Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Regardless of how e-government may be understood, a reasoned discussion of its meaning or definition serves a very important function. As e-government becomes an integral part of the execution of governmental responsibilities throughout the U.S. federalist system, a common understanding of e-government provides the foundation for future policy analysis and debate that will inevitably follow. In the E-Government Act of 2003, Congress has provided a definition of e-government owing much to many years of information technology development and application, as well as related policy discussions and creation, and includes some common themes that capture the evolutionary nature of e-govern-ment. However, while detailed, this statutory definition belies its contextual depth as reflected in practice. Because e-government exists outside of statute, competing definitions result, reflecting the contextual complexity and fluid nature of e-government, and suggesting it may be appropriate to accept a family of definitions rather than select one to the exclusion of another. What these definitions should share in common, however, is a sense that objectives need to drive our technology choices rather than allowing our technology choices to determine our objectives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Seifert et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: