POLICY ANALYSIS - ESSAY
30th of May, 2022
, Methodological framework to inclusiveness in the realm of e-governance. 1
Context setting: How to leave no-one behind? 1
What is the problem? 2
A. Problem structuring methods: argumented mapping & participatory action research 2
B. Stakeholder mapping 2
What actions can we take and what policy options are there? 2
A. Forecasting expected policy outcomes: efficiency; equality; fiscality; political feasibility 2
B. Methods to predict these policy outcomes: design fiction 3
What are the outcomes of the chosen policy option? A factual-based evaluation 3
A. Methods monitoring: time-series analysis 3
B. Recommend: similar policies & SWOT-analysis 3
Of what value is the outcome? A values-based evaluation 3
Annex 4
Suggestions for improving the class 4
Reference list 4
Content-based word count: 1500 4
Methodological framework to inclusiveness in the realm of e-governance.
Context setting: How to leave no-one behind?
Electronic Government (e-governance) is a relatively new innovation introduced since the 2000s.
UNESCO defines e-
communication technologies, like the internet, to deliver to all citizens improved services, reliable info
and greater knowledge in order to facilitate access to the governing process and encourage deeper
citizen participation (Sardi & Mlikota, 2002).
While some researchers argue that the use of these new technologies by government enables social
inclusion (Archmann & Guiffart, 2014), others see that these technologies foster new kinds of divisions
in e-governance (Bannister & Leahy, 2014). These dichotomies would arise from the assumption that
the pursuit of pure self-interest by individuals leads to outcomes that are at odds with the goals of e-
governance as defined in the UNESCO definition. It encompasses the following three dividing lines:
First, a gap between those who use e-governance services and those who could use them but do not
because of the marginal opportunity cost of free time. Second, there is the gap between those who are
highly sensitive to the privacy issues associated with e-governance and those who are not concerned
with privacy. Third, there is the lack of specific access devices for those from marginalized
communities (e.g., the elderly, the (mentally) disabled). Moreover, it is often the marginalized
communities that need government support and effective access to that support the most.
However, if we leave it to all the individuals and stakeholders involved in these three divides, it is
unlikely that the free market will close these usage gaps . Moreover, two types of market failures are
likely to occur: First, that of incomplete markets , since the free market may fail to produce specialized
access devices that marginalized communities need. Second, , as individual
choices in pursuing privacy implications of e-governance or the marginal opportunity cost of leisure
may result in not considering the impact of the disuse of these e-government services on the
1
30th of May, 2022
, Methodological framework to inclusiveness in the realm of e-governance. 1
Context setting: How to leave no-one behind? 1
What is the problem? 2
A. Problem structuring methods: argumented mapping & participatory action research 2
B. Stakeholder mapping 2
What actions can we take and what policy options are there? 2
A. Forecasting expected policy outcomes: efficiency; equality; fiscality; political feasibility 2
B. Methods to predict these policy outcomes: design fiction 3
What are the outcomes of the chosen policy option? A factual-based evaluation 3
A. Methods monitoring: time-series analysis 3
B. Recommend: similar policies & SWOT-analysis 3
Of what value is the outcome? A values-based evaluation 3
Annex 4
Suggestions for improving the class 4
Reference list 4
Content-based word count: 1500 4
Methodological framework to inclusiveness in the realm of e-governance.
Context setting: How to leave no-one behind?
Electronic Government (e-governance) is a relatively new innovation introduced since the 2000s.
UNESCO defines e-
communication technologies, like the internet, to deliver to all citizens improved services, reliable info
and greater knowledge in order to facilitate access to the governing process and encourage deeper
citizen participation (Sardi & Mlikota, 2002).
While some researchers argue that the use of these new technologies by government enables social
inclusion (Archmann & Guiffart, 2014), others see that these technologies foster new kinds of divisions
in e-governance (Bannister & Leahy, 2014). These dichotomies would arise from the assumption that
the pursuit of pure self-interest by individuals leads to outcomes that are at odds with the goals of e-
governance as defined in the UNESCO definition. It encompasses the following three dividing lines:
First, a gap between those who use e-governance services and those who could use them but do not
because of the marginal opportunity cost of free time. Second, there is the gap between those who are
highly sensitive to the privacy issues associated with e-governance and those who are not concerned
with privacy. Third, there is the lack of specific access devices for those from marginalized
communities (e.g., the elderly, the (mentally) disabled). Moreover, it is often the marginalized
communities that need government support and effective access to that support the most.
However, if we leave it to all the individuals and stakeholders involved in these three divides, it is
unlikely that the free market will close these usage gaps . Moreover, two types of market failures are
likely to occur: First, that of incomplete markets , since the free market may fail to produce specialized
access devices that marginalized communities need. Second, , as individual
choices in pursuing privacy implications of e-governance or the marginal opportunity cost of leisure
may result in not considering the impact of the disuse of these e-government services on the
1
