Click for U.S. State/Federal Egovt Report, 2002....Click for U.S. City Report, 2002

Global E-Government, 2002

by Darrell M. West, 67 George St., Center for Public Policy, Brown University

Providence, Rhode Island 02912-1977 United States

Darrell_West@brown.edu

September, 2002

  

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

A Note on Methodology

Overview of Global E-Government

Online Information

Services Provided

Services by Top Nations

Privacy and Security

Security by Top Nations

Privacy by Top Nations

Disability Access

Foreign Language Access

Ads, User Fees, and Premium Fees

Restricted Areas

Public Outreach

Email Responsiveness

Top E-Government Countries

Differences by Region of World

Conclusions

Appendix

Table A-1 E-Government Rankings by Country, 2002

Table A-2 E-Government Country Ratings, 2001 and 2002

Table A-3 Individual Country Profiles for Services, Privacy, Security, and Disability Access, 2002

Table A-4 Individual Country Profiles for Foreign Language Translation, and Ads, 2002

Table A-5 Best Practices of Top Government Sites, 2002

Executive Summary

This report presents the second annual update on global e-government, i.e., the delivery of public sector information and online services through the Internet. Many governmental units across the world have embraced the digital revolution and placed a wide range of materials on the web from publications to databases. Since global e-government still is in its infancy, it is a perfect time to measure the extent of web service delivery, compare differences that exist across nations, and see how the 2002 results compare to 2001.

In this report, we study the features that are available online at national government websites. Using a detailed analysis of 1,197 government websites in 198 different nations, we measure the information and services that are online, chart the variations that exist across countries, and discuss how e-government sites vary by region of the world.

In general, we found that e-government has shown improvements over the previous year. Every region of the world has improved its e-government performance on nearly every indicator. However, there are continuing problems in the areas of privacy and security that need to be addressed. We close our report by making several practical suggestions for improving the delivery of government information and services over the Internet.

Among the more important findings of the research are:

1) 12 percent of government websites offered services that are fully executable online, up from 8 percent in 2001

2) the most frequent services are ordering publications, making travel reservations, searching and applying for jobs, applying for passports, and renewing vehicle licenses

3) 77 percent of websites provide access to publications and 83 percent have links to databases (the latter being up from 41 percent in 2001)

4) 14 percent of government websites feature a one-stop services "portal" or have links to a government portal

5) 14 percent (up from 6 percent in 2001) show privacy policies, while 9 percent (up from 3 percent in 2001) have security policies

6) 33 percent of government websites have some form of disability access, meaning access for persons with disabilities. This is a dramatic improvement over the 2 percent which had disability access last year

7) 19 percent of agencies responded to our email responsiveness test, 75 percent did not, and 6 percent had broken email links or addresses that prevented a response

8) English has become the most commonly used language of e-government. Seventy-eight percent of national government websites have an English version, which is up from 72 percent in 2001

9) 43 percent of sites are multilingual, meaning that they offer information in two or more languages

10) countries vary enormously in their overall e-government performance based on our analysis. The most highly ranked nations include Taiwan, South Korea, Canada, United States, Chile, Australia, China, Switzerland, Great Britain, and Singapore

11) there were major differences in e-government performance based on region of the world. In general, countries in North America score the highest, followed by Asia, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Middle East, South America, Central America, Pacific Ocean Islands, Russia and Central Asia, and Africa. However, every region showed gains compared to the previous year.

A Note on Methodology

In our analysis of websites, we looked for material that would aid an average citizen logging onto a governmental site. This included contact information that would enable a citizen to find out who to call or write at an agency to resolve a problem, material on information, services, and databases, features that would facilitate e-government access by special populations such as the disabled and non-native language speakers, interactive features that would facilitate outreach to the public, and visible statements that would reassure citizens worried about privacy and security over the Internet. During the course of our study, we looked at a wide variety of political and economic systems, from monarchies, federated systems, and presidential democracies to parliamentary systems, dictatorships, and communist countries. In each system analyzed, we employed the same type of criteria in order to be able to compare the results across countries.

The data for our analysis consisted of two sources. First, we undertook an assessment of 1,197 national government websites for the 198 nations around the world (see Appendix for the full list of countries). We analyzed a range of sites within each country to get a full sense of what is available in particular nations. Among the sites analyzed were those of executive offices (such as a president, prime minister, ruler, party leader, or royalty), legislative offices (such as Congress, Parliament, or People's Assemblies), judicial offices (such as major national courts), Cabinet offices, and major agencies serving crucial functions of government, such as health, human services, taxation, education, interior, economic development, administration, natural resources, foreign affairs, foreign investment, transportation, military, tourism, and business regulation. Websites for subnational units, obscure boards and commissions, local government, regional units, and municipal offices were not included in this study. The analysis was undertaken during June and July, 2002 at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Tabulation for this project was completed by Aiko Wakao, Jason Holman, Marilia Ribeiro, Umut Ones, Irina Paley, Bill Heil, Josh Loh, and Yen-Ling Chang. National government website addresses can be found at www.InsidePolitics.org/world.html.

The regional breakdowns for the websites we studied were 24 percent from Western European countries, followed by 17 percent from Asia, 14 percent from Africa, 8 percent Eastern Europe, 8 percent the Middle East, 7 percent from Central America, 7 percent Russia and Central Asia (such as the areas of the former Soviet Union), 6 percent North America (which included Canada, the United States, and Mexico), 4 percent South America, and 4 percent Pacific Ocean countries (meaning those off the continent of Asia).

Regardless of the type of system or cultural background of a country, websites were evaluated for the presence of various features dealing with information availability, service delivery, and public access. Features assessed included the name of the nation, region of the world, and having the following features: office phone number, office address, online publications, online database, external links to non-governmental sites, audio clips, video clips, non-native languages or foreign language translation, commercial advertising, premium fees, restricted areas, user payments, disability access, privacy policy, security features, presence of online services, number of different services, links to a government services portal, digital signatures, credit card payments, email address, search capability, comment form or chat-room, broadcast of events, automatic email updates, website personalization, and an English version of the website.

For e-government service delivery, we looked at the number and type of online services offered. Features were defined as services only if the entire transaction could occur online. If a citizen had to print out a form and then mail it back to the agency to obtain the service, we did not count that as a service that could be fully executed online. Searchable databases counted as services only if they involved accessing information that resulted in a specific government service response.

Where national government websites were not in English, our research team employed foreign language readers who translated and evaluated national government websites. In some cases, we have made use of foreign language translation software available online through http://babelfish.altavista.com. Some of the non-English websites were assessed in part through English translations of portions of the websites.

In addition, we undertook an email responsiveness test in which we sent the following email, "I would like to know what hours your agency is open during the week. Thanks for your help." Email responses were recorded based on whether the office responded with an answer to the question and how long it took for each agency to respond in business days. This test was designed to measure public sector responsiveness to email questions.

 

Overview of Global E-Government

There were several important new developments in global e-government over the past year. In terms of information availability, many countries have made considerable progress at putting publications, forms, and databases online for citizen access. Government agencies have discovered that it is very efficient for the general public to be able to download common documents rather than having to visit or call the particular agency.

However, many countries have not made similar progress in placing official government services online. There is wide variation across countries and by region of the world in the extent to which citizens can access government services through the Internet. While some governments offices offer services online, most (88 percent) do not.

In terms of foreign language translation, non-English speaking countries in Asia and Europe have more English translations of their websites than those countries in Africa and Latin America. Developing countries tend to target foreign visitors and international investment possibilities more than domestic users on their websites. This is illustrated by the fact that tourism and foreign affairs websites often are much better developed than government offices serving domestic clienteles.

Many global sites do not present many visible safeguards in terms of privacy, security, copyright, or other legal notices regarding displayed information. Despite the risks of hackers, cyber-attacks, and compromised security, there remains a need for continuing advancement in these areas. In addition, compared to commercial websites, the public sector lags the private sector in making full use of the technological power of the Internet to improve the lives of citizens and enhance the performance of governmental units. In general, national government websites do not take advantage of the interactive and two-way communications features of the Internet.

The regions of the world that have made the greatest progress on e-government are those in North America, Asia, and Europe. Reflecting the values of those areas, countries in these locales tend to utilize more advanced technology and put more information online. However, nearly every country needs to work to insure easier navigation, more common designs, and more standardized features in order to make it easy for citizens to move from site to site.

Online Information

In looking at specific features of government websites, we wanted to see how much material was available that would help citizens contact government agencies and navigate websites. In general, contact information is quite prevalent, and there were improvements over the 2001 results. The vast majority of sites provide their department's telephone number (77 percent) and mailing address (77 percent). These are materials that would help an ordinary citizen needing to contact a government agency reach that office.

In terms of the content of online material, many agencies have made extensive progress at placing information online for public access. Seventy-seven percent of government websites around the world offered publications that a citizen could access, and 83 percent (up from 41 percent in 2001) provided databases. Eighty-two percent had links to external, non-governmental sites where a citizen could turn for additional information, which is up from 42 percent in 2001.

Percentage of Websites Offering Publications and Databases

 

2001

2002

Phone Contact Info.

70%

77%

Address Info

67

77

Links to Other Sites

42

82

Publications

71

77

Databases

41

83

Audio Clips

4

8

Video Clips

4

15

As a sign of the early stage of global e-government, most public sector websites do not incorporate audio clips or video clips on their official sites. Despite the fact that these are becoming much more common features of e-commerce and private sector enterprise, only 8 percent of government websites provided audio clips and 15 percent have video clips (up from 4 percent in 2001). A common type of audio clip was a national anthem or a musical selection

Services Provided

Fully executable, online service delivery benefits both government and its constituents. In the long run, such services have the potential to lower the costs of service delivery and make services more widely accessible to the general public, because they no longer have to visit, write, or call an agency in order to execute a specific service. As more and more services are put online, e-government will revolutionize the relationship between government and citizens.

Of the websites examined around the world, however, only 12 percent offer services that are fully executable online, which is up from 8 percent in 2001. Of this group, 7 percent offer one service, 2 percent have two services, and three percent have three or more services. Eighty-eight percent have no online services.

Number of Online Services

 

2001

2002

None

92%

88%

One

5

7

Two

1

2

Three or more

2

3

The most frequently found service on government websites was ordering publications, followed by travel reservations, searching and applying for jobs, applying for passports, and renewing vehicle licenses.

Most Frequent Online Services, 2002

Order Publications

N=18 sites

Travel reservation

7

Search and Apply for Jobs

6

Apply for Passports

5

Renewal of vehicle license

5

File complaints/police reports

5

Order birth/death certificates

4

File taxes

4

Apply for patents

3

Check exam results

3

North America (including the United States, Canada, and Mexico) is the area offering the highest percentage of online services. Forty-one percent (up from 28 percent in 2001) had fully executable, online services. This was followed by Asia (26 percent), the Middle East (15 percent), the Pacific Ocean islands (14 percent), and Western Europe (10 percent). Only 1 percent in Russia/Central Asia and 2 percent of sites in Eastern Europe and Africa offered online government services.

Percentage of Government Sites Offering Online Services by Region of World

 

2001

2002

North America

28%

41%

Pacific Ocean Islands

19

14

Asia

12

26

Middle East

10

15

Europe

9

10

Eastern Europe

--

2

Central America

4

4

South America

3

7

Russia/Central Asia

2

1

Africa

2

2

One of the features that has slowed the development of online services has been an inability to use credit cards and digital signatures on financial transactions. On commercial sites, it is becoming a more common practice to offer goods and services online for purchase through the use of credit cards. However, of the government websites analyzed, only 1 percent accepted credit cards and two-tenths of 1 percent allowed digital signatures for financial transactions (both the same as last year). Among the sites having a capacity for digital signatures were the Singapore governmental portal and Japan's Public Management office.

Services by Top Nations

Of the 198 nations analyzed, there is wide variance in the percentage of government sites with online services. The Bahamas, Vanuatu, Chile, and South Korea are first, with 100 percent of their websites providing some type of service, followed by Taiwan (74 percent), China (53 percent), North Korea (50 percent), Germany (47 percent), Hong Kong (44 percent), the United States (44 percent), and Australia (43 percent). It is important to keep in mind that our definition of services included only those services that were fully executable online. If a citizen had to print out a form and mail or take it to a government agency to execute the service, we did not count that as an online service.

Percent of National Sites Offering Online Services

Bahama

100%

Vanuatu

100%

Chile

100

S. Korea

100

Taiwan

74

China

53

N. Korea

50

Germany

47

Hong Kong

44

United States

44

Australia

43

Malawi

33

Mauritania

33

Tunisia

33

Turkey

33

Fiji

33

Japan

33

Canada

32

Luxembourg

31

Jordan

29

Malaysia

27

Senegal

25

Privacy and Security

Public opinion surveys in various countries place concerns over privacy and security at the top of the list of citizen worries about e-government. Having visible statements outlining what the site is doing on privacy and security are valuable assets for reassuring a fearful population and encouraging citizens to make use of e-government services and information. However, few global e-government sites offer policy statements dealing with these topics. Only 14 percent (up from 6 percent in 2001) of examined sites have some form of privacy policy on their site, and 9 percent have a visible security policy. Both of these are areas that government officials need to take much more seriously. Unless ordinary citizens feel safe and secure in their online information and service activities, e-government is not going to grow very rapidly.

 

2001

2002

Privacy

6%

14%

Security

3

9

Security by Top Nations

Despite the importance of security in the virtual world, there are wide variations across nations in the percentage of websites showing a security policy. The countries most likely to show a visible security policy were Togo, Tuvalu, Uruguay, Chile, and South Korea, all with 100 percent of their sites including a statement. This was followed by Australia (93 percent), Canada (89 percent), Singapore (81 percent), United States (54 percent), Great Britain (35 percent), and Taiwan (35 percent). Most other nations did not have sites with a security statement.

Top Countries in Security Policy

Togo

100%

Tuvalu

100%

Uruguay

100

Chile

100

S. Korea

100

Australia

93

Canada

89

Singapore

81

United States

54

Great Britain

35

Taiwan

35

Uganda

20

St Lucia

17

Hong Kong

17

Poland

9

Belgium

8

Japan

7

Germany

5

All others

0

 

 

Privacy by Top Nations

Similar to the security area, there are widespread variations across the nations in providing privacy policies on their websites. The countries with the highest percentage of websites offering a visible privacy policy were Australia, Togo, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Chile, and South Korea, all with 100 percent of their sites featuring a privacy statement. These nations were followed by Taiwan (96 percent), China (93 percent), Canada (89 percent), Singapore (88 percent), United States (76 percent), and Great Britain (50 percent). Most other countries did not offer privacy statements online.

Top Countries in Privacy Features

Australia

100%

Togo

100%

Tuvalu

100

Vanuatu

100

Chile

100

S. Korea

100

Taiwan

96

China

93

Canada

89

Singapore

88

United States

76

Great Britain

50

Israel

43

Hong Kong

22

Uganda

20

Ireland

18

St. Lucia

17

Armenia

17

France

11

Poland

9

Belgium

8

Brazil

8

Czech Rep

7

Japan

7

Turkey

3

All others

0

Disability Access

There has been considerable progress on disability access. Whereas only 2 percent of government websites had some form of disability access last year, 33 percent do in 2002. To be recorded as accessible to the disabled, the site had to display features that would be helpful to the hearing or visually impaired. For example, TTY (Text Telephone) or TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) phone numbers allow hearing-impaired individuals to contact the agency by phone. Second, the site could be "Bobby Approved," meaning that the site has been deemed disability-accessible by a non-profit group that rates Internet web sites for such accessibility (http://www.cast.org/bobby/). Third, the site could have web accessibility features consistent with standards mandated by groups such as the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) or legislative acts of the national government.

Foreign Language Access

About half (43 percent) of national government websites have foreign language features that allow access to non-native speaking individuals. By foreign language feature, we mean any accommodation to the non-native speakers in a particular country, such as text translation into a different language. Ninety-five countries had no language translation on their site other than their native tongue.

 

2001

2002

Foreign Language Translation

45%

43%

Ads, User Fees, and Premium Fees

Many nations are struggling with the issue of how to pay for electronic governance. As shown below, twice as many government websites in 2002 were likely to rely on ads (8 percent) as was true in 2001. However, ads are much more prevalent than user fees (1 percent) or premium fees (0 percent). The only country that has started to move into premium fee areas is Canada (and to a lesser extent Australia). Five percent of Canadian public sector websites had areas requiring payment to enter.

When defining an advertisement, we eliminated computer software available for free download (such as Adobe Acrobat Reader, Netscape Navigator, and Microsoft Internet Explorer) since they are necessary for viewing or accessing particular products or publications. Links to commercial products or services available for a fee were included as advertisements as were banner, pop-up, and fly-by advertisements.

 

2001

2002

Ads

4%

8%

User Fees

--

1

Premium Fees

--

0

Tourism was the government sector most likely to have advertisements. For example, the Geographia Travel Service and Caribbean Tourism Organization had commercials on the Antigua and Barbuda tourism site. The Information Center for Scientific Research and Encyclopedia Britannica advertised on the Bhutan tourism site. Jetsave Travel had spots on the Cook Islands tourism portal, while CentralEurope.com, Radiocontact.ro (a radio agency), and Net-on.com (a net ad solution company) had commercials on the Romanian tourism website.

Other examples of public sector website advertisements included Turkmen Telecom on the Turkmenistan Communications page, Estat.com on the Algerian Finance site, World Road Congress on the South African transportation page, Healingsites.net on the Nigerian ports page, the American Heart Association on the Croatian Health Department page, Knowledgewave.org on the New Zealand government page, Bahraintoday.net on the Bahrain page, Absolute agency (a dating service) on the Russian Federation Agriculture page, and Mongolamedia.com on the Mongolia Foreign Affairs website.

Countries that had the largest percentage of websites with commercial advertising were Afghanistan, Mexico, Moldova, Bahama, Bahrain, Peru, Qatar, Turkmenistan, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Bhutan, Central Africa Republican, Chile, Cuba, Antigua, and South Korea. Each of these nations had ads on all their sites. This was followed by Argentina (69 percent), Kuwait (67 percent), China (53 percent), Nigeria (50 percent), Niue (50 percent), Bolivia (50 percent), and Kazakhstan (50 percent).

Examples of countries relying on user fees included visa applications in Singapore, Australia, and Hong Kong as well as access to court record charges in some U.S. Circuit Courts.

Restricted Areas

Some countries have started to develop restricted areas on their websites that require a username and password for accessibility. Sometimes, this is for security reasons, while other times, it occurs through an interest in personalizing service delivery. This year, 6 percent of government websites across the world had restricted areas.

Examples of website restrictions included access to bulletin boards, forums, and newsgroups (Algeria, Chad, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Mexico), transportation and accommodation reservations in Taiwan, Ireland, and the Dominican Republic, the Resource Center on the Malaysia Trade and Industry page, and Intranets on the pages of Venezuela, Canada, Guatemala, and Indonesia.

Countries Having Largest Number of Websites with Restricted Areas

Mexico

100%

Tuvalu

100%

Venezuela

100

Zambia

100

Chad

100

Chile

100

Gabon

100

Iran

100

S. Korea

100

Bolivia

50

Comoros

50

China

47

Taiwan

39

Malawi

33

Mauritania

33

Pakistan

33

Bangladesh

33

Indonesia

30

Malaysia

27

Albania

25

Dominican Rep

25

Canada

21

Uganda

20

Algeria

20

New Zealand

14

Croatia

14

Public Outreach

E-government offers the potential to bring citizens closer to their governments. Regardless of the type of political system that a country has, the public benefits from interactive features that facilitate communication between citizens and government. In our examination of national government websites, we looked for various features that would help citizens contact government officials and make use of information on websites.

Email is an interactive feature that allows ordinary citizens to pose questions of government officials or request information or services. In our study, we found that 75 percent (up from 73 percent in 2001) of government websites offered email contact material so that a visitor could email a person in a particular department other than the Webmaster.

Percentage of Government Websites Offering Public Outreach

 

2001

2002

Email

73%

75%

Search

38

54

Comments

8

33

Email Updates

6

10

Broadcast

2

2

Website Personalization

--

1

While email is certainly the easiest method of contact, there are other methods that government websites can employ to facilitate public feedback. These include areas to post comments (other than through email), the use of message boards, and chat rooms. Websites using these features allow citizens and department members alike to read and respond to others' comments regarding issues facing the department. This technology is less prevalent than email, with 33 percent of websites offering this feature.

Fifty-four percent of the sites we examined had the ability to search the particular website. Two percent of sites offer live broadcasts of important speeches or events ranging from coverage of the government hearings and broadcasts of public speeches to weekly Internet radio shows featuring various department officials. Ten percent of government websites allow citizens to register to receive updates regarding specific issues. With this feature, web visitors can input their email addresses, street addresses, or telephone numbers to receive information about a particular subject as new information becomes available. The information can be in the form of a monthly e-newsletter highlighting a prime minister's views or in the form of alerts notifying citizens whenever a particular portion of the website is updated. One percent of sites allow websites to be personalized to the interests of the visitor.

Email Responsiveness

It is useful to have email contact information on government websites, but this material is not helpful unless there is someone who actually answers the email. In order to test how responsive various governments were to citizen inquiries, we sent email messages to each of the 1,197 government websites we assessed. Our message was a simple question: "I would like to know what hours your agency is open during the week. Thanks for your help." We tracked whether agencies responded, and if so, how many business days it took them to respond.

As shown below, only 19 percent of agencies responded to our question, 75 percent did not, and 6 percent had broken email links or addresses that prevented a response. Twelve percent responded within one day, three percent took two days, two percent responded in three days, and two percent replied in four or more days.

 

2002 Email Responsiveness

Broken Link or Address

6

No Response

75%

One Day

12

Two Days

3

Three Days

2

Four Days

1

Five Days or More

1

Top E-Government Countries

In order to see how the 198 nations ranked overall, we created a 0 to 100 point e-government index and applied it to each nation's websites based on the availability of contact information, publications, databases, portals, and number of online services. Four points were awarded to each website for the presence of each of the following features: phone contact information, addresses, publications, databases, links to other sites, audio clips, video clips, foreign language access, not having ads, not having premium fees, not having restricted areas, not having user fees, disability access, having privacy policies, security policies, having a portal connection, allowing digital signatures on transactions, an option to pay via credit cards, email contact information, search capabilities, areas to post comments, broadcasts of events, option for email updates, and option for website personalization. These features provided a maximum of 96 points for particular websites.

Each site then qualified for a bonus of four points based on the number of online services executable on that site (1 point for one service, two points for two services, three points for three services, and four points for four or more services). Only 3 percent of government websites had four or more services. The e-government index therefore ran along a scale from 0 (having none of these features and no online services) to 100 (having all features plus at least four online services). Totals for each website within a country were averaged across all of that nation's websites to produce a 0 to 100 overall rating for that nation.

The top country in our ranking is Taiwan at 72.5 percent. This means that every website we analyzed for that nation has nearly three-quarters of the features important for information availability, citizen access, portal access, and service delivery. Other nations that score well on e-government include South Korea (64.0 percent), Canada (61.1 percent), United States (60.1 percent), Chile (60.0 percent), Australia (58.3 percent), China (56.3 percent), Switzerland (55.4 percent), Great Britain (54.8 percent), and Singapore (53.5 percent). The Appendix lists e-government scores for each of the 198 countries, plus comparisons between 2001 and 2002. In general, most countries scored higher this year compared to 2001.

Top E-Government Countries

Taiwan

72.5

South Korea

64.0

Canada

61.1

United States

60.1

Chile

60.0

Australia

58.3

China

56.3

Switzerland

55.4

Great Britain

54.8

Singapore

53.5

Germany

52.6

Mexico

52.0

Bahrain

52.0

Qatar

52.0

Differences by Region of World

There are some differences in e-government by region of the world. In looking at the overall e-government scores by region, North America scores the highest (60.4 percent), followed by Asia (48.7 percent), Western Europe (47.6 percent), Eastern Europe (43.5 percent), Middle East (43.2 percent), South America (42.0 percent), Central America (41.2 percent), Pacific Ocean Islands (39.5 percent), Russia and Central Asia (37.2 percent), and Africa (36.8 percent). These generally are higher than the 2001 regional ratings.

E-Government Ratings by Region

 

2001

2002

North America

51.0%

60.4%

Western Europe

34.1

47.6

Eastern Europe

--

43.5

Asia

34.0

48.7

Middle East

31.1

43.2

Russia/Central Asia

30.9

37.2

South America

30.7

42.0

Pacific Ocean Islands

30.6

39.5

Central America

27.7

41.4

Africa

23.5

36.8

In looking at regional differences by particular feature, North America and Asian nations rank most highly on services, while North America, Asia, and Western Europe score highest on access to publications. The areas having the greatest access to foreign language translation included Eastsern Europe, Western Europe, Russia/Central Asia, and the Middle East.

Nor Am

Cent Am

S. Am

WesEur

Eas

Eur

Rus

Mid Eas

Afri

Asia

Pac Oc

Phone

78

80

62

76

67

67

66

77

80

77

Address

99

80

64

81

75

66

66

72

81

78

Publication

100

69

73

86

82

76

77

52

84

49

Database

92

82

73

90

85

77

86

66

93

61

Links

85

83

91

90

88

65

83

66

89

55

Audio Clip

23

6

9

8

4

6

8

6

6

2

Video Clip

33

17

18

12

5

4

15

5

30

6

Foreign Lang

33

8

18

62

94

53

52

11

44

2

Ads

0

19

31

2

5

16

7

5

9

8

Prem Fee

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

User Fee

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

Restrict

14

6

7

2

2

2

3

5

15

6

Privacy

80

1

4

6

1

1

5

1

27

33

Security

63

1

4

3

0

0

0

1

13

29

Disability

30

25

33

42

37

16

27

51

22

29

Services

41

3

7

10

2

1

15

2

26

14

Link to Portal

51

5

36

6

5

6

10

8

22

14

Credit Cards

9

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

2

4

Digital Sign

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Email

87

87

93

79

77

58

81

60

76

49

Search

81

44

51

72

50

46

42

26

61

41

Comment

32

51

27

45

12

2

40

18

43

29

Broadcast

12

2

4

3

0

0

1

1

2

2

Updates

27

14

4

14

3

3

8

4

11

14

Personal

6

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

English

100

45

27

76

100

68

83

76

85

100

Conclusions

To summarize, we find that progress has been made over the past year in the extent to which helpful material has been placed online. Most countries are putting more information online and providing disability access. Many nations also have developed plans designed to implement new e-government initiatives. While there are considerable variations in what each country would like to accomplish in this area, most places see great potential in incorporating the Internet as a tool for economic development and public outreach. In the long-run, we expect e-government to create a new dimension to the relationship between governments and citizens.

However, in order for progress to be made, more work needs to be undertaken by central governments to upgrade e-government. Aside from publications and links to other sources of information, few countries offer online services or describe their privacy and security policies. In addition, three-quarters of national government agencies do not respond to simple email requests for information. This impedes the ability of the Internet to serve as a two-way channel of communications between governments and citizens.

There are a number of steps countries need to take in order to improve navigation and provide access to information. One of the weaknesses of many national websites has been their inconsistency in terms of design features. Government agencies guard their autonomy very carefully, and it has taken a while to get agencies to work together to make the tasks of citizens easier to undertake. Common navigational systems help the average citizen make use of the wealth of material that is online.

The same logic applies in regard to features that allow citizens to post comments or otherwise provide feedback about a government agency. Citizens bring diverse perspectives and experiences to e-government, and agencies benefit from citizen suggestions, complaints, and feedback. Even a simple feature such as a comment form empowers citizens and gives them an opportunity to voice their opinion about government services they would like to see. Governments should consider market research, public opinion surveys, or focus groups that would provide them with information on how citizens feel about e-government websites and what features would attract them to use these sites. This would help them design updates and service enhancements that would satisfy the interests of their particular users.

Clearly, a major challenge of e-government is the up-front costs of developing a website and putting information and services online. Right now, many nations appear to be undertaking these tasks in isolation from other nations, thereby robbing each country of the opportunity to achieve economies of scale that would lower the per unit cost of e-government websites. Smaller and poorer countries should undertake regional e-government alliances that would allow them to pool resources and gain greater efficiency at building their infrastructure. These efforts at regional cooperation are valuable because they put countries in a position where they can share knowledge and expertise as well as lower their overall costs.

 

Appendix

Note: The following table shows e-government rank orderings for the 198 countries, from most highly ranked to least highly ranked.

Table A-1 E-Government Rankings by Country, 2002

Taiwan

72.5

South Korea

64.0

Canada

61.1

United States

60.1

Chile

60.0

Australia

58.3

China

56.3

Switzerland

55.4

Great Britain

54.8

Singapore

53.5

Germany

52.6

Vanuatu

52.0

Bahrain

52.0

Qatar

52.0

Vatican

52.0

Japan

52.0

Mexico

52.0

Togo

52.0

Fiji

52.0

Zambia

52.0

Malaysia

51.5

Hong Kong

51.3

Israel

50.9

France

50.9

Yemen

50.0

Iceland

49.8

Sweden

49.1

Finland

48.8

Lithuania

48.4

Italy

48.3

Liechtenstein

48.0

Colombia

48.0

Cuba

48.0

Belize

48.0

Marshall Islands

48.0

Ireland

48.0

Estonia

48.0

Maldives

48.0

Botswana

48.0

Venezuela

48.0

Norway

47.7

Austria

47.4

St. Lucia

47.3

Malta

47.2

Uganda

47.2

Denmark

47.0

El Salvador

47.0

Ecuador

47.0

Senegal

47.0

Latvia

46.9

Trinidad

46.4

Jordan

46.3

Swaziland

46.2

Turkey

46.0

Malawi

45.3

Belgium

45.3

Kyrgyzstan

45.3

Poland

45.1

India

45.1

Macedonia

45.1

Lebanon

45.0

Spain

44.9

Luxembourg

44.6

Czech Republic

44.6

Iran

44.0

Nepal

44.0

Thailand

44.0

Grenada

44.0

Netherlands

44.0

Kenya

44.0

Angola

44.0

Tunisia

44.0

Sudan

44.0

Mozambique

44.0

Haiti

44.0

Croatia

43.4

Armenia

43.3

Guyana

42.7

Bosnia

42.7

Philippines

42.4

New Zealand

42.3

Hungary

42.3

South Africa

42.0

Cape Verde

42.0

Romania

42.0

Brazil

41.8

Argentina

41.8

Slovenia

41.7

Greece

41.5

Azerbaijan

41.3

Bulgaria

41.1

Egypt

41.0

Morocco

40.9

Cambodia

40.8

Indonesia

40.8

Costa Rica

40.7

Mauritius

40.6

Slovakia

40.5

Bahamas

40.0

Djibouti

40.0

Laos

40.0

Paraguay

40.0

Dominican Republic

40.0

Syria

40.0

Moldova

40.0

Tonga

40.0

Cyprus (Turkish Rep)

40.0

Yugoslavia

40.0

Liberia

40.0

Jamaica

40.0

Ethiopia

40.0

Tajikistan

40.0

Micronesia

40.0

Tuvalu

40.0

Panama

39.5

Seychelles

39.0

Andorra

39.0

Sri Lanka

38.7

Guatemala

38.7

Georgia

38.7

Cook Islands

38.7

Burkina Faso

38.4

Saudi Arabia

38.0

Vietnam

38.0

Barbados

38.0

Arab Emirates

38.0

Cyprus-Republic

38.0

Guinea

37.3

Mauritania

37.3

Pakistan

37.3

Mongolia

37.1

Russia

36.8

Portugal

36.4

St. Kitts

36.0

Peru

36.0

Rwanda

36.0

Palau

36.0

Eritrea

36.0

North Korea

36.0

Somalialand

36.0

Chad

36.0

Kiribati

36.0

Zimbabwe

36.0

Lesotho

36.0

St. Vincent

36.0

Antigua

36.0

Oman

36.0

Samoa

36.0

San Marino

36.0

Honduras

36.0

Madagascar

36.0

Sao Tome

36.0

Kazakhstan

36.0

Brunei

35.5

Algeria

35.2

Myanmar

34.9

Cameroon

34.9

Comoros

34.0

Albania

34.0

Mali

34.0

Tanzania

33.8

Iraq

33.6

Belarus

33.2

Bolivia

32.0

Ukraine

32.0

Monaco

32.0

Uruguay

32.0

Nicaragua

32.0

Ghana

32.0

Suriname

32.0

Gabon

32.0

Gambia

32.0

Afghanistan

32.0

Equatorial Guinea

32.0

Libya

32.0

Kuwait

32.0

Sierra Leone

32.0

Niger

32.0

Central Africa

32.0

Nigeria

32.0

Somalia

32.0

Solomon Islands

30.4

Niue

30.0

Bangladesh

29.3

Turkmenistan

28.0

Namibia

28.0

Congo Dem Rep

28.0

Bhutan

28.0

Ivory Coast

28.0

Uzbekistan

27.3

Benin

26.0

Papua New Guinea

25.3

Burundi

24.0

Congo (Rep)

24.0

Nauru

24.0

East Timor

24.0

Guinea-Bissau

20.0

Dominica

16.0

 

Table A-2 E-Government Country Ratings, 2001 and 2002

Country

2001

2002

Afghanistan

16.0%

32.0%

Albania

30.7

34.0

Algeria

28.7

35.2

Andorra

20.0

39.0

Angola

26.4

44.0

Antigua

32.0

36.0

Arab Emirates

26.1

38.0

Argentina

38.0

41.8

Armenia

35.3

43.3

Australia

50.7

58.3

Austria

36.8

47.4

Azerbaijan

20.5

41.3

Bahamas

39.7

40.0

Bahrain

26.2

52.0

Bangladesh

28.5

29.3

Barbados

30.6

38.0

Belarus

26.2

33.2

Belgium

38.0

45.3

Belize

23.8

48.0

Benin

18.6

26.0

Bhutan

28.0

28.0

Bolivia

38.0

32.0

Bosnia

34.1

42.7

Botswana

25.3

48.0

Brazil

33.8

41.8

Brunei

32.7

35.5

Bulgaria

34.5

41.1

Burkina Faso

19.6

38.4

Burundi

14.6

24.0

Cambodia

29.6

40.8

Cameroon

22.2

34.9

Canada

49.6

61.1

Cape Verde

24.0

42.0

Central Africa

16.0

32.0

Chad

20.0

36.0

Chile

32.6

60.0

China

30.2

56.3

Colombia

25.7

48.0

Comoros

20.0

34.0

Congo (Rep)

8.0

24.0

Congo Dem Rep

30.0

28.0

Cook Islands

29.5

38.7

Costa Rica

30.6

40.7

Croatia

32.6

43.4

Cuba

24.6

48.0

Cyprus (Turkish Rep)

20.0

40.0

Cyprus-Republic

30.8

38.0

Czech Republic

26.1

44.6

Denmark

37.0

47.0

Djibouti

32.0

40.0

Dominican Republic

12.0

40.0

Dominica

27.2

16.0

East Timor

--

24.0

Ecuador

30.7

47.0

Egypt

33.0

41.0

El Salvador

35.6

47.0

Equatorial Guinea

16.0

32.0

Eritrea

26.7

36.0

Estonia

36.2

48.0

Ethiopia

30.5

40.0

Fiji

24.4

52.0

Finland

40.2

48.8

France

40.1

50.9

Gabon

22.7

32.0

Gambia

19.5

32.0

Georgia

32.7

38.7

Germany

40.6

52.6

Ghana

26.1

32.0

Great Britain

47.1

54.8

Greece

34.2

41.5

Grenada

26.0

44.0

Guatemala

28.0

38.7

Guinea

12.3

37.3

Guinea-Bissau

8.0

20.0

Guyana

30.8

42.7

Haiti

13.0

44.0

Honduras

27.3

36.0

Hong Kong

--

51.3

Hungary

33.0

42.3

Iceland

38.3

49.8

India

31.8

45.1

Indonesia

30.0

40.8

Iran

33.4

44.0

Iraq

24.0

33.6

Ireland

46.9

48.0

Israel

46.2

50.9

Italy

37.8

48.3

Ivory Coast

20.0

28.0

Jamaica

32.3

40.0

Japan

34.9

52.0

Jordan

28.1

46.3

Kazakhstan

20.0

36.0

Kenya

26.7

44.0

Kiribati

20.0

36.0

Kuwait

28.7

32.0

Kyrgyzstan

26.0

45.3

Laos

30.0

40.0

Latvia

33.8

46.9

Lebanon

31.3

45.0

Lesotho

40.0

36.0

Liberia

17.3

40.0

Libya

32.0

32.0

Liechtenstein

26.6

48.0

Lithuania

35.1

48.4

Luxembourg

35.9

44.6

Macedonia

29.7

45.1

Madagascar

26.0

36.0

Malawi

28.0

45.3

Malaysia

39.0

51.5

Maldives

32.5

48.0

Mali

20.0

34.0

Malta

27.6

47.2

Marshall Islands

18.6

48.0

Mauritania

36.0

37.3

Mauritius

29.4

40.6

Mexico

33.1

52.0

Micronesia

28.0

40.0

Moldova

21.6

40.0

Monaco

29.3

32.0

Mongolia

32.3

37.1

Morocco

36.0

40.9

Mozambique

16.0

44.0

Myanmar

26.8

34.9

Namibia

26.0

28.0

Nauru

12.0

24.0

Nepal

32.7

44.0

Netherlands

32.6

44.0

New Zealand

36.8

42.3

Nicaragua

27.7

32.0

Niger

18.7

32.0

Nigeria

15.2

32.0

Niue

24.0

30.0

North Korea

24.0

36.0

Norway

36.5

47.7

Oman

29.1

36.0

Pakistan

28.8

37.3

Palau

28.0

36.0

Panama

28.4

39.5

Papua New Guinea

21.6

25.3

Paraguay

29.0

40.0

Peru

36.1

36.0

Philippines

32.8

42.4

Poland

32.0

45.1

Portugal

17.5

36.4

Qatar

12.8

52.0

Romania

30.7

42.0

Russia

32.5

36.8

Rwanda

30.7

36.0

Samoa

28.0

36.0

San Marino

27.7

36.0

Sao Tome

22.0

36.0

Saudi Arabia

36.8

38.0

Senegal

26.0

47.0

Seychelles

27.6

39.0

Sierra Leone

27.0

32.0

Singapore

43.4

53.5

Slovenia

32.0

41.7

Solomon Islands

37.6

30.4

Somalia

19.8

32.0

Somalialand

20.0

36.0

South Africa

34.2

42.0

South Korea

33.4

64.0

Spain

32.8

44.9

Sri Lanka

29.8

38.7

St. Kitts

40.0

36.0

St. Lucia

37.0

47.3

St. Vincent

33.4

36.0

Sudan

23.0

44.0

Suriname

26.0

32.0

Swaziland

16.2

46.2

Sweden

29.4

49.1

Switzerland

37.7

55.4

Syria

24.0

40.0

Taiwan

52.5

72.5

Tajikistan

30.0

40.0

Tanzania

17.6

33.8

Thailand

30.8

44.0

Togo

26.0

52.0

Tonga

21.3

40.0

Trinidad

24.4

46.4

Tunisia

23.8

44.0

Turkey

30.3

46.0

Turkmenistan

28.0

28.0

Tuvalu

24.0

40.0

Uganda

20.5

47.2

Ukraine

30.4

32.0

United States

57.2

60.1

Uruguay

28.4

32.0

Uzbekistan

20.0

27.3

Vanuatu

30.0

52.0

Vatican

40.0

52.0

Venezuela

9.3

48.0

Vietnam

32.8

38.0

Yemen

26.7

50.0

Yugoslavia

19.7

40.0

Zambia

22.5

52.0

Zimbabwe

16.0

36.0

 

Note: The following table shows the percentage of websites in each country that have each feature, such as online services, publications, databases, privacy policies, security policies, and disability accessibility.

Table A-3 Individual Country Profiles for Selected Features, 2002

 

Online Services

Publications

Data bases

Privacy Policy

Security Policy

Disability

Accessibility

Afghanistan

0%

0%

100%

0%

0%

0%

Albania

0

75

50

0

0

50

Algeria

0

60

100

0

0

0

Andorra

25

75

100

0

0

75

Angola

0

100

100

0

0

0

Antigua

0

100

0

0

0

0

Arab Emirates

0

50

100

0

0

0

Argentina

0

77

92

0

0

31

Armenia

17

100

100

17

0

0

Australia

43

100

86

100

93

29

Austria

23

100

100

0

0

23

Azerbaijan

0

67

100

0

0

33

Bahamas

100

100

100

0

0

0

Bahrain

0

100

100

0

0

0

Bangladesh

0

67

33

0

0

0

Barbados

17

67

83

0

0

33

Belarus

0

69

85

0

0

8

Belgium

0

100

100

8

8

25

Belize

0

65

12

0

0

0

Benin

0

0

100

0

0

0

Bhutan

0

0

0

0

0

0

Bolivia

0

100

100

0

0

0

Bosnia

0

67

100

0

0

0

Botswana

0

100

0

0

0

0

Brazil

15

69

31

8

0

0

Brunei

0

38

63

0

0

13

Bulgaria

0

57

86

0

0

0

Burkina Faso

0

80

100

0

0

0

Burundi

0

100

100

0

0

0

Cambodia

0

80

80

0

0

20

Cameroon

0

44

71

0

0

57

Canada

32

100

100

89

89

16

Cape Verde

0

100

100

0

0

0

Central Africa

0

0

100

0

0

0

Chad

0

0

100

0

0

0

Chile

100

100

100

100

100

0

China-Mainlan

53

100

100

93

0

20

China -Taiwan

74

100

100

96

35

0

Colombia

0

100

100

0

0

0

Comoros

0

50

100

0

0

0

Congo-Dem Rep

0

100

0

0

0

100

Congo-Rep

0

0

0

0

0

100

Cook Islands

0

33

100

0

0

67

Costa Rica

7

93

57

7

7

0

Cote d'Ivoire

0

0

100

0

0

50

Croatia

0

86

100

0

0

43

Cuba

0

100

100

0

0

0

Cyprus-Rep

0

100

100

0

0

50

Cyprus-Turk

0

100

100

0

0

0

Czech Rep

7

79

86

7

0

43

Denmark

0

100

75

0

0

88

Djibouti

0

100

100

0

0

0

Dominica

0

0

0

0

0

0

Dominican Rep

0

100

100

0

0

0

Ecuador

0

75

100

0

0

75

Egypt

25

50

75

0

0

25

El Salvador

0

100

100

0

0

13

Eq Guinea

0

0

0

0

0

100

Eritrea

0

0

100

0

0

0

Estonia

0

92

75

0

0

67

Ethiopia

0

75

100

0

0

50

Fiji

33

100

33

0

0

67

Finland

7

100

93

0

0

13

France

5

100

100

11

0

37

Gabon

0

0

0

0

0

100

Gambia

0

100

100

0

0

0

Georgia

0

50

50

0

0

67

Germany

47

100

89

0

5

37

Ghana

0

100

67

0

0

67

Great Britain

25

100

100

50

35

65

Greece

0

75

88

0

0

25

Grenada

0

0

100

0

0

100

Guatemala

0

58

67

0

0

8

Guinea

0

15

8

0

0

0

Guinea-Bissau

0

0

0

0

0

100

Guyana

0

50

83

0

0

100

Haiti

0

0

100

0

0

50

Honduras

0

50

50

0

0

0

Hungary

0

71

71

0

0

14

Iceland

0

91

82

0

0

91

India

21

100

100

0

0

11

Indonesia

0

40

90

0

0

10

Iran

0

100

100

0

0

0

Iraq

0

100

100

0

0

0

Ireland

12

100

100

18

0

24

Israel

14

100

100

43

0

14

Italy

0

100

100

0

0

8

Jamaica

9

73

91

0

8

36

Japan

33

93

100

7

7

13

Jordan

29

100

44

0

0

0

Kazakhstan

0

100

100

0

0

29

Kenya

0

100

100

0

0

0

Kiribati

0

0

100

0

0

0

Korea, North

50

50

0

0

0

50

Korea, South

100

100

100

100

100

8

Kuwait

0

100

67

0

0

33

Kyrgyzstan

0

100

100

0

0

33

Laos

0

50

100

0

0

0

Latvia

0

100

100

0

0

18

Lebanon

0

88

88

0

0

0

Lesotho

0

100

100

0

0

50

Liberia

0

100

100

0

0

0

Libya

0

0

0

0

0

0

Liechtenstein

0

100

100

0

0

33

Lithuania

0

91

100

0

0

36

Luxembourg

31

100

100

0

0

31

Macedonia

0

86

100

0

0

29

Madagascar

0

75

75

0

0

50

Malawi

33

100

100

0

0

100

Malaysia

27

100

100

0

0

13

Maldives

0

100

100

0

0

0

Mali

0

100

100

0

0

0

Malta

6

60

100

0

0

20

Marshall Islands

0

100

100

0

0

100

Mauritania

33

100

100

0

0

33

Mauritius

0

79

100

0

0

43

Mexico

0

100

100

0

0

0

Micronesia

0

33

100

0

0

67

Moldova

0

0

100

0

0

0

Monaco

0

0

100

0

0

0

Mongolia

0

71

71

0

0

14

Morocco

0

100

100

0

0

11

Mozambique

0

0

100

0

0

100

Myanmar

0

29

86

0

0

100

Namibia

0

50

25

0

0

0

Nauru

0

0

0

0

0

0

Nepal

0

100

100

0

0

0

Netherlands

0

79

79

0

0

36

New Zealand

48

57

100

8

0

14

Nicaragua

0

100

100

0

0

0

Niger

0

50

50

0

0

50

Nigeria

0

50

50

0

0

50

Niue

0

0

0

0

0

10

Norway

50

92

92

0

0

100

Oman

0

100

100

0

0

0

Pakistan

0

100

67

0

0

67

Palau

0

0

0

0

0

100

Panama

0

63

75

0

0

0

Papua New Guinea

0

22

33

0

0

0

Paraguay

0

100

100

0

0

0

Peru

7

100

100

0

0

0

Philippines

0

80

80

0

0

30

Poland

0

91

91

9

9

27

Portugal

0

50

50

0

0

40

Qatar

0

100

0

0

0

0

Romania

9

63

88

0

0

63

Russia

0

96

83

0

0

4

Rwanda

0

100

0

0

0

0

Sao Tome

0

0

100

0

0

0

St. Kitts/Nevis

0

0

0

0

0

100

St. Lucia

0

100

100

17

17

33

St. Vincent

0

0

0

0

0

100

Samoa

0

0

0

0

0

0

San Marino

0

50

75

0

0

100

Saudi Arabia

11

100

75

0

0

0

Senegal

24

100

100

0

0

75

Seychelles

0

75

100

0

0

50

Sierra Leone

0

0

100

0

0

0

Singapore

19

94

94

88

81

6

Slovakia

0

100

88

0

0

25

Slovenia

0

67

83

0

0

25

Solomon Islands

0

9

9

0

0

100

Somalia

0

0

0

0

0

100

Somaliland

0

0

0

0

0

0

South Africa

0

100

94

0

0

25

Spain

7

100

93

0

0

29

Sri Lanka

0

17

67

11

0

100

Sudan

0

100

100

0

0

100

Suriname

0

0

0

0

0

100

Swaziland

23

85

77

0

0

31

Sweden

8

75

64

0

0

100

Switzerland

0

14

100

0

0

100

Syria

0

17

83

0

0

100

Tajikistan

0

0

0

0

0

100

Tanzania

0

0

38

0

0

75

Thailand

0

0

100

6

0

0

Togo

0

100

0

100

100

100

Tonga

0

0

0

0

0

100

Trinidad

0

20

80

0

0

100

Tunisia

33

100

100

0

0

33

Turkey

33

87

90

3

0

0

Turkmenistan

0

0

0

0

0

100

Tuvalu

0

100

100

100

100

100

Uganda

20

100

20

20

20

100

Ukraine

0

50

50

0

6

100

United States

44

100

90

76

54

34

Uruguay

0

100

100

0

100

0

Uzbekistan

0

67

33

0

0

0

Vanuatu

100

0

100

100

0

100

Vatican

0

100

100

0

0

100

Venezuela

0

100

100

0

0

100

Vietnam

0

50

100

0

0

100

Yemen

25

50

75

0

0

100

Yugoslavia

0

100

100

0

0

0

Zambia

0

100

100

0

0

0

Zimbabwe

0

60

100

0

0

20

Note: The following table shows the percentage of websites in each country that have each feature, such as foreign language translation, advertisements, premium fees, restricted areas, user fees, and search engines.

Table A-4 Individual Country Profiles for Selected Features, 2002

 

For Lang

Ads

Prem Fee

Restrict Area

User Fee

Search

Afghanistan

0%

100%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Albania

75

25

0

25

0

0

Algeria

20

20

0

20

0

40

Andorra

75

0

0

0

0

25

Angola

0

0

0

0

0

100

Antigua

0

100

0

0

0

0

Arab Emirates

75

0

0

0

0

50

Argentina

15

69

0

0

0

69

Armenia

100

0

0

0

0

50

Australia

50

100

85

7

7

93

Austria

31

0

0

0

0

92

Azerbaijan

100

0

0

0

0

33

Bahamas

0

100

0

0

0

100

Bahrain

100

100

0

0

0

100

Bangladesh

67

0

0

33

0

0

Barbados

0

17

0

0

0

0

Belarus

23

15

0

0

0

8

Belgium

83

0

0

0

0

58

Belize

0

0

0

0

0

100

Benin

0

0

0

0

0

0

Bhutan

0

100

0

0

0

0

Bolivia

0

50

0

50

0

0

Bosnia

100

0

0

0

0

33

Botswana

0

0

0

0

0

100

Brazil

31

0

0

0

0

69

Brunei

63

0

0

0

0

13

Bulgaria

100

0

0

0

0

57

Burkina Faso

20

0

0

0

0

20

Burundi

0

0

0

0

0

0

Cambodia

40

0

0

0

0

40

Cameroon

0

0

0

0

0

0

Canada

0

0

5

21

0

100

Cape Verde

0

0

0

0

0

100

Central Africa

0

100

0

0

0

0

Chad

0

0

0

100

0

0

Chile

0

100

0

100

0

100

China-Mainlan

40

53

0

47

0

100

China -Taiwan

96

0

0

39

0

100

Colombia

0

0

0

0

0

100

Comoros

100

0

0

50

0

0

Congo-Dem Rep

0

0

0

0

0

0

Congo-Rep

0

0

0

0

0

0

Cook Islands

0

33

0

0

0

33

Costa Rica

0

18

0

0

0

91

Cote d'Ivoire

0

0

0

0

0

0

Croatia

100

14

0

14

0

0

Cuba

0

100

35

0

0

100

Cyprus-Rep

0

0

0

0

0

50

Cyprus-Turk

0

0

0

0

0

0

Czech Rep

100

0

0

0

0

50

Denmark

100

13

0

0

0

50

Djibouti

0

0

0

0

0

0

Dominica

0

0

0

0

0

0

Dominican Rep

50

25

0

25

0

25

East Timor

0

0

0

0

0

0

Ecuador

25

25

0

0

0

25

Egypt

75

0

0

0

0

75

El Salvador

38

38

0

0

0

63

Eq Guinea

0

0

0

0

0

0

Eritrea

0

0

0

0

0

0

Estonia

100

0

0

0

0

92

Ethiopia

75

0

0

0

0

0

Fiji

67

0

0

0

0

67

Finland

100

0

0

0

0

53

France

47

0

0

0

0

100

Gabon

0

0

0

100

0

0

Gambia

0

0

0

0

0

0

Georgia

100

0

0

0

0

033

Germany

74

0

0

0

0

84

Ghana

0

0

0

0

0

0

Great Britain

5

0

0

5

0

90

Greece

100

0

0

0

0

38

Grenada

0

0

0

0

0

0

Guatemala

0

17

0

8

0

58

Guinea

33

0

0

0

0

0

Guinea-Bissau

0

0

0

0

0

0

Guyana

0

0

0

0

0

17

Haiti

50

0

0

0

0

0

Honduras

0

0

0

0

0

50

Hong Kong

0

0

0

0

11

83

Hungary

100

0

0

0

0

57

Iceland

100

0

0

0

0

100

India

0

5

0

11

0

47

Indonesia

70

20

0

30

0

60

Iran

100

0

0

100

0

100

Iraq

80

0

0

0

0

0

Ireland

0

0

0

6

0

88

Israel

100

0

0

0

0

100

Italy

42

8

0

0

0

75

Jamaica

0

9

0

9

0

9

Japan

87

0

0

13

0

93

Jordan

100

0

0

0

0

43

Kazakhstan

100

50

0

0

0

50

Kenya

100

0

0

0

0

33

Kiribati

0

0

0

0

0

0

Korea, North

100

0

0

0

0

0

Korea, South

100

100

0

100

0

100

Kuwait

67

67

0

0

0

0

Kyrgyzstan

100

33

0

0

0

67

Laos

100

100

50

0

0

0

Latvia

100

72

28

0

0

64

Lebanon

75

86

50

0

0

25

Lesotho

0

0

0

0

0

0

Liberia

0

67

33

0

0

0

Libya

0

100

0

0

0

0

Liechtenstein

100

0

0

0

0

67

Lithuania

100

0

0

0

0

45

Luxembourg

8

0

0

0

0

46

Macedonia

100

14

0

0

0

43

Madagascar

25

0

0

0

0

17

Malawi

67

0

0

0

0

33

Malaysia

100

0

0

27

0

67

Maldives

100

0

0

0

0

0

Mali

0

0

0

0

0

0

Malta

80

40

0

0

0

100

Marshall Islands

0

0

0

0

0

100

Mauritania

0

0

0

33

0

0

Mauritius

0

0

0

0

0

14

Mexico

100

100

0

100

0

100

Micronesia

0

0

0

0

0

33

Moldova

100

100

0

0

0

100

Monaco

100

0

0

0

0

100

Mongolia

86

14

0

0

0

14

Morocco

22

0

0

0

0

67

Mozambique

100

0

0

0

0

0

Myanmar

0

0

0

0

0

0

Namibia

0

0

0

0

0

0

Nauru

0

0

0

0

0

0

Nepal

0

83

67

0

0

0

Netherlands

100

7

0

0

0

71

New Zealand

0

14

0

14

0

71

Nicaragua

0

0

0

0

0

0

Niger

0

0

0

0

0

0

Nigeria

0

50

0

0

0

50

Niue

0

50

0

0

0

0

Norway

0

0

0

0

0

92

Oman

0

0

0

0

0

0

Pakistan

0

0

0

33

0

0

Palau

100

0

0

0

0

0

Panama

0

13

0

13

0

63

Papua New Guinea

0

0

0

0

0

0

Paraguay

0

0

0

0

0

0

Peru

0

100

0

0

0

0

Philippines

0

30

0

0

0

70

Poland

100

0

0

0

0

36

Portugal

30

0

0

10

0

50

Qatar

100

100

0

0

0

100

Romania

100

13

0

0

0

38

Russia

4

25

0

4

0

79

Rwanda

100

0

0

0

0

0

Sao Tome

0

0

0

0

0

0

St. Kitts/Nevis

0

0

0

0

0

0

St. Lucia

0

17

0

0

0

17

St. Vincent

0

0

0

0

0

0

Samoa

0

0

0

0

0

0

San Marino

0

0

0

0

0

50

Saudi Arabia

50

25

0

0

0

75

Senegal

0

0

0

0

0

50

Seychelles

0

0

0

0

0

25

Sierra Leone

0

0

0

0

0

0

Singapore

0

19

0

6

6

81

Slovakia

100

0

0

0

0

50

Slovenia

100

0

0

0

0

75

Solomon Islands

0

0

0

0

0

0

Somalia

0

0

0

0

0

100

Somaliland

0

0

0

0

0

0

South Africa

0

25

0

6

0

81

Spain

100

0

0

7

0

29

Sri Lanka

100

17

0

0

0

33

Sudan

0

0

0

0

0

0

Suriname

0

0

0

0

0

0

Swaziland

62

0

0

0

0

77

Sweden

91

0

0

0

0

100

Switzerland

100

0

0

0

0

86

Syria

0

0

0

0

0

17

Tajikistan

50

0

0

0

0

0

Tanzania

0

0

0

6

0

0

Thailand

100

0

0

0

0

0

Togo

100

0

0

0

0

100

Tonga

0

0

0

0

0

0

Trinidad

0

0

0

0

0

40

Tunisia

67

0

0

0

0

100

Turkey

13

0

0

0

0

57

Turkmenistan

100

100

0

0

0

0

Tuvalu

100

0

0

100

0

100

Uganda

0

40

0

20

0

80

Ukraine

100

0

0

0

0

0

United States

44

0

0

12

7

75

Uruguay

0

100

0

0

0

0

Uzbekistan

0

33

0

0

0

17

Vanuatu

0

100

0

0

0

0

Vatican

100

0

0

0

0

100

Venezuela

100

0

0

100

0

100

Vietnam

100

0

0

0

0

0

Yemen

100

0

0

0

0

0

Yugoslavia

100

0

0

0

0

0

Zambia

0

0

0

100

0

0

Zimbabwe

0

0

0

0

0

20

 

 

 

 

 

Table A-5 Best Practices of Top Government Sites

1) Taiwan: The Executive Yuan of the Republic of China

(http://www.ey.gov.tw/web/index-ey2000.htm)

Taiwan, the number-one ranked E-government country, has an extensive system of information delivery via Internet. The site for the Executive Yuan of the Republic of China contains information varying from national statistics, history of Taiwanese art and culture, policy papers and timely news updates. It also provides all the information in English for an international audience. To promote interaction with the public, the contact information of the head office is presented clearly on the opening page. It features multimedia clips such as videos of notable speeches. All agencies' site, although not uniform, show the same amount of information.

2) Korea (Republic) : Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and Energy

(http://www.mocie.go.kr/)

The Korean (Republic of Korea) are mostly bilingual, interactive, informative and well organized. As shown in the snapshot above, the navigation bar at the top displays all categories of provided information. It also provides some statistical data on the side such as the stock prices and exchange rate. The search feature, link to the sitemap and contact information can be located very easily from the opening page. In addition, the colorful link bars to sites of affiliated groups and governmental agencies facilitate access to a variety of information.

3) Canada: Portal Site

(http://www.gc.ca/main_e.html)

The third ranked nation on the survey is Canada. The front page of the portal site contains various features in an organized fashion, in both French and English. Their interactive features include a customizing tool and a scroll-down navigation bar. They provide privacy and security related announcements under "Important Notices". Moreover, the site is designed to navigate users according to the users' personal interests and citizenship as seen in the three links in the center of the page. Finally, the site contains all e-mail, telephone numbers, and street address of major governmental agencies and services, facilitating interaction between the government and the population.

4) United States Portal

(http://www.firstgov.gov/)

This gateway is the ideal in organization. Very easy to look for services and most used features while keeping a very professional ad-free site. The United States' pages had the most privacy and security features than anyone else in the international category. Once we got past this portal page, there was no uniform organization between agencies and departments. Some sites have multimedia features while others did not. The US kept their spot in the top 5 because of their large amount of services, but could have been the top country if they used more multimedia features and kept their webpage information organization uniform. Other well-designed US federal agency sites are:

Federal Communications Commission: www.fcc.gov

Department of Labor: www.dol.gov

Environmental Protection Agency: www.epa.gov

5) Chile: Portal Site

(http://www.gobiernodechile.cl/)

This site was ranked as one of the highest because of its convenience and use of multimedia features. Chile has a video chat system that we have not seen anywhere else online. Although this page does not have an english translation feature, it out ranked other countries that did with their broadcasting and streaming audio and video features. This site also has a road congestion and access link showing locations and status of major road construction and delays on major roads are. We saw very few of these features on the international sites, showing that Chile has made some major improvements and jumped ahead in the E-government race.