization of Accounting Offices Project) Created by the Ministry of Finance, Say2000i is the biggest web-based e-government project in Turkey. It connects all 1500 public accounting offices in Turkey to one another and to the central administrative offices in the national capital, Ankara (Dener, 2001:1). Such a virtual public accounting network enables the government to keep track of its revenues and expenditures virtually at any minute of the day. For example, it is possible to keep track of the salaries and
20
health expenditures of all civil servants and better control them. Therefore, Say2000i provides better central control of government spending while increasing the transparency of it. The project’s use of open source software makes its techical updates easier (Dener, 2001). 5.6 MERNIS (Central Population Management System Project) MERNIS project originated as an idea in 1972, with the passage of the Population and Census law (number 1587). The intent of the law was to protect census information from harm after natural disasters that cause the destruction of local census data. The solution posed by some academics was to have an electronic copy of the local census data stored in the capital city, Ankara. The project is approved by the State Planning Organization (SPO) in 1976, and outsourced to Middle East Technical University (METU, ODTU in Turkish) in 1980. The implementation began in 1982. Due to mainly lack of funds, the presence of appropriate technology and political support, census data collection, coding and data entry lasted for 14 years (1982-1996). A World Bank grant and an accompanying feasibility study revitalized the project in 1996. Law number 4300, enacted in 1997, provided the much needed funding source for the project. The pilot implementation of the revised system was done in 2000. The system was up and running as of December 2002. The official end of the project was publicized in February 2003. The objectives of the project are to provide census data electronically in central and local units, to create a central database, to provide a unique Turkish republic identification number (similar to the social security number in the U.S.), to provide information to government agencies and citizens in electronic format, to organize and provide census information more rapidly, and to issue new national identification cards that are easier to carry (the current ID card is nearly as big as a wallet), and harder to forge (MERNIS, 2003: 19). MERNIS project, especially its online database will benefit multiple stakeholders:
• It will ease the control of taxpayers, and control of the underground economy, • Planning of government investments can be based on recent census data, • Criminals can be tracked down easier, • The draft of soldiers can be done more efficiently, • The duplication of health records can be prevented by the use of a unique identification
number MERNIS will provide, • Education policies and investments can be made more effectively and efficiently, • Integration of different social security agencies will be achieved, • Voter registration will be done much more accurately and rapidly, • The identification of parties in courts can be done more efficiently (MERNIS, 2003: 35-
36). Other Projects Interviewees also provided information about e-government projects other than the ones that are under investigation by the author. Following is the information about some of these other projects.
5.7 TUENA (Turkish National Information Infrastructure Master Plan) Turkey’s Scientific and Technical Research Council (TUBITAK) was asked by the Transportation Ministry to prepare a master plan of the Turkish National Information
21
Infrastructure in January 1996 by the order of the Prime Minister. Its main objective was to assess how to approach the issues of public security, public interest, social and economic aspects, legal and institutional aspects of ICTs with the ultimate objective of using ICTs for Turkey’s transition to an information society. The study for the report began in July 1997 after the Transportation Ministry, TUBITAK, Turkish Technology Development Foundation (TTGV), Turkish Electronics Industrialists Association (TESID), and Turkish Telecom signed a framework protocol that was approved by the Ministry of Finance. TUENA report was prepared as a long-term strategic plan that includes:
• Monitoring the environment (Turkey and the world). • Infrastructure Planning • National Value-added Instruments • Institutional Restructuring
The report was finalized at the end of 1998 and an update was done in 1999-2000. More than 200 institutions views were taken for the report that produced 52 documents and 3400 pages. The findings were discussed by 182 experts that formed 14 working groups in a two-day workshop following the completion of the report. As of the year 2003, TUENA report’s findings are not actively used to determine public information technology policy. 5. 8 KamuNet (E-Turkey) KamuNet (Public Net in Turkish) was designed as a communications network among government agencies by sharing standardized data in 1997.
In 2001, then Prime Minister Mr. Bulent Ecevit signed the E-Europe+ document in Goteborg. After this point, KamuNet project was renamed as ‘E-Turkey’, and 13 working groups were created. The duty of coordination of these working groups were given to two civil societal organizations TBD (Informatics Association of Turkey) and TBV (Turkish Informatics Foundation) as the first example of a participatory project management between public and non-profit sectors. 6. Findings One of the most important questions that this study answers is whether the initiation of e-government projects are geared towards making governments work better (i.e. increasing productivity via automation, promoting participation, enhancing transparency, curbing corruption, etc.) or are they also partial outcomes of conforming to isomorphic tendencies such as being on the cutting edge, keeping up with other government agencies, conforming to European Union standards? This study found that these two mechanisms work simultaneously. If the former mechanism (using e-government as a part of administrative reform) was more dominant, then a study like this one informs us about how e-government efforts relate to government reform. If the latter factor (symbolic actions as a reaction to isomorphic pressures) was more dominant, then a study like this one provides empirical data regarding the processes of isomorphic pressures/ changes, which are mostly taken for granted, but rarely found empirical evidence on. There are several competing views about the agenda-setting and policy formulation regarding several critical issues of e-government in Turkey such as (1) centralized versus decentralized decision-making: Will there be a central-level ministry or other coordinating organization responsible for the coordination of e-government projects; or will the e-government projects will
22
develop on their own? In other words, will thee be an “information Czar” for Turkey? Or will there be one Turkish e-government portal like the US firstgov.gov that constitutes a starting point for all e-government websites or will all the government websites function separately, (2) how to encourage access to government information and services (e.g. direct government action by establishing public access terminals in public libraries, schools, community centers versus encouraging private sector to boost access via Internet cafes or portable devices such as next generation cell phones), (3) preferring in-house preparation of e-government projects versus contracting out these services to private firms, (4) using proprietary software (e.g. Microsoft products) versus open source software (e.g. Linux), etc. Regarding the first research question of how do e-government projects originate in Turkey and how do they get into the agenda, the study found out that the push for administrative reform via e-government comes from the need for administrative control, such as the reaction to the economic crisis (controlling government revenues and expenditures better), high foreign and domestic debt , population movements (controlling the movement of the masses emigrating to cities from small towns), organized crime (an inefficient legal/ court system make people to go to organized crime syndicates to solve their problems), etc. Closely tied to the first reason -the need for control- comes the need for improving the processes and increasing the overall efficiency in the public sector. Another driver of e-government projects is the desire to improve the outcomes such as cost-efficiency and transparency. The emergence of e-government projects can also be attributed partly to isomorphic pressures such as the incentive to be a part of the European Union (normative isomorphism), mimicking the global, European trends and other successful e-government projects in Turkey (mimetic isomorphism), and coercive isomorphism exemplified by the fear of loosing the IMF and World Bank funds earmarked for ICT projects. Finally, there are projects the demand for which was thought to be fabricated by private ICT firms, in order to earn some money from government projects, especially in an economic downturn that Turkey experiences for the last few years. Regarding the second research question, that is, who the major actors in the agenda setting and policy formulation processes are, and which actors (individuals, groups and institutions) are included, which are excluded, the preliminary results show that policy networks with members from public, private and civil societal organizations push for e-government reform. The most prominent of these policy networks are formed around two ICT NGOs, the Informatics Association of Turkey AND Turkish Informatics Foundation, information about both are available In Appendix). Private ICT firms are also pretty influential on policy-making since they are able to create/ fabricate demand for their products at a certain extent. Some policy options, such as open source software are ignored, either because public decision-makers do not have adequate information about them, or because of some practical considerations such as inadequate technical support for such systems. In a parallel fashion, some projects are ignored. The best example to this situation is YerelNet, which proves that results can be accomplished by dedicated staff and using pen source software to minimize cost. Regarding the link between policy formulation and resource dependency, International Monetary Agencies (IMF, the World Bank) fund money-saving projects (i.e. tax and social security administrations) and closely monitor them since Turkey is a heavily-debted nation, and such projects are critically important for IMF and the World Bank to ensure the continuing financial stability of the country. Regarding the third research question, that is, what the nature of the decision-making and planning processes regarding e-government agenda setting and policy formulation is; the preliminary findings show that rational models of planning could not be followed because of the funding structure. There are deals, side-processes and negotiations taking place between the funding and funded agency.
23
The agenda setting stage seems to be following the garbage can model of decision-making in which problems, solutions and political receptivity couple when policy windows open. At the agenda-setting stage, ICT vendors are very influential as they sometimes fabricate a demand for their products. The lack of qualified IT staff in public organizations further complicates this problem by creating information asymmetry between the private vendor and the purchasing public agency. Worse yet, when ICT firms are in a position to create the demand for e-government projects, they in fact shape government IT policy. As Fountain aptly puts it: Outsourcing architecture is outsourcing policy-making (Fountain, 2001: 203). On the other hand, operational decisions were made (Alternatives/ Policy Formulation) by an incremental model of decision-making.
24
APPENDIX 1:
FIGURE 1: STAGES OF E-GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT
Source: Layne and Lee, 2001: 124.
25
APPENDIX 2 TURKISH ICT NGOs 1. Informatics Association of Turkey (TBD, Turkiye Bilisim Dernegi)
Informatics Associations of Turkey (TBD in Turkish) has been established in 1971 and currently have reached to five thousand members. TBD is not only the oldest ICT association in Turkey; it is also the only institution in Turkey, which intends to embrace all information systems professionals as well as those other professionals who benefit from and associate themselves with information systems in any manner when performing their respective professions.
The principal goal of TBD is to help the advancement of theory and practice of computer science and related sciences and technologies in Turkey and to promote widespread utilization of information systems in the country in order to reach to the ideals of information society.
2. The Turkish Informatics Foundation (TBV, Turkiye Bilisim Vakfi)
TBV was founded in April 1995, with the mission of accelerating Turkey’s transformation into an information society. Its main objectives are:
• to establish the infrastructure necessary for the process of transforming Turkey into an information society.
• to conduct research aimed at increasing the informatics sector's share of the economy and achieve effective implementation through use of the data obtained thereby.
• to reinforce the infrastructure of information technology through educational means, various strategies and action plans.
• to ensure coordination of all informatics subsectors as well as cooperation with other sectors of the economy.
• to carry out studies which will facilitate the regulation of informatics-related legal problems.
• to establish national and international validity of informatics standards in conformity with national interests.
• to inform and direct scientific circles on issues related to the needs of the industry.
26
REFERENCES 6, Perri. (2001). “E-governance: Do Digital Aids Make a Difference in Policy Making?” In Prins, J. E. J. (Ed.). Designing E-Government: On the Crossroads of Technological Innovation and Institutional Change, The Hague: Kluwer Law International: 7-27. Aberbach, Joel D. and Bert A. Rockman (2001). “Reinventing Government or Reinventing Politics: The American Experience.” In B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre (Eds.). Politicians Bureaucrats and Administrative Reform, London: Routledge: 24-34. Abrahamson, Eric. (1991). “Managerial Fads and Fashions: The Diffusion and Rejection of Innovations.” Academy of Management Review, 16(3): 586-612.
Agranoff, Robert. (1998). “Partnerships in Public Management: Rural Enterprise Alliances.” International Journal of Public Administration, 21(11): 1533-1575. Agranoff, Robert and Michael McGuire. (2001). “American Federalism and the Search for Models of Management.” Public Administration Review, 61(6): 671-681. ------------------------------------------------ (1999). “Big Questions in Public Network Management Research.” Paper Presented at the National Public Management Research Conference, Texas A&M University, December 3-4, 1999. Alter, Catherine and Jerald Hage. (1993). Organizations Working Together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bellamy, Christine and John A. Taylor. (1998). Governing in the Information Age. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bekkers, Victor J.J.M and Stavros Zouridis. (1999). “Electronic Service Delivery in Public Administration: Some Trends and Issues”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 65(2): 183-196.
Beniger, James. (1986). The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Boston, Jonathan; John Martin; June Pallot and Pat Walsh. (1996). Public Management: The New Zealand Model, Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press. Brewer, Garry D. and Peter deLeon. (1983). The Foundations of Policy Analysis, Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press. Brown, Mary M. and Brudney, Jeffrey L. (2001). “Achieving Advanced Electronic Government Services: An Examination of Obstacles and Implications from and International Perspective”, Presented on October 20th, 2001 at the 6th National Public Management Research Conference, Bloomington, Indiana, Retrieved on October 4, 2001 at [http://www.spea.indiana.edu/NPMRC6/].
27
Bugler, Daniel T. and Stuart Bretschneider. (1993). “Technology Push or Program Pull: Interest in New Information Technologies within Public Organizations”. In Barry Bozeman (Ed.) Public Management: State of the Art, San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass: 275-293. Clegg, Stewart R. and Cynthia Hardy. (1996). “Conclusion: Representations”, In Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy and Walter R. Nord (Eds). Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage. Cole, R. (1985). “The Macropolitics of Organizational Change: A Comparative Analysis of the Spread of Small Group Activities”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 360-385. Corbin, Juliet and Anselm Strauss. (1990). "Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria." Qualitative Sociology, 13(1): 3-21. Danziger, James N.; Dutton, William H.; Kling, Rob and Kraemer, Kenneth L. (1982). Computers and Politics: High Technology in American Local Governments, New York: Columbia University Press. DeLeon, L. and Denhardt, R. B. (2000). “The Political Theory of Reinvention”, Public Administration Review, 60(2): 89-97.
Dener, Cem. (2001). “Say2000i Web Tabanli Saymanlik Otomasyon Sistemi (Say2000i Web-Based Public Accounting Offices Automation System, in Turkish)”, Retrieved on 07/11/2002 at [http://www.edevlet.net/eTurkiye/say2000i.pdf].
DiCaterino, Anne and Theresa A. Pardo. (1996). “The World Wide Web as a Universal Interface to Government Services”, State University of New York at Albany, The Center for Technology in Government (CTG) Publication Series, Retrieved on 08/14/2001 at [http://www.ctg.albany.edu/resources/abstract/itt96-2.html].
DiMaggio, P. and W. Powell (1983). “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”, American Sociological Review, 2: 147-160.
Duffy, Daintry. (2000). “Q&A: Balancing the Role of E-Government, Interview with Mike Hernon, Vice President of E-Government for New York City-based GovWorks” CNN, Retrieved on 11/13/2000 at [http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/11/13/qna.egov.idg/].
EU Commission. (2001). “E-Europe +-2003: A Cooperative Effort to implement the Information Society in Europe”, Retrieved on 12/29/2002 at [http://www.edevlet.net/raporveyayinlar/eEuropeActionPlan.pdf].
Fountain, Jane E. (2001). Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change, Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution.
Fox, Charles J. (1996). “Reinventing Government as Postmodern Symbolic Politics: Management Reform “, Public Administration Review, 56 (3): 256-262. Ghere, R. K. and B. A. Young (1998). “The Cyber-Management Environment: Where Technology and Ingenuity Meet Public Purpose and Accountability”, Public Administration and
28
Management: An Interactive Journal, 3 (1), Retrieved 01/14/00 at [http://www.pamij.com/gypaper.html].
Goodsell, Charles T. (1997). “Administration as Ritual”, International Journal of Public Administration, 20 (4&5): 939-961. Harmon, Michael M. and Richard T. Mayer (1986). Organization Theory for Public Administration, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. Heeks, Richard. (2003). Personal e-mail correspondence with the author, January 4th, 2003. ------------------- (2001-b). “Understanding E-Governance for Development”, The University of Manchester, Institute for Development, Policy and Management IGovernment - Information, Systems, Technology and Government: Working Papers Series, Number 11/2001, Retrieved on 10/01/2001 at [http://idpm.man.ac.uk/idpm/igov11abs.htm]. ------------------- (2001-a). “Building E-governance for Development: A Framework for National and Donor Action.” The University of Manchester, Institute for Development, Policy and Management IGovernment - Information, Systems, Technology and Government: Working Papers Series, Number 12/2001, Retrieved on 10/01/2001 at [http://idpm.man.ac.uk/idpm/igov12abs.htm]. -------------------- (1999-a). “Information Technology, Government and Development: Workshop Report.” The University of Manchester, Institute for Development, Policy and Management Working Paper. Retrieved on 10/01/2001 at [http://idpm.man.ac.uk/idpm/itgovsem.htm]. -------------------- (1999-b). “Public Sector Accountability: Can IT Deliver?” The University of Manchester, Institute for Development, Policy and Management Working Paper. Retrieved on 10/01/2001 at [http://idpm.man.ac.uk/idpm/egovacc.htm]. -------------------- (1998). Information Systems and Public Sector Accountability. The University of Manchester, Institute for Development, Policy and Management IGovernment - Information, Systems, Technology and Government: Working Papers Series, Number 1/1998, Retrieved on 10/01/2001 at [http://idpm.man.ac.uk/idpm/isps_wp1.htm]. Hood, Christopher. (1995). “Depriviledging the Higher Service”, In Jon Pierre (Ed.). Comparative Public Administration, Aldershot, England: Edmund Edgar Publishing. Ince, Murat. (2001). E-Devlet: Kamu Hizmetlerinin Sunulmasinda Yeni Imkanlar (E-Government: New Possibilities in Providing Public Services, in Turkish). Ankara, Turkey: State Planning Organization. Ingraham, Patricia. (1997). “Play It Again, Sam; It's Still Not Right: Searching for the Right Notes in Administrative Reform”, Public Administration Review, 57(4): 325-342. Jones, Charles O. (1984). An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy, Third Edition. Monterey, California: Brooks/ Cole Publishing Company. Kamensky, John M. (1996). “Role of the ‘Reinventing Government’ Program in Federal Management Reform”, Public Administration Review, 56 (3): 247-255.
29
Kettl, Donald F. (1998). Reinventing Government: A Fifth Year Report Card, A Report of the Brookings Institution’s Center for Public Management. CPM-98-1. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. ------------------- (1997). “The Global Revolution in Public Management: Driving Themes, Missing Links”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(3): 446-462. ------------------- (1994). Reinventing Government: Appraising the National Performance Review, A Report to the Brookings Institution’s Center for Public Management, CPM-94. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Kim, Sonhee and Karen Layne. (2001). “Making the Connection: E-Government and Public Administration Education”, Journal of Public Affairs Education, 7(4): 229-240. Kingdon, John. W. (1990). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Harper Collins Publishers. Klijn, Erik-Hans. (1996). “Analyzing and managing Policy Processes in Complex Networks: A Theoretical Examination of the Concept Policy Network and Its Problems”, Administration and Society, 28(1): 90-119. Kling, Rob and Roberta Lamb. (2000). “IT and Organizational Change in Digital Economies: A Socio-Technical Approach” in Brian Kahin and Erik Brynjolfsson (Eds). Understanding the Digital Economy -- Data, Tools and Research, The MIT Press. Koru, Naci. (2001). “A Blueprint for an E-State“, Retrieved on 06/24/2002at [http://www.edevlet.net/eTurkiye.htm]. Kraemer, Kenneth L. and James L. Perry. (1999). “Innovation and Computing in the Public Sector: A Review of Research”, Knowledge, Technology and Science Policy, 12(1): 3-18. La Porte, Todd M.; De Jong, Martin and Chris C. Demchak (1999). “Public Organizations on the World Wide Web: Empirical Correlates of Administrative Openness”, University of Arizona at Tucson and George Mason University, Cyberspace Policy Research Group Website, Retrieved on 10/24/2001 at [http://www.cyprg.arizona.edu/publications/correlat.rtf]. Layne, Karen and Jungwoo Lee. (2001). “Developing Fully Functional E-Government: A Four Stage Model.” Government Information Quarterly, 18: 122-136. Lev, Baruch. (2000). “Knowledge Management: Fad or Need”, Research Technology Management, 43(5): 9-10. Lissack, Michael R. (2000). “Knowledge Management Redux: Reframing a Consulting Fad into a Practical Tool”, Emergence, 2(3): 78-89. Lipnack, Jessica and Jeffrey Stamps. (1994). The Age of the Network. New York: John Wiley and Sons. McClure, David L. (2000). “Government Online: Strategies and Challenges”, Testimony before a Hearing of the Subcommittee on Government Management, and Information, and Technology.
30
May 22, 2000. Retrieved on 10/24/01 at [http://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/hearings/2000hearings/000522.egovt/000522dm.htm]. McGregor, Eugene B. Jr. (2001). “Web Page Accountability: The Case of Public Schools”, Presented on October 20th, 2001 at the 6th National Public Management Research Conference, Bloomington, Indiana, Retrieved on 10/18/2001 at [http://www.spea.indiana.edu/NPMRC6/]. March, James and Johan P. Olsen. (1983). “Organizing Political Life: What Administrative Reorganization Tells Us About Government”, American Political Science Review, 77: 281-296. Martin, P.Y. and B.A. Turner. (1986). "Grounded Theory and Organizational Research", The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2): 141-157.
Mazmanian, Daniel A. (1989). Implementation and Public Policy, Lanham: University Press of America.
Means, Grady and David Schneider. (2000). Meta-Capitalism: The E-Business Revolution and the Design of 21st Century Companies and Markets, New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Menzel, Donald C. (1998). “Introduction”. In Symposium on Cyber-Management and Public Administration, Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, 3(1) Retrieved on 07/26/2001 at [http://www.pamij.com/98_3_1.html]. Miller, Danny and Jon Hartwick. (2002). “Spotting Management Fads”, Harvard Business Review, 80(10): 26-27. Milward, H. Brinton. 1999. “How Networks are Governed”, Paper Presented at the National Public Management Research Conference, Texas A&M University, December 3-4, 1999. Moe, Ronald C. and Robert Gilmore. (1995). “Rediscovering Principles of Public Administration: The Neglected Foundation of Public Law”, Public Administration Review, 55(2): 135-146. Nathan, Richard. (1995). “Reinventing Government: What Does It Mean”, Public Administration Review, 55(2): 213-215. Nye, Joseph S. Jr. (2001). ”Information Technology and Democratic Governance”, In Kamarck, Elaine C. and Joseph S. Nye Jr., (Eds.). Http://democracy.com? Governance in a Networked World, Hollis NH: Hollis Publishing Co.: 1-18. O’Toole, Laurence. (1997). “Taking Networks Seriously”, Public Administration Review, 57(1): 45-52. -------------------------- (1996). “Hollowing the Infrastructure: Revolving Loan Programs and Network Dynamics in the American States”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6: 225-242. Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
31
Osborne, David and Peter Plastrik. (2000). The Reinventor's Fieldbook: Tools for Transforming Your Government. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ------------------------------------------ (1997). Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for Reinventing Government. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley Pub. Co. Patton, Michael Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, New York: Sage. Peters, B. Guy. (1996). The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press. Peters, Tom. (1992). Liberation Management, New York: Knopf. Powell, W.W. (1990). “Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization”, In B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, 12: 295-336. Prins, Corien (2001). “Electronic Government: Variations of a Concept”, In Prins, J. E. J. (Ed.). Designing E-Government: On the Crossroads of Technological Innovation and Institutional Change. The Hague: Kluwer Law International: 1-5. Provan, Keith G. and H. Brinton Milward. (1995). “A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 1-33. --------------------------------------------------- (1991). “Institutional-Level Norms and Organizational Involvement in a Service-Implementation Network”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1: 391-417. Pucik, V. (1988). “Strategic Alliances with the Japanese: Implications for Human Resource Management.” In F. Contractor and P. Lorange (Eds.) Comparative Strategies in International Business, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Rhodes, R. A. W. and D. Marsh. (1992). “New Directions in the Study of Policy Networks”, European Journal of Political Research, 21: 181-205. Rittel, Horst W. J. and Melvin Webber. (1973). “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning”, Policy Sciences, 4: 155-169. Rogers, Everett. (1983). Diffusion of Innovation (2nd Edition). New York: Free Press. Sabatier, Paul A. (1984). “An Advocacy Coalition Model of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein”, Policy Sciences, 21: 129-168. Skok, James E. (1995). “Policy Issue Networks and the Public Policy Cycle: A Structural-Functional Framework for Public Administration”, Public Administration Review, 55(4): 325-332. Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, First Edition, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
32
Taylor Nelson Sofres Consulting. (2002). Government Online 2002 Benchmarking Study. Available at [www.tnsofres.com/gostudy/]. --------------------------------------. (2001). Government Online 2001 Benchmarking Study: A National Perspective. Available at [http://kurul.ubak.gov.tr/edevlet/]; For the main study, see [www.tnsofres.com/gostudy/]. Toonen, Theo A. J. (2001). “The Comparative Dimension of Administrative Reform: Creating Open Villages and Redesigning the Politics of Administration”, In B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre (Eds.) Politicians Bureaucrats and Administrative Reform, London: Routledge, pp. 183-201. Weiss, Janet A. (1990). “Ideas and Inducements in Mental Health Policy”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 9: 178-200. Whitson, Thurman L. and Davis, Lynn (2001). “Best Practices in Electronic Government: Comprehensive Electronic Information Dissemination for Science and Technology”, Government Information Quarterly, 18: 7-21. Wise, Charles R. (1990). “Public Service Configurations and Public Organizations: Public Organizations Design in the Post-Privatization Era”, Public Administration Review, 50: 141-155. Yildiz, Mete. (2003). “E-Government in Turkey”, In Muhittin Acar and Huseyin Ozgul (Eds). Public Administration Reader: New Developments in the Field (in Turkish), Forthcoming in October 2003.
33