E-Government (short for electronic government, also known as e-gov, digital government, online government, or connected government) is digital interactions between a government and citizens (G2C), government and businesses/Commerce (G2B), government and employees (G2E), and also between government and governments /agencies (G2G). Essentially, the e-Government delivery models can be briefly summed up as (Jeong, 2007):[1]

  • G2C (Government to Citizens)
  • G2B (Government to Businesses)
  • G2E (Government to Employees)
  • G2G (Government to Governments)
  • C2G (Citizens to Governments)

This digital interaction consists of governance, information and communication technology (ICT), business process re-engineering (BPR), and e-citizen at all levels of government (city, state/provence, national, and international).


Defining e-Government

‘E-Government' (or Digital Government) is defined as ‘The employment of the Internet and the world-wide-web for delivering government information and services to the citizens.’ (United Nations, 2006; AOEMA, 2005).[2]

'Electronic Government' (or in short 'e-Government') essentially refers to ‘The utilization of IT, ICTs, and other web-based telecommunication technologies to improve and/or enhance on the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery in the public sector.’ (Jeong, 2007).[3]

E-government describes the use of technologies to facilitate the operation of government and the disbursement of government information and services. E-government, short for electronic government, deals heavily with Internet and non-internet applications to aid in governments. E-government includes the use of electronics in government as large-scale as the use of telephones and fax machines, as well as surveillance systems, tracking systems such as RFID tags, and even the use of television and radios to provide government-related information and services to the citizens.

Examples of e-Government and e-Governance

E-Government should enable anyone visiting city website to communicate and interact with city employees via the Internet with graphical user interfaces (GUI), instant-messaging (IM), audio/video presentations, and in any way more sophisticated than a simple email letter to the address provided at the site”[4] and “the use of technology to enhance the access to and delivery of government services to benefit citizens, business partners and employees”.[5] The focus should be on:

  • The use of Information and communication technologies, and particularly the Internet, as a tool to achieve better government.[6]
  • The use of information and communication technologies in all facets of the operations of a government organization.[7]
  • The continuous optimization of service delivery, constituency participation and governance by transforming internal and external relationships through technology, the Internet and new media.[8]

Whilst e-Government has traditionally been understood as being centered around the operations of government, e-Governance is understood to extend the scope by including citizen engagement and participation in governance. As such, following in line with the OECD definition of e-Government, e-Governance can be defined as the use of ICTs as a tool to achieve better governance.

Delivery models and activities of e-Government

The primary delivery models of e-Government can be divided into:

  • Government-to-Citizen or Government-to-Consumer (G2C)
    • In this model, the G2C model apply the strategy of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) with business concept.
    • By managing their customer (citizen) relationship, the business (government) can provide the needed products and services fulfill the needs from customer (citizen).
    • In United States, the NPR (National Partnership for Reinventing Government) has been implemented from 1993.[9]
  • Government-to-Business (G2B)
  • Government-to-Government (G2G)
  • Government-to-Employees (G2E)

Within each of these interaction domains, four kinds of activities take place:[10][11]

  • pushing information over the Internet, e.g.: regulatory services, general holidays, public hearing schedules, issue briefs, notifications, etc.
  • two-way communications between the agency and the citizen, a business, or another government agency. In this model, users can engage in dialogue with agencies and post problems, comments, or requests to the agency.
  • conducting transactions, e.g.: lodging tax returns, applying for services and grants.
  • governance, e.g.: To enable the citizen transition from passive information access to active citizen participation by:
  1. Informing the citizen
  2. Representing the citizen
  3. Encouraging the citizen to vote
  4. Consulting the citizen
  5. Involving the citizen

Non-internet e-Government

While e-government is often thought of as "online government" or "Internet-based government," many non-Internet "electronic government" technologies can be used in this context. Some non-Internet forms include telephone, fax, PDA, SMS text messaging, MMS, wireless networks and services, Bluetooth, CCTV, tracking systems, RFID, biometric identification, road traffic management and regulatory enforcement, identity cards, smart cards and other Near Field Communication applications; polling station technology (where non-online e-voting is being considered), TV and radio-based delivery of government services (e.g., CSMW), email, online community facilities, newsgroups and electronic mailing lists, online chat, and instant messaging technologies.


Controversies of e-Government


The main disadvantages concerning e-government is the lack of equality in public access to the internet, reliability of information on the web, and hidden agendas of government groups that could influence and bias public opinions.

There are many considerations and potential implications of implementing and designing e-government, including disintermediation of the government and its citizens, impacts on economic, social, and political factors, vulnerability to cyber attacks, and disturbances to the status quo in these areas.[12] See also Electronic leviathan.


Increased contact between government and its citizens goes both ways. Once e-government begins to develop and become more sophisticated, citizens will be forced to interact electronically with the government on a larger scale. This could potentially lead to a lack of privacy for civilians as their government obtains more and more information on them. In a worse case scenario, with so much information being passed electronically between government and civilians, a totalitarian-like system could develop. When the government has easy access to countless information on its citizens, personal privacy is lost.[13][14]


Although "a prodigious amount of money has been spent" on the development and implementation of e-government, some say it has yielded only a mediocre product. The outcomes and effects of trial Internet-based governments are often difficult to gauge or unsatisfactory.[15] According to Gartner, Worldwide IT spending is estimated to total $3.6 trillion in 2011 which is 5.1% increase from the year 2010 ($3.4 trillion).[16]


An e-government site that provides web access and support often does not offer the "potential to reach many users including those who live in remote areas, are homebound, have low literacy levels, exist on poverty line incomes."[17]

False sense of transparency and accountability

Opponents of e-government argue that online governmental transparency is dubious because it is maintained by the governments themselves. Information can be added or removed from the public eye. To this day, very few organizations monitor and provide accountability for these modifications. Those that do so, like the United States’ OMBWatch [1] and Government Accountability Project, are often nonprofit volunteers. Even the governments themselves do not always keep track of the information they insert and delete.[18]


The ultimate goal of the E-Government is to be able to offer an increased portfolio of public services to citizens in an efficient and cost effective manner. E-government allows for government transparency. Government transparency is important because it allows the public to be informed about what the government is working on as well as the policies they are trying to implement. Simple tasks may be easier to perform through electronic government access. Many changes, such as marital status or address changes can be a long process and take a lot of paper work for citizens. E-government allows these tasks to be performed efficiently with more convenience to individuals. E-government is an easy way for the public to be more involved in political campaigns. It could increase voter awareness, which could lead to an increase in citizen participation in elections. 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 spend time, energy and money to get it.

E-government helps simplify processes and makes access to government information more easily accessible 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.[19] Indiana became the first state to allow government records to be digitally signed, legally certified and delivered electronically by using Electronic Postmark technology. In addition to its simplicity, e-democracy services can reduce costs. 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.[20]

The anticipated benefits of e-government include efficiency, improved services, better accessibility of public services, and more transparency and accountability.[12]


One goal of e-government will be greater citizen participation. Through the internet, people from all over the country can interact with politicians or public servants and make their voices heard. Blogging and interactive surveys will allow politicians or public servants to see the views of the people they represent on any given issue. Chat rooms can place citizens in real-time contact with elected officials, their offices or provide them with the means to replace them by interacting directly with public servants, allowing voters to have a direct impact and influence in their government. These technologies can create a more transparent government, allowing voters to immediately see how and why their representation in the capital is voting the way they are. This helps voters better decide who to vote for in the future or how to help the public servants become more productive. A government could theoretically move more towards a true democracy with the proper application of e-government. Government transparency will give insight to the public on how decisions are made and hold elected officials or public servants accountable for their actions. The public could become a direct and prominent influence in government legislature to some degree.[21][22][23][24]

Environmental bonuses

Proponents of e-government argue that online government services would lessen the need for hard copy forms.[25] Due to recent pressures from environmentalist groups, the media, and the public, some governments and organizations have turned to the Internet to reduce this paper use. The United States government utilizes the website http://www.forms.gov to provide “internal government forms for federal employees” and thus “produce significant savings in paper.[26]

Speed, efficiency, and convenience

E-government allows citizens to interact with computers to achieve objectives at any time and any location, and eliminates the necessity for physical travel to government agents sitting behind desks and windows. Improved accounting and record keeping can be noted through computerization, and information and forms can be easily accessed, equaling quicker processing time. On the administrative side, access to help find or retrieve files and linked information can now be stored in databases versus hardcopies stored in various locations. Individuals with disabilities or conditions no longer have to be mobile to be active in government and can be in the comfort of their own homes.[27][28]

Public approval

Recent trials of e-government have been met with acceptance and eagerness from the public.[29][30] Citizens participate in online discussions of political issues with increasing frequency, and young people, who traditionally display minimal interest in government affairs, are drawn to e-voting procedures.

Although internet-based governmental programs have been criticized for lack of reliable privacy policies, studies have shown that people value prosecution of offenders over personal confidentiality. Ninety percent of United States adults approve of Internet tracking systems of criminals, and fifty-seven percent are willing to forgo some of their personal internet privacy if it leads to the prosecution of criminals or terrorists.[31]

Technology-specific e-Government

There are also some technology-specific sub-categories of e-government, such as m-government (mobile government), u-government (ubiquitous government), and g-government (GIS/GPS applications for e-government.

E-government portals and platforms The primary delivery models of e-Government are classified depending on who benefits. In the development of public sector or private sector portals and platforms, a system is created that benefits all constituents. Citizens needing to renew their vehicle registration have a convenient way to accomplish it while already engaged in meeting the regulatory inspection requirement. On behalf of a government partner, business provides what has traditionally, and solely, managed by government and can use this service to generate profit or attract new customers. Government agencies are relieved of the cost and complexity of having to process the transactions.[32]

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, known as self-funding portals.

Social networking is an emerging area for e-democracy. The social networking entry point 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 can be found at almost every state government portal through Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube widgets.

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. Government is also beginning to Twitter. In the state of Rhode Island, Treasurer Frank T. Caprio is offering daily tweets of the state’s cash flow. Interested people can sign up at here.[33] For a full list of state agencies with Twitter feeds, visit Real Life. Live document. For more information, visit transparent-gov.

UN e-Government Readiness Index

There are several international rankings of e-government maturity. The Eurostat rankings, Economist, Brown University, and the UN e-Government Readiness Index are among the most frequently cited. The United Nations Public Administration Network conducts a bi-annual e-Government survey which includes a section titled e-Government Readiness. It is a comparative ranking of the countries of the world according to two primary indicators: i) the state of e-government readiness; and ii) the extent of e-participation. Constructing a model for the measurement of digitized services, the Survey assesses the 191 member states of the UN according to a quantitative composite index of e-government readiness based on website assessment; telecommunication infrastructure and human resource endowment.

The following is the list of the top 50 countries according to the UN's 2010 e-Government Readiness Index.[34]

Rank Country Index
1  South Korea 0.8785
2  United States 0.8510
3  Canada 0.8448
4  United Kingdom 0.8147
5  Netherlands 0.8097
6  Norway 0.8020
7  Denmark 0.7872
8  Australia 0.7863
9  Spain 0.7516
10  France 0.7510
11  Singapore 0.7476
12  Sweden 0.7474
13  Bahrain 0.7363
14  New Zealand 0.7311
15  Germany 0.7309
16  Belgium 0.7225
17  Japan 0.7152
18  Switzerland 0.7136
19  Finland 0.6967
20  Estonia 0.6965
21  Ireland 0.6866
22  Iceland 0.6697
23  Liechtenstein 0.6694
24  Austria 0.6679
25  Luxembourg 0.6672
26  Israel 0.6552
27  Hungary 0.6315
28  Lithuania 0.6295
29  Slovenia 0.6243
30  Malta 0.6129
31  Colombia 0.6125
32  Malaysia 0.6101
33  Czech Republic 0.6060
34  Chile 0.6014
35  Croatia 0.5858
36  Uruguay 0.5842
37  Latvia 0.5826
38  Italy 0.5800
39  Portugal 0.5787
40  Barbados 0.5714
41  Greece 0.5708
42  Cyprus 0.5705
43  Slovakia 0.5639
44  Bulgaria 0.5590
45  Poland 0.5582
46  Kazakhstan 0.5578
47  Romania 0.5479
48  Argentina 0.5467
49  United Arab Emirates 0.5349
50  Kuwait 0.5290

e-Government by country

In Canada

Government to citizen

Public information in Canada is the subject of the Access to Information Act. VisibleGovernment.ca is a Canadian non-profit that promotes online tools for government transparency. There have been several ChangeCamps in Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver, with organizers coming together in Edmonton, Halifax, Montreal, drawing many politicians. The city of Toronto mayor David Miller announced plans for an open city data portal at toronto.ca/open.

A collection of uses of social media in Canadian government can be found here.

Government to government

The current Clerk of the Privy Council - the head of the federal public service, has made workplace renewal a pillar of overall public service renewal. Key to workplace renewal is the adoption of collaborative networked tools. An example of such as tool is GCPEDIA - a wiki platform for federal public servants. Other tools include GCconnex, a social networking tool, and GCforums, a discussion board system.

In Europe

eGovernment shows significant advancement in Europe. For more information see eGovernment in Europe.

In India

In India, the e-Governance initiatives are broadly managed under the umbrella of the NeGP initiative.

In Malaysia

In Malaysia, the e-Government efforts are undertaken by the Malaysian government, under the umbrella of Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) and e-Government flagships.[2][35]

In Middle East

In the United Arab Emirates, the Emirates eGovernment is designed for e-government operations.

In Pakistan

In Pakistan, the Government of Pakistan's e-government directorate is committed to building a robust e-network framework that essentially allows the government to be more responsive in delivering public services to citizens and businesses.[36]

In the United States

The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States has become associated with the effective use of Internet technologies during his campaign, and in the implementation of his new government in 2009.[37][38][39]

On January 21, 2009, newly elected President Obama signed one of his first memorandums - the Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Transparency and Open Government[40] In the memo, President Obama called for an unprecedented level of openness in Government, asking agencies to "ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration."[40] The memo further "directs the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services (GSA), to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies [and] to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in the memorandum."[40]

President Obama’s memorandum centered around the idea of increasing transparency throughout various different federal departments and agencies. By enabling public websites like recovery.gov and data.gov to distribute more information to the American population, the administration believes that it will gain greater citizen participation.[41]

Recently, this initiative has crossed several key milestones and continues to make a significant amount of progress. Certain government information is still, and will continue to be, considered privileged, and this issue remains at the center of the debate.

Additionally, technology is still not accessible by all Americans. The National Broadband Plan hopes to counter this limit, but many Americans are still without access to internet, which would be required to use these services. Some Americans live in rural areas without access, while others are not financially able to support a connection.

e-Government – an alternative approach

Recent government policy updates have seen a shift away from e-Government towards a much more radical focus on transforming the whole relationship between the public sector and users of public services. This new approach is referred to as Transformational Government. Transformation programmes differ from traditional e-Government programmes in four major ways:

  • They take a whole-of-government view of the relationship between the public sector and the citizen or business user.
  • They include initiatives to e-enable the frontline public services: that is, staff involved in direct personal delivery of services such as education and healthcare – rather than just looking at transactional services which can be e-enabled on an end-to-end basis.
  • They take a whole-of-government view of the most efficient way managing the cost base of government.
  • They focus on the "citizen" not the "customer". That is, they seek to engage with the citizens as owners of and participants in the creation of public services, not as passive recipients of services.

See also


  1. ^ Jeong Chun Hai @Ibrahim. (2007). Fundamental of Development Administration. Selangor: Scholar Press. ISBN 978-967-504-5080
  2. ^ United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. "United Nations E-Government Survey 2010". UN. http://www2.unpan.org/egovkb/documents/2010/E_Gov_2010_Complete.pdf. Retrieved 2010-04-30. 
  3. ^ Jeong Chun Hai @Ibrahim. (2007). Fundamental of Development Administration. Selangor: Scholar Press. ISBN 978-967-504-5080
  4. ^ Kaylor, C., Deshazo, R. and Van Eck, D. The essence of e-governance is " The enhanced value for stakeholders through transformation"Gauging e-government: A report on implementing services among American cities. Government Information Quarterly, 18 (2001), 293–307.
  5. ^ Deloitte Research – Public Sector Institute At the Dawn of e-Government: The Citizen as Customer, 2000
  6. ^ OECD. The e-government imperative: main findings, Policy Brief, Public Affairs Division, Public Affairs and Communications Directorate, OECD, 2003
  7. ^ Koh, C.E., Prybutok, V.R. "The three-ring model and development of an instrument for measuring dimensions of e-government functions", Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 33 No.3, pp.34-9, 2003
  8. ^ Gartner Group, “Key Issues in E-Government Strategy and Management,” Research Notes, Key Issues, 23 May 2000
  9. ^ Larsen, B., & Milakovich, M. (January 01, 2005). Citizen Relationship Management and E-Government. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3591, 57-68
  10. ^ Mary Maureen Brown. "Electronic Government" Jack Rabin (ed.). Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, Marcel Dekker,2003.pp.427-432.
  11. ^ Shailendra C. Jain Palvia and Sushil S. Sharma (2007). "E-Government and E-Governance: Definitions/Domain Framework and Status around the World" (PDF). ICEG. http://www.iceg.net/2007/books/1/1_369.pdf. Retrieved 2008-07-10. 
  12. ^ a b Atkinson, Robert D.; Castro, Daniel (2008) (PDF). Digital Quality of Life. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. pp. 137–145. http://www.itif.org/files/DQOL-14.pdf. 
  13. ^ Lyman, Jay (2006-02-01). "AT&T Sued for Role in Aiding US Government Surveillance". TechNewsWorld. http://www.technewsworld.com/story/48629.html?wlc=1235202183. Retrieved 2009-02-28. 
  14. ^ Singel, Ryan (2007-08-06). "Analysis: New Law Gives Government Six Months to Turn Internet and Phone Systems into Permanent Spying Architecture". Wired. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/analysis-new-la.html. Retrieved 2008-02-28. 
  15. ^ "The pros and cons of e-government". Economist. 2008-02-14. http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=10638105. Retrieved 2009-02-28. 
  16. ^ "Global IT Spending". Gartner. 2011-01-11. http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1513614. Retrieved 2011-02-24. 
  17. ^ Becker, Shirley A. PhD.. "Bridging Literacy, Language, and Cultural Divides to Promote Universal Usability of E-Government Websites". Northern Arizona University. http://www.igi-pub.com/files/prefaces/jeco%20preface%201(3).pdf. Retrieved 2009-03-03. 
  18. ^ Chiger, Stephen (2002-09-11). "Has Terrorism Curtailed E-Government?". Medill News Service. http://pcworld.about.com/news/Sep112002id104796.htm. Retrieved 2009-01-23. 
  19. ^ Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles
  20. ^ "Picking Up the Tab". Government Technology. 2005-09. http://www.nicusa.com/pdf/EGOV_GovTech-Aug05.pdf. Retrieved 2009-04-23. [dead link]
  21. ^ Sinrod, Eric J. (2004-06-30). "A look at the pros and cons of e-government". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ericjsinrod/2004-06-30-sinrod_x.htm. Retrieved 2008-03-01. 
  22. ^ Schrier, Bill (2008-10-17). "How Web 2.0 Will Transform Local Government". Digital Communities. http://www.govtech.com/dc/articles/417520. Retrieved 2008-03-01. 
  23. ^ "Transparency". Center for Democracy & Technology. http://www.cdt.org/egov/handbook/transparency.shtml. Retrieved 2009-03-01. [dead link]
  24. ^ Thorpe, Stephen. "Facilitating effective online participation in e-government". E-government in New Zealand. http://www.e.govt.nz/resources/research/progress/transformation/chapter13.html. Retrieved 2009-03-01. [dead link]
  25. ^ Dezayas, Heidi (2008-01-30). "So, how much paper does our local government use?". Penn-Trafford Star. http://www.yourpenntrafford.com/penntraffordstar/article/so-how-much-paper-does-our-local-government-use. Retrieved 2008-03-01. 
  26. ^ "Report to Congress on the Benefits of the President’s E-Government Initiatives ("Business Gateway," p. 50)". 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/egov_docs/FY09_Benefits_Report.pdf. Retrieved 2009-02-28. [dead link]
  27. ^ Satyanarayana, J. E-Government: The Science of the Possible. India: Prentice Hall, 2004.
  28. ^ Nixon, Paul G.; Rawal, Rajash. Enabling Democracy? e-Government, Inclusion and Citizenship. The Hague University. pp. 281–290. ISBN 9781905305117. http://books.google.com/?id=eC60D0q7m0AC&pg=PA281&dq=cons+of+e-government. 
  29. ^ "Study Finds Federal Gains in Electronic Government and Citizen Services; Challenges Remain". Bearing Point. 2007-04-26. http://www.bearingpoint.com/portal/site/bearingpoint/menuitem.2e8a344a60e7e4fc53d0a110c54041a0/?vgnextoid=4bc7c0c315a22110VgnVCM100000de03620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b3db3c0bc28fe010VgnVCM1000003264a8c0RCRD. Retrieved 2009-03-08. 
  30. ^ Urdiales, C.; de Trazegnies, C.; Salceda, J. Vazquez; Sandoval, F. (PDF). eGovernment and Identity Management: using Biometrics to Reduce the Digital Divide. University of Malaga, Spain; University of Utrecht, the Netherlands. http://www.itif.org/files/DQOL-14.pdf. 
  31. ^ Roy, Saumya (2002-03-12). "How Much Government Snooping Is Okay?". Medill News Service. http://pcworld.about.com/news/Mar122002id88684.htm. Retrieved 2009-01-23. 
  32. ^ Government Technology’s Public CIO Thought Leadership Profile "Expanding eGovernment, Every Day" open-access online paper 2006 http://www.nicusa.com/pdf/EGOV_PublicCIO-Aug06.pdf
  33. ^ http://twitter.com/RITreasury/
  34. ^ United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. "United Nations E-Government Survey 2010". UN. http://www2.unpan.org/egovkb/documents/2010/E_Gov_2010_Complete.pdf. Retrieved 2010-04-30. 
  35. ^ Jeong Chun Hai @Ibrahim, & Nor Fadzlina Nawi. (2007). Principles of Public Administration: An Introduction. Kuala Lumpur: Karisma Publications.
  36. ^ e-Government Pakistan
  37. ^ Gaurav Mishra (January 2009). "The Promise and Myth of Barack Obama’s Government 2.0". http://www.gauravonomics.com/blog/the-promise-and-myth-of-barack-obamas-government-20/. Retrieved 2009-02-23. 
  38. ^ Dean Giustini (January 2009). "The Audacity of Government 2.0 - The Obama Era Arrives". The University of British Columbia. http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/googlescholar/archives/050154.html. Retrieved 2009-02-23. 
  39. ^ Daniel Lyons and Daniel Stone (November 2008). "President 2.0". Newsweek, Inc.. http://www.newsweek.com/id/170347. Retrieved 2009-02-23. 
  40. ^ a b c Transparency and Open Government
  41. ^ start/articleshow/4453532.cms "Obama's e-government off to good start". Economictimes.com. 2009-04-27. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Obamas-e-government-off-togood- start/articleshow/4453532.cms. Retrieved 2010-05-07. [dead link]

External links

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Government procurement in the United States — is based on many of the same principles as commercial contracting, but is subject to special laws and regulation as described below. Persons entering into commercial contracts are pretty much free to do anything that they can agree on. Each… …   Wikipedia

  • Government Houses of the British Empire and Commonwealth — Government House is the name given to some of the residences of Governors General, Governors and Lieutenant Governors in the Commonwealth and the former British Empire. It serves as the venue for the Governor s official business, as well as the… …   Wikipedia

  • Government House — is the name given to some of the residences of Governors General, Governors and Lieutenant Governors in the Commonwealth and the former British Empire. It serves as the venue for the Governor s official business, as well as the many receptions… …   Wikipedia

  • Government financial reports — are an important part of democracy ( or a constitutionally limited republic) but, often not widely read or discussed. Online reporting by governments makes these government financial reports more accessible, but not necessarily more understood by …   Wikipedia

  • Government of Russia — Government of the Russian Federation Government of the Russian Federation Government overview Formed 1993 (current, 2008) Jurisdiction Russia Headquarters …   Wikipedia

  • Government House, Canberra — Government House, Canberra, commonly known as Yarralumla, is the official residence of the Governor General of Australia, located in the suburb of Yarralumla, Canberra.The house is set in 54 hectares of parkland. The suburb of Yarralumla, which… …   Wikipedia

  • Government spending — or government expenditure is classified by economists into three main types. [Robert Barro and Vittorio Grilli (1994), European Macroeconomics , Ch. 15 16. Macmillan, ISBN 0333577647.] Government purchases of goods and services for current use… …   Wikipedia

  • Government House, Sydney — Government House is located in Sydney just south of the Sydney Opera House, and overlooks Sydney Harbour. It was the official residence and remains the official reception space of the Governor of New South Wales, Australia.Early Government Houses …   Wikipedia

  • Government Communications Headquarters — GCHQ Agency overview Formed 1919 as Government Code and Cypher School Preceding agency MI1b (Army) and NID25 (Royal Navy) Jurisdiction …   Wikipedia

  • Government House, Hong Kong — Government House (zh t|t=香港禮賓府; formerly 督憲府/香港總督府/港督府), located on Government Hill in the Central District of Hong Kong Island, is the official residence of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. The building was constructed in 1855, but was… …   Wikipedia

  • Government of the 1st Scottish Parliament — Government of the 1st (1999) Government of the 2nd (2003) Government of the 3rd (2007) Government of the 4th (2011) The Executive of the 1st Scottish Parliament was formed following the 1999 election …   Wikipedia