The E-Leaders Handbook on the Governance of Digital Government

Report

OECD Digital Government Studies

21 December 2021

3. Governance Facet 1: Contextual Factors

Abstract

Chapter 3 presents key contextual factors under Facet 1 of the OECD Framework on the Governance of Digital Government. They surface important country-specific political and administrative, socio-economic, technological and policy, and environmental characteristics that governments should take into account when designing their policies in order to secure a human-centred, inclusive, equitable and sustainable digital transformation of their public sectors.

The importance of contextual analysis

In this Handbook, contextual factors refers to the characteristics and elements of circumstances in a country that have influence over the governance of digital government. Contextual factors are crucial for governments to understand, analyse and consider in designing a governance framework that best suits the context. It is paramount to take into account the context that will affect the government’s capacity and capability to lead, mobilise and co-ordinate efforts through its institutional models (covered in Chapter 4 as Facet 2) and policy levers (covered in Chapter 5 as Facet 3) across policy areas and levels of government. These contextual factors can either be potential barriers or drivers for change and amelioration in the way governments make policies, design and deliver services.

The context can be analysed at a macro-level (i.e. political, administrative, economic, technological, social, cultural, historical, environmental conditions) or a micro-level (i.e. situational). This facet addresses more of the former that is appropriate in informing policy makers on how to optimally align their governance frameworks with the organisational and wider external environment, and consequently, build cohesion and ensure compliance towards intended outcomes.

For a holistic approach, the following four dimensions are considered (see Figure 3.1):

1. Overall Political and Administrative Culture and Structure

2. Socio-Economic Factors

3. Technological and Policy Context

4. Environmental and Geographical Considerations

Figure 3.1. Governance Facet 1: Contextual Factors

The dimensions and sub-dimensions of Facet 1: Contextual Factors

As this Handbook is intended to enable a (self-)assessment of the governance of digital government and contextual factors are often beyond the control of the government to change, the presentation of Facet 1: Contextual Factors will take a different approach from Facet 2: Institutional Models and Facet 3: Policy Levers. Implications on governance, policy questions and examples of governance approaches will only be presented under each sub-dimension of Facet 1: Contextual Factors, instead of possible scenarios like in Facet 2: Institutional Models and Facet 3: Policy Levers.

Dimension 1.1 Overall Political and Administrative Culture and Structure

Dimension 1.1 Overall Political and Administrative Culture and Structure takes into account the political and administrative features of the country and the government. This includes the following sub-dimensions: the organisation of powers in the administrative system and the three branches of government (i.e. legislative, executive, judicial); how the public administration manages its foreign and internal affairs such as the electoral system, regulatory making, which have fundamental influence over the governance of digital government. Institutional features will be covered in Facet 2: Institutional Models.

Sub-Dimension 1.1.1 Power Structure: Federal or Decentralised vs. Centralised Systems

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.1.1 Power Structure: Federal or Decentralised vs. Centralised Systems refers to how political and administrative power is organised in the government. This macro power structure influences how the public administration is run across all policy areas, including digital government and data. This power can either be federal/ decentralised or centralised, which has implications on the governance of digital government and the chain of accountability – how much jurisdiction and power do public sector organisations, the leadership and civil servants possess and relate to each other on the digital government and data agenda.

A federal or decentralised system grants considerable power and capability to state, regional and local public sector organisations, resulting in higher levels of autonomy for administrative decision-making at sub-national levels of government. A centralised system holds the power in the central national government, ensuring a coherent definition and uptake of common policy instruments – including legislations and regulations – with regional and local public sector organisations having minimal autonomy.

Under a federal or decentralised power structure, there is a permanent and challenging need for high consensus, alignment and co-ordination among the relevant public sector organisations on the adoption of technologies, which may result in a lack of policy coherence and technological standardisation. Yet, public sector organisations leading the digital government agenda at the state, regional or local level have the independence and ownership to lead digital transformation in their jurisdiction, which could be beneficial. Under a centralised power structure, the central government’s leading public sector organisation could better be able to produce a coherent digital government strategy, co-ordinate its implementation and align it with relevant policies, programmes, initiatives and actions across the public sector according to the power it is endowed with across jurisdictions.

Policy Questions

For a federal or decentralised power structure,

Is the level of digital government advancement consistent and homogenous across the country?
Does the leading public sector organisation(s) on digital government have sufficient mandate and capability to co-ordinate and align policies, programmes and actions across the country while acknowledging and respecting the autonomy at the state, regional or local levels?
How can consensus, alignment and co-ordination be built across the public sector on the development of digital government maturity?
What can be done to improve the varying levels of economic and social development in the country because of differences in digital government policies?
Which policy levers could help to reduce regional and local differences and enable coherence?

For a centralised power structure,

Is the central government’s leading public sector organisation effectively leveraging its power to extensively influence and implement digital government policies at the regional and local levels?
What can be done to improve the varying levels of economic and social development in the country through digital government policies?
Does the central government public sector organisation well understand the circumstances and needs at the regional and local levels?
Does the leading public sector organisation at the central level provide sufficient autonomy and resources to the public sector organisations at the local level to innovate and advance on their digital government?
How can the leading public sector organisation encourage greater interaction and contribution from the regional and local public sector organisations on the design and implementation of the digital government strategy?

Approaches

Germany has a decentralised power structure, as a federation composed of 16 federal states or Bundesländer, each with its constitution, parliament and government. Three of the Länder are city-states: Hamburg, Bremen and Berlin. As a result of this power structure, the German federal government’s capacity to influence digital government implementation can be particularly challenging across the territory, given the level of autonomy of the federal states. Results of the OECD Digital Government Index 2019 demonstrated that Germany performed less than average on having a holistic strategic approach towards digital and data-driven policies for the public sector (OECD, 2020[14]). The German government aims to digitalise 575 public services by 2022, however the co-ordination of modernisation efforts across federal, state and municipal public administrations are still challenged by complicated approaches to decisions and implementation, delays in support for policy developments and lack of investments necessary (Mergel, 2021[15]).
Austria has a federal system comprising nine autonomous federal provinces. The executive and legislative powers are shared by the federal and provincial governments (Republic of Austria Parliament, n.d.[16]). With the aim of making Austria a leading digital nation, the federal government produced the "Digital Austria” initiative to consolidate the country-wide digitalisation efforts across the public administration, economy and society towards guaranteeing and improving prosperity, job opportunities and the quality of life in the long term (Federal Ministry of Digital and Economic Affairs, n.d.[17]). Prioritising the digitalisation agenda has allowed the federal government to build consensus on the importance of digitalising to achieve economic, social and national objectives, and launch digital projects successfully such as digital identity, “once-only”, digital skills and Broadband Austria 2030 (Digital Austria, n.d.[18]).
Japan has a strongly centralised system as a constitutional monarchy in which the power of the emperor is concentrated to his ceremonial functions. The government has three branches: executive, legislature, judiciary. It is a unitary state, containing 47 administrative divisions. The Japanese centralised administration favours efficient and coherent digital government policies. For over 20 years, the Japanese government has been promoting the government-wide use of electronic and digital technologies through public administration reform, including creating user-friendly public services from national to local governments. In 2000, the IT Strategic Headquarters was established to comprehensively promote information technology adoption throughout country. It is chaired by the Prime Minister and joined by the Government Chief Information Office, Ministers and Director-General from across 23 ministries and agencies (Prime Minister of Japan & His Cabinet, n.d.[19]). In 2013, the government of Japan created through a new law: the position of a Government Chief Information Officer and the Specialised Committee on IT Strategy Promotion that they lead, to strengthen the leadership and co-ordination of ICT policy and e-government initiatives. In 2014, the Ministers’ Council on e-Government led by the Chief Cabinet Secretary (OECD, n.d.[20]). In 2021, a new Digital Agency was established to promote future-oriented digital transformation of the public sector and society, with a vision of being a government as a service and a government as a start-up (Digital Agency, n.d.[21]). Digitalisation efforts are heavily centralised to ensure policy coherence in digitalisation.
Estonia has a centralised power structure, as a parliamentary representative democratic republic with the Prime Minister as the head of government. The country is divided into 15 counties and the central government benefits from extensive executive power across the territory, favouring efficient and coherent digital government policies. The country’s digital strategy is unique: its architecture is largely centralised, but its approach is decentralised. To work with agility, one of the principles of Estonian e-governance is decentralisation. This has allowed the country to be the first in the world to interconnect decentralised components of state and public sector databases at a national level through a core data exchange infrastructure, X-Road Europe, supported by a solid robust data governance framework that enables integration and interoperability across the data systems (e-Estonia.com, n.d.[22]).

Sub-Dimension 1.1.2 Geopolitical Situation and International/Cross-Border Relations

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.1.2 Geopolitical Situation and International/Cross-Border Relations refers to the overall context defining how a country manages its foreign relations and matters, including trade agreements, customs and border control, immigration policy, cross-border data policies, defence and security matters to name a few, and the nature of the situation that enables or impedes the movement of goods, services, data, capital and persons.

In a geopolitical situation that is stable, open and adhering to the rule of law, the government is better able to lead, design and develop national digital government strategies that are oriented towards achieving economic and social development outcomes. In a geopolitical situation that is complex and characterised by uncertainties, instability and challenge to the rule of law, the government may have additional obstacles to lead, design and develop national digital government strategies.

Policy Questions

In a stable, open and rules-based geopolitical situation,

How is the political and administrative leadership taking advantage of (or taking into account) the geopolitical situation to advance a national digital government strategy targeting economic and societal well-being?
Is the approach to international digital co-operation and co-ordination focused on the cross-border needs of citizens and businesses?
Does the government still prioritise digital defence and cyber security as part of the national digital government strategy?
What other social, economic, political or health threats and possible shocks need to be addressed to build a strong digital security and resilient culture across the public sector?

In a complex, unstable and non-rules-based geopolitical situation,

Can the national digital government strategy prioritise citizen-driven economic and social development outcomes through adequate digital security and data protection measures?
Are there opportunities to foster international digital co-operation and co-ordination?
Is there an adequate level of awareness on the challenges of digital geopolitical risks and the will to mitigate them?
How can the government be more inclusive in involving the private sector and civil society to support the development of a digital security culture across the economy and society strongly embedded in digital rights?

Approaches

The European Union (EU) aims to enable the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons in the single internal market by removing technical, legal and bureaucratic barriers, for citizens to trade and do business with ease. As part of the digitalisation agenda, the EU adopted the Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe in 2015 to strengthen its digital connectivity, government, economy and society – which required the alignment and co-ordination of digitalisation strategies, standards and guidelines across EU Member States (EUR-Lex, 2015[23]). The EU eGovernment Action Plans (2006-2010; 2011-2015; 2016-2020) have been a key pillar in enabling the success of the digital single market through the modernisation and development of cross-border, effective, efficient and interactive digital public services (European Commission, n.d.[24]).
The Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) is a regional economic forum that aims to create prosperity by accelerating regional economic integration among its 21 member states. In 2019, it produced the APEC Framework for Securing the Digital Economy to address the risk and opportunities in e-commerce and digital trade in the Asia-Pacific region. It contains non-binding principles and recommendations for policy and regulatory frameworks for digital security risk management; economy strategies; resilient critical information infrastructure; collaboration; digital use empowerment; digital security technologies for trust; and personal data security (APEC, 2019[25]).
The Network of e-Government Leaders of Latin America and the Caribbean (Red GEALC) is an inter-American forum for digital government senior officials. Organised since 2003 with the support of the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Red GEALC fosters multilateral co-operation to identify and address common digital government challenges across Latin American and Caribbean countries. It comprises a vast set of activities, including annual meetings, working groups, training activities, and recently co-operation activities to address cross-border challenges, such as a regional digital signature framework (Red GEALC, n.d.[26]).

Sub-Dimension 1.1.3 Political Continuity, Stability and Support for the Digital Transformation Agenda

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.1.3 Political Continuity, Stability and Support for the Digital Transformation Agenda refers to a government’s capacity and capability to govern sustainably and embrace long-term political priorities in becoming a mature digitally-enabled state. It involves an analysis of how political continuity and stability are influenced by various other political, economic, social and environmental circumstances. The digital transformation agenda includes the digital government agenda, which considers the degree of political support given by the elected government to the advancement of digital transformation of the public sector. The 5^th principle of the Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies (2014) calls for secure leadership and political commitment to the strategy “through a combination of efforts aimed to promote inter-ministerial co-ordination and collaboration, set priorities and facilitate engagement and co-ordination of relevant agencies across levels of government in pursuing the digital government agenda” (OECD, 2014[2]).

A government that experiences political continuity and stability is better able to advance on the development and implementation of digital government policies with a long-term sustainable perspective. Furthermore, strong support from the elected government on the digital transformation agenda typically translates into greater availability of resources dedicated to digital government initiatives, co-ordination and implementation effectiveness across the public sector, which results in a faster and more coherent advancement of digital government maturity. A government that experiences political interruption and instability is less able to institutionalise digital government and to foster cross-partisan legitimacy and ownership to advance sustainably on the development and implementation of digital government policies. Weak or fragmented support from the elected government on the digital transformation agenda could translate into less availability of resources dedicated to digital government initiatives, co-ordination and implementation effectiveness across the public sector, which results in a slower and less coherent advancement of the digital government maturity.

Policy Questions

With political continuity, stability and strong support for the digital transformation agenda,

Is there a clearly recognised leading public sector organisation in charge of the public sector digital transformation agenda?
Does the government have governance arrangements and mechanisms in place to guarantee political commitment and delivery on digital government policies?
Are there risk management safeguards in place in case of unforeseen changes in the political environment that influence digital government plans?
How strong is the digital government ecosystem in terms of capability, resources, infrastructure and architecture?
Is the public sector digital transformation agenda oriented towards people-driven economic and social development outcomes?

With political interruption, instability and weak support for the digital transformation agenda,

What is impeding the government from supporting the public sector digital transformation agenda: the unstable political situation, the lack of awareness, the lack of skills, the lack of resources, other policy priorities?
What mechanisms can be implemented to create and incentivise a consensus among key stakeholders in the digital government ecosystem so that the digital transformation of the public sector is recognised as a cross-partisan political priority?
What can be done to improve both the political and administrative leadership responsible for digital government to secure the necessary support from the government?
Can the government focus on the institutionalisation of digital government policies to have a long-lasting impact, such as the deployment and adoption of key enablers, or the development of digital skills and infrastructure?

Approaches

Switzerland is known for its political continuity and stability and consensus-based political culture. Its federal structure generates an interdependence between state departments, resulting in a stable government that favours policy implementation over political lifecycles. Over the past 10 years, the Swiss Confederation, cantons and communes have been strategising, planning and delivering on the digitalisation of government services with the mission of being “digital first” in the areas of interaction and participation, services and infrastructure, organisation and legal framework, trust and knowledge (egovernment.ch, n.d.[27]).
Lebanon has been experiencing significant political discontinuity and instability since the end of 2019 due to civil protests, accusations of corruption and challenging economic prospects. Yet, the government strongly recognises the importance and untapped potential of digitalisation. In recent years, in spite of the political, administrative and societal challenges, the Office of the Minister of State for Administrative Reform has been committed to supporting ministries to drive the digital transformation of the public sector and laying the foundations for enablers based on a strategy and action plan for 2020 to 2030 (OECD, 2020[28]).
Panama has expressed strong government commitment to the digitalisation of its economy, society and public sector over the past decade. The National Authority for Government Innovation benefits from high political support and cross-cutting recognition of its mandate and activities. It has a positive administrative environment that favours its co-ordination role across the public sector to promote digital transformation approaches with expected impacts on the efficiency of the administration, on the levels of trust of the citizens in the government and on the societal well-being of the population (OECD, 2019[13]).

Sub-Dimension 1.1.4 Degree of Legalism and Form of Democratic Governance

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.1.4 Degree of Legalism and Form of Democratic Governance refers to (i) how legalistic is the legislative system, which is the legal grounds of a country, namely the common law or the civil law system and (ii) form of democratic governance, namely a presidential or parliamentary system. The constitutional design of democratic governance determines the separation of powers and influences the efficiency of law making and decision making in the country.

(i) The common law system relies on a body of law based on legal precedents that derive from judicial decisions of the courts and tribunals. The civil law system relies on a referable and codified body of law, such as a civil code that is fixed and highly developed. The degree of legalism influences the extent to which the executive and legislature has the power and capability to introduce draft law or make changes to the existing body of law.

In a country with a highly legalistic system, the government could face more obstacles to innovate and secure policy agility in the digitalisation of the public sector. At the same time, the governance of digital government is typically stronger as it has a robust legal foundation that requires compliance and adherence. In a country with a less or non-legalistic system, the government could have fewer legal constraints to innovate and is better able to possess policy agility in the digitalisation of the public sector through consensus-based approaches. At the same time, the governance of digital government may be slightly challenged in institutional commitment and co-ordination across the public sector to achieve desired outcomes.

(ii) In a presidential system, the head of state is also the head of government and the executive has a separate democratic legitimacy from the legislature. Political and administrative powers are shared between the executive and legislative branches. In a parliamentary system, the head of state is separate from the head of government and the executive derives democratic legitimacy from the legislature and is held accountable to the parliament. In a hybrid system, the head of state and the head of government are separately elected, and the latter is accountable to both the head of state and the parliament. The form of democratic governance determines the efficiency of the legislative process.

The parliamentary system tends to see higher co-operation between the executive and legislature and greater efficacy in setting a strategy and implementing the policy. The efficacy of the legislature in the legislative process depends on many factors in the presidential system, such as whether the executive and legislature are of the same party, the limitations on the legislature imposed by the president. Policy making for digitalisation necessitates greater agility, openness, innovation, responsiveness and anticipation – which calls for co-operation between the executive and legislative branches and efficiency in the policy making process.

Policy Questions

In a country with a highly legalistic system and/or a complex legislative process,

Does the body of law provide a good allowance of innovation and policy agility in digital government? Are legal obstacles for agile digital government policies regularly identified and systemically removed?
Does the centralised administration ensure that there is a good amount of commitment and co-ordination on digital government policies in the public sector and empower other levels of government through a fair distribution of power and capability?
Are the executive and legislative powers able to agree on the priority for digitalisation and the direction to take for digital policies? Is the political support from both branches sufficient to advance on digital policies?

In a country with a less or non-legalistic system and/or a less complex legislative process,

Does the public sector culture enable and encourage a fair amount of innovation and policy agility in digital government?
Does the public administration have in place the necessary institutional models and policy levers to guarantee strong commitment and co-ordination on digital government policies?
Are there sufficient checks and balances, parliamentary debates and regulatory safeguards to ensure that there is no undue influence of interests from the executive, the legislature or private sector stakeholders in the legislative process for digital government policies?

Approaches

The Anglo-American common law system is an administrative tradition that is based on liberal philosophies and an instrumental conception of the state (Thompson, 1931[29]). This non-legalistic and decentralised culture and structure can favour experimentation approaches that support digital government development.
France’s civil law system is based on the principle of legality that is rooted in the Roman tradition and statutory law from the Napoleonian era – as with other Napoleonic countries like Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Spain. The rules of the law are highly codified, the administrative justice system is highly developed and the administrative system is centralised with a deep-rooted political culture where the role of the central state and its centralised administration is dominant and generally accepted (Garner, 1924[30]). Legalistic approaches for digital government development can be a challenge for the necessary policy agility in a digital transformative context.

Sub-Dimension 1.1.5 Current Legislations and Regulations on Digital Rights Maturity

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.1.5 Current Legislations and Regulations on Digital Rights Maturity refers to the level of digital rights maturity in a country. The 2019 OECD report on “The Path to Becoming a Data-Driven Public Sector” sets out a framework that classifies digital rights into the first, second and third generation (OECD, 2019[31]):

1. The first generation is a group of fundamental and essential rights such as personal data protection, cyber security, digital inclusion and digital communication with the public sector.

2. The second generation is a group of rights such as multi-channel delivery, digital identity, transparency, open data, open source, participation and collaboration, which arose due to the rapid adoption of technologies.

3. The third generation is a group of rights that should be met by digitally mature governments such as omni-channel and proactive delivery, once-only principle, open algorithms, ethical use of data and artificial intelligence (AI) tools, and data ownership and management.

Governments that have people-centred and/or people-driven legislations and regulations that are comprehensive, updated and in line with technological developments are typically more mature in securing digital rights. Securing the proper legal and regulatory safeguards to protect existing and emerging digital rights is more than ever important in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic as the digitalisation of economies, societies and public sectors is advancing at an unprecedented speed.

Policy Questions

Where there are numerous legislations and regulations protecting digital rights,

Have the legislations and regulations resulted in tangible economic and social development outcomes and are the outcomes measured?
Does the legislative and regulatory process support a strategic, forward-looking and innovative approach in responding to and encouraging the adoption of new digital technologies?

Where there are few legislations and regulations protecting digital rights,

What is impeding the government from creating legislations and regulations to protect digital rights: the lack of skills, the lack of political prioritisation or the lack of awareness?
Can the government encourage greater civic participation and collaboration in the development of digital rights regulation?

Approaches

Spain enshrined the right to communicate with public sector organisations by electronic media and set out the legal framework for electronic administration when the Spanish Parliament passed the Law 11/2007 of 22 June, Citizens’ Electronic Access to Public Services. It also outlined the electronic management of procedures and co-operation among administrative bodies to enable electronic administration. 2009 was the end of the deadline for public services to comply with these provisions. The law played a pivotal role in pushing for e-government development in Spain and clearing the path for progressive work in this area. It was followed by new laws and royal decrees widening its scope to encompass the promotion of digital communication and procedures across all areas of government (OECD, 2013[32]).
Korea addresses the rights of privacy and transparency through requiring the Personal Information Protection Commission to establish a master plan every three years by law – to ensure the protection of personal information and the rights and interests of data subjects. The heads of central administrative agencies must establish and execute an implementation plan to protect personal information each year in accordance with the master plan. Any changes to policy, systems or statutes requires an assessment of the possibilities of data breaches, which are then openly published (OECD, 2019[31]).

Sub-Dimension 1.1.6 Concentration vs. Dispersion of Administrative Functions

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.1.6 Concentration vs. Dispersion of Administrative Functions builds on Sub-Dimension 1.1.1 Power Structure: Federal or Decentralised vs. Centralised Systems. It refers to the administrative relations and hierarchy within and between the public sector organisation-in-charge for digital government and other public sector organisations in the digital government ecosystem. It also takes into consideration the position and mandate of the highest-ranking administrative officers responsible for the digital government and data agendas among these public sector organisations in the ecosystem. For the specific type of institutional set-up (i.e. centre of government, co-ordinating/line ministry) and approach (i.e. digital transformation agency, centralised co-ordination or decentralised co-ordination), see Sub-Dimension 2.1.1 Institutional Set-Up of the Organisation-in-Charge and Sub-Dimension 2.1.2 Institutional Approach to Digital Government.

Governments can use the administrative structure as a way to advance the maturity of the digital government. Public sector organisations with a high concentration of functions may possess a greater capacity and capability to advance the digital government agenda due to synergies from vertical and horizontal integration. Public sector organisations with a higher dispersion of functions will require stronger co-ordination of the digital government policies and programmes in their design, consultation and implementation processes.

Policy Questions

Where there is a concentration of administrative functions,

Are the functions well-organised and co-ordinated such that the public sector organisations driving the digital government agenda are agile, efficient and effective in achieving their objectives?
How can the leading public sector organisation on digital government further leverage and develop the synergies from vertical and horizontal integration in the context of attaining people-driven policy outcomes?

Where there is a dispersion of administrative functions,

Do the relevant public sector organisations have formal co-ordination and collaboration mechanisms or incentives such that there is a clear division or sharing of accountability and responsibilities?
Would it be helpful to integrate or merge some functions in the leading public sector organisation on digital government in order to strengthen its capacity and capability to design and implement initiatives?

Approaches

Portugal’s organisation-in-charge responsible for promoting and developing administrative modernisation, the Administrative Modernisation Agency (AMA), has concentrated multiple functions in three areas: public service delivery, digital transformation and administrative simplification. It also overlooks the various levels of government by promoting central, regional and local policies on information society, in consultation with other entities with responsibilities in the information society (AMA, n.d.[33]). The AMA also manages an administrative modernisation funding programme called SAMA2020 that supports national and local public sector organisations in developing initiatives and projects in these three policy areas (OECD, 2019[13]).

Dimension 1.2 Socio-Economic Factors

Dimension 1.2 Socio-Economic Factors covers key economic and social contextual factors such as the economic outlook of the country and various indicators of economic and social development that have fundamental influence over the governance of digital government.

Sub-Dimension 1.2.1 Overall Economic Climate

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.2.1 Overall Economic Climate refers to the current and prospective economic conditions of the country and the world, which influences the political priorities of the government and its budget allowance and allocation. Digitalisation of the government, economy and society presents numerous financial and non-financial benefits when guided and managed properly towards intended economic and social development objectives, such as increasing productivity, connecting people and objects for greater efficiency and equipping citizens with skills for the future.

A positive economic climate could enable and incentivise the government to allocate more budget to the digitalisation agenda based on long-term economic and social development goals. A dampened economic climate could limit the government in allocating budget to the digitalisation per se. However, in some cases, it could instead compel the government to be strategic in allocating budget to specific digitalisation policies that can improve economic and social outcomes.

Policy Questions

In a positive economic climate,

How can the country’s economic growth and development be made more equitable, inclusive and sustainable by combining the public sector digital transformation strategy with a robust ecological transition and involvement from the national, regional and local levels?
Are the policies, industries, services and jobs future-ready and resilient to changes in the global economy or advancements in digital technologies?
Is the digital government agenda shaping the interfaces with economic and market actors to foster a values-based digital economy and society?

In a dampened economic climate,

Can the government make a strong economic and financial case for allocating budget to strategic public sector digitalisation policies that are intended to spark economic growth and development through innovation, entrepreneurship, public-private partnerships?
Can the digital government policies be aligned, co-ordinated with economic and social policies and incentivised towards improving business outlook and citizen well-being?
Are the digital governments policies aligned with United Nations Sustainable Development Goals?

Approaches

Greece faced a long recession following the global financial crisis of 2007-2008, resulting in the need to receive financial assistance from the Euro area member countries and the International Monetary Fund (European Court of Auditors, 2017[34]). During these years, the promotion of the investment, adoption, diffusion and use of advanced ICT/digital tools in the public sector was not one of the top priorities for the government. With the Greek economy returning to financial normalcy after it successfully exited its third and final bailout programme in 2018 (Foreign Policy, 2020[35]), the government reprioritised the digitalisation of the public sector, economy and society in its national strategy for growth. The reform and establishment of the Ministry of Digital Governance over 2016 to 2019 signals the commitment to have a co-ordinated and coherent approach to digitalisation of the public sector (Ministry of Digital Governance, n.d.[36]).
New Zealand was among the handful of countries to have recovered from the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic rapidly due to its early and strong response. As part of its COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF), digitalisation and digital initiatives featured heavily across public services for businesses, innovative approaches to policy and service design and delivery, digital infrastructure for the use of digital tools in procurement and digital commerce (Robertson, 2020[37]). As part of the 2021 budget, the government has also committed to investing strongly in education, skills and training, such as a digital skills programme, to enable citizens and businesses to succeed in the digital environment (Grant Thornton, 2021[38]).

Sub-Dimension 1.2.2 Maturity of the Private Sector and Digital Industry

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.2.2 Maturity of the Private Sector and Digital Industry is an indicator of the capacity and capability of businesses to advance the country’s economic development and digital economy through the creation and provision of better products and services, with fair protection of intellectual property and data, openness and healthy relations with the public sector, civil society, labour unions and professional organisations. High (digital) inclusion, productivity, competitiveness and innovation point towards maturity. Participation of digital businesses of all sizes, especially small and medium enterprises, also indicate a healthy digital industry and GovTech ecosystem.

Countries with a mature private sector and digital industry can better complement and support the government’s implementation of digital government policies, and foster the development of an agile, transparent, transformative and responsive public sector. Governments could tap on the resources of the private sector through procuring of ICT/digital technologies and services, evaluating the potential public-private partnerships and devising digitalisation policies that increase inclusion, productivity, competitiveness and innovation in the digital government and GovTech ecosystem. Countries with a less mature private sector and digital industry could face challenges in the government’s implementation of the digital government policies as the economic and market conditions do not encourage agility, transparency, transformation and responsiveness. Governments should focus on developing the private sector and prioritise policies that increase inclusion, productivity, competitiveness and innovation in the digital government and GovTech ecosystem.

Policy Questions

Where the private sector and digital industry are relatively mature,

Does the government have the support of the private sector stakeholders in the implementation of the digital government agenda?
Does the government have a strong relationship with all kinds of digital technology players in the private sector through exchanges and collaborations on digital and data issues to ensure inclusion, from micro, small and medium enterprises to big corporations?
How can the government deepen its collaboration with the private sector in advancing the digital government agenda such as procuring and co-creating solutions, sharing and re-using open data and holding innovation competitions in strategic sectors of the digital industry?

Where the private sector and digital industry are less mature,

How can the government incentivise the development of a digital government ecosystem involving stakeholders from the public sector, private sector and civil society that facilitates the sharing of knowledge, skills and data towards the creation and provision of better products and services?
Can the government use digital government policies to spark digital adoption, competition and collaboration throughout the digital government ecosystem?
Are the benefits of public sector digitalisation apparent for the regions and local areas?
Can the government focus efforts on digital government policies in regions and local areas that are lagging behind in terms of digital development: education, training, business and financial support, infrastructure?

Approaches

In Estonia, the uptake of digital identity solutions benefitted mainly from the private sector’s B2B (business-to-business) and B2C (business-to-consumer) transactions, not government services. The private sector’s activities were so significant that this contributed to 2% of the national GDP (gross domestic product) in 2018. The experience of the Estonian government demonstrates the importance of creating the conditions to enable partnerships (i.e. a model for interoperability to make the digital identity usable for any service) with the private sector to push for the widespread adoption of digital identity by citizens (OECD, 2019[39]).
The United Kingdom has a high level of e-commerce adoption in its economy and has one of the largest e-commerce revenue in Europe (Statista, 2019[40]). This indicates the prevalence of Internet activity and reflects the maturity of the country’s e-banking and e-payment systems, and the citizens’ preferences and habits in relation to privacy, security and consumer protection for online transactions. The government has leveraged the digital maturity of its population to continuously develop an ambitious digital government agenda. The Government Digital Service adopted the use of common platforms in an open format to promote digitalisation of the public sector and wider ecosystem such as GOV.UK Notify, Pay, Platform as a Service and the Digital Marketplace. Other public sector organisations can easily integrate these Government as a Platform products into their services (GOV.UK, n.d.[41]).

Sub-Dimension 1.2.3 Digital Talent and Skills in the Public Sector and Population

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.2.3 Digital Talent and Skills in the Public Sector and Population is a core contextual factor that should be accounted for in the advancement of digital government. A good level of digital skills in the public sector makes up a digitally competent, agile and prepared public workforce that can seize opportunities arising from digital technologies and data, innovate and implement digital government policies and programmes effectively. This also makes the government digitally resilient in driving the adoption of technology, rather than relying on external contracts or tenders.

In line with the OECD Framework for Digital Talent and Skills in the Public sector, governments should create a work environment to encourage digital transformation, foster skills to support digital government maturity, and maintain a digital workforce (OECD, 2021[42]). These skills include, for instance, digital government user skills (e.g. understanding users and their needs, collaboration for iterative delivery), digital government socio-emotional skills (e.g. vision, analysis, agility), digital government professional digital skills (e.g. programming, web or app development and data analytics), and digital government leadership skills. Governments should also prioritise the inclusiveness and diversity of talent, to ensure fair representative of the population in the civil service and that the various segments of the population are truly understood and catered to (Welby and Tan, forthcoming[11]). Finally, digital leadership is crucial in gathering support in the digital government ecosystem, ensuring co-ordination and alignment with political priorities.

The level of digital skills in the population is also a critical factor to take into account to ensure that the needs of people can still be met in the digital age. When a country advances in digital transformation, the access to the Internet, digital technologies, opportunities, resources and outcomes will not be distributed equitably without the necessary government intervention. For instance, the national, regional and local governments could have varying levels of digitalisation and consequently, citizens and businesses in proximity also enjoy different spillover benefits. Urban areas tend to enjoy higher connectivity and access than suburban and rural areas. To ensure that the digital transformation of the public sector is equitable, inclusive and sustainable, governments need to also invest in building up the digital skills of the population, which are also known as the 21^st century skills.

In countries where there are relatively uniform and high levels of digital skills in the population, the government should reinforce this strength by deepening public participation to create a collaborative, people-driven and user-driven culture for innovating, developing and delivering public services – while still reaching out to civil servants and people who fall behind. In countries where there are huge variations in the levels of digitalisation in the population, the government should prioritise closing this digital divide through targeted education, training and outreach programmes, followed by measuring and monitoring the outcomes towards an equitable, inclusive and sustainable development.

Policy Questions

With a relatively uniform and good level of digital skills in the public sector and population,

Is there equal emphasis and importance placed on the different types of digital talent and skills?
What steps have been taken to ensure that there is diversity (e.g. gender, age, ethnicity, class, discipline) among the digital and data public sector workforce?
Do the adoption of digital skills development schemes and monitoring tools translate tangibly into advancing the progress of digital government and delivering value to citizens?
Does the government provide information, consult and engage with the public to source ideas and co-create solutions through digital tools and open government data through the policy cycle and service design and delivery?
Does the government have in place appropriate policies to ensure that an equitable distribution of digital opportunities and benefits can be sustained and continuously reviews them?

With a relatively varied and low level of digital skills in the public sector and population,

What are the key digital skills gaps and is there already a common definition and understanding of the digital skills needs?
Can the government reform its education and training programmes, compensation and benefits packages in order to groom, attract, hire, retain and grow a pool of digital professionals with a good level of skills?
Can the government utilise governance arrangements such as organisational leadership or legal and regulatory frameworks to push for digital skills development?
Can the government focus efforts to increase the access to digital development opportunities through education, training and outreach programmes and encourage the use of (digital) public services for segments of the population that have lower levels of digital skills?
Are public services being provided through omni-channel approaches (i.e. the user journey can be completed across all channels, digital and non-digital, seamlessly and at the user’s convenience), and foreseeing, for instance, the need for assisted service delivery?

Approaches

The United Kingdom has a strong commitment to continuously promote digital skills in the public sector and secure competitiveness, capacities and capabilities in the public workforce. The Digital, Data and Technology Profession Capability Framework describes the roles of such professions to help civil servants and the public understand the required skills for specific jobs and work on career progression (GOV.UK, n.d.[43]). The Government Digital Service Academy offers digital skills training courses for both specialised and non-specialised professionals such as user research and design, digital and agile awareness (GOV.UK, n.d.[44]).
Portugal’s Administrative Modernisation Agency (AMA) created Citizen Spot, a face-to-face point of assistance that combines digital services from different public sector organisations into in a single helpdesk with the assistance of a trained mediator. This model of digital and in-person service delivery presented a high level of potential for digital inclusion of citizens who are less digitally literate and reflects the level of priority given by the Portuguese government to overcome the digital divide while making progress in modernising digital government services. There are now more than 630 Citizen Spots in Portugal with more than 230 different public services, installed in Citizen Shops and local administrative service points, and it is a constantly expanding network (AMA, n.d.[45]).

Sub-Dimension 1.2.4 Level of Public Trust

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.2.4 Level of Public Trust is an important contextual factor that plays into the efficiency and effectiveness of public governance. It hinges on how power is exercised and how access to power is organised, and consequently determines the relations between the government and the public or other major stakeholders in the digital government ecosystem. In the context of rapidly-developing technology and a complex global environment, it is crucial for governments to have the trust of the public in developing policies and regulations that can protect the social good including citizens’ rights and interests.

Key to building and maintaining public trust is improving the experiences and interactions that people have with the government: believing that the public sector organisations have the competence (i.e. are responsive and reliable) to fulfil their mandates and act in pursuit of the broader benefit of society with fundamental values (i.e. integrity, openness, fairness) (OECD, 2017[5]). This implies providing user-driven, inclusive and quality public services; assessing and meeting citizens’ needs; managing various forms of uncertainty, the ethical use of power and public resources; engaging in clear and timely public communication; and enabling open and meaningful stakeholder participation (OECD, 2017[5]).

With high levels of public trust, the government can better develop digital government policies with the support of the ecosystem to see through their implementation. With low levels of public trust, the legitimacy of governments’ decisions and actions can be questioned and the governments’ power and authority to govern the country are typically challenged.

Policy Questions

With high levels of public trust,

Is the government leveraging high levels of public trust to identify, listen to and anticipate changes in users’ needs and the context innovatively with new technologies so as to provide public services that truly meet their needs and contribute to socio-economic progress as a whole?
Is the government openly and actively communicating on the developments, value and progress in digital government strategies and plans, especially in the use of emerging technologies, management of data and design and delivery of new public services?
Are there policies for educating and involving the younger generations through co-creation to ensure sustainability and continuity?

With low levels of public trust,

What are the reasons for the low level of public trust, which could be related and unrelated to the digitalisation of the public sector?
Can the government strengthen its digital government governance to foster its capacity to be more open, transparent, trustworthy, responsive, reliable and fair in the policy making and service design and delivery processes?
Is the government prioritising people-driven and human-centred public services that respect and protect digital rights in order to reinforce public trust?

Approaches

Belgium has adopted a transparency-driven approach on the management of open, closed and shared data to demonstrate the importance that the government attaches to public trust in the digital age. The Brussels Regional Informatics Centre developed a regional platform where stakeholders can access open data and services for sharing and re-use by the ecosystem. It reinforces peoples’ data ownership and consent, thereby allowing improved public trust that can enable the government to develop an ambitious digitalisation and data-driven agenda to make Brussels a full-fledged smart city (datastore.brussels, n.d.[46]).

Sub-Dimension 1.2.5 Diversity

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.2.5 Diversity refers to range and variety of demographic, socio-economic and ethnic characteristics in a country’s population. Governments should consider diversity as a major contextual factor in the design of public policies that have a social and economic impact. Certain population segments may hold a stronger propensity to embrace or resist the adoption and use of digital technologies and data due to social and cultural norms.

In diverse populations, governments may find it easier to use digital technologies to manage the needs and preferences of different groups. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that the digital rights of minority segments are not compromised in the process. In less diverse populations, governments may find it easier to cater to the needs and preferences of the population groups. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that the minority groups are not neglected or left behind in the process. In both cases, digital governments need to pay attention to safeguarding against the risk of the generation and outputs of data and algorithms exacerbating social biases (OECD, 2021[47]) and broadening the digital gap.

Policy Questions

For a diverse population,

Does the digital government strategy consider the heterogeneity of the population and their different needs and preferences across the country?
Is the communication, involvement and implementation of the digital government strategy tailored to the various population groups with adequate protection of their digital rights?

For a less diverse population,

Does the digital government strategy consider minority groups’ needs and preferences to ensure inclusiveness and equity in the delivery of value with the digitalisation of the public sector?
What measures and mechanisms are in place to ensure that the digital rights of minority groups are protected?

Approaches

India has vast linguistic and ethnic diversity despite a largely English-speaking population among the youth. There are still major sections of the population that still only speak regional languages. When managing the digital government policy in terms of the language for the provision of digital services, it is necessary for the government to properly consider the linguistic and ethnic diversity of its population and address language barriers to maximise their reach (OECD, 2014[48]).

Sub-Dimension 1.2.6 Cross-Border Mobility

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.2.6 Cross-Border Mobility is a social phenomenon that describes the movement of people from one place to another with the intention of settling at the new location either permanently or temporarily. This societal contextual factor can be important in signalling or incentivising the development of enablers such as digital identity and signature. Digital government development offers significant opportunities to simplify, secure and manage the processes involved in cross-border mobility (e.g. immigration, business travel, tourism).

Where cross-border mobility is a common phenomenon, governments are more likely to explore the use of digital tools and platforms in the management of cross-border mobility services. Migrants, business travellers and tourists can also create demand-driven digitalisation as digital tools and platforms can be used to network, find jobs, connect with communities and remit money.

Policy Questions

Where cross-border mobility is a common phenomenon,

Does the government prioritise the development of enablers, services and digital literacy programmes that ease the cross-border mobility process?
Can the government better regulate, provide support and collaborate with the private sector to ensure that migrants’, business travellers’ and tourists’ digital, civil and employment rights are protected?

Where cross-border mobility is not a common phenomenon,

Is there potential for the development of key enablers such as digital identity and signature or the use of biometric data in order to better manage the public services for the citizenry?

Approaches

The European Union (EU) has an ambitious agenda of promoting digital cross-border services in line with the philosophy of the European single market and free movement of European citizens. Across diverse government sectors, the EU Member States have been able to progressively test and deliver services to citizens from other European countries through progressive data exchange and common recognition of digital identity mechanisms, improving the circulation and migration trends in the European space (European Commission, 2021[49]). The European directives and regulations on data protection and digital identity also deeply influence digital government policies of the EU Member States.

Dimension 1.3 Technological and Policy Context

Dimension 1.3 Technological and Policy Context covers key contextual factors that are linked to the country’s past, current and prospective technological development and how technology is used in the public and private sector, which have fundamental influence over the governance of digital government.

Sub-Dimension 1.3.1 Coverage and Level of Development of ICT/Digital Infrastructures

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.3.1 Coverage and Level of Development of ICT/Digital Infrastructures looks at the development of digitalisation in terms of the availability, speed, latency, bandwidth, coverage, network and energy usage of Internet connectivity in a territory – as the result of the country’s digital infrastructure policies. Countries usually have either a more developed fixed-line network or mobile connection, if not both. Governments should optimise the delivery of public services based on the convenience and cost of Internet connectivity.

A good coverage and level of development of ICT/digital infrastructures provides the foundation for access and delivery of digital public services across the country and enables greater digital inclusion. It also facilitates the formation of a digital government ecosystem by promoting innovation and greater digital maturity. A sub-optimal coverage and level of development of ICT/digital infrastructures will likely hamper the access and delivery of digital public services and risks the widening of a digital divide between areas with fair connectivity and those that have poor connectivity.

Policy Questions

With a good coverage and level of development of ICT/digital infrastructures,

Is the accessibility to Internet connectivity made affordable and with ease across areas in the country and segments of the population to guarantee digital inclusion?
Does the government have in place robust approaches for the procurement of ICT/digital technologies to sustain the modernisation of the ICT/digital infrastructure, encourage investment and innovation in the digital government ecosystem?

With a sub-optimal coverage and level of development of ICT/digital infrastructures,

Is there political commitment and support to promote the long-term development of ICT/digital infrastructures across the country?
Does the government have a strategy and plan to improve connectivity through sustained investments and innovation with the participation of private sector stakeholders?
Can the government use international guidelines as benchmarks?

Approaches

Iceland has high coverage and level of development of ICT/digital infrastructures, with the highest percentage of individuals in Europe using the Internet no matter the socio-economic background. In 2020, 99% of rural households had access to the Internet, and the share of rural households was with access was 11% above the European Union average (Statista, 2021[50]). This allows the government to have ambitious approaches on digital government policy without risking leaving segments of the population behind, such as having all public services in one centralised platform, efficient and user-centred (Ísland.is, n.d.[51]).

Sub-Dimension 1.3.2 Technological/E-Government Heritage and/or Legacy within the Public Sector

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.3.2 Technological/E-Government Heritage and/or Legacy within the Public Sector refers to past e-government and digital government policies and initiatives that have an impact on the present digital government agenda.

A strong technological or e-government heritage and/or legacy within the public sector may be advantageous in the governance of digital government and result in a steady advancement of digital maturity due to an existing tradition and culture of incorporating technology. However, it may also result in obstacles due to unique digital and data infrastructure being used in across the public sector. An absent or weak technological or e-government heritage and/or legacy within the public sector may be disadvantageous in the governance of digital government, but with the right leadership, commitment, strategy and sense of urgency, it is possible for the government to catch-up or even accelerate the advancement of digital maturity rapidly.

Policy Questions

With a strong technological or e-government heritage and/or legacy within the public sector,

Is the current digital government strategy path dependent and locked-in with previous policies and initiatives that may not actually be effective or efficient?
Is the digital government policy agile in responding directly to economic, social and technological conditions?
Does the organisational and personal leadership have a good amount of autonomy and a clear mandate to make changes independently from existing policies and initiatives?
How are public sector organisations managing their internal processes and external stakeholders to overcome legacy barriers, e.g. business processes, commercial spending models, data, technology resources and suppliers?

With an absent or weak technological or e-government heritage and/or legacy within the public sector,

Can the government prioritise establishing governance arrangements and mechanisms with strong leadership, commitment, co-ordination, policy levers and a robust strategy to promote the development of digital government?
Does the leading public sector organisation on digital government employ an assessment framework on the various digital government policy priorities in line with overarching economic and social development outcomes to assist with the decision-making process?

Approaches

Finland has a strong technological or e-government heritage and/or legacy within its public sector. There has long been a great variety of information tools and systems available as across several policy areas. Yet, legacy systems, diverse standards and a lack of interoperability have resulted in challenges for data exchange. Over the past few years, the government has made the effort to put in place formal mechanisms and institutions to co-ordinate digital government implementation across the national and local levels. (OECD, 2015[52]) Finland’s top rank in the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) is due to its high performance in digital public services and integration of digital technologies, based on active co-operation between public and private sector actors including start-ups (European Commission, n.d.[53]).
Estonia had an absent technological or e-government heritage and/or legacy within its public sector. In 1990, following its independence from the Soviet Union, the government began the organisation and development of its public sector with a strong forward-looking and digital approach. Estonia’s no legacy culture allowed the government to deploy the most advance systems and solutions without having to replace old ones, adapt its administrative structure and process to digitalisation and build a strong digital leadership with a high level of innovation (e-Estonia, 2021[54]).

Sub-Dimension 1.3.3 Integration of ICT/Digital into Governance and Business Processes

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.3.3 Integration of ICT/Digital into Governance and Business Processes points to how much ICT and digital technologies have been adopted by the public and private sectors as a result of digital government, economy and society policies.

A high integration of ICT/digital into governance and business processes means that the digital government and economy is more advanced. In order to raise the level of digital maturity, the government should put in place measures and mechanisms to enhance the agility, coherence and co-ordination of public and private sector organisations in responding and seizing opportunities in technological developments or changes in the technological context. A low integration of ICT/digital into governance and business processes means that ICT/digital is not used extensively and comprehensively, and the digital government and economy is underdeveloped.

Policy Questions

Where there is a high integration of ICT/digital into governance and business processes,

Are ICT/digital technologies used towards securing economically and socially optimal outcomes?
Does the government have a clear, coherent and well-co-ordinated digital transformation strategy and plan for the public sector that are adaptable based on technological changes; innovative, experimental and collaborative by involving a wide range of stakeholders in the ecosystem; and long-term-oriented towards sustainable economic and social development outcomes?

Where there is low integration of ICT/digital into governance and business processes,

What is preventing the government from advancing the digitalisation of the public and private sectors: the lack of leadership and vision; the lack of a digital government, economy and society strategy; the lack of financial and non-financial resources; the lack of the capacity and capability co-ordination; the lack of monitoring and impact assessment techniques?

Approaches

Luxembourg has a high integration of ICT/digital technologies into its governance and business processes. It ranked above average on the 2019 OECD Digital Government Index (DGI) (OECD, 2020[14]). In 2015, 43.9% of its manufacturing exports were digital-intensive value-added services, the highest among OECD member countries and key partners. In 2017, 71.7% of its commercial services trade were delivered digitally, indicating the importance of digital services in the economy. In 2018, 20.6% of its international trade was of ICT goods and services (OECD, n.d.[55]). The digital intensity of Luxembourg’s private sector is based on technological characteristics (i.e. tangible and intangible ICT/digital investment, purchases of immediate ICT/digital goods and services, use of robots); human capital required to embed technology in production (i.e. ICT/digital specialist intensity); and the interface between firms and the market. To tap on this strength, the Electronic Governance 2021-2025 strategy was adopted by the Government Council in early 2021 to reinforce the transition to digital government and create value for citizens, businesses and the public sector (CTIE, n.d.[56]).

Sub-Dimension 1.3.4 Government-Specific Technological Innovations

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.3.4 Government-Specific Technological Innovations elaborates on the innovations that have contributed to improving the public sector’s efficiency and efficacy in internal processes and public services. It is an important factor that indicates the public sector’s agility, adaptability, responsiveness and resourcefulness in its digital transformation, independent of the private sector’s contribution.

A country with strong government-specific technological innovations is likely to have a leading public sector organisation that oversees research, development and innovation. The government is better equipped to manage the complex and unpredictable challenges while maintaining public trust, business confidence and achieving economic and social outcomes (OECD, 2019[31]). A country with weak government-specific technological innovations is vulnerable to risks and changes that could result in governments being reactive instead of prepared.

Policy Questions

With strong government-specific technological innovations,

How can the government encourage greater and more transparent exchange of knowledge and open data to stimulate a culture of exploration, learning, re-learning, competition and experimentation?
Can the leading public sector organisation orientate the innovation process to be more anticipatory, forward-looking and prepared while being strongly aligned with overarching economic and social development policy goals?

With weak government-specific technological innovations,

Can the government put in place incentives and structures for public sector, private sector and civil society stakeholders to collaborate and partner on innovating and improving the digital government progress?
Is there a good foundation of rules and processes such as legal and regulatory frameworks, budgeting measures and mechanisms, approval, monitoring and impact assessment to increase opportunities to innovate?

Approaches

Sweden’s leading public sector agency for innovation, Vinnova, manages research and innovation funding programmes of interest to the Swedish economy, as well as individual projects by businesses. It also has testbeds, which are physical or virtual environments where the private sector and civil society can collaborate in the development, testing and introduction of new products, services, processes or organisational solutions in selected area (Vinnova, n.d.[57]). Vinnova demonstrates the government’s commitment to strong public sector innovation in line with the digital government agenda.

Dimension 1.4 Environmental and Geographical Considerations

Dimension 1.4 Environmental and Geographical Considerations covers key contextual factors relating to the country’s natural territorial organisation, characteristics and conditions which have fundamental influence over the governance of digital government. The importance of the green transition towards carbon neutrality and sustainability has also placed considerations of the green governance agenda alongside the digital governance agenda.

Sub-Dimension 1.4.1 Local/Regional Variances

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.4.1 Local/Regional Variances involves the consideration of the political, economic and social activity and system in a local/regional area vis-à-vis other local/regional areas. These variances can be distinct based on the history and tradition from which the local/regional areas and governments are founded on. In contrast to Sub-Dimension 1.1.1 Power Structure: Federal or Decentralised vs. Centralised Systems that analyses only the political and administrative system of the country top-down, Sub-Dimension 1.4.1 Local/Regional Variances takes a broader and holistic scope of analysing the local/regional characteristics (including political, administrative, economic, societal) in the areas and communities from the bottom-up.

Countries that have decentralised power structures and administrative functions are likely to have more autonomous sub-national governments. The management and implementation of digital government policies at the local level could pose a challenge in terms of co-ordination and customisation due to the different conditions of the local/regional area, impacting public trust and effectiveness of public governance. Therefore, it is critical to address differences between and/or within local/regional areas and how the local/regional economies comprehensively serve different groups in society in their areas.

Local/regional areas that have large variances demand greater decentralisation and autonomy. This could allow the local/regional government to be better positioned to govern and understand the local/regional needs and preferences. The governance and advancement of digital government will have to be much more tailored to the region’s specificities. Local/regional areas that have small variances may favour centralisation and strong national governments or less autonomous local/regional governments, which will pose less of a challenge in developing national digital government policies.

Policy Questions

For local/regional areas that have large variances,

How can local/regional governments involve the local/regional populations as much as possible in the advancement of digital government, economy and society plans?
Are there governance structures and processes in place that enable transparency, accountability, agility and responsiveness to circumstantial changes and local citizens’ needs and preferences?

For local/regional areas that have smaller variances,

Does the national government well understand the digitalisation needs and preferences of the local/regional economies and societies, and support the local governments?
Do the local/regional governments work with the national level in an agile and responsive yet accountable and transparent way to be able to customise the digital government strategy and plans to the locality/region?

Approaches

Canada is the second-largest country in the world, having many different geographic areas and five distinct areas: the Atlantic Region, Central Canada, the Prairie Provinces; the West Coast; and the North. In Canada, regional identities were formed once European settlers settled on the continent among the various First Nations peoples. Today, regionalism is expressed in the various provincial identities, in the country's economy and in the daily life experiences in different parts of the territory. That sense of regional belonging appears in the provinces as governments assume a greater role in Canadian life. Provincial governments play a stronger role in the economy, and the provinces play a stronger role in the perception of Canada. Regionalism is considered critical for the development of the national digital government policy.
Spain has 17 autonomous communities and two autonomous cities at the first level of territorial subdivision. Each autonomous region benefits from a status of internal autonomy enshrined in an organic law that governs its institutional organisation, competences and compulsory levies from which it receives all or part of the revenues to ensure its financing. Although they benefit from the central government’s executive power and the legislative power, the autonomous communities constitute decentralised communities and not federated entities. The level of autonomy and diversity (e.g. economic, linguistic) of the autonomous communities (including linguistic) represents a challenge for coherent and co-ordinated digital government policies across the country.

Sub-Dimension 1.4.2 Environmental and Geological Risks and Hazards

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.4.2 Environmental and Geological Risks and Hazards is linked to natural and human geographical factors, such as climate change and industrial activities. They pose a grave and serious threat to critical infrastructure and services that countries and cities are dependent on for daily activities and processes. Digital infrastructure serves as the foundational backbone on which the digital government, economy and society run.

Countries that have high environmental and geological risks and hazards should prioritise the protection, resilience and backup of digital infrastructure, and the adoption of risk management approaches for digital infrastructure and services. Countries that have low environmental and geological risks and hazards may be less incentivised to do so but should nonetheless undertake it too.

Policy Questions

With high geological risks and hazards,

How often does the government conduct digital risk identification, measurement and assessments and mitigation with regards to geological risks?
Does the government have strong governance and compliance structures and processes in place to manage these risks through engaging and activating the whole digital government ecosystem?

With low geological risks and hazards,

Has the government identified other factors that may pose a serious risk and hazard to the operations of critical digital infrastructure?
Does the public sector have a strong risk-sensitive culture and skills to manage risks in the area of digital government, which is critical to building agility and resilience in the long run?

Approaches

Japan is subject to several natural geological risks and hazards. Typhoons, earthquakes and tsunamis are the most common natural hazards and are mostly due to the movement of the subduction plates. The government is taking many measures to monitor and alert the population as soon as possible. As of January 14, 2016, the most significant risks remain located along the Nankai Trough. An earthquake of the same level as in 2011 could occur, and its probability is estimated at 70% in the next 30 years. This involves a great deal of management, securing resilience and redundancy of technological structures, networks and protection of places like data centres to avoid destruction due to climatic or natural hazards.

Sub-Dimension 1.4.3 Priority for Environmental Protection and the Green Transition

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government

Sub-Dimension 1.4.3 Priority for Environmental Protection and the Green Transition is an important environmental policy consideration that digital governments increasingly need to consider in a bid to overcome climate change and other environmental challenges through leveraging digital technologies and data.

Countries that highly prioritise a green transition towards meeting the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals should tap on the synergies between the green and the digital agendas in order to advance them simultaneously, such as open data to inform green policy making, digital government policy levers to support the green transition, digital public service design and delivery to reduce carbon emissions and improve green outcomes. Countries that have yet to prioritise a green transition will face a higher risk of having a less sustainable and resilient government, economy and society and should, therefore, look at ways to strengthen the governance of the green transition through the governance of digital government.

Policy Questions

Where there is a high priority for a green transition,

How is the government incorporating green principles and practices into its processes, programmes and services, e.g. green data infrastructures, business cases, procurement of ICT/digital technologies that contain green metrics, consultation and co-ordination with green stakeholders?
How developed is the monitoring and impact assessment framework for green outcomes in every stage of the digital government transformation agenda?

Where there is a low priority for a green transition,

How much open data are available on the environmental challenges and how are they used by the public sector, private sector and civil society stakeholders to increase awareness on the need for a greener government, economy and society?
Does the digital government transformation agenda take into consideration green public procurement dimensions, and involve users in co-creation to accommodate for environmental activism?

Approaches

The European Union has been championing the alignment of the digital and green agenda. In 2020, the European Commission released NextGenerationEU, a EUR 750 billion stimulus package as a policy instrument to boost the economic recovery post-COVID-19 and support a transition to a greener, more digital and resilient Europe. The core of it is the EUR 672.5 billion Recovery and Resilience Facility that would provide grants and loans for investments and reforms in: clean technologies and renewables; energy efficiency of buildings; sustainable transport and charging stations; rolling out of rapid broadband services; digitalisation of the public administration; data cloud capacities and sustainable processors; and education and training of digital skills. This is a huge commitment on the part of the European Union to reinforce Member States’ commitment to both the green and the digital transition (European Commission, n.d.[58]).

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & Events

News & Events

Featured Events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment