Barriers for Sustainable e-Participation Process: The Case of Turkey

This chapter aims to evaluate what could be some possible barriers for a sustainable e-participation process in a developing country case. Sustainability refers to the provision of uninterrupted and successfully implemented programs in related to e-participation in terms of expectations and gained results. For such purpose(s), it is of utmost importance that regarding infrastructures are provided, and related precautions are ensured before enrolling in. It is argued that sustainable e-participation is kept consistent if possible barriers are successfully considered. In this context, possible and potential barriers for sustainable e-participation process are derived from the literature, but confined to five types in drawing the framework. As a country case, Turkey is evaluated in terms of some current indicators presenting an overview of information and communication technologies’ (ICTs) infrastructure and its use before discussing about barriers. Administrative, legal, institutional, and cultural dimensions that produce and feed the barriers are described next. After addressing these dimensions, it is concluded that there are some potential barriers before e-participation process. Resistance from bureaucracy for sharing their monopoly over policy making, the lack of expertise in designing methods for e-participation, privacy concerns in data sharing, a big accumulation of legal and administrative arrangement burden, and potential inertia at citizens’ side toward policy-making issues are among threat-posing features for a sustainable e-participation process in Turkey.

[1]  J. Cunningham.  Citizen Participation in Public Affairs , 1972 .

[2]  F. Williams.  Measuring the Information Society , 1988 .

[3]  M. Calnan,et al.  Community participation and citizenship in British health care planning: narratives of power and involvement in the changing welfare state , 1999 .

[4]  D. Rahm.  The role of information technology in building public administration theory , 1997 .

[5]  Bruce Bimber.  Information and Political Engagement in America: The Search for Effects of Information Technology at the Individual Level , 2001 .

[6]  Richard Heeks,et al.  eGovernment in Africa: Promise and Practice , 2002, Inf. Polity.

[7]  C. Harrison,et al.  Limits to new public participation practices in local land use planning , 2002 .

[8]  Richard Heeks,et al.  Information Systems and Developing Countries: Failure, Success, and Local Improvisations , 2002, Inf. Soc..

[9]  A. Knops,et al.  Constituting ‘the public’ in public participation , 2003 .

[10]  Subhajit Basu,et al.  E‐government and developing countries: an overview , 2004 .

[11]  Jørn Braa,et al.  Networks of Action: Sustainable Health Information Systems Across Developing Countries , 2004, MIS Q..

[12]  C. Ciborra,et al.  Good governance, development theory, and aid policy: Risks and challenges of e-government in Jordan , 2005 .

[13]  M. Lane.  Public Participation in Planning: an intellectual history , 2005 .

[14]  Vicente Pina,et al.  E-government and the transformation of public administrations in EU countries: Beyond NPM or just a second wave of reforms? , 2005, Online Inf. Rev..

[15]  Wing Lam,et al.  Barriers to e-government integration , 2005, J. Enterp. Inf. Manag..

[16]  Oliver Märker,et al.  "Public Budget Dialogue" - An Innovative Approach to E-Participation , 2005, TCGOV.

[17]  R. Gauld.  Health Care Information and Communications Technology , 2005 .

[18]  Jennifer S. Evans-Cowley,et al.  E-Participation in Planning: An Analysis of Cities Adopting On-Line Citizen Participation Tools , 2006 .

[19]  Jeffrey E. Cohen,et al.  Citizen satisfaction with contacting government on the internet , 2006, Inf. Polity.

[20]  James K. Scott.  “E” the People: Do U.S. Municipal Government Web Sites Support Public Involvement? , 2006 .

[21]  Michael L. Best,et al.  Impact and Sustainability of E-Government Services in Developing Countries: Lessons Learned from Tamil Nadu, India , 2006, Inf. Soc..

[22]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Information Technology and Administrative Reform: Will E-Government Be Different? , 2006, Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res..

[23]  Fuat Alican.  Experts without expertise: E-society projects in developing countries - The case of Turkey , 2007, Inf. Polity.

[24]  K. V. Andersen,et al.  Costs of e‐participation: the management challenges , 2007 .

[25]  Mete Yildiz,et al.  E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward , 2007, Gov. Inf. Q..

[26]  K. Löfgren.  The Governance of E-government , 2007 .

[27]  Rony Medaglia,et al.  Measuring the diffusion of eParticipation: A survey on Italian local government , 2007, Inf. Polity.

[28]  Jeremy Rose,et al.  Designing the e-participation artefact , 2008, Int. J. Electron. Bus..

[29]  David H. Coursey,et al.  Models of E-Government: Are They Correct? An Empirical Assessment , 2008 .

[30]  Jeremy Rose,et al.  The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area , 2008, Gov. Inf. Q..

[31]  S. Dawes.  The Evolution and Continuing Challenges of E-Governance , 2008 .

[32]  C. Fuchs.  The implications of new information and communication technologies for sustainability , 2008 .

[33]  K. Paskaleva-Shapira,et al.  Enhancing digital access to local cultural heritage through e-governance: innovations in theory and practice from Genoa, Italy , 2008 .

[34]  Fathul Wahid,et al.  E-Government Challenges and the Role of Political Leadership in Indonesia:  The Case of Sragen , 2008, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008).

[35]  Ann Macintosh,et al.  E-Democracy and E-Participation Research in Europe , 2008, Digital Government.

[36]  Tino Schuppan,et al.  E-Government in developing countries: Experiences from sub-Saharan Africa , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[37]  R. Cullen,et al.  Participation 2.0: A Case Study of e-Participation within the New Zealand Government , 2009 .

[38]  Ann Macintosh,et al.  eParticipation: The Research Gaps , 2009, ePart.

[39]  Samer Faraj,et al.  E-Government institutionalizing practices of a land registration mapping system , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[40]  Ursula Maier-Rabler,et al.  Sustainable E-Participation through participatory experiences in education , 2010 .

[41]  Jane Fedorowicz,et al.  Barriers to Interorganizational Information Sharing in e-Government: A Stakeholder Analysis , 2010, Inf. Soc..

[42]  B. Parlak,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of Local Agenda 21 Websites in Turkey in Terms of E-Participation , 2010 .

[43]  C. Reddick.  Politics, Democracy and E-Government: Participation and Service Delivery , 2010 .

[44]  Francesco Molinari,et al.  On Sustainable eParticipation , 2010, ePart.

[45]  C. Fuchs.  THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF DEFINING THE PARTICIPATORY, CO-OPERATIVE, SUSTAINABLE INFORMATION SOCIETY , 2010 .

[46]  Efthimios Tambouris,et al.  eParticipation Initiatives in Europe: Learning from Practitioners , 2010, ePart.

[47]  Ines Mergel.  The Use of Social Media to Dissolve Knowledge Silos in Government , 2010 .

[48]  Christopher G. Reddick,et al.  Comparative E-Government , 2010 .

[49]  P. Lombardi,et al.  The potential of e-participation in sustainable development evaluation─ evidence from case studies , 2010 .

[50]  Gerald G. Grant,et al.  Critical issues pertaining to the planning and implementation of E-Government initiatives , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[51]  Girish J. Gulati,et al.  Towards E-participation in the Middle East and Northern Europe , 2010 .

[52]  U. Reimer,et al.  Process Support for Increasing Participation in eParticipation , 2010 .

[53]  Romain Badouard.  Pathways and Obstacles to eParticipation at the European level , 2010 .

[54]  F. Wigand.  Adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and US Governments , 2010 .

[55]  Fotis Kitsios,et al.  Emerging Barriers in E-Government Implementation , 2010, EGOV.

[56]  Mete Yildiz.  Digital Divide in Turkey: A General Assessment , 2010 .

[57]  Shaun Pather,et al.  The e-Government evaluation challenge: A South African Batho Pele-aligned service quality approach , 2011, Gov. Inf. Q..

[58]  Øystein Sæbø,et al.  Understanding the dynamics in e-Participation initiatives: Looking through the genre and stakeholder lenses , 2011, Gov. Inf. Q..

[59]  Elias Pimenidis,et al.  An Evaluation of the Initiatives and the Progress Made on e-government Services in the EU , 2011, ICGS3/e-Democracy.

[60]  K. Tarabanis,et al.  Learning from eParticipation initiatives of regional and local level authorities in Greece and Spain , 2011 .

[61]  Y. Charalabidis,et al.  A review of the European Union eParticipation action pilot projects , 2011 .

[62]  S. French,et al.  Public participation: comparing approaches , 2011 .

[63]  Yaqin Fu,et al.  Promoting sustainable e-government with multichannel service delivery: A case study , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Automation Engineering.

[64]  Sonia Royo,et al.  E-Participation and Climate Change: Are Local Governments Actively Promoting Responsible Behaviors and Offering Opportunities for Citizen Involvement? , 2012, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[65]  Yannis Charalabidis,et al.  Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government , 2012, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[66]  Ali Pirannejad,et al.  Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: Domestic and international factors , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[67]  H. S. Çalhan,et al.  An Interactive e-Participation Model for the Public Administration System in Turkey: SIBIYO , 2012 .

[68]  Åke Grönlund,et al.  A Communication Genre Perspective on e-Petitioning: The Case of the Citizens' Initiative , 2012, ePart.

[69]  Rony Medaglia,et al.  eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006-2011) , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[70]  Rabia Karakaya Polat,et al.  Digital exclusion in Turkey: A policy perspective , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[71]  Mary K. Feeney,et al.  Electronic Participation Technologies and Perceived Outcomes for Local Government Managers , 2012 .

[72]  Aytaç Gökmen.  Virtual business operations, e-commerce & its significance and the case of Turkey: current situation and its potential , 2012, Electron. Commer. Res..

[73]  K. Bwalya,et al.  Implications of e-Government in Botswana in the Realm of e-Participation: Case of Francistown , 2012 .

[74]  Jooho Lee,et al.  E‐Participation, Transparency, and Trust in Local Government , 2012 .

[75]  Maurice Mulvenna,et al.  Innovation of eParticipation Strategies Using Living Labs as Intermediaries , 2012 .

[76]  D. Norris,et al.  Local E‐Government in the United States: Transformation or Incremental Change? , 2013 .

[77]  Maurice D. Mulvenna,et al.  Engaging user communities with eParticipation technology: findings from a European project , 2013, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[78]  Maxat Kassen.  Globalization of e-government: open government as a global agenda; benefits, limitations and ways forward , 2014 .