How much can we trust different e-government surveys? The case of Slovenia
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6149301 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mirko Vintar (University of Ljubljana), Janja Nograšek (University of Ljubljana) |
| Year | 2010 |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 199-213 |
| Publication date | 2010-11-19 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Information Polity (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1875-8754 • E-ISSN: 1570-1255 |
| Publisher | IOS Press (PUBLISHER • NL) |
| DOI | 10.3233/ip-2010-0207 |
| OpenAlex | W1561549225 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 2 |
E-government has been the subject for benchmarking since the beginning of this decade, with several well-established surveys on the subject. These surveys employ different models for assessing the maturity of services, e-readiness, digital divide, and other relevant factors, leading to varying conclusions concerning the state of e-government in individual countries, regions, or even on a global level [13]. Within the EU, the CapGemini benchmark has been used since 2001. According to these surveys, Slovenia, the subject of this discourse, has made impressive progress over the last five years. However, if we analyse the Slovene position vs. other, also well established rankings and surveys around the world, the results of Slovenia are not so outstanding. Thus, the main aim of the paper is to critically analyse and compare the case of Slovenia with regard to some of the most established benchmarks around the world. These will serve us as basis for presenting a more realistic picture about the true state of e-government in Slovenia in comparison to other countries
Business · E-Government · Government (linguistics · Information and Communications Technology · Internet privacy · World Wide Web · Computer Science · E-Government and Public Services · ICT Impact and Policies · Information Technology Governance and Strategy
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,21 |
| Citation span | 2012 - 2020 (9) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |