United Nations Public Administration Network has made the data for the 2010 e-Governemnt Survey available.
The countries which reached the highest e-Government score this year was:
- Republic of Korea (Score: 0.87)
- United States of America (Score:0.85)
- Canada (Score: 0.84)
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Score: 0.81)
- The Netherlands (Score: 0.81)
Benchmarking E-Government Development of the UN Member States 
By when is the entire report being made available for downloading. I am keen to see India’s parameters.
KINDLY NOTE CORRECTION IN URL OF MY WEBSITE. IT IS:
http://www.drpkaditya.com and NOT http://www.pkaditya.com, as noted. I am sorry for causing inconvenience. Thanks.
dr.pkaditya@gmail.com URL: http://www.drpkaditya.com
Like time changes many things, I have a new website: http://www.legalvus.com. Wherever possible this change be noted. thanks. dr.pkaditya jan 11, 2014
I have put some results on my website, http://www.drpkaditya.com, but unless details can be seen as to why world average of online services has fallen from 0.4783 in 2008 to 0.3683 in 2010, i.e., by 18%. Egov index world average has fallen from 0.3814 to 0.3567, as consequence thereof. Please see website and comment. Thanks
The entire report should be available at the beginning of March. Please check:
http://www.unpan.org/Library/MajorPublications/UNEGovernmentSurvey/tabid/646/language/en-US/Default.aspx
May I know if you have a better estimate now of how much we shall wait. April 5. pkaditya
what is the reason behind the fall of sweden to no:11 position?
From 2010 results on Online services, changes in website parameter evaluation criteria as well as changing the Five-stage framework to Four-stages, has been noticed to cause a fall in World-average of this parameter to fall from 0.348 in 2008 to now 0.286 in 2010, (which is about 18% fall). It has caused the WAv of e-gov to also fall by 5% to 8%, if the previous extrapolation trend is allowed. It appears that on this account, and any such reasons, year-to-year comaprisons become less meaningful, though relative placement of countries would not be affected. http://www.drpkaditya.com
I certainly agree with you that when both the criteria and framework changes, comparisons over time becomes less meaningful (if not completely meaningless).
However, we should keep in mind that e-Government is quickly evolving and so must the benchmarking methods. e-Government is not like e.g. world hunger which can be measured and compared from year to year. For example, what was a good e-government Web site five years ago, may not be very good compared to today’s standards.
On the other hand, as you indicate, it is certainly useful to see how a country evolves over time.
In my opinion, when developing benchmarking methodologies, it is important to keep comparability over time as well as improvements of the methodology in mind.
I have a small question, as to how can reasonable distinction be made between achievements of what are called stamp-size countries and of those having large size problems, arising from huge population /spread etc. Watching the trend, say in online-services or citizen-specific websites, small countries can find quick-fix solutions, without being held back by drag/ retarding forces, beyond control. There must be some statistical solutions, I am not aware of, and would like illumination. http://www.pkaditya.com Feb 28
I can agree with you to some extent, it is harder for larger countries to governance the situation. But on the other hand all counties (small or large) have to do the same processes from A-Z almost, all criteria or catogeries of E-Government had to be respected in order to achieve a high level. Also there is an advantage for the larger countries in this field, which is the economy of size. I think the main factor for distinguishment is the how poor or rich is the country?
Yes I agree with you that there is a very strong tendency that the wealthy countries have well developed e-government and visa versa.
However, there certainly exists exceptions. In the UNPAN e-Government ranking, Bahrain ranks as number 13. In contrast, it ranks as number 118 sorted by the Gross Domestic Production. In other words, it has the worlds 13th best e-government, but is only the 118th wealthiest country.
Thus, it is not so that a country has to be wealthy to have well developed e-government.
In simple, the E-Government survey is good as basic indication, not as sophisticated tool to really meassure E-Governement ot to be used as ranking instrument. It is so hard to correctly measure the E-Government, since noticible percentage of the delivered services are not via the websites! and the Examiners are not 100% able to assess all the contents of the websites, since there is a restricted areas, and so on.
Best regards
By the way, how long the “Very soon” is?
is it a week
is it a month
is it 2 month
is it 3 month
or what is it exactly, from january, we were waiting for the new survey report to be published.
already April 5, 2010.
Regarding Morten Olsen’s comment on Bahrain. A small country though, but large resources, and small population, a little focus on certain elements which can be tackled, the egov index can be quickly improved. Statistics being a numbers game, one has to keep eyes on what can give quick gains. I do not mean to decrease the credit that must go to Bahrain, yet I think that some weight factors must be developed by statistics experts, to at least make it possible to see little deeply what really is long-term strategy and what a short-time policy for quick performance.
I agree that the results for Bahrain by itself does not disprove that small (or for that matter wealthy) countries are more likely to have better e-government scores. In fact, it may very well be that there is such a correlation.
If I understand your argument correctly, it can be summarized as following (please correct me if I misunderstand):
I further agree that some weighting of the scores, based for example the population, would certainly be interesting. My opinion is however that the scores should be able to speak for themselves without using such factors. For example, one of the goals for measuring e-government should be that any country – small or large – should be able to reach the best score as long as they have the best e-government for their citizens. I would rather prefer that any interesting correlation between e-government scores and size of a country can be presented and explained for example in a graph in a corresponding report, not incorporated in a score itself.
Dear All,
Kindly note that the UN E-Government Survey will be launched on April 19th and you will be able to download the publication from this blog as well as from UNPAN.
where can I find the list of all the website for costa rica and Spain on the chart on the page number 117 of e-governament. it is about online services.
Please helpme w/ this situation
As far as I know, these are unfortunately not publicly available. For verification and repeatability purposes, I think they should be. Furthermore, I feel that publishing the web site URLs would give the survey more credibility.
A look at the top ten countries list of Human Capital Index, shows it very different from all other lists, because this index is easiest to handle by small population countries. Similar conclusion can be arrived in case of other indices, or ‘components’ thereof, if a country ‘intelligently’ chooses to accomplish itself, aimed to better the overall egov index. Large population, or small resources cannot allow countries to use ‘intelligence’ even if they think on right lines. Morten Olsen has rightly summarised the basic issues. E-gov parameter is nice to show-off, but is not the end-all.
It is an indicator of how the determinant is defined, how parameters are modified, some added, some dropped, etc, in good faith, in interest of the citizens. Being part of the world we have to take it sportingly, not grudgingly. Yet I think that some bright brain must find a way of ‘normalisation’, so that every one can see the actual position if ‘things’ were under reasonable control.
pkaditya April 20.