Donald Norris and Christopher Reddick
participation efforts among those agencies was limited. This, the authors argued,“… suggests that‘ e‐ participation’ largely remains a method of informing, keeping happy and convincing the public( 116).”
After conducting an analysis for the Local e‐Democracy National Project in the UK, Pratchett, et al.( 2005), found that“ Despite the existence of a range of e‐democracy tools and some significant experience of using them in different contests, the penetration and take‐up of e‐democracy in the UK, as elsewhere, remains limited( 4).” Writing about the effect of the Internet on citizen participation in politics in the UK, Ward and Vedel( 2006) reported only a limited impact. Indeed, they cautioned that, based on the extant evidence,“ the Internet per se is unlikely to stimulate widespread mobilization or participation …( 215).” Polat and Pratchett( 2009) reviewed the UK’ s local e‐Government program that operated between 2000 and 2006, which they argued was“… arguably one of the biggest initiatives of its kind in the world( 20),” and found that it largely ignored what the authors called online practices of citizenship and instead favored themes of modernization and efficiency.
Studies in the US have similarly failed to find compelling evidence that e‐democracy is alive and well in governments there. Using data from a survey of residents of the state of Georgia, Thomas and Streib( 2005) categorized citizen visits to government websites as e‐commerce, e‐research or e‐democracy. E‐democracy visits were the least frequent. Norris( 2006) conducted focus groups with officials from leading edge local governments and found that e‐democracy was not a consideration when these governments initiated their e‐ Government efforts. Moreover, e‐democracy was not part of their future planning for e‐Government.
After examining planning‐related websites among US municipalities with populations of 50,000 and greater, Conroy and Evans‐Crowley( 2006) found little or no evidence of the use of e‐participation tools. Scott( 2006) reviewed the websites of the 100 largest US cities to learn if they supported public participation. He found little evidence that these websites supported“… significant public involvement in accordance with direct democracy theory( 349).” Finally, D’ Agostino, et al.( 2011), reviewed the websites of the 20 largest American cities for their practices of e‐Government( information and services) and e‐governance( participation). They found that information and service delivery predominated and that“… governance applications are only marginally practiced via the Internet.( 4)”
A number of comparative studies have been conducted, mostly concerning e‐Government and e‐democracy initiatives in the US, the UK, European nations, and by the European Union( EU) and the European Commission( EC). Among the earliest such works, Annttiroiko( 2001) found that the main thrust of EC e‐Government projects was e‐service provision rather than active participation. Chadwick and May( 2003) studied e‐ democracy initiatives in the US, UK and EU found that of three possible e‐Government models( managerial, consultative and participatory), most initiatives followed the managerial model. They concluded that:“… achievements to date fall short of anything approaching‘ electronic democracy’( 296).” Certainly 2003 was in the early days in the world of e‐democracy, but studies since then have echoed Chadwick and May’ s findings.
In a review of e‐Government in the US and the UK, Needham( 2004) wrote that both countries focused primarily on information and service delivery and generally neglected consultation and participation. Zittel( 2004) examined the extent of e‐democracy in the national legislatures of the US, Sweden, Germany and concluded that while there was evidence of movements toward what he called“ more participatory schemes of representation( 89),” for the most part the trends were“ of a very modest nature and hardly revolutionary in scope( 89).” He concluded that“ technological modernization and digital parliaments in particular will not automatically push towards new forms of democracy( p. 92).”
Finally, in a broad ranging article on challenges to the study of e‐democracy, Chadwick( 2009) found, among other things, that most efforts to encourage online participation have drawn very small numbers of participants. He observed that:“… the reality of online deliberation, whether judged in terms of its quantity, its quality, or its impact on political behavior and policy outcomes, is far removed from the ideals set out in the early to mid‐1990s( 12).”
The principal conclusion that we draw from these empirical studies is that, despite much early enthusiasm, there is little evidence that governments anywhere around the world have not adopted e‐democracy ‐‐
372