E-democracy

E-democracy
Part of the Politics series
Politics
Subseries
Politics portal
v · d · e

E-democracy (a combination of the words electronic and democracy) refers to the use of information technologies and communication technologies and strategies in political and governance processes. “e-democracy is concerned with the use of information and communication technologies to engage citizens, support the democratic decision- making processes and strengthen representative democracy." [1] Democratic actors and sectors in this context include governments, elected officials, the media, political organizations, and citizens/voters.[2] E-democracy aims for broader and more active citizen participation enabled by the Internet, mobile communications, and other technologies in today's representative democracy, as well as through more participatory or direct forms of citizen involvement in addressing public challenges.[3]

Contents

Tools and types

There has been a significant growth in E-democracy in the last four years.[4] Public- and private-sector platforms provide an avenue to citizen engagement while offering access to transparent information citizens have come to expect.

To develop these public-sector portals or platforms, governments have the choice to internally develop and manage, outsource or sign a self-funding contract. The self-funding model creates portals that pay for themselves through convenience fees for certain e-government transactions. Early players in this space include govONE Solutions, First Data Government Solutions and Nicusa.com, a company built on the self-funded model.[5]

Social networking is an emerging area for e-democracy, as well as related technological developments, such as argument maps and eventually, the semantic web. Those are seen as important stepping stones in the maturation of the concept of e-democracy.[6] The social networking entry point, for example, is within the citizens' environment, and the engagement is on the citizens' terms. Proponents of e-government perceive government use of social networks as a medium to help government act more like the public it serves. Examples of state usage can be found at The Official Commonwealth of Virginia Homepage, where citizens can find Google tools and open social forums.

Government and its agents also have the opportunity to follow citizens to monitor satisfaction with services they receive. Through ListServs, RSS feeds, mobile messaging, micro-blogging services and blogs, government and its agencies can share information to citizens who share common interests and concerns. Some government representatives are also beginning to use Twitter which provides them with an easy medium to inform their followers. In the state of Rhode Island, for instance, Treasurer Frank T. Caprio is offering daily tweets of the state's cash flow.

Practical issues

A number of practical issues surround e-democracy. In the media, on the Internet, and in popular consciousness, there is a strong and generally unchallenged view that the Internet is the new electronic cradle of democracy. The original source of this view is probably the relatively unfettered speech found in Internet newsgroups, mailing lists, blogs, wikis and chat rooms.

The Internet currently does have several attributes that encourage thinking about it as a democratic medium. Part of this can be traced to the design principles that were established early in its evolution. The lack of centralized control suggests to many people that censorship or other attempts at control will be thwarted. Other attributes are a result of social design in the early days, the strongly libertarian support for free speech, the sharing culture that permeated nearly all aspects of Internet use, and the outright prohibition on commercial use by the National Science Foundation, for example. The Internet's most significant contribution was the idea of unmediated many-to-many communication on a large scale, through newsgroups, chat rooms, MUDs, and many other modes. This type of communication ignored the boundaries established with broadcast media, such as newspapers or radio, and with one-to-one media, such as letters or landline telephones. Finally, because Internet is a massive digital network with open standards, universal and inexpensive access to a wide variety of communication media and models could actually be attained.[7]

Some practical issues involving e-democracy include: effective participation; voting equality at decision stage; enlightened understanding; control of the agenda; and inclusiveness.[8]

Citizens' roles

The Internet provides a distinctive structure of opportunities that has the potential to renew interest in civic engagement and participation. Civic engagement can be understood to include three distinct dimensions: political knowledge (what people learn about public affairs), political trust (the public's orientation of support for the political system), and political participation (conventional activities designed to influence government and the decision-making process).[9]

The information capacity available on the Internet allows citizens to become more knowledgeable about government and political issues, and the interactivity of the medium allows for new forms of communication with government, i.e. elected officials and/or public servants. The posting of contact information, legislation, agendas, and policies makes government more transparent, potentially enabling more informed participation both online and offline.[10] For more information, visit transparent-gov.


Civic participation in terms of E-Democracy

In general, civic engagement can be thought of the consumption of services provided by governmental institutions. The Internet provides a connection to these institutions; it can be used as a tool to be used for the process of interaction with said institutions. [11] According to Roas Tsagarousianou, e-democracy has three sub-fields: "information provision, deliberation, and participation in decision-making." [12] In terms of E-Democracy, civic engagement takes the form of social networking, organization, and online forums. According to Matt Leighninger, the internet impacts government in two main ways. [13] The first way is the empowerment of individuals. People who have an interest in current political issues and the capacity to learn about them now have access to the information they need to be equipped to make an impact on public policy. Using online tools to organize, people can more easily be involved in the policy-making process of government. The first impact has also lead to a greater amount of public engagement efforts. Government officials are pressured by more highly informed, opinionated, and potentially effective citizens to make more of an effort to address the public's concerns. The second way the Internet impacts government is that the Internet empowers groups of people. Social media sites support networks of people; online networks are currently significantly affecting the political process. Pressures from these networks are causing an increase in politicians' efforts to appeal to the public in campaigns. The combination of face-to-face relationships and social networking is a potentially powerful force for the future of politics and e-democracy.

Internet as a campaign tool

The Internet is viewed as a platform and delivery medium for tools that help to eliminate some of the distance constraints in representative democracy. Technical media for e-democracy can be expected to extend to mobile technologies, such as cellphones.

Most importantly, the Internet is a many-to-many communication medium, whereas radio and television, which broadcast few-to-many, and telephones, which broadcast few-to-few, are not. Also, the Internet has a much greater computational capacity, allowing strong encryption and database management, which is important in community information access and sharing, deliberative democracy and electoral fraud prevention. Further, people use the Internet to collaborate or meet in an asynchronous manner—that is, they do not have to be physically gathered at the same moment to get things accomplished.

Using the Internet as a political campaigning tool has become a cheaper and more convenient alternative for many politicians, in comparison to traditional door-to-door knocking or telephone campaigning. Candidates are also beginning to use social networking sites to reach younger audiences, creating potential supporters to campaigns. E-mail chains and political blogs also have had a major impact with online campaigning. Views are expressed by adding comments to political blogs or web pages. Point-and-click advertising (interactive advertising online) also has influenced traditional mail or television campaigning.[14]

The lower cost of information exchange on the Internet, as well as the high level of reach that the content potentially has, makes the Internet an attractive medium for political information, particularly amongst social interest groups and parties with lower budgets.

For example, environmental or social issue groups may find the Internet an easier mechanism to increase awareness of their issues, as compared to traditional media outlets, such as television or newspapers, which require heavy financial investment. Due to all these factors, the Internet has the potential to take over certain traditional media of political communication, such as the telephone, the television, newspapers and the radio. The civil society has gradually moved into the online world.[15]

Another example is openforum.com.au, an Australian non-profit eDemocracy project that invites politicians, senior public servants, academics, business people and other key stakeholders to engage in high-level policy debate.

Novel tools are being developed that are aimed at empowering bloggers, webmasters and owners of other social media, with the effect of moving from a strictly informational use of the Internet to using the Internet as a means of social organization not requiring top-down action. Action triggers, for instance, are a novel concept designed to allow webmasters to mobilize their viewers into action without the need for leadership. These tools are also utilized worldwide: for example, India is developing an effective blogosphere that allows internet users to state their thoughts and opinions.[16]

Electronic support for local democratic groups

Citizens' associations play an important role in the democratic process, providing a place for individuals to learn about public affairs and a source of power outside that of the state, according to theorists like Alexis de Tocqueville. Public-policy researcher Hans Klein at the Georgia Institute of Technology notes that participation in such forums has a number of barriers, such as the need to meet in one place at one time.[17] In a study of a civic association in the northeastern United States, Klein found that electronic communications greatly enhanced the ability of the organization to fulfill its mission.

There are many forms of association in civic society. The term interest group conventionally refers to more formal organizations that either focus on particular social groups and economic sectors, such as trade unions and business and professional associations, or on more specific issues, such as abortion, gun control, or the environment.[18] Other traditional interest groups have well-established organizational structures and formal membership rules, and their primary orientation is toward influencing government and the policy process. Transnational advocacy networks bring together loose coalitions of these organizations under common umbrella organizations that cross national borders.[3]

The Internet may serve multiple functions for all of these organizations, including lobbying elected representatives, public officials, and policy elites; networking with related associations and organizations; mobilizing organizers, activists, and members using action alerts, newsletters, and emails; raising funds and recruiting supporters; and communicating their message to the public via the traditional news media.[3]

In 2007 was a rumour that telephone and cable companies are going to create a two-tiered Internet. This new Internet will have a fast lane and a slow lane and companies and individuals will have to pay to use them. Large companies will have the money to pay for the fast lane, whereas others won't be able to make their voices heard via the Internet. What this means for our democracy is that low budgeted campaigns and less wealthy candidates for office won't be able to run for office as effectively as the richer ones. This will have a large affect on local democratic especially because they tend to be less funded than national democratic groups. This two-tiered Internet will silence the lower class and low middle class voices in general and make our right to freedom of speech less heard. In November 2010 a bill was passed that would ensure that "net neutrality" would be kept. This means that a two-tiered Internet isn't a possibility in the near future, but the fact that it was thought of and because of our business minded economy it's plausible that a form of the two-tiered Internet could exist later. This is a scary thought because it would make it so that only the largest and wealthiest campaigns would be run and heard of and smaller campaigns would never have a chance to even get their values out into the public.

Benefits and disadvantages

Information and communications technologies are neither democratic nor undemocratic; they are merely means to an end and not normative by their nature. They are tools that may be deployed to achieve certain goals. And these goals may even be contradictory (e.g. both coercive control and participation can be fostered by digital technology)[19]. While many celebrate the Internet as a tool for democracy, it should not be forgotten that the earlier visions of an Informatization-State were rather frightening, such as the one told by George Orwell in his Nineteen Eighty-Four. While technologies can be used for the good and bad, certain institutional framework conditions may either support or hamper the use of electronic means for the benefit of democratic processes. Risks and opportunities of the digitization of democratic processes depends therefore to a large extent upon the particular institutional framework conditions of the chosen democratic model (which is mainly set out in the Constitution, including the type of the underlying social contract, specific aspects of the rule of law, representative democracy or direct democracy, etc.).[19]

Benefits

Contemporary technologies, such as electronic mailing lists, peer-to-peer networks, collaborative software, wikis, Internet forums and blogs, are clues to and early potential solutions for some aspects of e-democracy.

A number of non-governmental sites have developed cross-jurisdiction, customer-focused applications that extract information from thousands of governmental organizations into a system that brings consistency to data across many dissimilar providers. It is convenient and cost-effective for businesses, and the public benefits by getting easy access to the most current information available without having to expend tax dollars to get it. One example of this is transparent.gov.com, a free resource for citizens to quickly identify the various open government initiatives taking place in their community or in communities across the country.

Another valuable source is USA.gov — the official site of the United States government. The website is directly linked to every federal and state agency. The information provided by the website is valuable to all citizens, and non-citizens, of the current news and regulations of the U.S. government. These are just some examples of e-government's[20] influence in the Internet.

E-democracy leads to a more simplified process and access to government information for public-sector agencies and citizens. For example, the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles simplified the process of certifying driver records to be admitted in county court proceedings. Indiana became the first state to allow government records to be digitally signed, legally certified and delivered electronically by using Electronic Postmark technology.[21] In addition to its simplicity, e-democracy services can reduce costs. The Alabama Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, Wal-Mart and NIC developed an online hunting and fishing license service utilizing an existing computer to automate the licensing process. More than 140,000 licenses were purchased at Wal-Mart stores during the first hunting season, and the agency estimates it will save $200,000 annually from service.[22]

Electronic democracy can also carry the benefit of reaching out to youth as a mechanism to increase youth voter turnout in elections and raising awareness amongst youth. With the consistent decline of voter turnout, e-democracy and electronic voting mechanisms can help revert that trend. Youth, in particular, have seen a significant drop in turnout in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. The use of electronic political participation mechanisms may appear more familiar to youth and, as a result, garner more participation by youths who would otherwise find it inconvenient to vote using the more traditional methods. Electronic democracy can help improve democratic participation, reduce civic illiteracy and voter apathy and become a useful asset for political discussion, education, debate and participation.[23]

Disadvantages

Equally, these technologies are bellwethers of some of the issues associated with the territory, such as the inability to sustain new initiatives or protect against identity theft, information overload and vandalism.

Some traditional objections to direct democracy are argued to apply to e-democracy, such as the potential for direct governance to tend towards the polarization of opinions, populism, and demagoguery[19]. More practical objections exist, not least in terms of the digital divide between those with access to the media of e-democracy (mobile phones and Internet connections) and those without, as well as the opportunity cost of expenditure on e-democracy innovations.

Furthermore, there are still those who are skeptical to the amount of impact that they can make through online participation.[24] Although the government projects supply information, IT illiteracy and the digital divide are grounds to discourage participation. The political advances on the Internet can potentially dishearten non-users to adapt the new technologies.

Electronic direct democracy

Electronic direct democracy (EDD) is the strongest form of direct democracy, in which people are involved in the legislative function. Many advocates think that also important to this notion are technological enhancements to the deliberative process. Electronic direct democracy is sometimes referred to by many other names, such as open source governance and collaborative governance.

EDD requires electronic voting or some way to register votes on issues electronically. As in any direct democracy, in an EDD, citizens would have the right to vote on legislation, author new legislation, and recall representatives (if any representatives are preserved).

Technology for supporting EDD has been researched and developed at the Florida Institute of Technology,[25] where the technology is used with student organizations. Numerous other software development projects are underway,[26] along with many supporting and related projects.[27] Several of these projects are now collaborating on a cross-platform architecture, under the umbrella of the Metagovernment project.[28]

EDD as a system is not fully implemented in a political government anywhere in the world, although several initiatives are currently forming. Ross Perot was a prominent advocate of EDD when he advocated "electronic town halls" during his 1992 and 1996 Presidential campaigns in the United States. Switzerland, already partially governed by direct democracy, is making progress towards such a system.[29] Senator On-Line, an Australian political party running for the Senate in the 2007 federal elections, proposed to institute an EDD system so that Australians can decide which way the senators vote on each and every bill.[30] A similar initiative was formed 2002 in Sweden where the party Aktivdemokrati, running for the Swedish parliament, offers its members the power to decide the actions of the party over all or some areas of decision, or alternatively to use a proxy with immediate recall for one or several areas.

The only mainstream direct democracy party currently registered with any country's electoral commission [checked against each country's register] is the UK's People's Administration Direct Democracy party. The People's Administration have developed and published the complete architecture for a legitimate reform to EDD [including the required Parliamentary reform process]. The People's Administration advocates using the web and telephone to enable the majority electorate to create, propose and vote upon all policy implementation. The People's Administration's blueprint has been published in various forms since 1998 and the People's Administration is currently the only direct democracy party registered in a vote-able format anywhere in the world - making transition possible through evolution via election with legitimate majority support, instead of potentially through revolution via violence.

Liquid democracy, or direct democracy with delegable proxy, would allow citizens to choose a proxy to vote on their behalf while retaining the right to cast their own vote on legislation. The voting and the appointment of proxies could be done electronically. The proxies could even form proxy chains, in which if A appoints B and B appoints C, and neither A nor B vote on a proposed bill but C does, C's vote will count for all three of them. Citizens could also rank their proxies in order of preference, so that if their first choice proxy fails to vote, their vote can be cast by their second-choice proxy.

ICTs and political participation

E-democracy has become a term that is used widely but also has widely different instantiations. We take as our definition of e-democracy, the use of ICT to support the democratic decision-making processes. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) play a major role in organizing and informing citizens in various forms of civic engagement. ICTs are used to enhance active participation of citizens and to support the collaboration between actors for policy-making purposes within the political processes of all stages of governance.[31]Macintoch, Ann (2006). To support governments take advantage of the innovative e-participation pilots taking place at the national, regional and local level there is a need to know and understand more precisely what is happening elsewhere. Although some governments and research centers have already undertaken a number of surveys in this area there is no standard way to describe the approach and detail the outcomes.Overall, there are many things that come into factor when dealing with ICTs and e=participation.

Civic engagement of youth through the Internet

There has been much speculation about the Internet’s potential to facilitate the engagement of younger citizens in politics. This group of young people, under the age of 35, frequently labelled Generations X and Y, have been noted for their lack of political interest and activity for the last two decades.[32] The younger generation is less likely to have established long-standing habits of media use, and is willing to experiment with new technologies and formats. Young adults view the benefits of new technologies as a means of gaining advantage in education, employment, and in the political realm. Younger people have ease with Internet technology and are more likely than older citizens to use web-based platforms to research and access political information.[33] However, there is no clear consensus about the capacity of new media, including the Internet and social networking websites, to engage young people in the democratic process.

Digital & Media Democracy

In the era of globalization democracy has changed drastically because of the use of technology.[34] Political pluralism and dialogue, are new meanings of democracy which have been forged by the emergence of new public decision-making policies in the internet. The evolution of modern technology has changed classic understandings such as political dialogue and political accountability. Americans are drastically moving to their mobile devices for updates on the news. A survey that was released with this years report finds that nearly half of all Americans (47%) now get some form of local news on a mobile device or cell phone. [35] Americans are now turning to mobile devices mostly to access news that serves immediate needs such as weather, movie times, information on local businesses and traffic in their area. Today the web news is beginning to increase. Cable news and news platforms are starting to shrink and decline. More people are saying that they get their news from the web than newspapers. [36] The internet now follows only television among American adults as a destinations for news. Local mobile ad revenue is growing fast, stations in 2009 made 29 million from mobile devices. “I expect that figure to skyrocket into the billions within two years as the transition from desktops and laptops to hand-held devices takes off,” said Gordon Borrell [37]

Diffusion of E-Democracy

E-democracy is a relatively new addition to the internet and politics. It unlike most things on the internet these days is not fully developed, and is still continuing to be diffused across the globe. When looking at e-democracy that we see in the United States it is important to look at the factors that have contributed to our early adoption of E-Democracy. For advancements of e-democracy, the necessary components that are needed for e-democracy to diffuse and grow are internal factors in the society, such as the values of the political culture (norms, such as open democracy and free speech, capital level) and citizen pressure. Also, the nation needs to have a good basis of advanced technologies and a stable economy. Here we do have these components, and that is greatly the level as to why we have such advanced e-democracy, but it is also our rights to free speech and valuing diverse opinions that boost our desire for it.[38] In other countries, such as China, e-democracy is not developed because their nation does not stand on the same values as we do. Their internet is more censored than ours, with the government having full control over the internet. E-democracy will not work in China as it has in the US because “a new technology or communications medium is more likely to reflect and supplement the existing political order than alter it.”[39] The values of free speech that we live and support here do not reflect those ideals in China, and so the openness needed for e-democracy to thrive and for people to be able to hold and express their diverse opinions about politics, is unable to present itself in the same way.[40] The strict censorship of the nation would reflect e-democracy and it would not be able to be utilized to its full extent. Similarly, in Austria, they have the components of an advanced internet system unlike China, but they do not have the political and social norms calling for citizen’s opinions to be heard. In a study conducted that interviewed elected officials in Austria’s parliament opinions were widely and strongly against e-democracy. They believed that the citizens were “uninformed” and their way of expressing their opinions should only be to vote; sharing opinions and ideas was only the job of the elected.[41] Their officials have a contrasting idea of their roles than those in the US, here the citizens opinion is respected and called for, and their power is up to the citizens, our opinions do not take away from their influence. In Austria, on the other hand the elected officials have no tolerance for their powers to be diminished in the slightest, including by allowing citizens to openly express ideas and opinions about politics because it makes the people in power vulnerable to the citizens.[42] Austria’s blatant negative opinion on e-democracy shows that it is necessary for a nation to have openness in political thought from citizens for e-democracy to thrive.[43]


See also

References

  1. ^ Macintoch, Ann (2006)
  2. ^ Clift, S. (2004). E-Democracy Resource Links from Steven Clift - E-Government, E-Politics, E-Voting Links and more. Retrieved July 10, 2009, from Publicus.Ne-t Public Strategies forthe Online World: Publicus.net
  3. ^ a b c Ibid.
  4. ^ Center for Digital Government “Digital States Survey open-access online resource 2008 http://www.centerdigitalgov.com/survey/61
  5. ^ Government Technology’s Public CIO Thought Leadership Profile "Expanding eGovernment, Every Day" open-access online paper 2006 Nicusa.com
  6. ^ Martin Hilbert (April, 2009). "The Maturing Concept of E-Democracy: From E-Voting and Online Consultations to Democratic Value Out of Jumbled Online Chatter". Journal of Information Technology and Politics. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a911066517. Retrieved February 24, 2010.  free access to the article can be found here martinhilbert.net/e-democracyHilbertJITP.pdf
  7. ^ Novak, T., & Hoffman, D. (1998). Bridging the Digital Divide: The Impact of Race on Computer Access and Internet Use. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.
  8. ^ Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its Critics. etc. New Haven: Yale University Press
  9. ^ Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge: University Press
  10. ^ Center for Digital Government “ENGAGE: Creating e-Government that Supports Commerce, Collaboration, Community and Common Wealth” 2008 Nicusa.com
  11. ^ Bakardjieva, M. (2009). "Subactivism: Lifeworld and Politics in the Age of the Internet". Information Society 25 (2). doi:10.1080/01972240802701627. 
  12. ^ Pautz, H. (2010). "The Internet, Political Participation and Election Turnout". German Politics & Society 28 (3). doi:10.3167/gps.2010.280309. 
  13. ^ Leighninger, Matt (2011). "Citizenship and Governance in a Wild, Wired World". National Civic Review 100 (2). doi:doi:10.1002/ncr.20056. 
  14. ^ • Adam, Nagourney. "Politics Faces Sweeping Change via the Internet."The New York Times 04-02-2006 1-2. NYtimes.com
  15. ^ Jensen, M., Danziger, J., & Venkatesh, A. (2007, Jan). Civil society and cyber society: The role of the internet in community associations and democratic politics. Information Society, 23(1), 39-50.
  16. ^ The road to e-democracy. (2008, February). The Economist, 386(8567), 15.
  17. ^ Klein, Hans (January 1999). "Tocqueville in Cyberspace: Using the Internet for Citizens Associations". The Information Society (15): 213–220. 
  18. ^ Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge: University Press
  19. ^ a b c [Hilbert, Martin. "Digital Processes and Democratid Theory: Dynamics, risks and opportunities that arise when democratic institutions meet digital information and communication technologies." open-access online book 2007, Martinhilbert.net
  20. ^ Gunter, B. (2006). Advances in e-democracy: Overview. Emerald Group Publishing Limited 58(5), 361-370
  21. ^ Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles
  22. ^ Nicusa.com
  23. ^ Canadian Parties in Transition, 3rd Edition. Gagnon and Tanguay (eds). Chapter 20 - Essay by Milner
  24. ^ Komito, L. (2007, December). Community and inclusion: The impact of new communications technologies. Irish Journal of Sociology, 16(2), 77-96.
  25. ^ Kattamuri etal. "Supporting Debates Over Citizen Initiatives", Digital Government Conference, pp 279-280, 2005
  26. ^ List of active projects involved in the Metagovernment project
  27. ^ List of related projects from the Metagovernment project
  28. ^ Standardization project of the Metagovernment project.
  29. ^ Electronic Voting in Switzerland (invalid link)
  30. ^ "Senator On-Line". http://senatoronline.com.au/. Retrieved 2008-06-03. 
  31. ^ Kubicek, H., & Westholm, H. (2007). In the case of e-participation there are a growing number of examples of government organizations innovatively using technology to provide access to policy information and request comment on it. These examples demonstrate how technology is emerging as a tool to provide people with the capacity to participate and influence decision-making.
  32. ^ Owen, D. (2006). The Internet and youth civic engagement in the United States. In S. Oates, D. Owen & R. K. Gibson (Eds.), The Internet and politics: Citizens, voters and activists. London: Routledge.
  33. ^ Ibid.
  34. ^ Ch. M. Akrivopoulou (2011). Digital Democracy and the impact of technology on governance and politics: New Globalized Practice.
  35. ^ Pew Interent and American Life Project in association with the Knight Foundation
  36. ^ Deborah Potter (2010)Deborah Potter and Katerina-eva Matsa. The State of the news media. An annual report on American Journalism
  37. ^ TVB press release. News Report Finds Broadcast TV Stations Outpace Newspapers in Interactive Sales in 2009. April 20, 2010
  38. ^ Lee, Chung-pin; Chang, Berry (May/June 2011). "Testing the Development and Diffusion of E-Government and E-Democracy: A Global Perspective". Public Administration Review 71 (3): 444-454. 
  39. ^ Yuan, Wenll (09). "E-democracy@China: does it work?". Chinese Journal of Communication 3 (4): 488-503. doi:10.1080/17544750.2010.516581. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17544750.2010.516581#tabModule. Retrieved October 20, 2011. 
  40. ^ Lee, Chung-pin; Chang, Berry (May/June 2011). "Testing the Development and Diffusion of E-Government and E-Democracy: A Global Perspective". Public Administration Review 71 (3): 444-454. 
  41. ^ Mahrer, Harold; Krimmer (Jan 2005). "Towards the enhancement of e-democracy: identifying the notion of the 'middleman paradox'". Information Systems Journal 15 (1): 27-42. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00184.x. 
  42. ^ Mahrer, Harold; Krimmer (Jan 2005). "Towards the enhancement of e-democracy: identifying the notion of the 'middleman paradox'". Information Systems Journal 15 (1): 27-42. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00184.x. 
  43. ^ Lee, Chung-pin; Chang, Berry (May/June 2011). "Testing the Development and Diffusion of E-Government and E-Democracy: A Global Perspective". Public Administration Review 71 (3): 444-454. 

External links


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужно решить контрольную?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Democracy Index — 2010. Full democracies:   9 10 …   Wikipedia

  • Democracy promotion — Democracy promotion, which can also be referred to as democracy assistance, or democracy building, is a strand of foreign policy adopted by governments and international organizations that seek to support the spread of democracy as a political… …   Wikipedia

  • Democracy Ranking — is an independent initiative, whose organization (point of contact, the ″Democracy Ranking Association″) is located primarily in Vienna, Austria.[1][2] Democracy Ranking produces an annual global ranking of democracies. The applied conceptual… …   Wikipedia

  • Democracy & Nature — was a theoretical journal founded in 1992 by Takis Fotopoulos. Initially launched as Society and Nature, it was renamed Democracy Nature in 1995. Four volumes of three issues each were released by Aigis Publications in the period from 1992 to… …   Wikipedia

  • Democracy (Judge Dredd storyline) — Democracy Dredd on democrats (drawn by John Higgins, in 2000 AD #532). Publisher …   Wikipedia

  • Democracy in America —   Author(s) Alexis de Tocqueville Original …   Wikipedia

  • Democracy Party of China — 中国民主党 Founded June 28, 1998 …   Wikipedia

  • Democracy and Desire — (also Democracia y Deseo) is an evolutionary exhibition project by artist Per Hüttner that develops as it travels. It has been shown in various public and private venues in Europe since November 2006. The project takes its inspiration from Zen… …   Wikipedia

  • Democracy for America — Founded 2004 Key people Howard Dean, Jim Dean Office location South Burlington, Vermont Website …   Wikipedia

  • Democracy (video game) — Democracy Developer(s) Positech Games Publisher(s) Positech Games, Red Marble Games, Tri Synergy P …   Wikipedia

  • Democracy Matters — is a non profit, non partisan grassroots student political organization that is dedicated to deepening democracy. Democracy Matters advocates for public financing of election campaigns and other pro democracy reforms in order to get big private… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
… Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”