Principal investigator: Eduarda Miller de Figueiredo
Authors: Georgios Kontogeorgis and Nikolaos Varotsis
Location of the Intervention: Greece
Sample Size: 193 UN countries and 31 OECD members
Sector: Public Sector
Primary Variable of Interest:
Type of Intervention: Digital Governance
Methodology: Other
Technology has proven to be a great ally in different aspects of daily life, including in relation to public service. Digital governance is the use of this practice in implementing policies in the information sphere. This article compares Greece's e-governance with that of OECD and UN countries. The data suggests that Greece scores lower on the DESI index. Finally, the results demonstrate a significant lag for Greece in terms of digital criteria.
- Policy Problem
The evolution and dissemination of technology have provided a valuable tool for the world, including public administration. Thus, the term "e-government" or digital governance was developed. Digital governance is defined as "the practice of establishing and implementing policies, procedures, and standards for the proper development, use, and management of the information sphere" (Floridi, 2018).
In Greece, due to European Union financial programs, the development of digital governance was given a boost (Markellos et al., 2014). However, new technologies have not been sufficiently disseminated in the country due to: political failures, planning and programming deficiencies, and obstacles to the application of new technologies (Tsakanikas et al., 2014). Politicians fail to promote new technologies due to a lack of political will, lack of funding programs, lack of state continuity, and lack of know-how [1] . Obstacles to the implementation of new technologies in the public sector include, among others, the high cost of acquiring information systems and software, as well as the lack of incentives for implementing new technologies (Glyptis et al., 2020).
Digital governance has benefits such as reduced bureaucracy, citizen participation in decision-making through digital processes, protection of human rights, and increased transparency. On the other hand, it presents disadvantages such as security problems that violate citizens' privacy and the fact that many citizens are not familiar with the use of new technologies (Erkut, 2020).
In light of the above, this article sought to discuss both the importance of e-governance and to explore the degree of establishment and transformation of e-government in Greece (Pedersen, 2018).
- Implementation and Evaluation Context
According to Dawes (2008), e-government “comprises information and communication technologies (ICTs [2] ) to support public services, government administration, the democratic process, and the relationships between citizens, civil society, the private sector, and the State.” In other words, digital governance plays an important role in citizen-State relations and the quality of services provided. Thus, e-government has the potential to change State services for citizens and the relationships between the public and private sectors (Markellos et al., 2014).
The Greek public administration includes:
- Public Administrations: which are structured into bodies of central government, social security, and local government.
- Legal entities governed by public law: public hospitals, universities, and other public organizations.
- Public Companies and Organizations: companies that are owned by the State or controlled by a percentage.
The authors emphasize that the Greek public administration is distinguished by its bureaucratic style based on the Napoleonic administrative tradition, as well as by its slowness, which can lead to inefficiency and insufficiency (Featherstone, 2015; Choi and Park, 2018). Its functioning is defined by laws, presidential decrees, and ministerial decisions, with each public service operating based on a legislative decree that defines its operational framework and organization.
- Policy/Program Details
As can be seen in Figure 1, e-government in Greece is developing, but still well below the European average. However, it can be observed that the Greek public administration is achieving satisfactory convergence in relation to the provision of cross-border electronic services.
Figure 1: Overall performance of public service delivery by country.
Source: European Commission (2020) [3]
Figure 2: Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI)
Source: European Commission (2020)
According to the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), Figure 2, Greece is among the states with the lowest scores in the European Union. The modernization of Greek public administration in each case is related to political decisions such as the willingness to implement strategic plans for the digitization of public services, simplification of legislation, and/or revision of fiscal and tax policy. However, efforts have shown that in addition to implementing and investing in new technologies, a reform of the public sector, informational behavior, and a digital development model is necessary (Katsonis and Botros, 2015; Cruz-Jesus et al., 2016).
- Method
The aim of this article was to verify the hypothesis regarding the delay in the evolution of digital governance in Greece. To this end, benchmarking was carried out using indicators representing various aspects and dimensions of e-governance or e-governance engagement, based on internationally comparable data. The verification is based on the comparability between pairs of measurement indicators representing the e-governance indicator dimensions.
The data were taken from the UN E-Government Survey 2020 and the OECD Digital Government Index 2019. Therefore, the data cover the 193 United Nations countries and the 31 OECD members [4] as instruments.
The selection of indicators was made taking into account internationally recognized criteria that cover both dimensions, in terms of services and in terms of technological infrastructure, while having a defined coverage and being independent of each other.
- Main results
First, a comparison was made regarding the level of e-government performance based on OECD criteria. The results of the comparative analysis show that, while the OECD average is 0,50, Greece is below average, at 0,35. The weaknesses in Greek performance are in the "User-Oriented [5] " criterion and the Proactivity criterion, with Greece achieving 0,13 in both, while the OECD average was 0,47 and 0,42, respectively. However, Greece registered a better performance than Sweden, 035 versus 0,26.
Based on the United Nations criteria, and considering the normalized composite results in the comparative analysis, Greece's performance was above the average for other countries. While the UN average was 0,5988, Greece achieved 0,8021. However, Sweden performed well according to this criterion when compared to the OECD criteria. Therefore, the authors highlight the complexity of the criteria and the importance of considering multiple factors when examining the level of e-governance.
- Lessons in Public Policy
The effective use of ICTs in digital governance can increase the efficiency of existing work, the quality of electronic services offered, as well as increase the transparency of the overall functioning of the government. The findings showed deficiencies in e-government policies in Greece, suggesting a significant lag in terms of digital standards.
References
GEORGIOS, Kontogeorgis; NIKOLAOS, Varotsis. Reinstatement Greek E-Governance: A Framework For E-Government Benchmarking, Improvement And Government Policies. Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления , n. 6, p. 103-127, 2021.
[1] English term to describe a set of practical knowledge.
[2] ICTs: information and communication technologies.
[3] The European Commission publishes an annual benchmarking guide for European governments, measuring through an e-governance index , which incorporates the development of digital governance by country. For more information, see: E-Government Benchmark 2020 and Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2020 , both from the European Commission (2020).
[4] 29 member countries and 4 non-member countries.
[5] User Driven
