Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Evaluation Methods for e-Strategic Transformation Read chapter Read first chapter

2014 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

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

Author : Naci Karkin

Published in: Government e-Strategic Planning and Management

Publisher: Springer New York

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

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.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Implementing e-Services in Spanish Regional Government: A Case Study
next chapter Democratizing Digital Bangladesh: Designing National Web Portal to Facilitate Government–Citizen Interaction
Literature
Alican, F. (2007). Experts without expertise: E-society projects in developing countries — the case of Turkey. Information Polity, 12(4), 255–263.
Andersen, K. V., Henriksen, H. Z., Secher, C., & Medaglia, R. (2007). Costs of e-participation: The management challenges. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1(1), 29–43.CrossRef
Angelopoulos, S., Kitsios, F., Kofakis, P., & Papadopoulos, T. (2010). Emerging barriers in e-government implementation. In M. A. Wimmer et al. (Eds.), EGOV 2010 (pp. 216–225), LNCS 6228.
Åström, J., Karlsson, M., Linde, J., & Pirannejad, A. (2012). Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: Domestic and international factors. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 142–150.CrossRef
Azad, B., & Faraj, S. (2009). E-Government institutionalizing practices of a land registration mapping system. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 5–14.CrossRef
Badouard, R. (2010). Pathways and obstacles to eParticipation at the European level. Journal of eDemocracy, 2(2), 99–110.
Barnes, M., Newman, J., Knops, A., & Sullivan, H. (2003). Constituting ‘the public’ in public participation. Public Administration, 81(2), 379–399.CrossRef
Basu, S. (2004). E-government and developing countries: an overview. International Review of Law Computers & Technology, 18(1), 109–132.CrossRef
Bedford, T., Clark, J., & Harrison, C. (2002). Limits to new public participation practices in local land use planning. Town Planning Review, 73(3), 311–331.CrossRef
Bimber, B. (2001). Information and political engagement in America: The search for effects of information technology at the individual level. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 53–67.
Braa, J., Monteiro, E., & Sahay, S. (2004). Networks of action: Sustainable health information systems across developing countries. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 337–362.
BTK (2012). Transparency Arrangements in Broadband Services and Service Quality Applications. Ankara: BTK Publications (In Turkish).
Ciborra, C., & Navarra, D. D. (2005). Good governance, development theory, and aid policy: Risks and challenges of e-government in Jordan. Information Technology for Development, 11(2), 141–159.CrossRef
Cleland, B., Mulvenna, M., Galbraith, B., Wallace, J. G., & Martin, S. (2012). Innovation of eParticipation strategies using living labs as intermediaries. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 10(2), 120–132.
Cohen, J. E. (2006). Citizen satisfaction with contacting government on the internet. Information Polity, 11(1), 51–65.
Conroy, M. M., & Evans-Cowley, J. (2006). E-participation in planning: An analysis of cities adopting on-line citizen participation tools. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24(3), 371–384.CrossRef
Coursey, D., & Norris, D. F. (2008). Models of e-government: Are they correct? An Empirical Assessment, Public Administration Review, 68(3), 523–536.CrossRef
Cunningham, J. V. (1972). Citizen participation in public affairs. Public Administration Review, 32(SI), 589–602.
Dawes, S. S. (2008). The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance. Public Administration Review, 68(S1), S86–S102.
De Juana-Espinosa, S., Claver-Cortés, E., & Tarí, J. J. (2012). Barriers and facilitators to egovernment in spanish municipalities: A study before and after the recession. In Mila Gascó (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on eGovernment (pp. 176–185), Barcelona, Spain.
Fedorowicz, J., Gogan, J. L., & Culnan, M. J. (2010). Barriers to interorganizational information sharing in e-government: A stakeholder analysis. The Information Society, 26(5), 315–329.CrossRef
Feeney, M. K., & Welch, E. W. (2012). Electronic participation technologies and perceived outcomes for local government managers. Public Management Review, 14(6), 815–833.CrossRef
French, S., & Bayley, C. (2011). Public participation: Comparing approaches. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 241–257.CrossRef
Fu, Y., & Xiao, K. (2012). Promoting sustainable e-government with multichannel service delivery: A case study. IEEE 3rd International Conference on Software Engineering and Service Science (ICSESS), (pp. 694–697). Beijing, China.
Fuchs, C. (2008). The implications of new information and communication technologies for sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10(3), 291–309.CrossRef
Fuchs, C. (2010). Theoretical foundations of defining the participatory. Co-Operative, Sustainable Information Society, Information, Communication & Society, 13(1), 23–47.CrossRef
Furuholt, B. & Wahid, F. (2008). E-government challenges and the role of political leadership in Indonesia: The case of Sragen. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS ’08) (pp. 1–10). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA.
Galbraith, B., Cleland, B., Martin, S., Wallace, J., Mulvenna, M., & McAdam, R. (2013). Engaging user communities with eParticipation technology: Findings from a European project. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(3), 281–294.CrossRef
Gauld, R. (2005). Health care information and communications technology: Promises and challenges for government and health services. Journal of E-Government, 2(1), 99–111.CrossRef
Gokmen, A. (2012). Virtual business operations, e-commerce & its significance and the case of Turkey: Current situation and its potential. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(1), 31–51.CrossRef
Grönlund, Å., & Susha, I. (2012). A communication genre perspective on e-petitioning: The case of the citizens’ initiative. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, and Øystein Sæbø (Eds.), ePart 2012 (pp. 37–48), LNCS 7444.
Gulati, G. J. “Jeff”, Yates, D. J., & Tawileh, A. (2010). Towards E-participation in the Middle East and Northern Europe. In C. G. Reddick (Ed.), Comparative E-Government. Integrated Series in Information Systems (vol. 25, pp. 71–90). Springer.
Heeks, R. (2002a). Information systems and developing countries: Failure, success, and local improvisations. The Information Society, 18(2), 101–112.CrossRef
Heeks, R. (2002b). e-Government in Africa: Promise and practice. Information Polity, 7(2–3), 97–114.
Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268.CrossRef
Kaisara, G., & Pather, S. (2011). The e-government evaluation challenge: A South African batho pele-aligned service quality approach. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 211–221.CrossRef
Karakaya Polat, R. (2012). Digital exclusion in Turkey: A policy perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 589–596.CrossRef
Karkın, N., & Çalhan, H. S. (2012). An interactive e-participation model for the public administration system in Turkey: SIBIYO. Ege Acad Rev, 12(1), 105–123.
Kassen, M. (2013). Globalization of e-government: open government as a global agenda; benefits, limitations and ways forward. Information Development 30 Jan 2013. doi: 10.​1177/​0266666912473620​.
Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E-Participation transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819–828.
Koussouris, S., Charalabidis, Y., & Askounis, D. (2011). A review of the European union e-Participation action pilot projects. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5(1), 8–19.CrossRef
Kraemer, K., & King, J. L. (2006). Information technology and administrative reform: will e-government be different? International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 2(1), 1–20. doi:10.​4018/​jegr.​200601010.CrossRef
Kumar, R., & Best, M. L. (2006). Impact and sustainability of e-government services in developing countries: Lessons learned from Tamil Nadu, India. The Information Society: An International Journal, 22(1), 1–12.CrossRef
Lam, W. (2005). Barriers to e-government integration. The Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 511–530.CrossRef
Lane, M. B. (2005). Public participation in planning: An intellectual history. Australian Geographer, 36(3), 283–299.CrossRef
Löfgren, K. (2007). The governance of e-government : A governance perspective on the swedish e-government strategy. Public Policy and Administration, 22(3), 335–352.
Lombardi, P., Huovila, P., & Sunikka-Blank, M. (2010). The potential of e-participation in sustainable development evaluation: Evidence from case studies. In C. Reddick (Ed.), Politics, Democracy and E-Government: Participation and Service Delivery (pp. 1–16). Hershey: Information Science Reference.CrossRef
Macintosh, A. (2008). E-democracy and e-participation research in Europe. In H. Chen et al. (Eds.), Digital Government: E-Government Research, Case Studies, and Implementation, Integrated Series in Information Systems (vol. 17, pp. 85–102). New York, US: Springer.
Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., & Schneeberger, A. (2009). eParticipation: The research gaps. In A. Macintosh & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Electronic Participation (ePart 2009) (vol. 5694, pp. 1–11), LNCS.
Maier, E., & Reimer, U. (2010). Process support for increasing participation in eparticipation. Journal of eDemocracy, 2(1), 46–55.
Maier-Rabler, U., & Huber, S. (2010). Sustainable e-participation through participatory experiences in education. Journal of eDemocracy, 2(2), 131–144.
Mbako, V., Bwalya, K. J., Du Plessis, T., & Rensleigh, C. (2012). Implications of e-Government in Botswana in the realm of e-participation: Case of Francistown. In I. Management Association (Ed.), Digital Democracy: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1070–1089). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Medaglia, R. (2007). Measuring the diffusion of eparticipation: A survey on Italian local government. Information Polity, 12(4), 265–280.
Medaglia, R. (2012). eparticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 346–360.CrossRef
Mergel, I. (2010). The use of social media to dissolve knowledge silos in government. In O’Leary, R., Kim, S. and Van Slyke, D. M. (Eds.) The Future of Public Administration, Public Management and Public Service around the World: The Minnowbrook Perspective (pp. 177–187), Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Milewa, T., Valentine, J., & Calnan, M. (1999). Community participation and citizenship in British health care planning: Narratives of power and involvement in the changing welfare state. Sociology of Health & Illness, 21(4), 445–465.CrossRef
Molinari, F. (2010). On sustainable eparticipation. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & O. Glassey (Eds.), ePart 2010 (vol. 6229, pp. 126–139), LNCS.
Norris, D. F., & Reddick, C. G. (2012). local e-government in the United States: Transformation or incremental change? Public Administration Review, 73(1), 165–175.CrossRef
Parlak, B., & Sobaci, Z. (2010). A comparative analysis of local agenda 21 websites in turkey in terms of e-participation. In Reddick, C. (Ed.), Politics, Democracy and E-Government: Participation and Service Delivery (75–93).
Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K. A. (2010). eparticipation initiatives in Europe: Learning from practitioners. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & O. Glassey (Eds.), Electronic Participation (ePart 2010) (pp. 54–65), LNCS 6229. Springer.
Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., Sanchez-Nielsen, E., Zotou, M., & Tarabanis, K. (2011). Learning from eparticipation initiatives of regional and local level authorities in Greece and Spain. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 13(1), 77–96.CrossRef
Paskaleva-Shapira, K., Azorín, J., & Chiabai, A. (2008). Enhancing digital access to local cultural heritage through e-governance: Innovations in theory and practice from Genoa, Italy, Innovation. The European Journal of Social Science Research, 21(4), 389–405.CrossRef
Rahm, D. (1997). The role of information technology in building public administration theory. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 10(3), 71–80.CrossRef
Roeder, S., Poppenborg, A., Michaelis, S., Märker, O., & Salz, S. R. (2005). “Public budget dialogue”—an innovative approach to e-participation. In M. Böhlen, J. Gamper, W. Polasek, & M. A. Wimmer (Eds.), E-Government: Towards Electronic Democracy (pp. 48–56), LNCS 3416. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Rose, W. R., & Grant, G. G. (2010). Critical issues pertaining to the planning and implementation of e-government initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 27(1), 26–33.CrossRef
Royo, S., Yetano, A., & Acerete, B. (2012). E-participation and climate change: are local governments actively promoting responsible behaviors and offering opportunities for citizen involvement?. 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS), (pp. 2462–2471).
Sæbø, Ø., Flak, L. S., & Sein, M. K. (2011). Understanding the dynamics in e-participation initiatives: Looking through the genre and stakeholder lenses. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 416–425.CrossRef
Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. (2008). The shape of eparticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400–428.CrossRef
Sanford, C., & Rose, J. (2008). Designing the e-participation artefact. International Journal of Electronic Business, 6(6), 572–589.CrossRef
Schuppan, T. (2009). E-government in developing countries: Experiences from sub-Saharan Africa. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 118–127.CrossRef
Schwester, R. W. (2009). Examining the barriers to e-government adoption. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 7(1), 113–122.
Scott, J. K. (2006). “E” the people: Do U.S. municipal government web sites support public involvement? Public Administration Review, 66(3), 341–353.CrossRef
Sideridis, A. B., Pimenidis, E., Protopappas, L., & Koukouli, M. (2012). An evaluation of the initiatives and the progress madeon e-government services in the EU. In H. Jahankhani et al. (Eds.), ICGS3/e-Democracy 2011, LNICST 99 (pp. 263–270).
Sommer, L., & Cullen, R. (2009). Participation 2.0: A case study of e-participation within the New Zealand government. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). Los Alamitos: IEEE Press (5–8 Jan 2009).
Söyler, Y. (2009). Transition of e-government legal framework. Türk İdare Dergisi, 465, 151–176. (In Turkish).
Torres, L., Pina, V., & Royo, S. (2005). E-government and the transformation of public administrations in EU countries: Beyond NPM or just a second wave of reforms? Online Information Review, 29(5), 531–553.CrossRef
Wigand, F. D. L. (2010). Adoption of Web 2.0 by Canadian and US governments. In C. G. Reddick (Ed.), Comparative E-Government. Integrated Series in Information Systems 25 (pp. 161–181). Springer.
Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665.CrossRef
Yıldız, M. (2010). Digital divide in Turkey: A general assessment. In E. Ferro, Y. K. Dwivedi, J. R. Gil-Garcia, D. M. D. Williams (Eds.), Overcoming Digital Divides: Constructing an Equitable and Competitive Information Society (pp. 75–89), Hershey, PA.: Idea Group Publishing.
Metadata
Title
Barriers for Sustainable e-Participation Process: The Case of Turkey
Author
Naci Karkin
Copyright Year
2014
Publisher
Springer New York
Book
Government e-Strategic Planning and Management

Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8461-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-1-4614-8462-2

Copyright Year: 2014

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8462-2_12