INCORPORATE SOCIAL NETWORK SERVICES IN E-GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS. THE CASE OF MACEDONIA

Öz

This paper presents the state of e-Government sophistication in R. Macedonia. The survey is done using the 20 basic public e- services. A survey result showed that further progress will need to be made on two – way interaction. Social networks are seen as convenient mean for introducing two – way interaction, social capital, transparency, anti-corruption, democracy, law enforcement, and mainly trust and citizen inclusion and empowerment. We explored the potential impacts of social media in e-Government and introduced a new 6th stage of sophistication into the maturity model called ‘Citizen Inclusion’. This stage refers to citizen inclusion and empowerment into e-Government using social network services and provides citizens with ability to feed-back on how government operates.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• E-Government, Benchmarking, Social Networks

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, T. B. (2009), “E-government as an anti-corruption strategy”, Information Economics and Policy, Vol. 21, pp.201-210.
2. Capgemini, Rand Europe, IDC, Sogeti, and DT (2009), Smarter, Faster, Better eGovernment 8th eGovernment Benchmark Measurement, EU Directorate General for Information Society and Media.
3. Capgemini, Rand Europe, IDC, Sogeti, and DT (2010), Method paper 2010, Preparing the 9th Benchmark Measurement, EU Directorate General for Information Society and Media.
4. Capgemini, Rand Europe, Sogeti IDC, and DT (2010), Digitizing Public Services in Europe: Putting ambition into action, 9th Benchmark Measurement, EU Directorate General for Information Society and Media.
5. CCEGOV (2007), A Handbook for Citizen-centric eGovernment, cc:eGov.
6. Coleman, J. (1988), “Social capital in the creation of human capital”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, pp.S95-S120
7. Duck, S. (1997), The handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions, New York: Wiley
8. Gusev, M., Spasov, D., and Armenski, G. (2007). “Growth of eGovernment Services in Macedonia (Online Sophistication of eGovernment Services)”, Slovenian Society Informatika, Vol. 31, pp.397-406.

9. Huijboom, Noor, and Tijs Van den Broek (2011), “Open data: an international comparison of strategies”, European Journal of ePractice, Vol. 12, pp. 1- 13.
10. Jaeger, Paul T., and John Carlo Berto. (2010), “Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 27(4), pp.371-376.
11. John C. Bertot, Paul T. Jaeger, Justin M. Grimes (2010), “Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp.264-271.
12. Kramer, R. M. and Taylor, T. R. (1995), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
13. Landsber, D. (2010), “Government as Part of the Revolution: Using Social Media to Achieve Public Goals”, Electronic Journal of E-Government, Vol. 8, pp.134-146..
14. Putnam, R. (1993), Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
15. Teo, T. S. H., S. C. Srivastava, and L. Jiang. (2009), “Trust and electronic government success: An empirical study”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.99-132..
16. Trajkovik, V. (2011), ICT for Local Government, Standards, principles and best practices, Skopje: NALAS.