The Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide Survey
assessed the practice of digital governance in large municipalities
worldwide in 2007. This research, replicating our continuing surveys
in 2003 and 2005, evaluated the websites of municipalities in terms
of digital governance and ranked them on a global scale. Simply
stated, digital governance includes both digital government (delivery
of public service) and digital democracy (citizen participation in
governance). Specifically, we analyzed security, usability, and
content of websites; the type of online services currently being
offered; and citizen response and participation through websites
established by municipal governments (Holzer and Kim, 2005).
The methodology of the 2007 survey of municipal websites
throughout the world mirrors our previous research in 2003 and
2005. This research focused on cities throughout the world based on
their population size and the total number of individuals using the
Internet in the nation. The top 100 most wired nations were
identified using data from the International Telecommunication
Union (ITU), an organization affiliated with the United Nations
(UN). The largest city, by population in each of these 100 countries
was then selected for the study and used as a surrogate for all cities
in the respective country.
To examine how the local population perceive their
government online, the study evaluated the official websites of each
of these largest cities in their native languages. Of the 100 cities
selected, 86 cities were found to have official municipal websites
and these were evaluated between August 2007 and December 2007.
For the 2005 survey, 81 of the 100 cities had official websites, which
6 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2007
increased to 86 for the 2007 survey. This represents a significant
increase in the adoption of e-governance among municipalities
across the world.
Our instrument for evaluating city and municipal websites
consisted of five components: (1) Privacy/Security; (2) Usability;
(3) Content; (4) Services; and (5) Citizen Participation. For each of
those five components, our research applied 18-20 measures, and
each measure was coded on a scale of four-points (0, 1, 2, 3) or a
dichotomy of two-points (0, 3 or 0, 1). Furthermore, in developing
an overall score for each municipality we have equally weighted
each of the five categories so as not to skew the research in favor of
a particular category (regardless of the number of questions in each
category). This reflects the same methods utilized in the 2005 and
2003 studies. To ensure reliability, each municipal website was
assessed in the native language by two evaluators, and in cases
where significant variation (+ or – 10%) existed on the adjusted
score between evaluators, websites were analyzed a third time.
Based on the 2007 evaluation of 86 cities, Seoul, Hong Kong,
Helsinki, Singapore and Madrid represent the cities with the highest
evaluation scores. There were noticeable changes in the top five
cities when compared to the 2005 study. Seoul remained the highest
ranked city, and the gap between first and second had slightly
increased. In some cases, the scores may have slightly declined from
the previous study. Table 1 lists the top 20 municipalities in digital
governance 2003 through 2007, with Table 2 listing the 20
municipalities from the 2007 study along with their scores in
individual categories. Table 3 to Table 7 represent the top-ranking
municipalities in each of the five categories.
[1]
M. J. Moon.
The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality?
,
2002
.
[2]
C. Weare,et al.
Designing Web Technologies for Local Governance Reform: Good Management or Good Democracy?
,
2000
.
[3]
Christopher Weare,et al.
Electronic Democracy and the Diffusion of Municipal Web Pages in California
,
1999
.
[4]
James Melitski,et al.
Digital Government Worldwide: A e-Government Assessment of Municipal Web Sites
,
2005,
Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res..
[5]
M. Jae Moon,et al.
Municipal Reinvention: Managerial Values and Diffusion among Municipalities
,
2001
.
[6]
Charles Kaylor,et al.
Gauging e-government: A report on implementing services among American cities
,
2001,
Gov. Inf. Q..