Pin‐yu Chu and Yueh‐yun Sun
and telecommunication policy,( 4) ICT industry and CIO, and( 5) ICT application for ageing society( Waseda e‐Government research center, 2012); Taiwan e‐governance research center( TEG), sponsored by the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, Executive Yuan, is operated by the department of public administration, Chengchi University. TEG’ s major research arenas are innovation and development, performance and impact assessment, equal participation, social media and e‐Government, cross‐boundary governance, and open government( TEG, 2012).
2.3 The topics of international e‐Government / e‐governance conferences
In addition to examination of e‐Government rankings and research fields of distinguished international e‐Government centers, we further explore the main topics discussed in several leading international conferences.
The European Ministerial e‐Government Conference set a shared user‐centric vision of innovation in the public sector that has been at the center of the European policies for e‐Government since 2003. European Conference on e‐Government( ECEG), held annually by Academic Conferences International, continues the user‐centric vision and expands the discussion to other domains( based on the themes of ECEG 2013):( 1) applications of e‐Government, namely innovative ideas for improving the public service efficiency and effectiveness in various fields,( 2) challenges to e‐Government, including cyber terrorism, identity management, challenges to e‐service take‐up, etc.,( 3) dimensions, frameworks, and strategies of interoperability,( 4) e‐Government 2.0, involving impacts of web 2.0 in e‐Government, citizen empowerment, and open data,( 5) e‐democracy / e‐participation, containing technology‐driven democracy, social networks political participation, and citizen trust in online / offline participation,( 6) economics for e‐Government, and( 7) legal, agency, trust and governance issues( ECEG, 2012).
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences( HICSS), held by University of Hawaii, is a long‐standing conference in computer science and information technology, and most recently in e‐Government. E‐Government issues scheduled to be discussed in HICSS 2013 include( 1) infrastructure security,( 2) cloud services and interoperability,( 3) open government and participation,( 4) e‐Government education, training and professionalization,( 5) policy, governance ethics, and law,( 6) social media and social networking,( 7) transformational government, etc.( HICSS, 2012). Internet Governance Forum( IGF), established in the mandate of World Summit on the Information Society( WSIS) from UN Secretary‐General in 2006, expects itself to bring various stakeholder groups as equals, in discussions on public policy issues relating to the Internet, and to serve as a neutral space for all actors( IGF, 2011). Since 2006 to 2012, the meeting themes include( 1) Internet governance for development,( 2) managing critical Internet resources,( 3) security, openness and privacy,( 4) access and diversity,( 5) Internet governance, and( 6) capacity building( IGF, 2012).
It is clear that discussions in these conferences also overlap in many topics, including opportunities and challenges of e‐Government, e‐services and interoperability, open government, e‐participation, and e‐Government 2.0, and issues regarding laws, regulations and governance.
2.4 Public values of e‐Government
Moore( 1995) first introduces the theory of public value, a normative theory for measuring the success of public services. Despite the prosperous development of ICTs and e‐Government, only lately have researchers begun to explore public values of e‐governance. The concept of public value is now increasingly becoming the innovative driver in modern e‐Government endeavors( Bonina and Cordella, 2008). For example, CTG proposes a public value framework for information technology( Cresswell et al., 2006). The European Commission proposes a conceptual framework for examining the various types of public value of e‐Government initiatives. Within the framework, the public value of e‐Government is assessed with respect to organization, politics, and end user( eGEP 2006, Heeks 2008). Yu( 2008) further classifies e‐Government related values into five perspectives: e‐Government services, public beneficiaries, government services chain, government internal organization and process, and the society and national environments. Friedland and Gross( 2010) categorize public values of e‐Government into three notions: operational value( measures of effectiveness and efficiency), political value( the extent of public mission and goals achievement), and social value( time, money, and efforts saved). Particularly, the social values respond to the public value impacts, including economic, political, social, quality of life, ideological, and stewardship( Harrison et al., 2012). Similarly, Karunasena and Deng( 2010) propose three public value drivers of e‐Government as delivery of quality public services, operating effective
130