«broadband services»
Ministry of Transportation
36.444.754,00
l
2007
«police online»
Ministry of Social Security
25.604.480,54
m
2008
«e-gif»
Ministry of Interior
990.200,91
n
2009
«e-school»
Ministry of Education
1.392.817,92
o
2009
ermis
Ministry of Interior
8.866.627,61
p
2010
«jeremie»
Ministry of Finance
70.000.000,00
E-Strategic Management Lessons from Greece 239
4 CONCLUSION
E-strategic transformation is being observed during the last decade in all major
cases around the world. E-strategies declare vision and mission statements,
together with priorities and objectives. In this chapter the Greek e-strategies
were approached with a strategic management model in order to recognize
the strategic change. The applied model uses known methods and can extract
useful outcomes for the strategic transformation. The application of the pre-
sented model discovered the strengths and weaknesses for the examined Greek
strategies and showed both reasonable and mistaken strategic updates. These
findings can be used in future e-strategic updates in order to create a smooth
transition path between previous and future objectives.
REFERENCES
Anthopoulos, L. (2011). An investigative assessment of the role of enterprise archi-
tecture in realizing e-government transformation. In P. Saha (Ed.), enterprise
architecture and connected e-government: practices and innovations. IGI
Global.
Anthopoulos, L. G., Gerogiannis, V. C., & Fitsilis, P. (2010). Measuring e-govern-
ment adoption by governments: the Greek case. In Comparative e-government,
integrated series in information systems (vol. 25, pt. 2, pp. 353–370). Springer Science & Business Media.
Australian Government. (2000). Government Online. Retrieved January 2011 from
http://www.agimo.gov.au/archive/publications_noie/2000/04/govonline.html
Barrows, E. A., & Frigo, M. L. (2008). Using the strategy map for competitor
analysis. Harvard Business Review, July 15, 2008. Retrieved August 2011 from
http://hbr.org/product/using-the-strategy-map-for-competitor-analysis/an/
B0807E-PDF-ENG
Commission of the European Communities. (2000). eEurope 2002 Update.
Retrieved December 2010 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex-
UriServ.do?uri=COM:2000:0783:FIN:EN:PDF
Commission of the European Communities (2001). eEurope+ 2003: A co-operative
eff
ffort to implement the Information Society in Europe. Retrieved, December
2010, from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/2002/
action_plan/eeurope_2003.pdf
Commission of the European Communities. (2002). eEurope 2005: An infor-
mation society for all. European Commission—COM 263, 2002. Retrieved
December 2010 from
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=COM:2002:0263:FIN:EN:PDF
Commission of the European Communities. (2005). i2010—A European Infor-
mation Society for growth and employment. Retrieved December 2010 from
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/key_documents/
index_en.htm
Creamer, G., & Freund, Y. (2010). Learning a board balanced scorecard to improve
corporate performance. Decision Support Systems, 49, 365–385.
David, R. F. (2011). Strategic management (concepts and cases), Global Edition (13th ed.). Pearson Higher Education.
Drucker, F. P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles.
New York: Harper & Row.
240 Leonidas G. Anthopoulos, Dimitrios Triantafyllou, and Panos Fitsilis ePractice.eu (2011). eGovernment Factsheet—Germany—Strategy. Retrieved,
May 2011 from http://www.epractice.eu/en/document/288242
European Commission. (2005). Guidelines of project/programme evaluations.
Retrieved September 2011 from http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation/
methodology/egeval/guidelines/gba_en.htm
European Commission. (2006). Indicative guidelines on evaluation methods:
ex ante evaluation. Retrieved September 2011 from: http://ec.europa.eu/
regional_policy/sources/docoffi
c
ffi /2007/working/wd1_exante_en.pdf
European Commission. (2009). 2009 ageing report: Economic and budgetary projec-
tions for the EU-27 member states (2008–2060). Retrieved September 2009 from
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_fi na
fi
nce/publications/publication14992_en.pdf
European Commission. (2010). A digital agenda for Europe. Retrieved January
2011 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:
0245:FIN:EN:PDF
European Council (2000). Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000:
Presidency conclusions. Retrieved September 2011 from http://www.europarl.
europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm
German Federal Government. (2003). BundOnline 2005. 2003 implementation
plan. Retrieved September 2011 from http://www.bunde.de
Huang H. C. (2009). Designing a knowledge-based system for strategic planning: A
balanced scorecard perspective. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 209–218.
Information Society Special Secretariat. (2010). Intermediate evaluation report of the digital convergence [in Greek]. Retrieved September 2011 from http://www.
opengov.gr/ypoian/?p=429
Ivy, J. (2008). A new higher education marketing mix: The 7Ps for MBA market-
ing. International Journal of Educational Management, 22(4), 288–299.
Japanese Government. (2001). e-Japan Strategy. Retrieved January 2011 from
http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/it/network/0122full_e.html
Japanese Government. (2009). i-Japan Strategy 2015. Retrieved January 2011 from http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/policy/it/i-JapanStrategy2015_full.pdf
Kaplan, S. R., & Norton, P. D. (1996). Translating strategy into action. The bal-
anced scorecard. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, pp.
8–12, 30–32.
Laudon, K., & Laudon, J. (2002). management information systems: Managing the
digital fi
firm (7th ed.). Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
Lysons, K., & Farrington, B. (2006). Purchasing and supply chain management, Chapter 2. Prentice Hall, Harlow, England.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. Prentice Hall.
Nag, R., Hambrick, D. C., & Chen, M.-J. (2007). What is strategic management,
really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the fi eld
fi
. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 28(9), 935–955.
Porter, M. (2002). Building the microeconomic foundations of prosperity: Find-
ings from the business competitiveness index from the global competitiveness
report 2002–2003. Retrieved September 2011 from http://courses.wcupa.edu/
rbove/eco343/030compecon/gen-eral%20compar/030900compet3.pdf
Porter, M. (1996). What is strategy?. Harvard Business Review [online]. Retrieved September 2011 from http://www.ipocongress.ru/download/guide/article/
; what_is_strategy.pdf
Rafi
fiq, M., & Ahmed, K. P. (1995). Using the 7Ps as a generic marketing mix: An
exploratory survey of UK and European marketing academics. Marketing Intel-
ligence & Planning, 13(9), 4–15.
U.K. Cabinet Offi
c
ffi e. (2005). T r
T ansformational government enabled by technology.
Retrieved September 2010 from http://archive.cabinetoffi
ce
ffi .gov.uk/e-government/
strategy/
E-Strategic Management Lessons from Greece 241
U.K. Digital Britain Final Report. (2009). Building Britain’s future. Retrieved Jan-
uary 2012 from http://www.offi
c
ffi ial-documents.gov.uk/document/cm76/7650/
7650.pdf
U.K. Modernising Government Secretariat Cabinet Office. (1999). Modernising
government. Retrieved August 2010 from www.nationalschool.gov.uk/policy-
hub/docs/modgov.pdf
U.S. Offi
ffice of Management and Budget (OMB) (2002). e-Government Strategy:
Simplifi e
fi d Delivery of Services to Citizens. Retrieved, August 2010 from http://
www.usa.gov/Topics/Includes/Reference/egov_strategy.pdf
U.S. Offi
ffice of Management and Budget (OMB). (2009). Open Government
Directive. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agen-
cies. Retrieved December 2010 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/
memoranda_2010/m10–06.pdf
U.S. Offi
ffice of Management and Budget (OMB). (2010). Memorandum for Chief
Acquisition Offi
fficers and Chief Information Offi
fficers: Improving the Accessibility
of Government Information. Retrieved August 2010 from http://www.cio.gov/
documents_details.cfm/uid/EC4F5AF8–5056–8F64–36567BC324976D2A/
structure/Laws,%20Regulations,%20and%20Guidance/category/Accessibility
18 State Response to Obama’s
Broadband Access Policy
A Study in Policy Implementation
Ramona McNeal
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
The focus of the Obama administration’s policy for addressing Internet
inequalities within the United States places an emphasis on addressing
infrastructure barriers to residential areas. Under the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, grants and loans have been provided to
states and local governments to extend high-speed broadband access to
rural areas that have not been served by existing broadband providers.
The response by the states to these programs has varied signifi c
fi antly.
Some states have not followed up on these monies while others have
used these programs as an opportunity to encourage local communities
to pursue government ownership of broadband facilities or to finance
the construction of infrastructure necessary for broadband services. This
chapter explores factors that infl
fluence state-level response. Implementa-
tion theory suggests many factors may infl
fluence the extent that the policy
is carried out including attitudes of the implementers towards the law,
public opinion and state resources. Multivariate logistic regression analy-
sis of fi
fifty state data is used to test rival explanations for state response
as of December 2010. Goggin et al.’s (1990) Communications Model is
utilized in order to control for the infl
fluence of the federal government in
this policy area.
1 INTRODUCTION
Electronic government or e-government, which refers “to the delivery of
information and services via the Internet or other digital means” (West,
2004, p. 2), has been a force in public administration for roughly 20 years.
The public sector has increasingly gone online to provide information,
deliver services, and interact with citizens, businesses, and other govern-
ment agencies (McNeal, Hale & Dotterweich, 2008). In the United States
the move to adopt e-government practices at all levels of government began
at the urging of the Clinton administration. At the time, numerous benefits
State Response to Obama’s Broadband Access Policy 243
were predicted including the reduction of government costs and increased
effi
fficiency (Pardo, 2000; Norris, 2001).
Although e-government came with many promises, implementation
of these practices faced numerous barriers. One crucial hurdle was that
it necessitated that citizens have Internet access. Bringing everyone online
would not be an easy task. Even though Americans have been increasingly
going online, inequalities in usage still persist. The latest National Tele-
communication and Information Administration (NTIA) study (2010, pp.
3) fi
finds that 30 percent of all U.S. citizens still do not have access to the
Internet, whereas 40 percent do not have broadband access at home. Those
individuals without Internet access are primarily elderly, less-affluent, less-
educated, minorities and those who live in rural areas.
One barrier to Internet access that has proven particularly difficult to
conquer is geography. Individuals who live in rural areas face unique chal-
lenges to gaining online access. Early research (Stover, 1999) found that
Internet access in rural areas was hampered by limited choices of service
providers and connection fees that are considerably higher than in urban/
suburban areas. The underlying cause is low levels of commercial invest-
ment for basic telecommunication infrastructure. Telephone and other tele-
communication service providers have little incentive to invest in sparsely
populated rural areas. Additionally, Nicholas (2003) found that government
policy aggravated the rural/urban divide. State government offi
fficials often
ignored federal policy encouraging competition among telecommunication
service providers. Instead, some state policies protected the monopolies of
rural telephone companies and discouraged competition.
Among the competition discouraged by state laws has been municipal
owned broadband service. Some local and regional governments have tried
to expand Internet access through providing communication services them-
selves. As of 2009, there were 85 local and regional governments providing
broadband service (Fiber-to-the-Home Council, 2009). Incumbent tele-
communication service providers have lobbied state legislatures to outlaw
this practice with some success. By January 2011, 18 states have passed
laws that either restrict or prohibit municipal owned broadband service
(Baller Herbst Law Group, 2011).
Although some state policies have increased the access divide between
rural and suburban/urban areas, others are lessening disparities. Exam-
ples include the NOANet in the Pacifi
fic Northwest and One Community
in Ohio which are state-sponsored programs that help reduce the cost
of providing Internet service by allowing providers to patch into exist-
ing infrastructure that was created for government needs “backhaul
capacity” (Federal Communication Commission, 2010). Recently, the
Obam
a administration has attempted to encourage actions to increase
Internet access in rural areas through the American Recovery and Rein-
vestment Act. Under this act, grants and loans have been provided to
states and local governments to extend high-speed broadband access
244 Ramona McNeal
to underserved rural areas (Recovery Accountability and Transparency
Board, 2010).
The implementation of this policy depends on the cooperation of state
and local governments. The response of the states has varied from creating
administrative boards necessary to receive federal monies to building state-
owned utilities that will provide broadband Internet service. One factor that
might be infl u
fl encing state response is the action of interest groups within
the state. Historical patterns show that telecommunication service provid-
ers have been successful in limiting both the expansion of municipal own
broadband service and promotion of competition among service providers in
rural areas. The goal of this research is to determine whether states (perhaps
under pressure from interest within the state) will continue on their current
policy paths with regard to this policy area or are they altering their strate-
gies following the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?
This chapter explores this topic starting with a general discussion of federal
policies within the United States aimed at increasing Internet usage.
2 FEDERAL INTERNET ACCESS POLICY
Federal Internet policy began under the Clinton administration which
adopted policies expressly designed to increase Internet access by providing
public access through schools, libraries and community technical centers
(CTCs). Programs put into place to increase access to disadvantaged groups
included the Technology Opportunities Program (TOP), the Community
Technology Center (CTC) initiative and the E-rate. The CTC and TOP pro-
grams made available matching grants for the creation and maintenance
of community centers where the public can go for computer access and
training. In addition, the TOP program off
ffered grants for projects that use
technology to solve social problems and improve communities (Dickard,
2003). The largest federal program created to address the digital divide
is the Schools and Libraries Universal Fund or the “E-rate.” It was cre-
Public Sector Transformation Through E-Government Page 42