e-democracy: comparison of opportunities in the western balkan countries

48
E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries Dissertation submitted to the University of Birmingham in fulfillment of the requirements for a Masters of Public Administration (MPA) Tomislav Korman 1382559 15 September 2014 Supervisor: Willem van Eekelen Word Count: 11 876 International Development Department School of Public Policy University of Birmingham

Upload: tomislav-korman

Post on 22-Jul-2015

167 views

Category:

Government & Nonprofit


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries Dissertation submitted to the University of Birmingham in fulfillment of the requirements for a Masters of Public Administration (MPA)

Tomislav Korman 1382559 15 September 2014

Supervisor: Willem van Eekelen Word Count: 11 876

International Development Department School of Public Policy University of Birmingham

Page 2: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

1

Abstract E-democracy is considered imperative in the European Union (EU). As an emerging area of research, it promotes the utilisation of information and communications technology (ICT) among countries to promote democracy and the modernisation of public services. This study is based on a comparative analysis of ICT, democracy, e-government and e-participation in 7 countries, both EU and non-EU member states: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. This paper aims to evaluate the state of ICT uptake with levels of institutionalized democracy in relation to other EU member countries, utilising secondary data. The paper suggests understanding of ICT initiatives and present trends of e-government and e-participation initiatives among observed countries. The comparative analysis of the Balkan countries is mostly based on data provided by the United Nations (UN) e-government surveys. Additionally, data from International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is analysed to observe ICT development in the Balkan countries. Academic studies, reports by relevant international organisations, statistic analyses and interpolation have also been used. Keywords: e-democracy, e-participation, e-government, ICT, development, Balkan, comparative analysis

Page 3: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

2

Contents Abstract 1 Contents 2 Index of figures 3 Index of tables 3 Table of abbreviations 4 Chapter One: Introduction 5 Chapter Two: Literature review 8 2.1 Overview 8 2.2 Democracy and ICTs 8 2.3 ICT-democracy terms and concepts 10 2.4 Democracy and ICTs in the Balkan and EU 12 Chapter Three: Methodology 14 3.1 Research approach, data and research design 14 3.2 Measuring ICTs, democracy and other factors 14 3.3 Measuring e-government and e-democracy 15 Chapter Four: Findings from analysis 22 4.1 Living standard, ICT uptake and ICT development index 22 4.2 Evaluation of e-government and e-participation 28 4.3 The legislation, democracy and ICT 29 Chapter Five: Discussion 32 Chapter Six: Conclusion 34 Bibliography 35

Page 4: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

3

Index of figures Figure 1. General government final consumption expenditure (% of GDP) for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 during 2004-2013 (Source: Author; World Bank,2014a) 20

Figure 2. GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 during 2003-2013 (Source: Author; World Bank,2014b) 20

Figure 3. Fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 during 2000-2013 (Source: Author; ITU,2014) 21

Figure 4. Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 during 2000-2013 (Source: Author; ITU,2014) 21

Figure 5. Percentage of individuals using the Internet for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 during 2000-2013 (Source: Author; ITU,2014) 22

Figure 6. State of Information Society in 2013 for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 (Source: Author; ITU,2014) 22

Figure 7. ICT Development Index (IDI) for Balkan countries during 2002-2012 (Source: Author; ITU,2014) 23

Figure 8. State of ICT Development Index for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 in 2011 and 2012 (Source: Author; ITU,2014) 23

Figure 9. UN e-government index for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 during 2003-2014 (Source: Author; United Nations,2003,2004,2005,2008,2010,2012,2014) 24

Figure 10. UN e-government index by sub-indexes for Balkan countries in 2014 (Source: Author; United Nations,2014) 24

Figure 11. UN e-participation index for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 during 2003-2014 (Source: Author; United Nations,2003,2004,2005,2008,2010,2012,2014) 25

Figure 12. UN e-participation index (EPI) by stages for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 in 2014 (Source: Author; United Nations,2003,2004,2005,2008,2010,2012,2014) 25

Figure 13. Democracy score change for Balkan countries in 2013-2014 (Source: Author; House,2013,2014a) 26

Index of tables Table 1. Comparison of strategies, developments legal and institutional framework in Balkan countries (Source: Author; Matei et al.2011,p.27) 17,18

Table 2. UN e-government index (EGDI) scores for Balkan countries, average score for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27, EU 28, top 20 European performers and world in 2014 (Source: Author; United Nations,2014) 19

Table 3. Countries by World Bank GDP Income group (Source: Author; World Bank,2014a) 19

Table 4. Countries by “Freedom in the World” score by Freedom House (Source: Author; House, 2014b) 19

Page 5: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

4

Table of abbreviations DS Democracy score by Freedom House EGDI UN e-government index EU European Union GDP Gross domestic product GNI Gross national income ICT Information and communication technologies ICT4D ICT for development IDI ICT development index ISA Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations IT Information technologies ITU International Telecommunication Union OECD The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development SEE South East Europe UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme

Page 6: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

5

Chapter One: Introduction “Digital tools can also support democracy itself. Changing—and improving—the relationship between governments and citizens. Supporting democratic freedoms, democratic accountability, and effective governance. Not just for EU Institutions: but for every kind of public administration, at every level, in every country; in and outside the EU. We also see these positive benefits here in Europe. Because where democracy already exists, the online world can make it stronger. ” - Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda (Europa.eu,2012). Over the last decade there has been extensive research on the impact of information and communication technologies (ICT) to socio-economic development (Avgerou,2010,p.1; Gomez,2013,p.1; Touray et al.,2013,p.1) due to the belief that constantly emerging ICTs contribute to the various communities, businesses, or policy-making processes (Çilan et al.,2009,p.98, Weiner,2013,p.1,3). ICTs are therefore often seen as an affordable contributing element to democratic principles (Medaglia,2012,p.346,356; Rhue and Sundararajan,2014,p.1,5) - numerous indicators such as internet penetration (Groshek,2009; Margolis and Moreno-Riaño,2013), mobile cell phones (Rotberg and Aker,2013;Stieglitz and Brockmann,2013), telecommunications (Skoric and Park,2014), freedom of expression (Shirazi et al.,2010;Rodríguez Domínguez et al.,2011,p.225), transparency (Ionescu,2013), corruption (Ionescu,2013; Krishnan et al.,2013; Soper, 2007), public services (Capgemini et al.,2011,2013,2014; Capgemini,2013; De Grove, 2012) and information policies (Amoretti,2007; Stanimirovic and Vintar,2012) are tested to suggest that ICTs facilitate civic engagement and collaboration (García-Sánchez et al.,2011,p.145), civil liberties (Lidén,2013b,p.4;Soper,2007,p.5) and political rights (Åström et al.2012,p.145) which, furthermore, improve general socio-political context and economic growth (Cortés et al.,2011,p.42). Additionally, ICTs are seen as tools that decentralize information, reduce the citizens-government asymmetry (Soper,2007,p.3; Roztocki and Weistroffer, 2009) and create improvements in freedom of information (Medaglia,2012,p.351). Assumptions of external factors, like citizens’ demands of online presence and transparency, introduced new problems, models and theories into public administration research (Lips, 2012;Seri et al.,2013). Relationships between ICTs and democracy are often questioned by both social and technical research to suggest policy guidelines or desired technological advancements (Gomez,2013). International organisations, such as The World Bank in its Millenium Development Goals, pushed the idea of ICTs as a valuable investment able to catalyze democratic institutionalization and decrease poverty (cited in Çilan et al.,2009,p.98; cited in Gomez,2013:p.14), whilst younger online generations in international organisations turned to ICTs to promote democratisation (Amoretti,2007,p.332,334) and freedom of expression (Shirazi,2008,p.18). ICTs introduced the type of communications and linkages that enhance and expand social capital, thereby serving to strengthen civil society. To simulate democratic change, governments showcased a different degree of interaction with citizens by using various online tools (Bertot et al.,2012,p.78). For example, exchange of information can be distributed through web pages and web forms, online forums, blogs, newsletters (Åström et al.,2012,p.145), social media (Effing et al.2011) or internet submission of petitions (Panagiotopoulos et al.,2011). To explain usage of ICT in the process of democracy, concept of e-democracy is introduced (Lidén, 2014,p.2,3) and digital interactions between government and citizens, frequently in terms of providing public services, are often described as e-government (Bannister and Connolly, 2012,p.211,212,213). It has been widely argued that ICT fostered democratization concepts, like e-democracy, e-government and e-petitions, contribute to human and economic development in most backward countries of the Middle East (Shirazi,2008; Mehmood et al.,2014) or Africa (Alozie et al.,2011; Weiner,2014). Similar approaches

Page 7: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

6

have been noted in European countries, as well (Corte ́s and Navarro,2011;Koromidha,2012). Numerous reports and programs (Capgemini,2013;Capgemini et al.,2011,2012,2013; Enzell,2009; European Commission,2010a,2010b,2010c; European Commission,2013; Cruz-Jesus et al. 2012,p.278) push ICT initiatives as a democratization tool in the countries of the European Union (EU) (Kromidha,2012,p.576; Sideridis,2013). Countries aiming to join the EU are believed to follow such approach (Kromidha,2012,p.573). Moreover, the practices of some EU countries suggest increases of ICT implementation (Corte ́s and Navarro,2011; Cruz-Jesus et al. 2012,p.278,287) to improve public service and governmental practices. In addition, countries that took a more liberal approach towards ICT development and privatization of telecommunication sector are believed to enjoy a higher degree of ICT expansion (Shirazi,2008), whilst lower usage of information technology, low internet access and deficient e-government services, as in European post-communist countries, might be considered a barrier towards development (Kowal and Roztocki,2014; Zoroja,2011,p.92). Measuring such concepts is often not straightforward (Lidén, 2014). Only recently have solid foundations and concepts emerged to reexamine the exploitation of the ICTs in democratic development. Yet, the ability to track fast technological advancements and means of those impacts to democracy requires constant analysis of the current data. Also, much of the related literature does not consider countries observed herewithin. Post-communist countries, like the countries in the Balkan region: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia, offer interesting cross-comparison considering the fact are now developing under Western practice due to EU membership, or EU negotiations (Hosman and Howard 2010; Hosman and Howard 2014). As a result of the full membership perspective in the European Union (EU), countries are faced with a policy restructuring that promotes technological uptake in order to minimize differences among member states (Cruz-Jesus et al. 2012;Sideridis,2013,p.11). It is believed that the emerging countries would progressively adopt ICTs to have positive impact on institutionalized democracy (Roztocki and Weistroffer,2009; Soper,2007,p.140). EU agenda, ICT and democratization are strongly related. Nowadays, countries in the Balkan region differ in level of democratization and ICT penetration, but within a comparable context. The aim of this paper is to discuss the differences between the Balkan1 countries of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia2, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia3 by understanding the state of e-democracy, and impact of ICT usage for democratisation. Comparisons are made in relation to the other EU countries The intention of comparative analysis is an attempt to address the issue of democracy in relation to current e-democracy indicators by examining countries that appear to be unique in regard to their ICT and democracy status. Using secondary data, correlation of differences and similarities will be presented in an attempt to highlight good practice. Secondary data analysis involves data-sets from the International Telecommunication Union, Freedom House, the United Nations, Eurostat, the European Commission, World Bank and World Economic Forum. In addition to quantitative data, qualitative data from official government publications, journal articles and news reports are used. Both literature on democracy, development and ICT is researched to frame the understanding of technological impact to countries. This research contributes to an existing academic work in an attempt to address the impact of ICT innovation in socio-political context. In !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 In terms of the European Union “Western Balkans” covers the states of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania. However, a large body of literature includes Slovenia as well. For the purpose of this research “Western Balkan” and “Balkan” are referring to Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. 2 Macedonia is still referred to as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) at the United Nations due to the unresolved name issue with Greece. In this paper term Macedonia is used. 3 Many nations still do not recognize Kosovo, although it declared its independence from Serbia in 2008. Kosovo could have been included among the countries studied herein, however data for this research on Kosovo is difficult to obtain or it does not exist.

!

Page 8: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

7

addition, interpretive research is documented to give the depth and a possible understanding of the data analysis. Nonetheless, it is necessary to extend the contextual understanding of ICT’s affiliation with actors in democratic processes to provide guidelines and capacity to test such theories.

Page 9: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

8

Chapter Two: Literature review 2.1 Overview A systematic literature review was conducted to introduce a broad and systematic overview of authors and journals related to democracy, ICTs, e-democracy and e-government. The aim is to characterize and understand the existing approach to the role of ICTs, key concepts and tensions in discussions related to ICT access and the possible extent of impact to democracy in the countries of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. 2.2 Democracy and ICTs Researchers have tried to identify the complex ways that communities are organized, to analyze the communication methods of governments and its constituents, and to recognise the challenges of trust between authorities and individuals. Despite the differences in approach and conclusions related to democracy, Lijiphard (2012,p.46) found that “the eight criteria proposed by Robert A. Dahl (1956) are still widely accepted: the right to vote, the right to be elected, the right of political leaders to compete for support and votes, elections that are free and fair, freedom of association, freedom of expression, alternative sources of information, and institutions for making public policies depend on votes and other expressions of preference”. Besides, commonly cited author, Seymour Martin Lipset (1959), introduced the idea of a relationship between democratic growth and economic development. Further research extended these theories to modernisation, which pushed the idea that countries will become more democratic if they are technologically enhanced. Over the last century Dahl’s criteria and Lipset’s principles of democratization have been widely connected with modernisation and, moreover, with the design of digital and communication tools. Although there are numerous examples to either support or disprove these relations, Lipset and Lakin (2004,p.87, 129, 157) have linked technological advancements in mass communications to change in people’s perceptions as they contribute to the spread of information and build networks of communication. Authors have reported that ownership of information capital and access to such wealth, and therefore, freedom of expression and access to information, are an important ingredient of democratic culture (Balkin,2004). Challenges posed by the mass media are widely dispersed in the age of ICTs, for example, mobile phones and search engines can be connected to public participation and freedom of expression (Margolis and Moreno-Riaño,2013,p.33,89; Stieglitz and Brockmann,2013). It has been argued that ICTs create an information-intensive society (Touray,2013,p.1) by enabling new dimensions of “expression and democratic participation” (Shirazi et al.,2010). Larry Diamond (2010) introduced the concept of ‘liberation technology’ to explain how the Internet can expand socio-economic freedom. Such aspects have empowered communities to change prospects of democracy without constraints of time and space, while contributing to various governmental networks, public services and decision making processes (European Commission,2010; García-Sánchez et al.,2011; Lee et al.,2011,p.444,445). In addition, ICT investments are supposed to impact levels of institutionalized democracy, thus corruption and transparency (Krishnan et al.,2013; Soper,2007). Authors showed that ICTs create limitless opportunities, following the ideal definition of democracy as “giving the power to the people” (Moriss, 2011). Without abilities to engage, create, share and communicate, influence on governments would be impossible.

Page 10: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

9

Although numerous studies championed the idea of ICT as a solution to reducing developmental divides (Ayanso et al.,2010;Cruz-Jesus et al.,2012;Steyn and Johanson,2011), significant correlation between technological advancements and democratization is not found or falls short of expectation (Groshek,2009; Groshek,2010). ICTs and impact on political systems is still doubted while literature is “questioned as being unreliable” (Lidén,2014,p.10). Recently, researchers and international organisations seek micro-macro observations in order to see if ICTs can truly enhance democracy (Toury et al.,2013). A serious weakness with ICT arguments is that, firstly, a positive approach of such ICT correlations often excludes negative variables such as censorship, IT literacy, improper legislative, or absence of usable IT tools provided by the governments. For example, Internet penetration is often observed as a factor that fosters freedom of information and political participation that are both considered as democratic rights (Margolis and Moreno-Riaño,2013; Moris,2011; Orviska and Hudson,2009). However, in some autocratic countries, like China, Iraq or Korea, the internet and other ICTs are censored or restricted (Shirazi et al.,2010). In contrast to earlier research, ICTs enable governments to gain personal information, gain control and filter over the news and data (Soper,2007;p.122,123). Such factors stress the restrictive nature of ICTs. Yet, Lidén (2014,p.11) assumes that the correlation between democracy and internet freedom is expected because “no democracy is classified as ‘not free’ in Freedom House’s report on internet freedom”. In addition to restrictions, users are either uninterested and unaware of the opportunities to participate (Shirazi,2010), or they do not possess knowledge to use such technologies (Wei and Hindman,2011). For example, around 60% of internet users in the EU do not use electronic government tools (Eurostat,2013) and 54% chose not to use online services (Capgemini et al.,2014b,p.21). Moreover, online tools provided are slow or not user centered (Capgemini et al.,2014b,p.11). Due to the lack of awareness and “passiveness”, to get citizens of EU involved in policy making, a European report (Millard et al.,2009,p.5) embraces diffusion of decision making to individuals by mobilising citizens via relevant online tools, forums, blogs and virtual communities. Furthermore, not all of the EU countries provide online platforms that enable direct participation in decision-making processes (Capgemini et al.,2012,2013a,2013b,2014a,2014b). Moreover, there is a continuous problem to contextualise e-democracy with legislature, as related ICT and democratic concepts are mostly covered by broader regulation or strategies. Secondly, the democracy - ICT uptake relationship creates its own conundrum: democratization leads to an increase of the ICT uptake, and the ICT uptake leads to the democratization. It is suggested that ICTs are not necessarily direct causes of democratization, but an aspect that reinforces existing relations or institutional processes within the country (Balkin 2004; Groshek,2009) which then gives the people equal opportunities to organise and strategize (Diamond,2010). Researchers agree that some levels of democratization need to exist in order for communities to successfully embrace ICT opportunities (Lidén,2014,p.10; Rodríguez et al.,2011). Such understandings require countries to have a degree of economic development that provides citizens with a certain standard of living, that provides them with adequate access to administrative processes and policy making of the governments. Rodríguez Domínguez et al. (2011,p.20) suggest that an initial “push” from the citizens is needed in order to encourage governments to accept electronic means of interaction. Yet, these aspects are significant for research due to the belief that ICTs serve as a precondition to improve such democratic practice. Changes in technology, therefore, “alter the way in which the society later uses its technology” (Soper,2007,p.2). Newer recommendations include a holistic approach to these factors by endorsing two-way communication, user centric services or ICT use, ICT skills and ICT access (Capgemini et al.,2013b) in addition to combining multiple tools and platforms.

Page 11: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

10

Therefore, citizens’ ability to engage, create, share, communicate and influence depends not only on democratic preconditions that foster ICT, nor ICT themselves, but on governments and their approach to these issues. Governments that promote higher administration effectiveness, and enforce an adequate political structure can boost the change of process (Rodríguez Domínguez et al.,2011,p.236). A government's’ capability to introduce relevant ICT policies, legislative and participative online tools that would enable citizens to embrace digital opportunities is a key to change that can possibly manifest as a democratic practice. However, due to differences and micro characteristic that define citizens’ involvement in e-democracy further research is needed (Lidén, 2013a,p.217). 2.3 ICT-democracy terms and concepts The various forms of electronic development concepts such as e-government, e-participation and e-democracy have often been researched together. Still, concepts and their measurements are often described as undeveloped, fuzzy, unsystematic (Lidén,2013,p.217,218), or even, confusing or based on presumptions (Grönlund,2009,p.13). Terms ICT4D (ICT for development), the digital gap and the digital divide appeared to describe how ICT access and use reflects on the distinct levels of development (Gomez,2013; Leigh,2011; Steyn and Johanson,2011). Research on the digital divide and digital gap includes measurement of the digital disparity between developed and underdeveloped countries, often in terms of communication technology and access, to explain the existence of unequitable opportunities through technology (Ayanso et al.,2010,p.304; Leigh,2011,p.X; Steyn and Johanson,2010,p.XVII). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) states that ‘‘the term digital divide refers to the gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard both to their opportunities to access ICT and to their use of the Internet for a wide variety of activities’’ (cited in Cruz-Jesus, et al.,2012,p.279). The use of ICTs by authorities to improve governing capabilities or public services has been consistent throughout history. The concept of e-government emerged in the 1990s among Western governments as an ability of the state to utilize ICTs to improve public services, political discourse and citizen participation, that is, the way that governmental information and services are delivered to various stakeholders through modernised public administration (Bekkers,2012,p.330,331; Cropf,2009,p.1970; Lee et al.,2011,p.445). The OECD recognises e-government as “an important catalyst, combining many aspects of the transformational agenda of the new public management” (cited in Rodríguez Domínguez et al. 2011,p.218). Therefore, e-government has been an important factor in democratization as it improves delivery of information, communication, transactions, reduces the cost, enhances efficiency and responsiveness, consequently contributing to transparency and accountability (Bertot et al.,2012; Lijiphard,2012,p.148; Lipset and Lakin,2004; Matei et al.,2011,p.33). In addition, the e-government handbook by the World Bank characterises e-government as a powerful tool to upgrade all types of economies and information society, whilst the United Nations (UN), again, states that e-government contributes to transparency, governmental responsiveness and participation (Amoretti,2007,p.337; Ndou,2004,p.4). E-government is also described as a “superior term” of e-democracy which describes the adoption of electronic media for public administration with the goal of enhancing the communication between citizens and public administration (Stieglitz and Brockmann,2013,p.1736). It has been argued that the concept of electronic government progressed from the initial studies of online presence and service delivery to a broader definition involving innovation and redesign of formats exercised by citizens and national administrations (Bekkers,2012,p338;

Page 12: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

11

Krishnan et al.,2013,p.646; Potnis,2010; Rodríguez Domínguez et al.,2011,p.227). There is an attempt to research ICTs through the “lenses of public administration” in order to examine the relation of governmental performance and ICTs together with public management, policy making, transparency and citizen-government relationships (Lips,2012,p.7,8; Seri and Zanfei,2013). The involvement of society actors in policy processes requires effective administration. Such an approach “considers the improvement of public administrations as the principal indicator for measuring the quality of democracy” (Amoretti, 2007,p.339). “In providing services online, implementation capacity becomes important, hence the importance of administrative capacity in moving in this direction” (Rodríguez Domínguez et al.,2011,p.236). However, such democratic principles are often limited in implementation due to factors such as corruption (Soper,2007; Ionescu,2013; Krishnan et al.,2013), fear of technology (Touray et al.,2013,p.10), fear of internet security (Orviska and Hudson,2009,p.282), fear of participation (García-Sánchez et al.,2011,p.13) and fear of delegating power to the public (Effing et al.,2011,p.25). Riley (2001) introduced three stages of e-government evolution: e-presence, e-service delivery, and e-democracy. Arguably, e-democracy is sometimes perceived as part of a wider e-government concept, mostly connected with participative means. Authors describe e-democracy as levels of change that are influenced by e-participation, a framework that allows citizens to participate in decision making processes (Åström et al.,2012,p.144, Lidén,2013b,p.3). E-participation is described as hybrid between communication, political and technology studies in the context of re-engaging people in democratic processes via technology (Macintosh et al.,2009,p.1). Stieglitz and Brockmann (2013) address the term e-democracy under e-government concept as the one that “describes the utilization of information systems to support democracy decision processes”. These authors add subclasses to e-democracy: e-voting and e-participation. Macintosh (cited in Stieglitz and Brockmann,2013,p.1736) describes e-participation as “the utilization of information and communication technology in order to extend and deepen the political participation of citizens”. In contrast to the studies that approach e-democracy as subcategory or phase within the e-government method (García-Sánchez et al. 2011; Riley,2011; Rodríguez Domínguez et al.,2011; Stieglitz and Brockmann,2013), Garson (2006,p.90) introduced e-democracy as an umbrella term that “covers many democratic means carried out through electronic means”. Lee et al. (2011,p.445), however, address the concepts separately: they refer to the e-government in the context of providing public services and administration whilst e-democracy is examined in the context of participation, or access to political processes and policies. Chadwick (2003,p.48) suggests that e-democracy is attached to linkage among people and governments that encompasses consultation and interaction. Such separation of terms contributes to the understanding and examination of e-democracy development models that are related to participative changes in democratic outcomes. Grönlund (2009,p.21) holds the view that participation is not the same as democratic participation due to differences in information provision, which do not necessarily include interactivity in the decision-making process. Moreover, this author believes that methods involving ICTs and democracy fail to address variations and flexibility in participation and ICT usage: ICT cannot be directly related to participation, whilst the “e” component of participation is hard to distinguish and connect to democracy, as well. However, using specific ICT tools, citizens can influence government decisions and regulations. Enabling such involvement, citizens have more power to change existing institutions or regulations, consequently impacting political development, thus democratisation. Therefore, e-democracy is about ICTs tools that can directly enhance democratic structures and processes related to relationships between citizens and policy-makers. Similarly, Lidén (2013,p.217,219) stated that e-democracy stands for “the use of information and communication technologies in democratic political processes concerning information, discussion and decision-making”. However, to describe such interactions many scholars still use the term e-participation or e-engagement.

Page 13: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

12

2.4 Democracy and ICTs in the Western Balkans and EU Most cross-national variations in the Balkan region are due to fragile post-war circumstances, regime change and distinctive political dynamics (Hosman and Howard 2010; Hosman and Howard 2014). This has resulted in various levels of democratization, ICT policies and approach to the membership in the European Union. For example, media reforms consequently influenced democratization (Freyburg and Richter,2010) whilst contradictory media reports on Western support, restrictions on trade, and ideological commitments inhibited innovation and the spread of technology (Gallagher and Pridham,2012,p.69). In addition, post-communist countries are believed to have lower ICT usage and internet uptake (Zoroja,2011). Furthermore, most countries of the Balkan region continue to make progress on democratization indicators but institutions are still considered “semi-consolidated” (House,2014). Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia countries have been pursuing membership of the European Union. Under the Treaty on the European Union any European country may apply for membership if it respects the democratic values of the EU and is committed to promoting them. The 1993 Copenhagen European Council defined the accession criteria (the Copenhagen criteria), which is being monitored by the European Commission. Countries need to accept a set of principles that are applicable to EU members, e.g. democracy, human rights and freedom. All countries observed in this paper have chosen to join the European Union (EU) but with differing levels of success. Out of the observed, only two countries, Croatia in 2013 and Slovenia in 2004, have successfully joined the EU. All countries have to face similar regulatory framework that results in enforced security, democratic assistance, reconciliation and implementation of reforms (Richer,2012) but with limited impact or problematic results (Freyburg and Richter,2010,p.264) as investigated by the large and growing body of literature (Taylor 2013,p.185). The rest of the countries are still to pursue institutional requirements in hopes of the membership. The prospect of EU membership is linked to political reforms and telecommunication market regulations, which are supported by a wide range of EU’s research and development projects designed to promote the contribution of ICTs to the economy and the society (Capgemini,2013; European Commission 2010; European Commission 2013; Kromidha,2012; Sideridis,2013). Transformation from a classical society into an information society is one of the prerequisites for integration into the EU. The European Commision launched “e-Europe 2005 action plan: An information society for all” and “Agenda for the Development of Information Society in SEE” in 2002, followed by “i2010—A European Information Society for growth and employment” in 2005 (Matei et al.,2011,p.26). Since the Lisbon Treaty of 2007, the EU aims to simplify and modernise its institutional framework due to the growing number of new country members. The “Europe for Citizens Programme 2007-2013” (European Commission,2012g) promotes initiatives that facilitate the active participation in the civic and democratic life of the EU. To support both democratic principles and modernisation it has been expected for countries to simplify public administration, but more importantly to embrace participatory democracy and ICT use for its purpose (Millard et al.,2009). The EU demonstrated its goals in legislature and various projects to support such ambition. The “European eGovernment Action Plan 2011-15” (European Commission,2010c) and the Malmö Ministerial Declaration on eGovernment (Enzell, 2009) support the use of ICTs in civic life. Member states and candidate countries are expected to rely on ICT when promoting “effective, useful and better ways for businesses and citizens to participate in the policy processes” (Enzell, 2009,p.3). Furthermore, “Europe 2020 Strategy” (European Commission,2010b) introduced in 2010, among many other initiatives includes “The Digital Agenda for Europe” which

Page 14: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

13

promotes “effective use of digital technologies” (cited in Sideridis,2013,p.11) and it is supposed to “trigger technology development and increase in socio economic benefits” (Matei et al.,2011,p.33). These attempts are believed to help with speeding the reforms and reducing costs in public administration by activating citizens in political processes. Hosman and Howard (2010;2014) noted that differences in starting points, mostly characterised by political circumstances that followed the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1990s, resulted in various paths of telecommunications policy reconstruction. Policies either led to the state owned monopoly, as in the case of Slovenia, or favoured the liberalization of the telecommunication market, privatization and public-private partnerships, as in the case of all other countries. Authors reported that Croatia benefited from infrastructure investments that helped spread fiber optic infrastructure, and recognition of the academic community. Following privatisation and liberalisation, the Macedonian government pushed computer and Internet initiatives via various projects and the private-public partnership. Montenegro had similar attempts. Serbia and Bosnia, implemented telecom policies later than other countries and are the least developed countries in terms of infrastructure, which can arguably be connected with less developed economy and nonfunctional democracy. As with media and democracy, ICT differences have been found among EU member countries and EU candidates, (Cilan,2009,p.104). This ‘digital gap’ or ‘digital divide’ between EU member countries and member candidates is getting narrow depending on numerous factors such as liberalisation of market, flow of merchandise and highly skilled employees (Çilan et al.,2009; Cortés and Navarro,2011). Such “digital disparities are correlated by economic asymmetries between the countries, while the entrance year also appears to influence the divides” (Cruz-Jesus, et al.,2012,p.289).

Page 15: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

14

Chapter Three: Methodology 3.1 Research approach, data and research design This comparative study of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia investigates the state of ICT-democracy relations, moreover, e-democracy related opportunities, practices, legal enactments and different government approaches relevant to the field. Seven countries, both EU members and non-members are observed in relation to other EU countries and each other to explore digital gaps, associations of ICT, e-government and e-democracy. Qualitative and quantitative data is explored to observe the relationship between democracy indicators, ICT uptake, ICT indicators, e-government and e-democracy practice. Practically, this translates to an interpretation of inter-country variations where differential ICT uptake, policies and democracy indicators lead to contrast levels of e-democracy initiatives. For that reason, this inquiry into the state of e-democracy, moreover, ICT and development, is approached by the research of ICT presence and countries’ socio-economic development. Furthermore, ICT related policies and specific ICT applications that might alter mechanisms of governments are explored. Telecommunication sector details are considered to illustrate digital gaps, and thus differences in terms of ICT uptake and access. The design of policies, strategies and tools that support citizens' engagement in policy-making and the work of public administration are highlighted. However, although ICT legislature and ICT infrastructure are considered as prerequisites to an electronic government (Diamond,2010), some comparisons are made between different government tools to illustrate democratic principles in electronic context. Such implementation of ICT initiatives is mostly observed in means of online tools and information from the perspective of e-participation, thus the engagement of citizens in decision-making process. Therefore, the first sections are focused on ICT, telecommunication sector and uptake, while the further sections explore e-governance, e-participation and e-democracy appliances. Related government initiatives, regulations and policies are put in context to support findings and observation on relevant online properties are discussed. Although this paper is similar to Matei (2011) and Madzova et al. (2013), different countries are covered and several objectives make this work distinctive: The identification of e-participation and significant ICT changes relevant to democratic processes are emphasised, whilst the scope of public services and e-government is examined to set a comparative context. This work includes legislative and government initiatives towards ICT and participative engagement. Also, other factors such as standard of living, ICT uptake and democracy context are compared. Furthermore, comparisons are made in relation to EU membership. Additionally, new data is incorporated to utilize more variables related to the subject and illustrate changes over a 10-year period. In some cases where data was missing, but was crucial to recreate trends, interpolation was used.

Page 16: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

15

3.2 Measuring ICTs, democracy and other factors In making a comparison between the electronic practices, a larger context has to be taken into account. Countries level of development is important as access to ICT is related to economic development and living standard (Cortés et al.,2011,p.42). Such variables impact citizens’ expectation; furthermore their ability to demand ICT related initiatives. In addition, economic benefits are often motivation for ICT policies due to believes that ICTs improve global economic competitiveness (Cortés et al.,2011; Kowal and Roztocki,2013; Krishnan et al.,2013; Roztocki and Weistroffer,2009). Therefore, government expenditure is used to capture economical performance due to the fact that “developing information systems and e-government requires a lot of strategic and financial resources that countries often do not have” (Kromidha,2012,p.573). Considering the connection of initiatives related to the audience that is familiar with the usage of ICTs, data on phone, computers, broadband and the Internet are included. There is no doubt that the usage of tools varies and might not necessarily be used for political involvement, but as a possible prerequisite for further development, it should be considered. In addition, due to costs of ICT services, the standard of living is also taken into account. Further, in an attempt to compare the relationship of consolidated democracy and its impact on government practice, general scores on democracy and freedom are compared. Quantitative measures can usefully supplement and extend the qualitative analysis of e-participation, and other consultative and participatory applications that have not yet become a part of the governmental agenda. Freedom of media, as in term of censorship and general democracy scores are observed to compare opportunities or barriers with actual readiness of governments to allow electronic involvement. The research focuses on secondary data analysis from several sources. Although many ICT-related indicator measures have appeared over the decade, the one used in this paper have evolved over time to reliably reflect degree of changes over the past years. Moreover, data from such sources relies on official country data, and has been crosschecked. World Bank data is used to illustrate general government final consumption expenditure (% of GDP), and gross national income per capita. Freedom House data was used to reconstruct democracy scores and freedom. It includes the degree of civil liberties and political rights and it is often used to measure democracy. ICT related data and ICT development index (IDI) are presented using benchmarkings from International Telecommunications Union. IDI sub-indexes cover ICT access, ICT usage and ICT literacy and skills. ITU data was used to showcase Internet usage and ICT penetration. Additional sources like Eurostat and World Bank are used to describe economical contexts and ICT consumption where needed. Named indicators can help construct a partial picture but should be interpreted with care. First, there is the issue of whether the indicators used really capture what ICT, democracy and public service is about. Second, most of the data is derived from surveys that do not necessarily represent the overall views of the community. Point scores should not be interpreted strictly as some small shifts might represent particular point in time. However, presented set of indicators has previously been used in much of the existing literature to recreate the unknown. 3.3 Measuring e-government and e-democracy Numerous studies tried to benchmark differences in e-government practices across multiple countries (Avgerou,2010). Attention to constantly developing technology and features of new benchmarking has been suggested. This paper supports the idea that factors of accessibility, ease of access, moreover,

Page 17: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

16

usability, are needed to expand the scope of variables that are included is such research (Chattery, 2011). Notwithstanding, the scope of research presented here compares existence and context of e-opportunities that might initiate investment in further ICT initiatives, with positive development results. Although there has been debate on limitations and scope of variables, UN’s survey (United Nations,2003,2004,2005,2008,2010,2012,2014) is still the most extensive research that provides details and rankings in this field. UN e-government index has been presented as a more accepted version in studies to describe governmental readiness to use potentials of ICTs (Ayanso et al.,2011,p.524). UN governments survey is a consistent benchmarking of public web, telecommunication and human capital. E-government index contributed to the understanding of e-democracy and research of ICT and political development. Over the years, research was modified to provide deeper data on democratic concepts of discussions and involvement, thus participation. The UN’s definition of e-participation is powered by the idea that involvement contributes to sustainable development. UN (United Nations,2014,p.61) describes e-participation as “the process of engaging citizens through ICTs in policy and decision-making in order to make public administration participatory, inclusive, collaborative and deliberative for intrinsic and instrumental ends”. This participative concept is very close to Lidén’s (2013a,p.217,219) e-democracy definition. In this paper, as well as in data that has been used, e-participation is approached as engagement in decision-making consultations once government has already been elected. UN’s (United Nations,2014,p.63) e-participation index includes three-level model that cover most of e-democracy principles: “1) e-information, providing citizens with public information and access to information upon demand, 2) e-consultation, engaging people in deeper contributions to and deliberation on public policies and services and 3) e-decision-making, empowering people through co-design of policy options and co-production of service components and delivery modalities”. Index of e-decision making is close to e-democracy research discussed by (Åström et al.,2012,p.144,García-Sánchez et al.,2011;Lee et al.,2011,p.444,445; Lidén 2013a,p.217,219; Lidén,2013b,p.3;). Because ICTs, such as Internet backed innovation of platforms that significantly reduced space-time constraints of engagement, it is of importance to explore new practices that reinvented decision-making process by enabling interaction and government-citizens feedback. Other ICT initiatives that improve existing modalities of democracy, e.g. electronic voting or e-learning, are omitted in favour of policy and administration related matters.

Page 18: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

17

Table 1. Comparison of strategies, developments legal and institutional framework in Balkan countries (Source: Author; Matei et al. 2011,p.27)

Strategies and action Plans (2004-2014) Main developments and related projects (2009-2014) / Notable online tools Legal Framework (2004-2014) Institutional framework / Actors (2012-2014)

Alb

ania

Cross-Cutting Strategy of Information Society 2008-2013, 2008. Digital Albania Project, 2009. Open Government Partnership Action Plan, 2012.

eSchool Project (World Bank, UNDP). eHealth (World Bank, Government Electronic Network, EU, UNDP). 1st Albanian Telecommunications Forum. National Wireless Broadband Project. National Digital Library Project. National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Improvement of ICT Infrastructure and e-Services 2011-2013 (UNDP). / Registry of Business Legislation (http://www.rlb.gov.al) – enables business representatives to send comments. e-Employment (http://www.kerkojpune.gov.al and http://www.epunesim.gov.al) - allows job seekers and employers to register in separate databases. Central Inspectorate website (http://www.inspektoratiqendror.gov.al) - citizens can submit an online complaint against the labor inspectorate. Government Portal (www.e-albania.al)- project’s goal is to increase the working efficiency and accountability of the public administration.

Telecommunications Law. Public procurement Law. Electronic signature Law. Protection of personal data Law. eCommerce Law. Right to Information for Official Documents Law. Notice and Consultation Law. Electronic Communications Law. Audiovisual Media Services Law.

National Agency on Information Society. National Authority for Electronic Certification. Agency for Research, Technology and Innovation. Ministry for Innovation and Information and Communication Technology. The Commissioner for the Protection of Personal Data. The Agency for Electronic and Postal Communications. National Cyber Security Agency.

Bos

nia

and

Her

zego

vina

Policy of Information Society Development, 2004. Strategy of Information Society Development, 2004. Action Plan for Information Society Development 2004-2010, 2004.

eGovernment for the Council of Ministers. eLegislation Reform Project (UNDP). e-Leadership Programme for the Western Balkans. Development of an Information System for Public Procurement. Empowering Marginalised Groups in e-Governance (UNDP). / Portal Esprpska http://www.esrpska.com/ - information of public services A part from basic governmental websites and services (e.g. http://www.fbihvlada.gov.ba/, http://www.vladars.net/ and http://www.vijeceministara.gov.ba/), presence of participative online tools has not been noted.

Electronic Documents Software Policy Law. Establishing the Institute for Standards, Metrology and Intellectual Property Standardisation Law. Freedom of Access to Information Law. Copyright and Related Rights Law. Electronic Communications Law. Electronic Document and Electronic Signature Law. Public Procurement Law. Electronic Communications Law. Agency for the Development of the Information Law. Identity Cards Law.

Council of Ministries. Entity governments and the Government of Brcko District. Ministry of Communications and Transport. Ministry of Civil Affairs. The Office of the Public Administration Reform Coordinator. The Communications Regulatory Agency. The Identification Documents, Data Exchange and Evidence Agency. The Directorate for European Integration. The Information Society Agency of Republika Srpska. Government Centre for a crisis in computer security. Computer Emergency Response Team. Communication Regulatory Agency.

Cro

atia

e-Croatia 2007, 2003. e-Croatia Programme 2007-2011. Strategy for the development of eGovernment 2009-2012, 2009. eGovernment development goals 2011-2015, 2011. Open Government Partnership Action Plan, 2012. Project e-Citizens Development of e-services programme, 2013.

Joined Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations (ISA) Programme, 2011. Electronic prescriptions, 2011. Standard Electronic Records Management Project (SPEUP). Croatian Government introduced the Croatian Interoperability Framework, 2010. Croatia received special praise for its remarkable development in the area of ICT accessibility, 2010. Online Communication Department at Prime Minister’s Office, 2012. Commission for Public Administration Informatisation, 2012. Project Gov.hr - Central Government Portal 2.0, 2014. e-Citizen project, 2014. Digital Agenda for Europe conference - going local, 2011, 2012, 2013. / Central Government Portal (https://gov.hr/) - central place for both public services and government information.

Electronic Document Act. Information Security and Confidentiality Act. Right to Access Information Law. Personal Data Protection Law. Electronic Commerce Electronic Communications Act.Electronic Signature Act. Public Procurement Act. Amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (access to information a constitutionally guaranteed right). Electronic Commerce Act. Law on Personal Data Protection. Electronic Commerce Act. Electronic Communications Act. Electronic Signature Act. Public Procurement Law.

Ministry of Public Administration. Ministry of Sea, Transport and Infrastructure. Ministry of Science, Education and Sports. Institute for Security of Information Systems. Digital Information Documentation Office. Information Systems and Information Technologies Support Agency. National Council for Information Society. Croatian Post and Electronic Communications Agency. Croatian Personal Data Protection Agency.

Page 19: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

18

Mac

edon

ia

National Strategy and Action Plan for Information Society Development, 2005. Government Programme with references to IT and eSociety 2006- 2010, 2006. National Strategy for the Development of Electronic Communications with Information Technologies, 2007. National Strategy for eGovernment 2010-2012, 2010. Draft Public Administration Reform Strategy, 2010-2015, 2010. Open Government Partnership Action Plan, 2012.

Memorandum of cooperation on the project 'Support for the process of modernisation of the state administration, 2011. 6th international conference 'e-Society.Mk, 2010 Web portal eucebnici.mk, 2010. / E-democracy Portal (http://www.e-demokratija.gov.mk/) - online tool for participation and interactive initiatives exchange on diverse policy perspective and strategic documents by all interested and contested parties. Open Data Portal (http://www.opendata.gov.mk) – public data to be updated and available online. E-services (http://www.uslugi.gov.mk/) – central platform for all public services and information. Legislation portal (www.nvosorabotka.gov.mk) - information related to the consultation process in legislation drafting.

Free Access to Information of Public Character Law. Personal Data Protection Law. Electronic Management Law. Electronic Commerce Law. Electronic Communications Law Data in Electronic Form and Electronic Signature Law. Public Procurement Law.

Electronic Media Agency. Ministry of Information Society and Administration. Commission for Information Technology. Information Society Task Force. National Council for the Information Society. Agency for Electronic Communications. Ministry of information Society and administration. The Agency for Audio and Audiovisual Media Services.

Mon

tene

gro

Strategy for Information Society Development in Montenegro from 2009 to 2013, 2009. Action Plan for Development and Implementation of Information Projects, 2009. Strategy for the development of information society 2012-2016, 2012. Open Government Partnership Action Plan, 2012.

Giving a voice to youth – promoting greater civic engagement for young people at local level (UNDP). Traffic light’ Project For Citizens’ Evaluation of the Administration Judicial Information System. Register of Laws and Regulations. Electronic Document Management System (eDMS). Information System for Market Inspection. eGovernance Academy. “Citizens Voice” online tool for digital democracy, 2012. “Be Responsible” mobile app for reporting misuse of law. / E-register of Business Licenses (http://www.licenca.me/) - system for business licensing. E-administration government portal (http://www.euprava.me) - represents a single point where electronic public services offered by state administration authorities can be found. E-petitions (https://epeticije.gov.me/) - online platform to enable citizens to create and sign electronic petitions about anything that the Government is responsible for.

Electronic Management Law. Freedom of Information Law. Free Access to Public Character Information Law. Electronic Signature Law. Electronic Commerce Law. Electronic Documents Law. Application of Legal Acts for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Law. Electronic Communications Law. Public Broadcasting Services Law. Law on Freedom of Access to Information. Information Secrecy Law.

Ministry of Information Society and Administration. Ministry for Maritime Affairs, Transportation.Telecommunications Agency for Electronic Communications and Postal Services. Ministry of Culture, Sport and the Media. Broadcasting Agency. University of Montenegro. Agency for Electronic Media.

Serb

ia

Electronic Communications Strategy, 2010. Information Society Strategy, 2010. Strategy for Telecommunications Development 2006-2010 Strategy and Action Plan for the Transfer from Analogue to Digital Broadcasting Strategy and Action Plan for e-government Development up until 2013. Action Plan for eSEE Agenda Plus Implementation up to 2012. Open Government Partnership, 2012. Strategy of Development of eGovernment.

Increasing citizens’ engagement by using social innovation and social media to enhance government’s transparency and accountability, UNDP 2013-2014. Improvement of the eGovernment National Portal. / E-services Portal http://www.euprava.gov.rs/en - public services and information.

Free Access to Information Law. Decree on the Manner and Procedure of Implementation of Public Consultations in Preparation of Laws. Telecommunications Law. Electronic Signature Law. Electronic Law. Freedom of Access to Information of Public Importance Law. Electronic Commerce Law. Personal Data Protection Law. Public Procurement Law.

Agency for Personal Data Protection and Free Access to Information. Ministry for Information Society and Telecommunications. Republic Office for Informatics and Internet. Republic Telecommunications Agency. Serbian National Register of Internet Domain Names. National Information Technology and Internet Agency. Agency for Electronic Communication.

Slov

enia

Slovenia's Development Strategy, 2005. eGovernment Strategy of the Republic of Slovenia for the period 2006 to 2010. Action Plan for eGovernment for the period 2006 to 2010. Strategy on IT and electronic services development and connection of official records. Strategy for the development of the Information Society in the Republic of Slovenia until 2010. e-Government Strategy for the period 2006 to 2010. Strategy on IT and electronic services development and connection of official records. Action Plan on Electronic Commerce in Public Administration. e-Government Strategy for Local Self-Government (ESLS).

Youth Sleuth: Engaging Serbia’s Youth to Fight Corruption through Investigative Journalism and Social Media (UNDP) State Portal of the Republic of Slovenia. e-VEM project awarded by UN for improving service delivery. Digital Agenda for Europe conference - going local, 2011, 2012, 2013. / E-services (http://e-uprava.gov.si/e-uprava/) - public services and information. E-proposals (http://predlagam.vladi.si/) – online platform enables citizens to create and sign proposals.

General Administrative Procedure Act. Act on Access to Public Information. Personal Data Protection Act. Act amending the Electronic Commerce and Electronic Signature Act. Electronic Communications Act.

Ministry of Public Administration. Directorate for eGovernment and Administrative Processes. Post and Electronic Communication Agency of the Republic of Slovenia.

Page 20: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

19

Table 2. UN e-government index (EGDI) scores for Balkan countries, average score for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27, EU 28, top 20 European performers and world in 2014 (Source: Author; United Nations,2014) Countries EGDI

Albania 0.5046

Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.4707

Croatia 0.6282

Macedonia 0.4720

Montenegro 0.6346

Serbia 0.5472

Slovenia 0.6505

EU 15 0.8009

EU 25 0.7483

EU 27 0.7338

EU 28 0.7300

European top 20 average 0.6936

World Average 0.4712

Balkan countries average 0.5583

Table 3. Countries by World Bank GDP Income group (Source: Author; World Bank,2014a) Countries Income group

Albania Upper middle income

Bosnia and Herzegovina Upper middle income

Croatia High income

Macedonia Upper middle income

Montenegro Upper middle income

Serbia Upper middle income

Slovenia High income

Table 4. Countries by “Freedom in the World” score by Freedom House (Source: Author; House, 2014b)

Countries Freedom

rating Civil

liberties Political

rights

Albania 3 3 3

Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 3 3

Croatia 1.5 2 1

Macedonia 3 3 3

Montenegro 2.5 2 3

Serbia 2 2 2

Slovenia 1 1 1

Page 21: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

20

Figure 1. General government final consumption expenditure (% of GDP) for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 during 2004-2013 (Source: Author; World Bank,2014a)

Figure 2. GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 during 2003-2013 (Source: Author; World Bank,2014b)

Page 22: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

21

Figure 3. Fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 during 2000-2013 (Source: Author; ITU,2014)

Figure 4. Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 during 2000-2013 (Source: Author; ITU,2014)

Page 23: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

22

Figure 5. Percentage of individuals using the Internet for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 during 2000-2013 (Source: Author; ITU,2014)

Figure 6. State of Information Society in 2013 for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 (Source: Author; ITU,2014)

Page 24: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

23

Figure 7. ICT Development Index (IDI) for Balkan countries during 2002-2012 (Source: Author; ITU,2014)

Figure 8. State of ICT Development Index for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 in 2011 and 2012 (Source: Author; ITU,2014)

Page 25: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

24

Figure 9. UN e-government index for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 during 2003-2014 (Source: Author; United Nations,2003,2004,2005,2008,2010,2012,2014)

Figure 10. UN e-government index by sub-indexes for Balkan countries in 2014 (Source: Author; United Nations,2014)

Page 26: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

25

Figure 11. UN e-participation index for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 during 2003-2014 (Source: Author; United Nations,2003,2004,2005,2008,2010,2012,2014)

Figure 12. UN e-participation index (EPI) by stages for Balkan countries, EU 15, EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28 in 2014 (Source: Author; United Nations,2003,2004,2005,2008,2010,2012,2014)

Page 27: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

26

Figure 13. Democracy score change for Balkan countries in 2013-2014 (Source: Author; House,2013,2014a)

Page 28: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

27

Chapter Four: Findings from analysis 4.1 Living standard, ICT uptake and ICT development index Over the period of nine years, Albania shows a small percentage of expenditure for purchases of goods and services (Figure 1); a position explained by high public debt (World Bank,2014,p.7). Montenegro’s government expenditure had a large jump in between 2005 and 2006 due to post-crisis period after declaration of independence (World Bank, 2012,p.13). Other countries followed EU drop backs with a little above or below the EU average. Countries do not show major differences: showcasing, different investments and usage of resources related to ICT initiatives (Kromidha,2012,p.576) (Table 1). Observed countries vary in the standard of living, measured as GNI, demonstrating slow growth, but with levels up to four times lower than the EU average (Figure 2). Slovenia and Croatia have gradually grown on this indicator, following the changes of other EU countries. Montenegro follows the pattern but is closer to the other countries in the region: Albania, Serbia and Macedonia. However, despite the lower GNI, trends of ICT raise in penetration and usage are closer to EU average. The observed countries showed greater usage of mobile phones than in other EU countries, while having considerably smaller number of fixed broadband subscriptions. In 2012, Albania launched 3G services so wireless-broadband penetration grew by 109 per cent in 2013, in comparison to 18 per cent growth in 2012 (ITU,2013,p.49,52). Montenegro has the biggest uptake in mobile phones, leading to more than 160 mobile phones on 100 users in 2013 (Figure 6). An ITU report (2014,p.5) explains that such uptake is closely connected to affordability. Due to prices, citizens in countries of lower standard find fixed-broadband internet services or other technologies, for example desktop computers, as gainless and turn to cheaper tools, like mobile phones (Rotberg and Aker,p.112,114). Now, in terms of internet users, most of the observed countries, are below the EU 28 average but are continually rising (Figure 5). More than 50% of population in each of the observed countries has acess to Internet. Such small digital gaps can be connected to IT policies that resulted in diverse governmental projects, which ensured digital broadcasting and electronic regulations. ICT policies that are infrastructure oriented, like the ones in Albania, lowered prices and improved services (ITU, 2014,p.52). Albania doubled its wireless-broadband penetration between 2011 and 2012 and enabled an expansion of the mobile broadband network coverage, resulting in increased household internet access to 55% in 2012 (ITU, 2014,p.52). Internet users in Montenegro had grew faster than the EU average, especially between 2011 and 2013 due to implementation of technological advancements, new legislation and initiatives on electronic communication and broadcasting as of 2009 (Montenegro Digital Society, 2011,p.7,20,24,46). Albania and Bosnia progressed little in wired-broadband subscription. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia have strong growth of access (Figure 5). Albania, although below EU average and with low penetration rates, has “one of the highest Internet user growth rates in the Europe region” (ITU,2013,p.52). ITU reports had noted that Albania aims toward ICT policies that will improve infrastructure and providing the public services online (ITU,2013,p.52). Increase in telecommunication investments are noted by EU, however standards are still not adopted on national level (European Commission,2012a,2013a,p.24). Bosnia and Herzegovina “logged the highest absolute increase, from 32 per cent of households with Internet access at end 2011 to 40 per cent at end 2012” (ITU,2013,p.68). Bosnia and Herzegovina catch up with leaders in the region, Croatia and Slovenia, due to progress in the development of information and communications technologies (Džihana et al.,p.15,16,18,19).

Page 29: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

28

In terms of information society, measured by ICT development index, IDI, (Figure 7, Figure 8), Slovenia is highest, followed by another EU member, Croatia, with Montenegro and Serbia behind. The IDI index, describing ICT access, uptake and literacy, ranks Slovenia and Croatia as leaders in the region. . Albania gained nine places from 2011 to 2012 in the IDI use sub-index rankings, thanks to strong growth in the number of wireless-broadband subscriptions (ITU,2013,p.51) but it is still only European country to have an IDI value below the global average (Appendix) (ITU,2013,p.51). While reports indicate that the most progress has been made on ICT access, the digital gap seems constant across observed countries. Democratic countries of the EU have greater scores on all of these indicators. In comparison to EU, Balkan countries, excluding Slovenia, have lower levels of technology use and access (Bilbao-Osorio et al.,2013; Capgemini,2013; ITU,2014), which, again, might be related to differences in economic development caused by diverse political situations in the post-communist period. Despite the differences and lower GNI, numbers of citizens with access to ICTs is increasing, providing the suitable audience for inclusive ICT opportunities. 4.2 Evaluation of e-government and e-participation The region’s e-government index is higher than world’s average (Madzova et al.,2013) but still lower than the average index of EU member countries (Figure 9). In this context it can be argued that countries have turned their efforts to e-government, moreover, usage of ICT in governments, information delivery and user engagement. Yet, significant differences in approaches towards e-government and implementation of projects and policies are reflected in the e-government index. The UN report highlights Slovenia as a country that has increased e-government investments in terms of pursuit for economic recovery and improved governance (United Nations,p.31). However, although EU member countries have financial, legislative and logistical support to invest in e-government and e-participation (Enzell, 2009), Slovenia and Croatia have lower ratings in some of the e-government categories when compared to observed non-EU countries. Contrary to the same UN survey (United Nations,2014), where most of the top 20 countries were high income developed economies, Balkan region finds exceptions. Albania and Montenegro, which were classified with lower income (as upper middle income countries, Table 3), showed improved development of e-government ranking. The e-government index for observed countries is increasing over the period of 10 years (Figure 9). In 2014, Slovenia is ranked 41st out of 193 countries observed, among the best 50 countries in the world. Croatia is ranked 47th and Montenegro 45th. Over the period from 2003 Slovenia is a constant leader in the region, followed by Croatia, in all UN surveys except the one from 2014. In 2014, Montenegro and Slovenia are positioned highest among observed countries in terms of e-government index. To compare, from 2003 to 2014 Montenegro increased its UN e-government index by 41%, Albania by 40%, Bosnia and Herzegovina 36%, Serbia 31%, Croatia 14,% and Slovenia 3%. Such increase, suggests that countries of lower income are quickly turning towards usage of ICT for governmental purposes. By observing sub-indexes of UN’s e-government index it is visible that Montenegro has lower developmental levels of telecommunication infrastructure than Croatia and Slovenia, but leads in terms of online services and human capital (Figure 10). Human capital, as the ability to produce economic value out of competencies, knowledge and creativity contributes to Montenegrin score as well as assessment of online services. Bosnia and Herzegovina is noted as being one of the upper middle-income countries which provides online forms (United Nations, 2014,p.130).

Page 30: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

29

UN observations suggest that governments with access to more advanced telecommunication infrastructures, such as Croatia, should be able to utilize technology in public services (United Nations,2014,p.47). Moreover, in comparison with Slovenia, Croatia had to fulfill an extended range of EU conditions (Urlic,2012,p.53) that should lead to increased e-participation. The UN compares Croatia with Uruguay; similar in size, income, human capital and telecommunication infrastructure but differences in online services - Croatia scores 0.4646, whilst Uruguay scores 0.8504 (United Nations,2014,p.48). Croatia did not use potential to improve online services, thus scores low in online services delivery (Figure 10) (United Nations,2014,p.49). It can be seen that Montenegro and Albania both do better in terms of online services than Slovenia, Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia. Thus, although Montenegro is ranked lower than Slovenia and Croatia in terms of living standard (Figure 2), ICT uptake and information society (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 7), it is among leaders when it comes to e-government. Following the definition of e-democracy that includes engagement in terms of participation in decision making processes, Slovenia and Montenegro are the only countries in the region that have scored points on e-decision sub-index. Montenegro scores 22.22% and Slovenia 11.11% (United Nations,2014). Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Macedonia score 0%. Interestingly, Croatia follows the EU pattern in terms of ICT uptake and socio-economic development but is placed behind countries of lower income (Table 3) and democracy scores (Table 4) when it comes to e-government (Table 2), moreover, e-participation index. Following section will try to explore such standings by observing legislation, its implementation and democracy scores. 4.3 The legislation, democracy and ICT It can be noted that countries differ in ICT related initiatives, giving them different priorities due to differences in overall economic and socio-political policy priorities (Hosman,2014,p.99). Generally, a comparison with EU countries suggests that the observed Balkan countries still need improvements in democracy; functioning of the government, political pluralism and participation, freedom of expression and rule of law (House, 2014). The results indicate that despite the assistance that the EU has given the Balkans, the countries have a long way to go to improving ICTs and democratization. A comparison of e-government surveys in the following sections reflects the existing state of public service and regulations. Implementing EU directives and membership requirements created a framework of ICTs in governments. Various action plans, strategies and projects were implemented among observed countries (Table 1). EU member countries, Slovenia and Croatia, aligned their legal frameworks with EU regulations. Both Slovenia and Croatia have been demonstrating greater indicators of democratization (Figure 13, Table 4). Both countries lead in Freedom House freedom index (Table 4). However, Slovenia is the only country in the region whose freedom of media is classified as free by Freedom House. Other countries are classed as partly free. Montenegro is ranked with a point 3 out of 7 in terms of political rights (Table 4), the same as Albania, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Albania had a multiyear decline in democracy scores due to ruling of Democratic Party that demonstrated corruptive power over state institutions and judicial system (House,2013,p.3). However, in 2014 Albania gained positive ratings due to democratic parliamentary elections (House,2014a,p.6). From 2013 to 2014 Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia, remained at the same positions. Croatia slightly improved on corruption by convicting ex-prime minister, Sanader, but fell on human rights as it allowed constitutional amendments that allowed a ban on gay marriage (House,2014a,p.7,8). In 2012 Croatia changed its constitution to grant access to information. Morover, reports on public discussions became an obligation during the new law proposals, as stated in goverment’s

Page 31: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

30

rules of conduct. Macedonia’s declines are related to growing restrictions on independent journalism, and the adoption of “controversial legislation to create a new, government-dominated media regulator” (House,2013,p.6,7). To improve public administration and increase low awareness on freedom of information, Macedonia introduced Ministry of Information Society and Administration. Progress in ICT and e-government is noted but lack of capacities in a new ministry threatens the implementation of law on access to information (European Commission, 2012f,p.10,35,36). With the exception of Bosnia, all countries possess a basic regulatory and legal framework (Matei et al.,2011,p.40). Bosnia and Herzegovina’s ongoing challenges with legitimacy and institutions limited the ability of the country to combat corruption and start significant reforms (House,2013,p.3), as the political system is unwilling to compromise on EU and NATO recommendations (House,2013,p.3,8), leading to funding cuts (House,2014a,p.7). The European Commission reports on Bosnia reveal the presence of nepotism throughout the public sector at all levels of authority. Although exchange of information in the government is improving (European Commission,2012b,p.35) efforts to implement Freedom of Information Access remains weak due to amendments and the limited scope of existing law (European Commission,2013b,p.14). With government's hesitation to align legislative with EU, public access to information remains uneven (European Commission,2013b,p.15,17,49). As most of ICT laws is based on EU regulatory from 1998 (European Commission,2013b,p.47,48), much effort is needed to improve the current state of information society in Bosnia. Serbia adopted an annual action plan (2013-2014) to implement the 2010-2020 e-communications strategy but further development of regulations is needed (European Commission,2013e,p.28). Although there are improvements in ICT capacity, approach to e-government needs to be strengthened (European Commission,2013e,p.36), primarily to narrow the digital divide within the country. This might be in connection with the administrative and inspectorate capacity which is considered insufficient (European Commission,2013e,p.36). Serbia, Albania and Montenegro are the highest performers on e-participation in the region (Figure 11). Montenegro is ranked 49th, Albania is ranked 59th, and Serbia is ranked 81st. According to UN survey (United Nations,2014,p.65) Montenegro is among “the top 50 performers on e-participation in the world”. Montenegro jumped from 57th to 45th place between 2012 and 2014 (United Nations,2014,p.33). Since 2012 Montenegro has been implementing the Law on Electronic Signature, a new Law on electronic communications and strategy in information society development from 2012-2016 (European Commission,2012c,p.32,33). Furthermore, Montenegro adopted EU regulation in field of ICT in attempts to achieve projections of Digital Agenda for Europe by 2016 (European Commission,2013d,p.19,25). Furthermore, UN survey noted Albania in terms of e-information sub-index (Figure 12). Additionally, although low coordination and information exchange in Albanian institutions is present (European Commission,2012a,p.40,57), the government adopted digitisation strategy and action plan that push digitalisation process (European Commission,2012a,p.39). Public administration enabled a process of communication with citizens via GovNet Network (European Commission,2013a,p.26) and the e-Albania portal was launched to serve as a single point of contact for government services. Albanian government established e-government services both for citizens and businesses. According to UN survey (United Nations,2014) by “provision of information” sub-index, Albania is above all the other Balkan countries (Figure 11). Albania improved its ranking due to the adaptation of the Open Knowledge Foundation’s Open Database License (United Nations,2014,p.170) whilst Montenegro launched “Strategy for the Development of the Information Society 2012–2016” (Montenegro Digital Society,2011) and has “gurated several e-government

Page 32: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

31

initiatives, including a business licensing e-registry portal” (United Nations,2014,p.34) (Table 1). Nonetheless, while both Albania and Montenegro show rapid progress in e-participation since 2010, ratings suggests that only Montenegro and Slovenia have put efforts to more inclusive concept of e-democracy by introducing specialised online platforms. To explore online tools and services observation of the web sites has also been made (Table 1). Some portals have links to social media sites, and tend to be more service oriented as seen in Croatia and Montenegro. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Macedonia are more state-centered, instructional and have a more bureaucratic feel. In general, most of the government's introduced online submissions, online forms or e-mail contacts for citizen’s comments regarding the new legislature. However, separate tools for direct proposals of changes have only been seen with Slovenia and Montenegro.

Page 33: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

32

Chapter Five: Discussion The analysis has revealed some tendencies and homogenisation, as well as certain differences. When observed together, the democracy scores and e-government index introduce interesting comparisons between similar and neighboring countries. There are differences in e-democracy initiatives, in terms of implementation and ICT utilization for consultation purposes. Exceptions in terms of IDI index, e-government and e-participation index have also been noted. Generally, the EU kept its progress in terms of ICT uptake (Figure 3, Figure 5) and e-government index (Figure 9). Slovenia and Croatia, EU member states, have a greater standard of living (Figure 2), higher percentage of fixed-broadband (Figure 3), greater IDI score (Figure 7) and are ranked better than the other countries in the region when it comes to civil and political rights (Table). Slovenia and Croatia have advanced telecommunication sectors and the highest technology uptakes (ITU,2014), which corresponds with their socio-economic development (Table 3). In Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina, ITU uptake is significantly growing but the provision of public services and online participation is yet to take place. Bosnia and Herzegovina show significant growth of Internet users, a potential audience for online participation. In contrast, Albania is already noted as leading in e-participation index due to high scores of information availability. Albania and Montenegro have significantly advanced their e-government despite relatively low national income or democratic standing (Figure 2, Figure 9). In comparison with other Balkan countries Albania and Montenegro showed significant growth of e-government and e-participation (Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11). Furthermore, in terms of e-democracy, the provision of online tools that allow government-citizen interaction in decision-making, only Montenegro and Slovenia scored significant points. In contrast, Croatia, an EU member, introduced legislation but lacks e-government projects. Croatia is lagging behind despite its relatively high income. Thereby Croatia has good opportunities for future improvement. However, in June 2014, Croatian government has introduced central government portal, gov.hr, to provide one stop on information regarding the government and e-services. This platform is partly fulfillment of a broader eCitizen project introduced by Croatian government. Macedonia developed strategies and projects (Table 1) but did not demonstrate implementation in regards to participative processes nor specific online tools (Figure 10). Serbia is demonstrating significant progress in regulative adoption but did not develop initiative to improve usage of ICT in democratization process. Despite some national differences, the basic institutional and organisational setting was generally comparable in most of the cases (Table 1). Overall, in regards of EU membership, Balkan countries need to accelerate their attempts towards open and information society if they want to keep up with EU guidelines. The same can be applied to e-government ambitions. The analysis can confirm that various strategies and programmes are created in different countries that support the idea of ICT and development but with various results and applications. Although countries have similar framework and development plans (Table 1) it seems that countries with lower democratic scores put significant efforts to increase e-democracy. However, such discrepancies might be related to the financial and project assistance received from outside of the EU, by other international organisations as seen in research of Kromidha (2012). Both Montenegro and Albania have UNDP projects linked to development of information society (Table 1). Still, other countries had similar investments, which did not lead to such results. Between 2007 and 2013 Croatia received a total of €3 million from the EU to co-fund ICT projects. However, in 2013 there has been a decrease in Internet usage for e-government services. With 25%, Croatia is below the EU average of 41% (Digital Agenda,2014). In comparison, 52% of Slovenians made

Page 34: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

33

use of Internet for e-Government. In terms of user-centricity and transparency of e-government initiatives Croatia is much below while Slovenia scores the same or above the EU average. Klasnic (2013,p.1219) correlates impacts of e-government in Croatia with the lack of change of organisational culture in public administration. Results of new e-Citizen project in Croatia are yet to show an effect. In the UN survey, e-participation is measured as capability to introduce relevant ICT policies, legislation and participative online properties which enable citizens’ involvement in governmental decision practice. E-participation and e-government scores can be related to specific online tools, tools that are specifically designed to support citizens’ engagement in decision-making processes. Most of the countries are similar in terms of government portals, which enable citizens to get access to information. However, Slovenia and Montenegro ranked highest in e-consultation index. Both countries have specialized online platforms that allow citizens to participate in form of policy-making discussion. Similarly, both platforms enable citizens to post suggestions in relation to any of the government's initiatives. Initiatives are put to online voting. If enough users vote for such suggestion over a certain period of time, government takes the suggestion into consideration. Such platforms enable open debates on the issue, consequently raising awareness on the issues among authorities and relevant stakeholders. Each suggestion, often referred as a petition, has an appropriate answer from the government, making such interaction two-way. The Government of Slovenia uses an online tool ‘predlagam.vladi.si’, managed by the Government Communication Office of Slovenia, to enable citizen interaction (United Nations,2014,p.69). Various government ministers evaluate citizens’ initiatives and proposals in order to provide relevant feedback. Citizens can even suggest improvements for tool’s functionality. To interact with its citizens Montengro is using a similar tool https://epeticije.gov.me/. Similarly, the Government's team for Communication Coordination administers the portal. As of February, 2012 Macedonia built a similar tool that would allow citizens to submit comments or ideas about existing law regulations. However, last submissions on the portal are from August 2012, and there is no documentation of procedures as a result of direct citizens contribution. Both the stakeholders and the government made very limited use of such commitment, resulting in limited competition. Montenegro and Albania, started their EU negotiations later than the others. Reports find that countries improved their ratings in attempts of respect toward EU regulations and accession criteria. This might be correlated with the case of non-democratic countries, which turned to ICT in order to improve their rankings “for pleasure of international forces” (Åström et al.,2012,p.148) or in this case while pursuing EU membership. However, such attempts at e-democracy reflect countries’ aspiration to democratise. Future research should explore the real impact of such tools and actions. Moreover, Slovenia and Montenegro, leading in e-participation, are both ranked highest with the “human capital” sub-index. Countries that lead in terms of competencies and knowledge, including creativity and cognitive abilities, embody the potential to produce change and introduce new socio-economic value. Governments should recognise human capital as a strategic response to society's demand (Nigro, et al.,2013,p.50). Such administrative arrangements can be reflected in innovative environments, for example, creation of participative ICTs that can contribute to more engaging policy making processes. Hopefully, such concepts of e-democracy can then contribute to democratisation.

Page 35: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

34

Chapter Six: Conclusion ICT has changed citizen interaction, and thus, citizen interaction with the government. However, correlating democratic change with the rise of ICT is often a difficult task. Without ICT initiatives that support democracy, citizens’ involvement in decision-making processes is hard to achieve. This paper built its findings on secondary data, observing individual strategies, reports and concepts in attempts to investigate the micro level of general ICT democracy relation. By building on existing work, this dissertation adds to the cumulative tradition in ICT for development research, moreover, e-democracy. Thus, the academic community could possibly compare findings across studies and re-interpret prior findings. In essence, this study demonstrated some correlation between ICT expansion and democratic freedoms as it compared Balkan with EU countries. Such indicators were observed to explore the state of ICT and democracy, and to indicate the approach to the modernisation of public administration in the creation of transparent and user-centric services that engage citizens in political processes. Although the EU strongly emphasizes these goals, it transpires from the analysis that all the countries observed should continue to put efforts into e-government and e-participation to reach the EU average. Furthermore, correlation between EU membership and e-democracy performance illustrates significant discrepancies. Namely, Croatia, although an EU member state marked with high ICT uptake and higher standard of living, does not follow EU growth in terms of e-government and participation. In spite of the existence of logistical and financial support from the EU, Croatia did not fully utilize ICTs to modernise decision-making processes. Up to 2014, Croatia and Slovenia, both EU member countries, act in accordance with EU changes when it comes to internet uptake, wired-broadband, GNI, ICT development index, and e-government index. Both Slovenia and Croatia have high democratic scores as measured by Freedom House. On the other hand, countries with lower democratic and income scores, such as Montenegro and Albania, showed significant aspects of e-democracy. Montenegro, a non-EU member with a lower living standard and ICT uptake was able to showcase leading examples in terms of e-government, in addition to e-participation. Yet, Slovenia and Montenegro expanded existing democratic rights by developing e-participation tools. Generally, the countries analysed need to determine and implement significant measures in order to actively promote individual or collective rights through the usage of ICTs. By examining the way in which different governments seek to utilize ICTs, the findings of this suggest greater encouragement of cooperation, as broader extension of knowledge and practices is required. As illustrated in this work, there is still room for further understanding of the nature of ICT related projects, such as impacts and responses. Last, a bolder approach to the development of e-participation tools and user centric design in governments would complement a government’s responsibility for ICT utilization in a democratic context.

Page 36: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

35

Bibliography Amoretti, F. (2007) International Organizations ICTs Policies: E‐Democracy and E‐Government for Political Development. Review of policy research, 24(4), 331-344. Alozie, N. O., Akpan-Obong, P., and Foster, W. A. (2011) Sizing up information and communication technologies as agents of political development in sub-Saharan Africa. Telecommunications Policy, 35(8), 752-763. Åström, J., Karlsson, M., Linde, J., and Pirannejad, A. (2012) Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: Domestic and international factors.Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 142-150. Avgerou, C. (2010) Discourses on ICT and Development. Information Technologies and International Development, 6(3), pp-1-18. Ayanso, A., Cho, D. I., and Lertwachara, K. (2010) The digital divide: global and regional ICT leaders and followers. Information Technology for Development,16(4), 304-319. Ayanso, A., Chatterjee, D., and Cho, D. I. (2011) E-Government readiness index: A methodology and analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 28(4), 522-532. Balkin, J. M. (2004) Digital speech and democratic culture: A theory of freedom of expression for the information society. NyuL rev., 79, 1. Bannister, F., and Connolly, R. (2012) Forward to the past: Lessons for the future of e-government from the story so far. Information Polity, 17(3), 211-226. Bekkers, V. (2012) Why does e-government looks as it does? looking beyond the explanatory emptiness of the e-government concept. Information Polity,17(3), 329-342. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., and Grimes, J. M. (2012) Promoting transparency and accountability through ICTs, social media, and collaborative e-government.Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6(1), 78-91. Bilbao-Osorio, B., Dutta, S., and Lanvin, B. (2013) The global information technology report 2013. In World Economic Forum. Capgemini, IDC, Rand Europe, Sogeti and DTi (2010) Smarter, faster, better e-government. 8th Benchmark Measurement, in: eGovernment. Benchmark Survey 2009, European Commission Directorate General for Information Society and Media. [Internet] Available from: http://www.es.capgemini.com/resource-file-access/resource/pdf/Estudio_sobre_los_servicios_p__blicos_online_de_la_UE.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] Capgemini, IDC, Rand Europe, Sogeti and DTi (2011) Digitizing Public Services in Europe: Putting Ambition into Action. 9th Benchmark Measurement, in: eGovernment. Benchmark Survey 2010, European Commission, Directorate General for Information Society and Media. [Internet] Available from:

Page 37: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

36

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/newsletter-item-detail.cfm?item_id=6537 [accessed 6 July 2014] Capgemini, IDC, Rand Europe, Sogeti and DTi (2012) IS-practice and IndiGov, RAND Europe, and Danish Technological Institute,“eGovernment Benchmark Framework 2012-2015 Method Paper,” European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content and Technology, Brussels. SMART 2012/0034-1, Jul. Capgemini (2013) The European Commission eGovernment Benchmark: Further Uptake Required To Meet Growing Citizens’ Expectations For Public Services [Internet]. Available from: http://www.capgemini.com/news/the-european-commission-egovernment-benchmark-further-uptake-required-to-meet-growing-citizens [accessed 6 July 2014] Capgemini, Rand Europe, IDC, Sogeti, Danish Technological Institute (2013a) Public Services Online. Digital by Default or by Detour. Assessing User Centric eGovernment performance in Europe – eGovernment Benchmark 2012, in: Final Background Report, European Commission, Directorate General for Communications Network, Content and Technology. [Internet] Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/eGov_Benchmark_2012%20background%20report%20published%20version%200.1%20.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] Capgemini, Rand Europe, IDC, Sogeti, Danish Technological Institute (2013b) Public Services Online. Digital by Default or by Detour. Assessing User Centric eGovernment performance in Europe – eGovernment Benchmark 2012, in: Final Insight Report, European Commission, Directorate General for Communications Network, Content and Technology. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/eGov%20Benchmark%202012%20insight%20report%20published%20version%200.1%20_0.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] Capgemini, Rand Europe, IDC, Sogeti, Danish Technological Institute (2014a) Delivering on the European Advantage?. How European governments can and should benefit from innovative public services. eGovernment Benchmark 2013, in: Final Background Report, European Commission, Directorate General for Communications Network, Content and Technology. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=5812 [accessed 6 July 2014] Capgemini, Rand Europe, IDC, Sogeti, Danish Technological Institute (2014b) Delivering on the European Advantage?. How European governments can and should benefit from innovative public services. eGovernment Benchmark 2013, in: Final Insight Report, European Commission, Directorate General for Communications Network, Content and Technology. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=5811 [accessed 6 July 2014] Chadwick, A. (2003) Bringing E-Democracy Back In Why it Matters for Future Research on E-Governance. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 443-455.

Page 38: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

37

Çilan, Ç. A., Bolat, B. A., and Coşkun, E. (2009) Analyzing digital divide within and between member and candidate countries of European Union. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 98-105. Cortés, E. A., and Navarro, J. L. A. (2011) Do ICT influence economic growth and human development in European Union countries?. International Advances in Economic Research, 17(1), 28-44. Cropf, R. A. (2009) ICT and E-Democracy. Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T., and Bacao, F. (2012) Digital divide across the European Union. Information and Management, 49(6), 278-291. Dahl, R. A. [1956] (2013) A preface to democratic theory. University of Chicago Press. Diamond, L. (2010) Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy, 21(3), 69-83. Digital agenda for Europe (2014) Croatia Scoreboard. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard/croatia [accessed 6 July 2014] Digital agenda for Europe (2014) Slovenia Scoreboard. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard/slovenia [accessed 6 July 2014] De Grove, F. (2012) State of Play of Digital Games for Empowerment and Inclusion: A Review of the Literature and Empirical Cases. Publications Office. Dobrota, M., Jeremic, V., and Markovic, A. (2012) A new perspective on the ICT Development Index. Information Development, 28(4), 271-280. Effing, R., van Hillegersberg, J., and Huibers, T. (2011) Social media and political participation: are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube democratizing our political systems?. In Electronic participation (pp. 25-35). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Enzell, M. (2009) Ministerial Declaration on eGovernment (Malmo). Malmo: European Commission. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/ministerial-declaration-on-egovernment-malmo.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] Europa.eu (2012) Neelie Kroes Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda Digital democracy: How ICT tools can change the relationship between citizens and governments EuroPCom (the European Conference on Public Communication) Brussels. (2012/10/18). retrieved 2014/08/11, from Europa.eu Web Site: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-738_en.htm European Commission (2010a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committe and the Committee of the regions. A digital Agenda for Europe. [Internet] Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0245R(01)andfrom=EN [accessed 6 July 2014]

Page 39: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

38

European Commission (2010b) Europe 2020. A European Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020, Brussels. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/news/documents/pdf/ 20100303_1_en.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] European Commission (2010c) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Commitee and the Committee of the Regions. The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015. Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable and innovative Government. [Internet] Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0743 [accessed 6 July 2014] European Commission (2012a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Albania 2012 Progress Report. Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012-2013. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/al_rapport_2012_en.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] European Commission (2012b) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Bosnia and Herzegovina 2012 Progress Report. Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012-2013. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/ba_rapport_2012_en.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] European Commission (2012c) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Montenegro 2012 Progress Report. Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012-2013. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/mn_rapport_2012_en.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] European Commission (2012d) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Serbia 2012 Progress Report. Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012-2013. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/sr_rapport_2012_en.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] European Commission (2012e) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Main Findings of the Comprehensive Monitoring Report on Croatia’s state of preparedness for EU membership. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/hr_rapport_2012_en.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] European Commission (2012f) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2012 Progress Report. Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012-2013. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/mk_rapport_2012_en.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014]

Page 40: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

39

European Commission (2012g) Programme Guide "Europe For Citizens" 2007 - 2013. Version valid as of January 2013. Published in the Official Journal 2012/C 377/06 of 07/12/2012. [Internet] Available from: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/citizenship/programme/programme_guide_en.php [accessed 6 July 2014] European Commission (2013a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Albania 2013 Progress Report. Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2013-2014. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2013/package/al_rapport_2013.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] European Commission (2013b) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Bosnia and Herzegovina 2013 Progress Report. Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2013-2014. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2013/package/ba_rapport_2013.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] European Commission (2013c) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2013-2014. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2013/package/strategy_paper_2013_en.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] European Commission (2013d) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Montenegro 2013 Progress Report. Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2013-2014. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2013/package/mn_rapport_2013.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] European Commission (2013e) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Serbia 2013 Progress Report. Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2013-2014. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2013/package/sr_rapport_2013.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] European Commission (2013f) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2013 Progress Report. Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2013-2014. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2013/package/brochures/the_former_yugoslav_republic_of_macedonia_2013.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] European Commission (2013g). ICT-Information and Communication Technologies, Work Programme 2013. Eurostat, European Commission. (2014) Europe in figures: Eurostat yearbook. [Internet]. Available from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Europe_in_figures_-_Eurostat_yearbook [accessed 6 July 2014]

Page 41: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

40

Eurostat, European Commission. (2013) More than 60% of individuals in the EU28 use the internet daily. [Internet]. Available from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/4-18122013-BP/EN/4-18122013-BP-EN.PDF [accessed 6 July 2014] Eurostat, European Commission. (2011) Internet use in households and by individuals in 2011. [Internet]. Available from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-11-066/EN/KS-SF-11-066-EN.PDF [accessed 6 July 2014] Flere, S. (2013) 20 years later: Problems and prospects of countries of former Yugoslavia. Freyburg, T., and Richter, S. (2010) National identity matters: the limited impact of EU political conditionality in the Western Balkans. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(2), 263-281. Gallagher, T., and Pridham, G. (Eds.) (2012) Experimenting with democracy: Regime change in the Balkans. Routledge. García-Sánchez, I. M., Rodríguez-Domínguez, L., and Gallego-Álvarez, I. (2011) The Relationship between Political Factors and the Development of E–Participatory Government. The Information Society, 27(4), 233-251. Garson, G. D. (2006) Public information technology and e-governance: Managing the virtual state. Jones and Bartlett Learning. Gomez, R. (2013) The Changing Field of ICTD: Growth and maturation of the field, 2000-2010. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 58. Grönlund, Å. (2009) ICT is not participation is not democracy–eParticipation development models revisited. In Electronic Participation (pp. 12-23). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Groshek, J. (2009) The Democratic Effects of the Internet, 1994—2003 A Cross-National Inquiry of 152 Countries. International Communication Gazette,71(3), 115-136. Groshek, J. (2010) A time-series, multinational analysis of democratic forecasts and Internet diffusion. International Journal of Communication, 4, 33. Harindranath, G., and Sein, M. K. (2007, May) Revisiting the Role of ICT in Development. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries, São Paulo, Brazil. Heeks, R. (2010) Do information and communication technologies (ICTs) contribute to development?. Journal of International Development, 22(5), 625-640. Hosman, L., and Howard, P. N. (2010) Information Policy and Technology Diffusion: Lessons from Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. World Information Access Project Working Paper, 5.

Page 42: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

41

Hosman, L., and Howard, P. N. (2014) Telecom Policy Across the Former Yugoslavia: Incentives, Challenges, and Lessons Learned. Journal of Information Policy, 4. Ionescu, L. (2013) The Positive Effect of ICT Infrastructure in Reducing Corruption and Increasing Transparency. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, (2), 167-172. House, F. (2013) Nations in transit Report 2013: Authoritarian aggression and the pressures of austerity. [Internet] Available from: http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/NIT%202013%20Booklet%20-%20Report%20Findings.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] House, F. (2014a) Nations in transit Report 2014: Eurasia’s Rupture with Democracy. [Internet] Available from: http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/NIT2014%20booklet_WEBSITE.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] House, F. (2014b) Freedom in the World database. Country rankings and status, 1973-2014. Washington DC (US). [Internet] Available from: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world#.VBLoJy5dXuU [accessed 6 July 2014] ITU (2009) International Telecommunication Union. Measuring the Information Society: 2010. [Internet] Available from: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/material/2009/MIS2009_w5.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] ITU (2010) International Telecommunication Union. Measuring the Information Society: 2010. [Internet] Available from: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/material/2010/MIS_2010_without_annex_4-e.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] ITU (2011) International Telecommunication Union. Measuring the Information Society: 2011. [Internet] Available from: http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/backgrounders/general/pdf/5.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] ITU (2012) International Telecommunication Union. Measuring the Information Society: 2012. [Internet] Available from: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2012/MIS2012_without_Annex_4.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] ITU (2013) International Telecommunication Union. Measuring the Information Society: 2013. [Internet] Available from: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2013/MIS2013_without_Annex_4.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] ITU (2014) International Telecommunication Union. The world in 2014: ICT facts and figures [Internet]. Geneva: International Telecommunications Union; 2014. Available from: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx [accessed 6 July 2014]

Page 43: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

42

Klasinc, A. J. (2013) Effects of e-government in Croatia. In Information and Communication Technology Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), 2013 36th International Convention on (pp. 1217-1219). IEEE. Kowal, J., and Roztocki, N. (2013) Information and Communication Technology Management for Global Competitiveness and Economic Growth in Emerging Economies. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 57. Chicago Krishnan, S., Teo, T. S., and Lim, V. K. (2013) Examining the relationships among e-government maturity, corruption, economic prosperity and environmental degradation: A cross-country analysis. Information and Management, 50(8), 638-649. Kromidha, E. (2012) Strategic e-government development and the role of benchmarking. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 573-581. Lee, C. P., Chang, K., and Berry, F. S. (2011) Testing the Development and Diffusion of E‐Government and E‐Democracy: A Global Perspective. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 444-454. Leigh, P. R. (2011) International exploration of technology equity and the digital divide: critical, historical and social perspectives. IGI Global. Lijphart, A. (2012) Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press. Lidén, G. (2013a) Supply of and demand for e-democracy: A study of the Swedish case. Information Polity, 18(3), 217-232. Lidén, G. (2013b) Adding Validity and New Results to the Global Explanations of e-democracy. Lidén, G. (2014) Technology and democracy: validity in measurements of e-democracy. Democratization, (ahead-of-print), 1-16. Lips, M. (2012) E-government is dead: Long live public administration 2.0.Information Polity, 17(3), 239-250. Lipset, S. M. (1959) Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American political science review, 53(01), 69-105. Lipset, S. M., and Lakin, J. M. (2004) The democratic century (Vol. 9). University of Oklahoma Press. Lucarini, R., Caiola, P., and Carrieri, V. (2009) E-gov 2.0: Pave the way for e-Participation. Conception, planning and co-ordination, 373. Macintosh, A. (2007) eParticipation and eDemocracy Research in Europe. Digital government: eGovernment research, case studies, and implementation, 85-102.

Page 44: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

43

Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., and Schneeberger, A. (2009) eParticipation: The research gaps. In Electronic participation (pp. 1-11). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Madzova, V., Sajnoski, K., and Davcev, L. (2013) E-Government as an Efficient Tool towards Good Governance (Trends and Comparative Analysis throughout Worldwide Regions and within West Balkan Countries). Balkan Social Science Review, 1. Margolis, M., and Moreno-Riaño, G. (2013) The prospect of Internet democracy. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Matei, A. I., Radulescu, C., Grammatikas, V., Iancu, D. C., Ungureanu, D. M., Savulescu, C., ... and Dogaru, T. C. (2011) National and European Values of Public Administration in the Balkans. Medaglia, R. (2012) eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 346-360. Mehmood, B., Rizvi, S. H. H., and Rizvi, S. S. H. (2014) Governance and Information and Communication Technology in Islamic Countries: A Generalized Method of Moments Inference. Journal of Emerging Economies and Islamic Research (JEEIR), 2(2). Metamorphosis Foundation (2008) Roadmap for Inclusive eGovernment in the Western Balkans: Building e-services accessible to all. [Internet] Available from: goo.gl/PHFt8U [accessed 6 July 2014] Millard, J., Nielsen, M., Warren, R., Smith, S., Macintosh, A., Tarabanis, K., Tambouris E., Panopoulu E., Efpraxia D. and Parisopoulos, K. (2009) European eParticipation summary report. European Commission, Brussels. Montenegro Digital Society (2011) Ministry for Information Society and Telecommunications. Strategy for the Development of Information Society 2012-2016. [Internet] Available from: http://www.who.int/goe/policies/countries/mne_ehealth.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] Morris, D. (2011) Vote. com: Influence, and the Internet is Giving Power Back to the People. Macmillan. Ndou, V. (2004) E-government for developing countries: opportunities and challenges. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 18. Nigro, L., Nigro, F., and Kellough, J. (2013) The new public personnel administration. Cengage Learning. Open Government Partnership (2012) Albania Action Plan. [Internet] Available from: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/file/942/download [accessed 6 July 2014] Open Government Partnership (2012) Croatia Action Plan for the implementation of the initiative Open Government Partnership in the Republic of Croatia for period 2012 - 2013. [Internet] Available from: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/file/877/download [accessed 6 July 2014] Open Government Partnership (2012) Macedonia Action Plan on Open Government Partnership. [Internet] Available from: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/file/1031/download [accessed 6 July 2014]

Page 45: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

44

Open Government Partnership (2012) Montenegro Action Plan. [Internet] Available from: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/file/860/download [accessed 6 July 2014] Open Government Partnership (2014) Independent Reporting Mechanism. Albania Progress Report 2011-13. Gjergji Vurmo, Institute for Democracy and Mediation. Copy for Public Comment: Not for Citation. [Internet] Available from: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/files/albania-ogp-irm-public-comment-engpdf-0/download [accessed 6 July 2014] Open Government Partnership (2014) Independent Reporting Mechanism. Croatia Progress Report 2012-13. Aida Bagic ́, Independent Researcher. Copy for Public Comment: Not for Citation. [Internet] Available from: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/files/croatiaprogressreport2012engpdf/download [accessed 6 July 2014] Open Government Partnership (2014) Independent Reporting Mechanism. Macedonia Progress Report 2012-13. Neda Korunovska, Reactor—Research in Action. Copy for Public Comment: Not for Citation. [Internet] Available from: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/files/macedoniaogpirmpubliccommentenglishpdf-0/download [accessed 6 July 2014] Open Government Partnership (2014) Independent Reporting Mechanism. Montenegro Progress Report 2012-13. Vanja Calovic, Network for Affirmation of NGO Sector (MANS), in an independent capacity. Copy for Public Comment: Not for Citation. [Internet] Available from: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/files/montenegrofinal2012englishpdf/download [accessed 6 July 2014] Open Society Foundations, Džihana, A., Ćendić, K., and Tahmaz, M. (2012) Mapping Digital Media: Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Report by the Open Society Foundations. Open Society Foundations. Orviska, M., and Hudson, J. (2009) Dividing or uniting Europe? Internet usage in the EU. Information Economics and Policy, 21(4), 279-290. Panagiotopoulos, P., Sams, S., Elliman, T., and Fitzgerald, G. (2011) Do social networking groups support online petitions?. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5(1), 20-31. Potnis, D. D. (2010) Measuring e-governance as innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 41–48. Rhue, L., and Sundararajan, A. (2014) Digital access, political networks and the diffusion of democracy. Social Networks, 36, 40-53. Richter, S. (2012) Two at one blow? The EU and its quest for security and democracy by political conditionality in the Western Balkans. Democratization,19(3), 507-534. Riley, T. B. (2001) Electronic governance and electronic democracy: Living and working in the connected world. Commonwealth Centre For Electronic Governance.

Page 46: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

45

Rodríguez Domínguez, L., García Sánchez, I. M., and Gallego Álvarez, I. (2011) Determining factors of e-government development: a worldwide national approach. International Public Management Journal, 14(2), 218-248. Rotberg, R. I., and Aker, J. C. (2013) Mobile phones: uplifting weak and failed states. The Washington Quarterly, 36(1), 111-125. Roztocki, N., and Weistroffer, H. R. (2009) Information and communications technology in developing, emerging and transition economies: An assessment of research. AMCIS 2009 Proceedings, 652. Seri, P., and Zanfei, A. (2013) The co-evolution of ICT, skills and organization in public administrations: Evidence from new European country-level data.Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 160-176. Skoric, M. M., and Park, Y. J. (2014) Culture, technologies and democracy: A cross-national analysis of political development. Telematics and Informatics,31(3), 364-375. Shirazi, F. (2008) The Contribution of ICT to Freedom and Democracy: An Empirical Analysis of Archival Data on the Middle East. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 35. Shirazi, F., Ngwenyama, O., and Morawczynski, O. (2010) ICT expansion and the digital divide in democratic freedoms: An analysis of the impact of ICT expansion, education and ICT filtering on democracy. Telematics and Informatics, 27(1), 21-31. Sideridis, A. B. (2013) e-Government Research and Services at an Era of Economic Crisis. Procedia Technology, 8, 9-12. Soper, D. (2007) ICT Investment Impacts on Future Levels of Democracy, Corruption, and E-Government Acceptance in Emerging Countries. Stanimirovic, D., and Vintar, M. (2012) Evaluation of e-Government Policies: Overlooked Aspect of Public Interest. In SOTICS 2012, The Second International Conference on Social Eco-Informatics (pp. 35-41). Stewart, K., Cuddy, A., and Silongan, M. (2013) Electronic petitions: a proposal to enhance democratic participation. Canadian parliamentary review, 36(3), 9-13. Steyn, J., and Johanson, G. (Eds.). (2010) ICTs and Sustainable Solutions for the Digital Divide: Theory and Perspectives. IGI Global. Stieglitz, S., and Brockmann, T. (2013) The impact of Smartphones on E-participation. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1734-1742). IEEE. Taylor, A. J. (2013) The European Union and State Building in the Western Balkans. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 183-195.

Page 47: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

46

Touray, A., Salminen, A., and Mursu, A. (2013) ICT barriers and critical success factors in developing countries. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 56. United Nations (2003) UN Global E-government Survey 2003. [Internet] Available from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan016066.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] United Nations (2004) UN Global E-government Readiness Report 2004. Towards access for opportunity. [Internet] Available from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan016066.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] United Nations (2005) UN Global E-government Readiness Report 2005. From E-government to E-inclusion. [Internet] Available from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021888.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] United Nations (2008) UN E-government Survey 2008. From E-government to Connected Governance. [Internet] Available from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan028607.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] United Nations (2010) United Nations E-government Survey 2010. Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis. [Internet] Available from: http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2010-Survey/Complete-survey.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] United Nations (2012) United Nations E-government Survey 2012. E-government for the people. [Internet] Available from: http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2012-Survey/unpan048065.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] United Nations (2014) United Nations E-government Survey 2014. E-government for the future we want. [Internet] Available from: http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/portals/egovkb/documents/un/2014-survey/e-gov_complete_survey-2014.pdf [accessed 6 July 2014] Urlic, A. (2012) Political conditionality vs. political criteria in the European Union accession process: Comparative analysis of Slovenian and Croatian accession criteria. University of Ljubljana. Faculty of Social Science. [Internet] Available from: https://www.academia.edu/8235547/Political_conditionality_vs._political_criteria_in_the_European_Union_accession_process_Comparative_analysis_of_Slovenian_and_Croatian_accession_criteria [accessed 6 July 2014] Wei, L., and Hindman, D. B. (2011) Does the digital divide matter more? Comparing the effects of new media and old media use on the education-based knowledge gap. Mass Communication and Society, 14(2), 216-235. Weiner, S. A. (2013) Overview: the role of information policy in resolving global challenges. Global Policy Research Institute (GPRI) Policy Briefs, 1(1), 6.

Page 48: E-democracy: Comparison of opportunities in the Western Balkan countries

!!

47

World Economic Forum (2014) The Global Information Technology Report 2014. Rewards and Risks of Big Data. Ben ̃at Bilbao-Osorio, Soumitra Dutta, and Bruno Lanvin, Editors. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?action=displayanddoc_id=6639 [accessed 6 July 2014] World Bank (2012) Montenegro - After the crisis: towards a smaller and more efficient government - public expenditure and institutional review. Public expenditure review (PER). Washington, DC: World Bank. [Internet] Available from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/01/16421025/montenegro-after-crisis-towards-smaller-more-efficient-government-public-expenditure-institutional-review [accessed 6 July 2014] World Bank (2014a) World Development Indicators. General government final consumption expenditure (% of GDP). [Internet] Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.GOVT.ZS/countries/ [accessed 6 July 2014] World Bank (2014b) World Development Indicators. GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$). [Internet] Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD/countries/ [accessed 6 July 2014] World Bank (2014c) World Development Indicators. GDP (current US$). [Internet] Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD/countries/ [accessed 6 July 2014] World Bank (2014d) Albania - Public finance review. Washington DC: World Bank Group. [Internet] Available from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/01/19230254/albania-public-finance-review [accessed 6 July 2014] Wright, S. (2012) Assessing (e-) Democratic Innovations:“Democratic Goods” and Downing Street E-Petitions. Journal of Information Technology and Politics,9(4), 453-470. Zoroja, J. (2011, June) Internet usage in developed and post-communist Europe: Trends and differences. In Information Technology Interfaces (ITI), Proceedings of the ITI 2011 33rd International Conference on (pp. 89-94). IEEE.