The implementation of efficient cross-border digital public services for a connected Europe, a developed e-government represents a priority for the European Union. There are big differences in the way e-government is adopted. Transition economies lag behind developed economies. This paper explores the e-government adoption in its multidimensionality within the EU member states. It uses 22 variables, which highlight: technological preparedness, the ability to access and absorb information and information technology, the ability to generate, adopt and spread knowledge, the social and legal environment, the government policy and vision, and consumer and business adoption and innovation. Barriers to efficient e-government adoption in transition economies are identified. Multicriteria decision analysis is used for the prioritisation of the factors with the highest overall impact on efficient implementation. The authors use the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP method) for prioritisation and the numerical results are obtained with Expert Choice software.
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
Alessio, I. — Ashraf, L. (2009): Analitic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice: Benefits and Limitations. ORInsight, 22(4): 201–220.
-
Andoh-Baidoo, F. K. — Lawrencia, A. (2011): Examining the Preparedness of an Emerging Economy towards E-Government Implementations: Swot Analysis. Southwest Decision Sciences Institute Conference, Houston: University of Louisiana at Lafayette. http://www.swdsi.org/wdsi2011/2011_SWDSI_Proceedings/papers/papers/PA178.pdf.
-
Bilbao-Osorio, S. — Dutta, S. — Lanvin, B. (2013): The Global Information Technology Report. Geneva: WEF and INSEAD.
-
Chilea, D. (2004): European Regulation of Electronic Commerce. The Juridical Current, (1-2): 81–98.
-
Cuervo, V. M. — Menéndez, L. J. (2005): Inequalities in the Information Society: A Statistical Approach to the Digital Divide. In: First Meeting of the Society for the Study of the Economic Inequality, pp. 1–11. Palma de Mallorca, Spain: Universitat de les illes Balears; http://www.uib. es/congres/ecopub/ecineq/papers/257vincente-lopez.pdf
-
Danish, D. (2006): E-Readiness for Developing Countries: Moving the Focus from the Environment to the Users. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 27(6): 1–14.
-
EBRD (2012): Transition Report. Integration across Borders. London.
-
EC (2013a): Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2013. (Retrieved January 5, 2014) https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/DAE%20SCOREBOARD%202013%20-%20SWD%20 2013%20217%20FINAL.pdf
-
EC (2013b): ICT2013 –eGovernment in the Spotlight. (Retrieved January 14, 2014), http:// ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/ict2013-egovernment- spotlight ELLI Index 2010. http://www.elli.org/
-
Forman, H. E. — Gass, I. S. (2001): The Analytic Hierarchy Process –An Exposition. Operations Research, 49(4): 469–486.
-
Gatman, A. (2011): E-Government –Assisting Reformed Public Administration in Romania. Romanian Journal of Economics, 32(1-41): 216–242.
-
Herman, E. (2011): Education’s Impact on the Romanian Labour Market in the European Context. Procedia –Social and Behavioural Science Journal, 46(12): 5563–5567.
-
Hollanders, H. — Es-Sadki, N. (2013): Innovation Union Scorebord 2013. Belgium: European Comission, UNU–MERIT, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius-2013_ en.pdf
-
Hollanders, H. — Arundel, A. — Buligescu, B. — Peter, V. — Roman, L. — Simmonds, P. (2013): European Public Sector Innovation Scoreboard. Belgium: UNU–MERIT, European Commission.
-
IBM – EIU (2009): E-readiness Rankings 2009, The Usage Imperative. http://graphics.eiu.com/pdf/E-readiness%20rankings.pdf: IBM Institute for Business Value; The Economist Intelligence Unit.
-
IBM – EIU (2010): Digital Economy Rankings. Institute for Business Value, Economist Intelligence Unit. http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/bus/pdf/eiu_digital-economy-rankings- 2010_final_web.pdf: IBM
-
Ifinedo, P. — Singh, M. (2011): Determinants of e-Government Maturity in the Transition Economies of Central and Eastern Europe. Electronic Journal of e-Government, www.ejeg.com, 166–182.
-
ITU (n.d.): ICT Data and Statistics. (Retrieved December 10, 2013). http://www.itu.int/ITU–D/ict/publications/idi/material/2007/table1_2007.html#upper
-
ITU (n.d.): ICT Data and Statistics.(Retrieved December 28, 2013). http://www.itu.int/ITU–D/ict/publications/idi/material/2007/table1_2007.html#upper
-
ITU (2013): Measuring the Information Society. Executive summary. (Retrieved January 7, 2014). http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/ind/D-IND-ICTOI-2013-SUM-PDF-E.pdf
-
Jindrich, S. (2013): Knowledge Economy and Innovation Indices: Their Concordance and Diversity. In: The 7th International Days of Statistics and Economics, pp. 1295–1303. Prague: University of Economics.
-
Kenny, B. — Trick, B. (1994): Reform and Management Education. A Case of Czech Republic. Journal of East –West Business, 1(1): 69–95.
-
KPMG — ODI (2012): The Change Readiness Index. http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/Issues And Insights /ArticlesPublications/change-readiness/Documents/change-readiness-index.pdf: KPMG, ODI.
-
Matei, A. — Savulescu, C. (2011): E-government in the Balkans. Comparative Study. APAS –Academic Public Administration Studies, http://www.apas.admpubl.snspa.ro/handle/2010/388, 1–16.
-
Saaty, L. T. (2000): Fundamentals of Decision Making. Pittsburg: RWS Publication, University of Pittsburg.
-
Schwab, K. – WEF (2013–2014): Global Competitiveness Index. Geneva: http://reports.weforum. org/the-global-competitiveness-report-2013-2014/
-
Selhofer, H. — Mayringer, H. (2001): Benchmarking the Information Society Development in European Countries. Communications –Strategies, 43(3):17.
-
Soukup, J. (2013): Knowledge Economy and Innovation Indices: Their Concordance and Diversity. In: The 7th International Days of Statistics and Economics, pp. 1295–1303. Prague: University of Economics.
-
Spremic, M. — Šimurina, J. — Jakovic, B. — Ivanov, M. (2010): E-Government in Transition Economies. International Journal of Social Sciences, 5(2): 82–90.
-
Suutari, V. — Riusala, K. (2001): Leadership Styles in Central Eastern Europe: Experiences of Finnish Expatriates in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 17: 249–280.
-
Szabo, K. Zs. — Soltes, M. — Herman, E. (2013): Innovative Capacity –Performance of Transition Economies: Comparative Study at the Level of Enterprises. E-M Economics and Management, 1: 52–68.
-
UN (2012): E-Government Survey. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan048065.pdf
-
UN (2014): E-Government Survey. http://unpan3.un.org. Retrieved January 10 2014, from http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/egovernment_overview/ereadiness.htm
-
Vintar, M. — Decman, M. — Kunstelj, M. — Bercic, B. (2003): Integral E-government Development Indicators. Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administration (NISPA) Conference, Budapest.
-
Weerakkodya, V. — El-Haddadeh, R. — Sabol, T. — Ghoneim, A. — Dzupka, P. (2012): E-government Implementation Strategies in Developed and Transition Economies: A Comparative Study. International Journal of Information Management, 32(1): 66–74.
-
Waseda University (2013): Waseda University International e-Government Ranking 2013. (Retrieved January 7, 2014) http://www.e-gov.waseda.ac.jp/pdf/Press_Released_on_e-Gov_ ranking_2013.pdf
-
World Bank (2012): Knowledge Assessment Methodology. Knowledge for Development. (Retrieved December 14, 2013) http://info.worldbank.org/etools/kam2/: http://info.worldbank.org/etools/ kam2/KAM_page5.asp) http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/WBIPROGRAMS/ KFDLP/EXTUNIKAM/0,menuPK:1414738~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~th eSitePK:1414721,00.html
-
Zhiyuan, F. (2002): E-Government in Digital Era: Concept, Practice, and Development. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 10(2): 1–22.
Monthly Content Usage
| Abstract Views | Full Text Views | PDF Downloads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 2020 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Aug 2020 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct 2020 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nov 2020 | 6 | 5 | 1 |
| Dec 2020 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Jan 2021 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
The system paradigm revisited
Clarification and additions in the light of experiences in the post-socialist region
Copyright Akadémiai Kiadó
AKJournals is the trademark of Akadémiai Kiadó's journal publishing business branch.
Copyright Akadémiai Kiadó AKJournals is the trademark of Akadémiai Kiadó's journal publishing business branch.
Powered by PubFactory