Digital Governance in

Municipalities Worldwide (2005)

~
A Longitudinal Assessment of
Municipal Websites Throughout the World

Marc Holzer
Seang-Tae Kim

Co-Sponsored by

Division for Public Administration and Development Management

Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations

The American Society for Public Administration

 Digital Governance in
Municipalities Worldwide (2005)
~
A Longitudinal Assessment of
Municipal Websites Throughout the World

Marc Holzer
Seang-Tae Kim

The E-Governance Institute

National Center for Public Productivity
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Campus at Newark

and

Global e-Policy e-Government Institute

Graduate School of Governance
Sungkyunkwan University

Co-Sponsored by
Division for Public Administration and Development Management
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations

and
The American Society for Public Administration
 Digital Governance in
Municipalities Worldwide (2005)
~
A Longitudinal Assessment of
Municipal Websites Throughout the World

Marc Holzer, Ph.D.

Professor, Graduate Department of Public Administration
Director, The E-Governance Institute,
The National Center for Public Productivity
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Campus at Newark

Seang-Tae Kim, Ph.D.

Dean and Professor of Graduate School of Governance
President of Global e-Policy e-Government Institute
Sunkyunkwan University

Research Director
Tony Carrizales, Associate Director, The E-Governance Institute

Co-Investigators at Rutgers University-Newark

James Melitski, Assistant Professor, Marist College
Richard Schwester, Ph.D.
Chae Il Lee, Visiting Scholar
Younhee Kim, Ph.D. Student
Guatam Nayer, Ph.D. Student
Aroon Manoharan, Ph.D. Student

Co-Investigators at Sungkyunkwan University

Yong-Kun Lee, Ph.D. Student
Eun-Jin Seo, Ph.D. Student
Min-young Ku, M.A. Student
Jong-Seok Kim, Ph. D. Student

i
Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide (2005)
A Longitudinal Assessment of Municipal Websites Throughout the World
© 2006 National Center for Public Productivity

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, except
for brief quotations for a review, without written permission of the National
Center for Public Productivity.

E-Governance Institute
National Center for Public Productivity
Rutgers University, Campus at Newark

701 Hill Hall · 360 Martin Luther King Boulevard

Newark, New Jersey 07102
Tel: 973-353-5903 / Fax: 973-353-5097
www.ncpp.us

The Global e-Policy e-Government Institute

Graduate School of Governance
Sunkyunkwan University

53, Myungnyun-dong 3Ga, Jongro-gu, Seoul, Korea, 110-745

Tel: 82-2-760-1327 / Fax: 82-2-766-8856
www.gepegi.org

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN: 0942942 06 X

ii
 ~

CONTENTS

Executive Summary pg 5

Chapter 1. Introduction pg 13

Chapter 2. Methodology pg 15

Chapter 3. Overall Results pg 33

Chapter 4. Privacy and Security pg 47

Chapter 5. Usability pg 55

Chapter 6. Content pg 63

Chapter 7. Services pg 71

Chapter 8. Citizen Participation pg 79

Chapter 9: Best Practices pg 87

Chapter 10: Longitudinal Assessment pg 94

Chapter 11: Conclusion pg 101

Bibliography pg 103

Appendices pg 105

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 1

2 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005
 ~

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following report, Digital Governance in Municipalities

Worldwide 2005, was made possible through a collaboration
between the E-Governance Institute at Rutgers, the State University
of New Jersey, Campus at Newark and the Global e-Policy e-
Government Institute at Sungkyunkwan University.
We would like to express our thanks to the UN Division for
Public Administration and Development Management (DPADM),
for their continued support in this research. We would like to express
our gratitude to the American Society for Public Administration for
its continued support.
We are grateful for the work and assistance of research staffs
in the E-Governance Institute/ National Center for Public
Productivity at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Campus
at Newark and the Global e-Policy e-Government Institute at
Sungkyunkwan University. Their enormous efforts and collaboration
made this research successful.
Finally, we would also like to express our deepest thanks for
their contributions to the evaluators who participated in this project.
Their participation truly makes the research project successful. On
the following page we name our numerous surveyors of websites
throughout the world as acknowledgement of their efforts.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 3

 2005 Website Surveyors

Adi Balaneanu Hyo-Geun Kim Peter Popovics

Alessandra Jerolleman Hyung-Geun Kim Petko Nikolov
Alexander Gulde Hyun-Seok Kang Rangamani Basettihalli
Alexandre Rafalovitch Ilsang You Rhee Dong-Young
Amar Salokhe Ina Andrees Ricardo Martinez
Ana Elisa Ferreira Iryna Illiash Sang-Bae Jeong
Anders Ehrnborn Janis Gramatins Sanja Stojicevic
Andraz Repar Jonas Haertle Seong Ho Kang
Andrew Verdon Kadri Allikmäe Seung-Yong Jung
A-Ra Cho Kalu Kalu Sherry Anderson
Aroon Manoharan Katarina Lesandric Shunsaku Komatsuzaki
BárbaraBarbosa Neves Kim Ngan Le Nguyen Soo-kyoung Kim
Bo Astrup Ko-Un Lee Steve Spacek
Candy Owen Kris Snijkers Sun-Ae Kim
Carlos Nunes Silva Louis Janus Taha Taha
Clay Raine Lunda Asmani Tamika D. Collins
Crystal Cassagnol Lyuda Raine Trent Davis
Daisy Joy Nemeth Madeleine Cohen Urša Možina
David Chapman Maria J. D'Agostino Uuve Sauga
David F. Shafer Marian Nica Venkata Narayanan
Demetris Christophi Mihaela Bobeica Vija Viksne
Edward Brockwell Min-Jeong Choi Virgil Stoica
Elisa Jokelin Moh Shafie Vladimir Bassis
Erik Bolstad Monika Sosickyte Walter Redfern
Frank Rojas Nadia Mohammad Tawfiq Weiwei Lin
Gabriela Kütting Namgi Kim Wen-Ing Ren
Gautam Nayer Nguyen The Hoang Yana Rachovska
Gilda Morales Nilgun Kutay Young-Jin Shin
Grace Dong Nina Smolar Vija Viksne
Hlin Gylfadottir Oh Kyongseon Virgil Stoica
Olesya Vodenicharska Younhee Kim

4 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

 ~

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This research replicates a survey completed in 2003. The present

survey evaluates the practice of digital governance in large
municipalities worldwide in 2005. Both studies focused on the
evaluation of current practices in government, and the emphasis of
the research was on the evaluation of each website in terms of
digital governance. Simply stated, digital governance includes both
digital government (delivery of public service) and digital
democracy (citizen participation in governance). Specifically, we
analyzed security, usability, and content of websites, the type of
online services currently being offered, and citizen response and
participation through websites established by city governments.
The methodology of the 2005 survey of municipal websites
throughout the world mirrors that of the initial research done in 2003.
There were some improvements from the first study. In order to keep
a degree of consistency for a longitudinal assessment, the 2005
survey was theoretically similar, but a few changes were made in the
cities selected, and the Rutgers-SKKU E-Governance Performance
Index was updated. The survey instrument was expanded from 92
scaled measures to 98. This research focused on cities throughout
the world based on their population size, the total number of
individuals using the Internet and the percentage of individuals
using the Internet. In the 2003 survey, data from the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), an organization affiliated with the
United Nations (UN), was used to determine the 100 municipalities.
Of 196 countries for which telecommunications data was reported,
those with a total online population over 100,000 were identified. As
a result, the most populated cities in 98 countries were selected to be

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 5

surveyed (along with Hong Kong and Macao). For the 2005
worldwide survey the most recent available ITU-UN data was used.
These updated figures produced slightly different results. Countries
with an online population over 100,000 increased to 119. Therefore,
we set a new cut-off mark at countries with an online population
over 160,000. This resulted in 98 countries which met the new mark.
With the inclusion of Hong Kong and Macao, as in 2003, a total of
100 cities were identified for the 2005 survey.
In 2003, the largest city in each of the selected countries was
used as a surrogate for all cities in a particular country. There were a
few changes in the 98 countries identified using the measures
discussed above. Six countries that were identified in 2003 do not
have online populations of over 160,000. These countries and their
most populated cities are: Manama, Bahrain; Port Louis, Mauritius;
Port-of-Spain, Trinidad & Tobago; Asuncion, Paraguay; Sarajevo,
Bosnia; and Havana, Cuba. Of these six cities, only five were
surveyed, with Havana having an unidentified official government
website. As none of the five surveyed cities listed above were
ranked in the top 25th percentile of rankings, their exclusion from
the 2005 worldwide survey was not found to be significant enough
to retain. The six new cities are: Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire; Accra,
Ghana; Chisinau, Moldova; Omdurman, Sudan; Halab, Syria; and
Tripoli, Libya.
Both studies evaluated the official websites of each city in
their native languages. The initial study evaluated websites between
June and October of 2003, while this most recent research evaluated
websites between August and November of 2005 1. For the 2005 data,
81 of the 100 cities were included in the overall rankings, excluding
the 19 municipalities where no official website was obtainable. Our
instrument for evaluating city and municipal websites consisted of
five components: 1. Security and Privacy; 2. Usability; 3. Content; 4.
Services; and 5. Citizen Participation. For each of those five
components, our research applied 18-20 measures, and each
1
Although the majority of municipal websites were evaluated during the stated
time period, a few websites were evaluated or revaluated as late as January 2006
for this most recent study.

6 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

measure was coded on a scale of four-points (0, 1, 2, 3) or a
dichotomy of two-points (0, 3 or 0, 1). Our research instrument goes
well beyond previous research, with the initial study utilizing 92
measures, of which 45 were dichotomous, as above. This most
recent study has further developed the research instrument to include
98 measures, of which 43 were dichotomous. The most significant
change was in the Citizen Participation component, where six new
research questions were added. 2
Furthermore, in developing an overall score for each
municipality we have equally weighted each of the five categories
so as not to skew the research in favor of a particular category
(regardless of the number of questions in each category). This
reflects the same methods utilized in the 2003 study. To ensure
reliability, each municipal website was assessed in the native
language by two evaluators, and in cases where significant variation
(+ or – 10%) existed on the adjusted score between evaluators,
websites were analyzed a third time. Furthermore, an example for
each measure indicated how to score the variable. Evaluators were
given comprehensive written instructions for assessing the websites.
Based on the 2005 evaluation of 81 cities, Seoul, New York,
Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Sydney represent the cities with the
highest evaluation scores. There were only slight changes in the top
five cities when compared to the 2003 study. Seoul remained the
highest ranked city, but the gap between first and second was
slightly closed. In some cases, the scores may have slightly declined
from the previous study. This may be attributed in part to the added
measures for the 2005 research instrument. Table 1 lists the top 20
municipalities in digital governance based on the 2005 data, with
Table 2 listing the 20 municipalities from the 2003 study.

2
One question was removed from the Security and Privacy component and one
added to the Content component.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 7

[Table 1] Top 20 Cities in Digital Governance (2005)
Ranking City Score Privacy Usability Content Service Participation
1 Seoul 81.70 17.60 17.81 16.04 16.61 13.64
2 New York 72.71 16.00 19.06 14.79 15.76 7.09
3 Shanghai 63.93 12.00 18.75 13.13 11.69 8.36
4 Hong Kong 61.51 15.60 16.25 13.75 13.73 2.18
5 Sydney 60.82 16.80 17.81 12.50 8.98 4.73
6 Singapore 60.22 10.40 15.94 11.67 14.58 7.64
7 Tokyo 59.24 12.00 16.25 12.29 10.34 8.36
8 Zurich 55.99 16.40 14.69 13.96 9.49 1.45
9 Toronto 55.10 11.20 14.06 11.46 9.83 8.55
10 Riga 53.95 6.80 17.50 13.75 6.44 9.45
11 Warsaw 53.26 0.00 15.31 13.54 11.86 12.55
12 Reykjavik 52.24 11.60 13.13 13.54 10.34 3.64
13 Sofia 49.11 8.00 13.44 11.67 7.46 8.55
14 Prague 47.27 0.00 16.88 10.21 10.00 10.18
15 Luxembourg 46.58 7.20 15.31 11.88 7.29 4.91
16 Amsterdam 46.44 10.40 12.50 9.79 5.93 7.82
17 Paris 45.49 8.80 15.94 11.46 4.75 4.55
18 Macao 45.48 10.40 13.44 13.13 5.42 3.09
19 Dublin 44.10 8.00 16.88 11.04 4.92 3.27
20 Bratislava 43.65 0.00 15.94 11.04 5.76 10.91

8 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 2] Top 20 Cities in Digital Governance (2003)
Ranking City Score Privacy Usability Content Service Participation
1 Seoul 73.48 11.07 17.50 13.83 15.44 15.64
2 Hong Kong 66.57 15.36 19.38 13.19 14.04 4.62
3 Singapore 62.97 11.79 14.06 14.04 13.33 9.74
4 New York 61.35 11.07 15.63 14.68 12.28 7.69
5 Shanghai 58.00 9.64 17.19 11.28 12.46 7.44
6 Rome 54.72 6.79 14.69 9.57 13.16 10.51
7 Auckland 54.61 7.86 16.88 11.06 10.35 8.46
8 Jerusalem 50.34 5.71 18.75 10.85 5.79 9.23
9 Tokyo 46.52 10.00 15.00 10.00 6.14 5.38
10 Toronto 46.35 8.57 16.56 9.79 5.79 5.64
11 Helsinki 45.09 8.57 15.94 11.70 6.32 2.56
12 Macao 44.18 4.29 17.19 11.91 7.72 3.08
13 Stockholm 44.07 0.00 13.75 14.68 10.00 5.64
14 Tallinn 43.10 3.57 13.13 12.55 6.67 7.18
15 Copenhagen 41.34 4.643 13.438 9.787 5.789 7.692
16 Paris 41.33 6.429 14.375 7.660 5.439 7.436
17 Dublin 38.85 2.50 13.44 11.28 7.02 4.62
18 Dubai 37.48 7.86 10.94 7.87 8.25 2.56
19 Sydney 37.41 6.79 12.19 9.15 5.44 3.85
20 Jakarta 37.28 0.00 16.56 9.79 6.32 4.62

[Table 3] Top 10 Cities in Privacy and Security (2005)

Rank City Country Score
1 Seoul Republic of Korea 17.60
1 Sydney Australia 16.80
3 Zurich Switzerland 16.40
4 New York United States 16.00
5 Hong Kong Hong Kong 15.60
6 Rome Italy 13.20
7 Berlin Germany 12.80
8 Shanghai China 12.00
8 Tokyo Japan 12.00
10 Reykjavik Iceland 11.60

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 9

[Table 4] Top 10 Cities in Usability (2005)
Rank City Country Score
1 New York United States 19.06
2 Shanghai China 18.75
3 Seoul Republic of Korea 17.81
3 Sydney Australia 17.81
5 Riga Latvia 17.50
6 Oslo Norway 17.19
7 Dublin Ireland 16.88
7 Prague Czech Rep. 16.88
7 Jerusalem Israel 16.88
10 Hong Kong Hong Kong 16.25

[Table 5] Top 10 Cities in Content (2005)

Rank City Country Score
1 Seoul Republic of Korea 16.04
2 New York United States 14.79
2 Tallinn Estonia 14.79
4 Zurich Switzerland 13.96
5 Riga Latvia 13.75
5 Hong Kong Hong Kong 13.75
7 Warsaw Poland 13.54
7 Reykjavik Iceland 13.54
9 Shanghai China 13.13
9 Macao Macao 13.13

[Table 6] Top 10 Cities in Service Delivery (2005)

Rank City Country Score
1 Seoul Republic of Korea 16.61
2 New York United States 15.76
3 Singapore Singapore 14.58
4 Hong Kong Hong Kong 13.73
5 Warsaw Poland 11.86
6 Shanghai China 11.69
7 Tokyo Japan 10.34
7 Reykjavik Iceland 10.34
9 Prague Czech Rep. 10.00
10 Toronto Canada 9.83

10 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 7] Top 10 Cities in Citizen Participation (2005)
Rank City Country Score
1 Seoul Republic of Korea 13.64
2 Warsaw Poland 12.55
3 Bratislava Slovak Republic 10.91
4 London United Kingdom 10.55
5 Prague Czech Rep. 10.18
6 Riga Latvia 9.45
7 Toronto Canada 8.55
7 Sofia Bulgaria 8.55
9 Shanghai China 8.36
9 Tokyo Japan 8.36

This research represents a continued effort to evaluate digital

governance in large municipalities throughout the world. Even
though some researchers have evaluated government websites, they
have focused primarily on e-governance at the federal, state, and
local levels in the United States. Only a few studies have produced
comparative analyses of e-governance in national governments
throughout the world.
Based on the 2005 research, there appears to be a continued
divide in terms of digital governance throughout the world. For
example, although the average score for digital governance in
municipalities throughout the world is 33.11 (an increase from 28.49
in 2003), the average score in OECD countries is higher, 44.35,
while the average score in non-OECD countries is lower, only 26.50.
Although the average scores for both OECD and non-OECD
countries have increased, the gap between the two scores has
widened (12.08 in 2003 to 17.85 in 2005). In addition, whereas 25
of 30 cities in OECD countries are above the world average, only 11
of 51 cities in non-OECD countries are above that average.
In addition, 71% of cities selected in Africa, 22% in Asia,
and 20% in North America have not established official city
websites. Every city selected in Europe and South America had its
own official website. These findings reflect those of the 2003 study,
in that cities in Africa have not paid attention to developing their
capabilities in digital governance; most cities in other continents are

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 11

interested in developing those capabilities.
As we concluded in 2003, since there is a gap between
developed and under-developed countries, it is very important for
international organizations such as the UN and cities in advanced
countries to attempt to bridge the digital divide. We recommend
developing a comprehensive policy for bridging the divide. That
comprehensive policy should include capacity building for
municipalities, including information infrastructure, content, and
applications and access for individuals.

12 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

 1

INTRODUCTION

This research replicates a survey completed in 2003. The present

survey evaluates the practice of digital governance in large
municipalities worldwide in 2005. Both studies focused on the
evaluation of current practices in government, and the emphasis in
the research was on the evaluation of each website in terms of
digital governance. Simply stated, digital governance includes both
digital government (delivery of public service) and digital
democracy (citizen participation in governance). Specifically, we
analyzed security, usability, and content of websites, the type of
online services currently being offered, and citizen response and
participation through websites established by city governments.
The following chapters represent the overall findings of the
research. Chapter 2 outlines the methodology utilized in determining
the websites evaluated, as well as the instrument used in the
evaluations. The methodological steps taken by the 2005 surveys of
municipal websites mirror those of the initial research done in 2003.
Our survey instrument uses 98 measures and we use a rigorous
approach for conducting the evaluations. Chapter 3 presents the
overall findings for the 2005 evaluation. In particular, Seoul, New
York City and Shanghai are the three top ranked cities based on the
2005 evaluation. The overall results of the evaluation are also
broken down into results by continents, and by OECD and non-
OECD member countries.
Chapters 4 through 8 take a closer look at the results for each
of the five e-governance categories. Chapter 4 focuses on the results
of privacy and security with regard to municipal websites. Chapter 5
looks at the usability of municipalities throughout the world.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 13

Chapter 6 presents the findings for Content, while Chapter 7 looks at
Services. Chapter 8 concludes the focus of specific e-governance
categories by presenting the findings of citizen participation online.
The concluding chapters take a closer look at the best
practices, and at comparisons to the results from the 2003 evaluation.
Chapter 9 highlights the three highest ranked cities in the 2005
evaluation: Seoul, New York City and Shanghai. Chapter 10
provides a longitudinal assessment of the 2003 and 2005 evaluations,
with comparisons among continents, e-governance categories and
OECD and non-OECD member countries. This report concludes
with Chapter 11, providing recommendations and discussion of
significant findings.

14 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

 2

METHODOLOGY

The methodological steps taken by the 2005 surveys of municipal

websites throughout the world mirror those of the initial research
done in 2003. There are minimal changes, but in order to keep a
degree of consistency for a longitudinal assessment, the 2005 survey
was theoretically similar; only a few changes were made in the cities
selected, and an updated survey instrument was expanded from 92
measures to 98. The following review of our methodology borrows
from our Digital Governance (2004) report based on the 2003 data,
and includes two new sections: New Measures and Survey
Instrument Comparison.
This research examines cities throughout the world based on
their population size, the total number of individuals using the
Internet and the percentage of individuals using the Internet. In the
2003 survey, data from the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU), an organization affiliated with the United Nations (UN), was
used to determine the 100 municipalities. Of 196 countries for which
telecommunications data was reported, those with a total online
population over 100,000 were identified. As a result, the most
populated cities in 98 countries were selected to be surveyed (along
with Hong Kong and Macao). For the 2005 worldwide survey the
most recent available ITU-UN data was used. These updated figures
produced slightly different results. Countries with an online
population over 100,000 increased to 119. Therefore, we set a new
cut-off mark at countries with an online population over 160,000.
This resulted in 98 countries which met the new mark. With the
inclusion of Hong Kong and Macao, as in 2003, a total of 100 cities
were identified for the 2005 survey. Hong Kong and Macao were

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 15

added to the 98 cities selected, since they have been considered as
independent countries for many years and have high percentages of
Internet users.
The rationale for selecting the largest municipalities stems
from the e-governance literature, which suggests a positive
relationship between population and e-governance capacity at the
local level (Moon, 2002; Moon and deLeon, 2001; Musso, et. al.,
2000; Weare, et. al. 1999). In 2003, the most populated city in each
county was identified using various data sources. In cases where the
city population data that was obtained utilized a source dated before
2000, a new search was done for the most recent population figures.
All city population data was updated to reference 2000-2005 figures.
The new population data did not result in any changes from the
cities selected in 2003 and those selected in the 2005 study.
However, there were a few changes in the 98 countries identified
using the measures discussed above.
Six countries that were identified in 2003 do not have online
populations of over 160,000. These countries and their most
populated cities are: Manama, Bahrain; Port Louis, Mauritius; Port-
of-Spain, Trinidad & Tobago; Asuncion, Paraguay; Sarajevo,
Bosnia; and Havana, Cuba. Of these six cities, only five were
surveyed, with Havana having an unidentified official government
website. As none of the five surveyed cities listed above was ranked
in the top 25th percentile of rankings, their exclusion from the 2005
worldwide survey was not found to be significant enough to retain.
The six new cities are: Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire; Accra, Ghana;
Chisinau, Moldova; Omdurman, Sudan; Halab, Syria; and Libya,
Tripoli. In 2003, 80 of the 100 cities identified were surveyed (by
two surveyors) and were included in the overall rankings. For the
2005 data, 81 of the 100 cities were included in the overall rankings,
excluding municipalities where no official website was obtainable.
Table 2-1 is a list of the 100 cities selected.

16 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 2-1] 100 Cities Selected by Continent (2005)
Africa (14)
Abidjan (Cote d’Ivoire)* Dar-es-Salaam (Tanzania)*
Accra (Ghana)* Harare (Zimbabwe)*
Algiers (Algeria)* Lagos (Nigeria)
Cairo (Egypt) Lome (Togo)*
Cape Town (South Africa) Nairobi (Kenya)
Casablanca (Morocco)* Omdurman (Sudan)*
Dakar (Senegal)* Tunis (Tunisia)*

Asia (31)
Almaty (Kazakhstan)* Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
Amman (Jordan) Kuwait City (Kuwait)*
Baku (Azerbaijan)* Macao SAR (Macao SAR)
Bangkok (Thailand) Mumbai (India)
Beirut (Lebanon) Muscat (Oman)*
Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan)* Nicosia (Cyprus)
Colombo (Sri Lanka) Quezon City (Philippines)
Dhaka (Bangladesh) Riyadh (Saudi Arabia)
Dubai (United Arab Emirates) Seoul (Republic of Korea)
Halab (Syria)* Shanghai (China)
Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam) Singapore (Singapore)
Hong Kong SAR (Hong Kong SAR) Tashkent (Uzbekistan)
Istanbul (Turkey) Tehran (Iran)
Jakarta (Indonesia) Tripoli (Libya)*
Jerusalem (Israel) Tokyo (Japan)
Karachi (Pakistan)

Europe (34)

Amsterdam (Netherlands) Madrid (Spain)

Athens (Greece) Minsk (Belarus)
Belgrade (Serbia and Montenegro) Moscow (Russian Federation)
Berlin (Germany) Oslo (Norway)
Bratislava (Slovak Republic) Paris (France)
Brussels (Belgium) Prague (Czech Republic)
Bucharest (Romania) Reykjavik (Iceland)
Budapest (Hungary) Riga (Latvia)
Chisinau (Moldova) Rome (Italy)
Copenhagen (Denmark) Sofia (Bulgaria)
Dublin (Ireland) Stockholm (Sweden)
Helsinki (Finland) Tallinn (Estonia)
Kiev (Ukraine) Vienna (Austria)
Lisbon (Portugal) Vilnius (Lithuania)
Ljubljana (Slovenia) Warsaw (Poland)
London (United Kingdom) Zagreb (Croatia)
Luxembourg City (Luxembourg) Zurich (Switzerland)

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 17

[Table 2-1] 100 Cities Selected by Continent (CONT., 2005)
North America (10)
Mexico City (Mexico) San Jose (Costa Rica)
Guatemala City (Guatemala) San Salvador (El Salvador)
Kingston (Jamaica)* Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)*
New York (United States) Tegucigalpa (Honduras)
Panama City (Panama) Toronto (Canada)

South America (9)

Buenos Aires (Argentina) Montevideo (Uruguay)
Caracas (Venezuela) Santa Fe De Bogota (Colombia)
Guayaquil (Ecuador) Santiago (Chile)
La Paz (Bolivia) Sao Paulo (Brazil)
Lima (Peru)
Oceania (2)
Auckland (New Zealand) Sydney (Australia)

* Official city websites unavailable

WEBSITE SURVEY

In this research, the main city homepage is defined as the

official website where information about city administration and
online services are provided by the city. The city website includes
websites about the city council, mayor and executive branch of the
city. If there are separate homepages for agencies, departments, or
the city council, evaluators examined whether these sites were
linked to the menu on the main city homepage. If the website was
not linked, it was excluded from evaluation.
Based on the concept above, this research evaluated the
official websites of each city selected. Nineteen of 100 cities,
however, do not have official city websites or were not accessible
during the survey period: ten in Africa (71%), seven in Asia (22%),
and two in North America (20%). As a result, this research evaluated
only 81 cities of the 100 cities initially selected. Our research
examined local government services using an e-governance model
of increasingly sophisticated e-government services. As noted above,
Moon (2002) developed a framework for categorizing e-government
models based on the following components: information

18 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

dissemination, two-way communication, services, integration, and
political participation. Our methodology for evaluating e-
government services includes such components; however, we have
added an additional factor, security.
That additional e-governance factor was grounded in recent
calls for increased security, particularly of our public information
infrastructure. Concern over the security of the information systems
underlying government applications has led some researchers to the
conclusion that e-governance must be built on a secure infrastructure
that respects the privacy of its users (Kaylor, 2001). Our E-
Governance Performance Index for evaluating city and municipal
websites consists of five components: 1. Security and Privacy; 2.
Usability; 3. Content; 4. Services; and 5. Citizen Participation. Table
2-2 summarizes the measures used in our research to assess a
website’s capabilities in each of those five categories.

NEW MEASURES

The 2005 Rutgers-SKKU E-Governance Performance Index

differs slightly from the one used in 2003. In 2003, we utilized a
total of 92 measures, of which 45 were dichotomous. This most
recent study has further developed the research instrument to include
98 measures, of which 43 are dichotomous. The most significant
change was in the Citizen Participation component, where six new
research questions were added. These new questions are, in part,
recognition of the growing literature focusing on the various
methods for more digitally-based democracy. These new questions
survey the presence and functions of municipal forums, online
decision-making (e-petitions, e-referenda), and online surveys and
polls. The new questions for the Citizen Participation component
bring the total number of questions to 20, with a total possible raw
score of 55. In addition, one question was removed from the
Security and Privacy component. That question focused on the
scanning of viruses during downloadable files from the municipal
website. This aspect was found to be more dependent on personal
computers than as a function of a municipal website. The removal of

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 19

the question for the Security and Privacy component brings the total
number of questions to 18, with a total possible raw score of 25. The
final change to the E-Governance Performance Index was a question
added to the Content component. The additional question focuses on
the number of possible downloadable documents from a municipal
website. The new question for Content brings the total number of
questions to 20, with a total possible raw score of 48.
The changes to the E-Governance Performance Index have
helped make this ongoing survey of municipal websites one of the
most thorough in the field of e-governance research. The Index now
has a total of 98 questions, with a total possible raw score of 219.
Given the changes to the survey instrument between 2003 and 2005,
the method of weighting each component for a possible score of 20
and a total score of 100, allows for a consistency in comparisons
over time. Table 2-2, E-Governance Performance Measures,
summarizes the 2005 survey instrument, and in Appendix A we
present an overview of the criteria used during the evaluation.
[Table 2-2] E-Governance Performance Measures
E-governance Key Raw Weighted
Category Concepts Score Score Keywords
Privacy policies, authentication,
Security/
Privacy
18 25 20 encryption, data management, and use
of cookies
User-friendly design, branding, length
of homepage, targeted audience links
Usability 20 32 20 or channels, and site search
capabilities
Access to current accurate
information, public documents,
Content 20 48 20 reports, publications, and multimedia
materials
Transactional services
involving purchase or register,
Service 20 59 20 interaction between citizens,
businesses and government
Online civic engagement, internet
Citizen
Participation
20 55 20 based policy deliberation, and citizen
based performance measurement
Total 98 219 100

20 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

SURVEY INSTRUMENT COMPARISON

Our survey instrument is the most thorough in practice for e-

governance research today. With 98 measures and five distinct
categorical areas of e-governance research, the survey instrument is
unlike any other. In studies of e-governance practices worldwide,
our survey instrument differs quite significantly from others. The
following section reviews four of the most prominent and
encompassing longitudinal worldwide e-governance surveys. The
critiques of the Annual Global Survey at Brown University’s
Taubman Center for Public Policy (West, 2001-2005), the United
Nations Global Survey of E-government, the Accenture E-
government Leadership Survey and Capgemini’s European
Commission Report are intended to highlight the distinct differences
between the survey instruments and results. We do not suggest that
the results and data findings we present here should be accepted in
place of those by the Taubman Center, the UN, Accenture or
Capgemini, but rather should be considered in conjunction with the
other surveys. The findings and rankings of e-governance worldwide
can be understood only by highlighting the distinct differences
among the survey instruments.
The Taubman Center’s Global E-government Survey is one
of the only international e-government studies that have been
conducted yearly for the past five years. Since 2001, the researchers
at the Taubman Center have utilized an index instrument that
measures the presence of website features. That instrument is geared
toward specific web functions, with limited attention addressing
privacy/security or usability. The e-governance area of Citizen
Participation is only measured by one item. Moreover, their survey
instrument has changed substantially from year to year. One of the
problems with a rapidly evolving instrument is in the applicability of
comparisons over the years. Our survey instrument has also changed
with the inclusion of new questions, specifically in the Citizen
Participation section. However, the Taubman Center’s survey
instrument has decreased its measurement criteria over the years. In

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 21

2001 and 2002, the numbers of measures were 24 and 25,
respectively. In 2003, 2004, and 2005 the numbers of measures
decreased to 20, 19, and 19, respectively. For 2005, its measures are
broken down into two groups, with 18 primary measures and one
bonus measure encompassing 28 possible points. The final overall
scores are converted for a possible total score of 100. We also use a
final possible score of 100, with each of our five categories allowing
for a possible score of 20.
In all, the number of measures in the Taubman survey is
limited, with only 19 metrics. A final score of e-governance
performance is reflective of the specific questions focused on web
features that are captured by those 19 measures. One of the
consequences of this methodology is the limited differentiation in
performance of e-governance among countries. As a result many of
the countries received the same scores. In addition, there is an
inconsistency in the annual rankings, specifically in the non-English
websites. For example, the Republic of Korea has fluctuated in
rankings as follows: 45th in 2001, 2nd in 2002, 87th in 2003, 32nd in
2004, and 86th in 2005. In other international findings, however,
such as the United Nations Global E-government Survey, the
Republic of Korea has consistently been recognized as one of the
best in e-governance performance (4th in 2004 and 2005). One other
example is Bolivia, which has also significantly fluctuated over the
years in rankings. Bolivia was ranked 18th in 2001, 164th in 2002,
119th in 2003, 20th in 2004, and 225th in 2005. These significant
variations in rankings can, in part, be attributed to the limited
number of measures, allowing for shifting variations in overall
scores. However, this can also be attributed to the method of not
using native speakers when evaluating all the websites. In some
cases, researchers at the Taubman Center have utilized language
translation software available online, such as
http://babelfish.altavista.com. Online translation software, however,
can misinterpret specific languages and phrases.
The United Nations Global E-government Survey is also one
of the few longitudinal studies of web presence throughout the
world. The UN has two specific studies that it produces: an E-

22 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

government Readiness index and an E-participation index. The E-
government Readiness index incorporates web measures,
telecommunication infrastructure and human capital. Their web
measure index is a quantitative measure, evaluating national
websites. Their evaluation is based on binary values
(presence/absence of a service). Their E-participation index is a
qualitative study, with 21 measures used to assess the quality,
relevance, usefulness, and willingness of government websites in
providing online information and service/participation tools for
citizens. The UN Global E-government Survey takes methodological
precautions to ensure accuracy and fairness. The surveying of
websites is done within a 60-day “window” and websites are re-
evaluated by senior researches for purposes of consistency. In
addition, the survey incorporates native language speakers when
necessary in an effort to review every website in the official or pre-
dominant language. However, this survey does differ from our
research in that the UN studies central government websites, while
we focus on large municipal websites throughout the world.
Accenture conducts a third global e-government study.
Accenture’s annual E-government Leadership report highlights the
performance of 22 selected countries. The most recent report (2004)
measured 206 services when assessing national government
websites. The 206 national government services were divided
between 12 service sectors they constructed: eDemocracy, education,
human services, immigration, justice and security, postal,
procurement, regulation, participation, revenue and customs, and
transport. As an effort toward reliability, the research was conducted
in a two-week period. The Accenture report, however, only focuses
on 22 countries. The Accenture study omits numerous countries
throughout the world, as well as many of the top performing
governments in e-governance. Similarly, a study conducted by
Capgemini on behalf of the European Commission, is limited in
international focus. This study is limited to nations in the European
Union and only utilizes 20 basic public services as measures in the
research study. The methodology is split between studying services
to citizens (12) and services to businesses (8). Similar to the UN and

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 23

Taubman Center studies, the Accenture and Capgemini studies focus
on national government websites, a distinguishing aspect from our
research.
The survey instruments of the four studies above highlight
the various methods for studying e-governance throughout the world.
Therefore, in studying e-governance worldwide, all five instruments
and findings provide specific perspectives that should be considered
as unique contributions to the field of e-governance.

SURVEY INSTRUMENT 2005

The following section highlights the specific design of our

survey instrument as presented in our 2004 report, with changes
noted throughout. As stated above, previous e-governance research
varies in the use of scales to evaluate government websites. For
example, one researcher uses an index consisting of 25 dichotomous
(yes or no) measures (West 2001); other assessments use a more
sophisticated four-point scale (Kaylor, 2001) for assessing each
measure. Our 2005 survey instrument utilizes 98 measures, of which
43 are dichotomous. For each of the five e-governance components,
our research applies 18 to 20 measures, and for questions which
were not dichotomous, each measure was coded on a four-point
scale (0, 1, 2, 3; see Table 2-3 below). Furthermore, in developing an
overall score for each municipality, we have equally weighted each
of the five categories so as not to skew the research in favor of a
particular category (regardless of the number of questions in each
category). The dichotomous measures in the “service” and “citizen
participation” categories correspond with values on our four point
scale of “0” or “3”; dichotomous measures in “security/ privacy” or
“usability” correspond to ratings of “0” or “1” on the scale.

24 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 2-3] E-governance Scale
Scale Description
0 Information about a given topic does not exist on the website
Information about a given topic exists on the website (including links
1
to other information and e-mail addresses)
Downloadable items are available on the website (forms, audio, video,
2
and other one-way transactions, popup boxes)
Services, transactions, or interactions can take place completely online
3 (credit card transactions, applications for permits, searchable databases,
use of cookies, digital signatures, restricted access)

Our instrument placed a higher value on some dichotomous

measures, due to the relative value of the different e-government
services being evaluated. For example, evaluators using our
instrument in the “service” category were given the option of
scoring websites as either a “0” or “3” when assessing whether a site
allowed users to access private information online (e.g. educational
records, medical records, point total of driving violations, lost
property). “No access” equated to a rating of “0.” Allowing residents
or employees to access private information online was a higher
order task that required more technical competence, and was clearly
an online service, or “3,” as defined in Table 2-3.
On the other hand, when assessing a site as to whether or not
it had a privacy statement or policy, evaluators were given the
choice of scoring the site as “0” or “1.” The presence or absence of a
security policy was clearly a content issue that emphasized placing
information online, and corresponded with a value of “1” on the
scale outlined in Table 2-3. The differential values assigned to
dichotomous categories were useful in comparing the different
components of municipal websites with one another.
To ensure reliability, each municipal website was assessed by
two evaluators, and in cases where significant variation (+ or – 10%)
existed on the weighted score between evaluators, websites were

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 25

analyzed a third time 3 Furthermore, an example for each measure
2F

indicated how to score the variable. Evaluators were also given

comprehensive written instructions for assessing websites.

E-GOVERNANCE CATEGORIES

This section details the five e-governance categories and

discusses specific measures that were used to evaluate websites. The
discussion of security and privacy examines privacy policies and
issues related to authentication. Discussion of the Usability category
involves traditional web pages, forms and search tools. The Content
category is addressed in terms of access to contact information,
access to public documents and disability access, as well as access
to multimedia and time sensitive information. The section on
services examines interactive services, services that allow users to
purchase or pay for services, and the ability of users to apply or
register for municipal events or services online. Finally, the
measures for citizen participation involve examining how local
governments are engaging citizens and providing mechanisms for
citizens to participate in government online.
The first part of our analysis examined the security and
privacy of municipal websites in two key areas, privacy policies and
authentication of users. In examining municipal privacy policies, we
determined whether such a policy was available on every page that
accepted data, and whether or not the word “privacy” was used in
the link to such a statement. In addition, we looked for privacy
policies on every page that required or accepted data. We were also
interested in determining if privacy policies identified the agencies
collecting the information, and whether the policy identified exactly
what data was being collected on the site.
Our analysis checked to see if the intended use of the data
was explicitly stated on the website. The analysis examined whether
the privacy policy addressed the use or sale of data collected on the

3
The only website requiring a third evaluator for the 2005 survey was Brussels,
Belgium.

26 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

website by outside or third party organizations. Our research also
determined if there was an option to decline the disclosure of
personal information to third parties. 4 This included other municipal
3F

agencies, other state and local government offices, or businesses in

the private sector. Furthermore, we examined privacy policies to
determine if third party agencies or organizations were governed by
the same privacy policies as was the municipal website. We also
determined whether users had the ability to review personal data
records and contest inaccurate or incomplete information.
In examining factors affecting the security and privacy of
local government websites, we addressed managerial measures that
limit access of data and assure that it is not used for unauthorized
purposes. The use of encryption in the transmission of data, as well
as the storage of personal information on secure servers, was also
examined. We also determined if websites used digital signatures to
authenticate users. In assessing how or whether municipalities used
their websites to authenticate users, we examined whether public or
private information was accessible through a restricted area that
required a password and/or registration.
A growing e-governance trend at the local level is for
municipalities to offer their website users access to public, and in
some cases private, information online. Other research has discussed
the governance issues associated with sites that choose to charge
citizens for access to public information (West, 2001). We add our
own concerns about the impact of the digital divide if public records
are available only through the Internet or if municipalities insist on
charging a fee for access to public records. Our analysis specifically
addresses online access to public databases by determining if public
information such as property tax assessments, or private information
such as court documents, is available to users of municipal websites.
In addition, there are concerns that public agencies will use their

4
The New York City privacy policy (www.nyc.gov/privacy) defines third parties
as follows: “third parties are computers, computer networks, ISPs, or application
service providers ("ASPs") that are non-governmental in nature and have direct
control of what information is automatically gathered, whether cookies are used,
and how voluntarily provided information is used.”

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 27

websites to monitor citizens or create profiles based on the
information they access online. For example, many websites use
“cookies” or “web beacons” 5 to customize their websites for users,
4F

but that technology can also be used to monitor Internet habits and
profile visitors to websites. Our analysis examined municipal
privacy policies to determine if they addressed the use of cookies or
web beacons.
This research also examined the usability of municipal
websites. Simply stated, we wanted to know if sites were “user-
friendly.” To address usability concerns we adapted several best
practices and measures from other public and private sector research
(Giga, 2000). Our analysis of usability examined three types of
websites: traditional web pages, forms, and search tools.
To evaluate traditional web pages written using hypertext
markup language (html), we examined issues such as branding and
structure (e.g. consistent color, font, graphics, page length etc.). For
example, we looked to see if all pages used consistent color,
formatting, “default colors” (e.g. blue links and purple visited links)
and underlined text to indicate links. Other items examined included
whether system hardware and software requirements were clearly
stated on the website.
In addition, our research examined each municipality’s
homepage to determine if it was too long (two or more screen
lengths) or if alternative versions of long documents, such as .pdf
or .doc files, were available. The use of targeted audience links or

5
The New York City privacy policy (www.nyc.gov/privacy) gives the following
definitions of cookies and web bugs or beacons: “Persistent cookies are cookie
files that remain upon a user's hard drive until affirmatively removed, or until
expired as provided for by a pre-set expiration date. Temporary or "Session
Cookies" are cookie files that last or are valid only during an active
communications connection, measured from beginning to end, between computer
or applications (or some combination thereof) over a network. A web bug (or
beacon) is a clear, camouflaged or otherwise invisible graphics image format
("GIF") file placed upon a web page or in hyper text markup language ("HTML")
e-mail and used to monitor who is reading a web page or the relevant email. Web
bugs can also be used for other monitoring purposes such a profiling of the
affected party.”

28 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

“channels” to customize the website for specific groups such as
citizens, businesses, or other public agencies was also examined. We
looked for the consistent use of navigation bars and links to the
homepage on every page. The availability of a “sitemap” or
hyperlinked outline of the entire website was examined. Our
assessment also examined whether duplicated link names connect to
the same content.
Our research examined online forms to determine their
usability in submitting data or conducting searches of municipal
websites. We looked at issues such as whether field labels aligned
appropriately with field, whether fields were accessible by
keystrokes (e.g. tabs), or whether the cursor was automatically
placed in the first field. We also examined whether required fields
were noted explicitly, and whether the tab order of fields was logical.
For example, after a user filled out their first name and pressed the
“tab” key, did the cursor automatically go to the surname field? Or,
did the page skip to another field such as zip code, only to return to
the surname later?
We also checked to see if form pages provided additional
information about how to fix errors if they were submitted. For
example, did users have to reenter information if errors were
submitted, or did the site flag incomplete or erroneous forms before
accepting them? Also, did the site give a confirmation page after a
form was submitted, or did it return users to the homepage?
Our analysis also addressed the use of search tools on
municipal websites. We examined sites to determine if help was
available for searching a municipality’s website, or if the scope of
searches could be limited to specific areas of the site. Were users
able to search only in “public works” or “the mayor’s office,” or did
the search tool always search the entire site? We also looked for
advanced search features such as exact phrase searching, the ability
to match all/ any words, and Boolean searching capabilities (e.g. the
ability to use AND/ OR/ NOT operators). Our analysis also
addressed a site’s ability to sort search results by relevance or other
criteria.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 29

 Content is a critical component of any website. No matter
how technologically advanced a website’s features, if its content is
not current, if it is difficult to navigate, or if the information
provided is not correct, then it is not fulfilling its purpose. When
examining website content, our research examined five key areas:
access to contact information, public documents, disability access,
multimedia materials, and time sensitive information. When
addressing contact information, we looked for information about
each agency represented on the website.
In addition, we also looked for the availability of office
hours or a schedule of when agency offices are open. In assessing
the availability of public documents, we looked for the availability
of the municipal code or charter online. We also looked for content
items, such as agency mission statements and minutes of public
meetings. Other content items included access to budget information
and publications. Our assessment also examined whether websites
provided access to disabled users through either “bobby
compliance” (disability access for the blind,
http://www.cast.org/bobby) or disability access for deaf users via a
TDD phone service. We also checked to see if sites offered content
in more than one language.
Time sensitive information that was examined included the
use of a municipal website for emergency management, and the use
of a website as an alert mechanism (e.g. terrorism alert or severe
weather alert). We also checked for time sensitive information such
as the posting of job vacancies or a calendar of community events.
In addressing the use of multimedia, we examined each site to
determine if audio or video files of public events, speeches, or
meetings were available.
A critical component of e-governance is the provision of
municipal services online. Our analysis examined two different
types of services: (1) those that allow citizens to interact with the
municipality, and (2) services that allow users to register for
municipal events or services online. In many cases, municipalities
have developed the capacity to accept payment for municipal
services and taxes. The first type of service examined, which implies

30 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

interactivity, can be as basic as forms that allow users to request
information or file complaints. Local governments across the world
use advanced interactive services to allow users to report crimes or
violations, customize municipal homepages based on their needs
(e.g. portal customization), and access private information online,
such as court records, education records, or medical records. Our
analysis examined municipal websites to determine if such
interactive services were available.
The second type of service examined in this research
determined if municipalities have the capacity to allow citizens to
register for municipal services online. For example, many
jurisdictions now allow citizens to apply for permits and licenses
online. Online permitting can be used for services that vary from
building permits to dog licenses. In addition, some local
governments are using the Internet for procurement, allowing
potential contractors to access requests for proposals or even bid for
municipal contracts online. In other cases, local governments are
chronicling the procurement process by listing the total number of
bidders for a contract online, and in some cases listing contact
information for bidders.
This analysis also examined municipal websites to determine
if they developed the capacity to allow users to purchase or pay for
municipal services and fees online. Examples of transactional
services from across the United States include the payment of public
utility bills and parking tickets online. In many jurisdictions, cities
and municipalities allow online users to file or pay local taxes, or
pay fines such as traffic tickets. In some cases, cities around the
world are allowing their users to register or purchase tickets to
events in city halls or arenas online.
Finally, online citizen participation in government continues
to be the most recent area of e-governance study. As noted in 2003,
the Internet is a convenient mechanism for citizen-users to engage
their government, and also because of the potential to decentralize
decision-making. We have strengthened our survey instrument in the
area of Citizen Participation and once again found that the potential
for online participation is still in its earl stages of development. Very

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 31

few public agencies offer online opportunities for civic engagement.
Our analysis looked at several ways public agencies at the local
level were involving citizens. For example, do municipal websites
allow users to provide online comments or feedback to individual
agencies or elected officials?
Our analysis examined whether local governments offer
current information about municipal governance online or through
an online newsletter or e-mail listserv. Our analysis also examined
the use of internet-based polls about specific local issues. In addition,
we examined whether communities allow users to participate and
view the results of citizen satisfaction surveys online. For example,
some municipalities used their websites to measure performance and
published the results of performance measurement activities online.
Still other municipalities used online bulletin boards or
other chat capabilities for gathering input on public issues. Most
often, online bulletin boards offer citizens the opportunity to post
ideas, comments, or opinions without specific discussion topics. In
some cases agencies attempt to structure online discussions around
policy issues or specific agencies. Our research looked for municipal
use of the Internet to foster civic engagement and citizen
participation in government.

32 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

 3

OVERALL RESULTS

The following chapter presents the results for all the evaluated
municipal websites during 2005. Table 3-1 provides the rankings for
81 municipal websites and their overall scores. The overall scores
reflect the combined scores of each municipality’s score in the five
e-governance component categories. The highest possible score for
any one city website is 100. Seoul received a score of 81.70, the
highest ranked city website for 2005. Seoul’s website was also the
highest ranked in 2003 with a score of 73.48. New York City had the
second highest ranked municipal website, with a score 72.71. New
York City moved up two places from its fourth place ranking in
2003. Similarly, Shanghai, China moved up two places in ranking
since 2003, with the third ranked score of 63.93 in 2005. Hong Kong
and Sydney, Australia complete the top five ranked municipal
websites with scores of 61.51 and 60.82, respectively. Hong Kong
was also ranked in the top five in 2003; however, Sydney
significantly increased in score and in ranking from 2003 (ranked
19th with a score of 37.41).
The results of the overall rankings are separated by continent
in Tables 3-2 through 3-7. The six predetermined continental regions
had a few changes in the top ranked cities for each region. Cape
Town (Africa), Seoul (Asia), New York City (North America), and
Sao Paulo (Brazil) all remained the top ranked city for each
continent as they were in the 2003 evaluations. Zurich replaced
Rome as the highest ranked city for European cities. Sydney
switched places with Auckland as the only two Oceanian cities
evaluated. Also included in the rankings by continent are the scores
for each of the five e-governance component categories.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 33

[Table 3-1] Overall E-governance Rankings (2005)
Ranking City Country Score
1 Seoul Republic of Korea 81.70
2 New York United States 72.71
3 Shanghai China 63.93
4 Hong Kong Hong Kong 61.51
5 Sydney Australia 60.82
6 Singapore Singapore 60.22
7 Tokyo Japan 59.24
8 Zurich Switzerland 55.99
9 Toronto Canada 55.10
10 Riga Latvia 53.95
11 Warsaw Poland 53.26
12 Reykjavik Iceland 52.24
13 Sofia Bulgaria 49.11
14 Prague Czech Rep. 47.27
15 Luxembourg Luxembourg 46.58
16 Amsterdam Netherlands 46.44
17 Paris France 45.49
18 Macao Macao 45.48
19 Dublin Ireland 44.10
20 Bratislava Slovak Republic 43.65
21 London United Kingdom 43.17
22 Rome Italy 42.67
23 Berlin Germany 42.55
24 Copenhagen Denmark 42.54
25 Istanbul Turkey 42.39
26 Tallinn Estonia 41.02
27 Ho Chi Minh VietNam 40.75
28 Budapest Hungary 40.40
29 Oslo Norway 39.22
30 Auckland New Zealand 39.05
31 Cape Town South Africa 37.88
32 Stockholm Sweden 36.28
33 Sao Paulo Brazil 35.88
34 Brussels Belgium 34.68
35 Helsinki Finland 34.68
36 Moscow Russia 34.62
37 Vienna Austria 34.62
38 Jerusalem Israel 33.04
39 Jakarta Indonesia 33.03

34 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 3-1] Overall E-governance Rankings (Cont. 2005)
40 Tegucigalpa Honduras 32.40
41 Kiev Ukraine 31.10
42 Lisbon Portugal 30.27
43 Vilnius Lithuania 30.18
44 Belgrade Serbia & Montenegro 30.03
45 Cairo Egypt 29.49
46 Buenos Aires Argentina 29.05
47 Quezon City Philippines 27.78
48 Mumbai India 27.69
49 Minsk Belarus 26.91
50 Dubai U.A.E. 25.12
51 Bangkok Thailand 24.88
52 Riyadh Saudi Arabia 24.68
53 Santiago Chile 24.22
54 Madrid Spain 23.24
55 Athens Greece 23.08
56 Ljubljana Slovenia 22.80
57 Bogota Colombia 22.00
58 Lagos Nigeria 21.68
59 Nicosia Cyprus 21.16
60 San Jose Costa Rica 20.76
61 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 20.35
62 Karachi Pakistan 19.15
63 Mexico City Mexico 18.55
64 Bucharest Romania 18.11
65 Amman Jordan 16.77
66 Beirut Lebanon 16.63
67 Colombo Sri Lanka 16.36
68 Caracas Venezuela 16.04
69 Guayaquil Ecuador 15.40
70 San Salvador El Salvador 14.91
71 Lima Peru 14.88
72 La Paz Bolivia 14.74
73 Dhaka Bangladesh 14.20
74 Guatemala City Guatemala 14.12
75 Panama City Panama 13.11
76 Tehran Iran 12.89
77 Zagreb Croatia 12.89
78 Chisinau Moldova, Rep. of 12.15
79 Montevideo Uruguay 11.78
80 Nairobi Kenya 10.43
81 Tashkent Uzbekistan 4.48

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 35

[Table 3-2] Overall Results of Evaluation in African Cities (2005)
Ranking City Score Privacy Usability Content Service Participation
1 Cape Town 37.88 2.40 11.56 11.88 6.95 5.09
2 Cairo 29.49 4.00 11.88 8.33 2.37 2.91
3 Lagos 21.68 1.20 12.19 3.54 2.20 2.55
4 Nairobi 10.43 1.60 6.56 2.08 0.00 0.18

[Table 3-3] Overall Results of Evaluation in Asian Cities (2005)

Ranking City Score Privacy Usability Content Service Participation
1 Seoul 81.70 17.60 17.81 16.04 16.61 13.64
2 Shanghai 63.93 12.00 18.75 13.13 11.69 8.36
3 Hong Kong 61.51 15.60 16.25 13.75 13.73 2.18
4 Singapore 60.22 10.40 15.94 11.67 14.58 7.64
5 Tokyo 59.24 12.00 16.25 12.29 10.34 8.36
6 Macao 45.48 10.40 13.44 13.13 5.42 3.09
7 Istanbul 42.39 11.60 11.88 8.96 5.59 4.36
8 HoChi Minh 40.75 5.60 14.38 8.33 8.98 3.45
9 Jerusalem 33.03 0.00 16.88 9.58 2.20 4.36
10 Jakarta 32.77 2.40 11.88 10.83 2.20 5.45
11 Quezon City 27.78 4.80 14.06 3.75 3.90 1.27
12 Mumbai 27.69 10.40 10.31 4.38 1.69 0.91
13 Dubai 25.12 2.40 9.69 4.38 5.93 2.73
14 Bangkok 24.88 0.00 8.13 4.17 6.95 5.64
15 Riyadh 24.68 3.20 13.13 5.00 1.36 2.00
16 Nicosia 21.16 0.00 12.19 4.79 2.54 1.64
17 Kuala Lumpur 20.35 0.00 11.56 3.96 3.56 1.27
18 Karachi 19.15 0.00 8.75 5.00 3.22 2.18
19 Amman 16.77 0.00 11.88 1.67 0.68 2.55
20 Beirut 16.63 0.00 9.06 3.13 1.36 3.09
21 Colombo 16.36 0.00 11.25 2.29 1.19 1.64
22 Dhaka 14.20 0.00 9.06 2.50 1.19 1.45
23 Tehran 12.89 0.00 8.44 1.04 3.05 0.36
24 Tashkent 4.48 0.00 4.06 0.42 0.00 0.00

36 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 3-4] Overall Results of Evaluation in European Cities (2005)
Ranking City Score Privacy Usability Content Service Participation
1 Zurich 55.99 16.40 14.69 13.96 9.49 1.45
2 Riga 53.95 6.80 17.50 13.75 6.44 9.45
3 Warsaw 53.26 0.00 15.31 13.54 11.86 12.55
4 Reykjavik 52.24 11.60 13.13 13.54 10.34 3.64
5 Sofia 49.11 8.00 13.44 11.67 7.46 8.55
6 Prague 47.27 0.00 16.88 10.21 10.00 10.18
7 Luxembourg 46.58 7.20 15.31 11.88 7.29 4.91
8 Amsterdam 46.44 10.40 12.50 9.79 5.93 7.82
9 Paris 45.49 8.80 15.94 11.46 4.75 4.55
10 Dublin 44.10 8.00 16.88 11.04 4.92 3.27
11 Bratislava 43.65 0.00 15.94 11.04 5.76 10.91
12 London 43.17 4.80 11.88 9.17 6.78 10.55
13 Rome 42.67 13.20 12.50 7.71 7.63 1.64
14 Berlin 42.55 12.80 8.75 8.54 8.64 3.82
15 Copenhagen 42.54 10.40 15.00 9.58 6.10 1.45
16 Tallinn 41.02 1.20 13.75 14.79 7.46 3.82
17 Budapest 40.40 1.20 15.00 11.04 6.61 6.55
18 Oslo 39.22 0.00 17.19 10.00 9.49 2.55
19 Stockholm 36.28 0.00 16.25 10.63 5.59 3.82
20 Brussels 34.68 2.40 12.29 10.83 4.97 4.36
21 Helsinki 34.62 0.00 14.38 10.00 6.61 3.64
22 Moscow 34.62 1.60 15.00 7.71 5.76 4.55
23 Vienna 33.04 11.60 11.88 6.25 1.86 1.45
24 Kiev 31.10 2.40 15.31 6.67 2.54 4.18
25 Lisbon 30.27 1.20 13.75 8.96 5.08 1.27
26 Vilnius 30.18 0.00 10.94 10.42 6.10 2.73
27 Belgrade 30.03 0.00 13.75 6.46 4.92 4.91
28 Minsk 26.91 0.00 12.50 6.46 3.22 4.73
29 Madrid 23.24 2.80 11.88 3.75 3.73 1.09
30 Athens 23.08 0.00 9.38 6.88 3.56 3.27
31 Ljubljana 22.80 1.60 11.25 6.04 3.73 0.18
32 Bucharest 18.11 0.00 9.69 4.79 2.54 1.09
33 Zagreb 12.89 1.20 9.69 1.67 0.34 0.00
34 Chisinau 12.15 0.00 7.52 3.75 0.51 0.36

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 37

[Table 3-5] Overall Results of Evaluation in North American Cities (2005)
Ranking City Score Privacy Usability Content Service Participation
1 New York 72.71 16.00 19.06 14.79 15.76 7.09
2 Toronto 55.10 11.20 14.06 11.46 9.83 8.55
3 Tegucigalpa 32.40 5.20 10.31 8.13 2.03 6.73
4 San Jose 20.76 1.20 9.06 4.58 3.73 2.18
5 Mexico City 18.55 0.00 9.69 3.75 4.75 0.36
6 San Salvador 14.91 0.00 7.19 3.54 2.54 1.64
7 Guatemala City 14.12 1.20 8.44 1.25 3.05 0.18
8 Panama City 13.11 0.00 5.94 3.75 2.88 0.55

[Table 3-6] Overall Results of Evaluation in Oceanian Cities (2005)

Ranking City Score Privacy Usability Content Service Participation
1 Sydney 60.82 16.80 17.81 12.50 8.98 4.73
2 Auckland 39.05 7.20 15.63 6.67 6.10 3.45

[Table 3-7] Overall Results of Evaluation in South American Cities (2005)

Ranking City Score Privacy Usability Content Service Participation
1 Sao Paulo 35.88 1.20 14.69 8.33 9.66 2.00
2 Buenos Aires 29.05 2.40 11.56 5.83 7.80 1.45
3 Santiago 24.22 0.00 12.81 6.67 4.75 0.00
4 Bogota 22.00 1.20 13.13 4.58 2.54 0.55
5 Caracas 16.04 0.00 12.19 2.50 1.36 0.00
6 Guayaquil 15.40 0.00 10.00 4.38 0.85 0.18
7 Lima 14.88 1.20 5.31 5.42 1.86 1.09
8 La Paz 14.74 0.00 7.19 3.96 3.05 0.55
9 Montevideo 11.78 0.00 7.81 2.08 1.53 0.36

The average scores for each continent are presented in Figure

3-1. Oceania was once again the highest ranked continent with an
average score of 49.94. Europe, with a score of 37.17, moved up one
spot as the second highest ranked continent. The overall average
score for all municipalities is 33.11 for 2005, an increase from 28.49
in 2003. The remaining continents all have average scores below the
overall average. In 2003, Asian cities were above the overall average

38 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

score with 30.38, and although they have increased to an overall
score of 33.05 for 2005, they have dropped to third in ranking and
below the overall average score of 33.11. Ranked fourth, as it was in
2003, is North America, with an overall average score of 30.21
Moving up one spot to fifth is Africa, with an overall average score
of 24.87, and increase from its 17.66 score in 2003. Dropping into
the sixth and final ranking for 2005 is South America, with an
average score of 20.45. Although South America increased from its
score of 20.05 in 2003, it fell behind Africa in overall rankings by
continent. A comparison between the evaluation results by continent
in 2003 and 2005 are also presented in Chapter 10, with comparison
tables and figures. It is important to note that the overall average
score for evaluated municipalities increased 4.62 points.

[Figure 3-1] Average Score by Continent (2005)

100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Oceania Europe Average Asia North Africa South
America America

OECD MEMBER DATA

The following tables and figures compare the results

between OECD member countries and non-OECD member
countries. In all, 30 countries represent OECD member countries,
and the largest municipality for each of these countries was
evaluated and included in the results. Fifty-one non-OECD member

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 39

countries are also included in the evaluations. Seoul, Korea was the
highest ranked municipality for OECD member countries and
Shanghai, China was the highest ranked municipality for non-OECD
member countries. Tables 3-8 and 3-9 present the overall score for
each municipality grouped into OECD member countries and non-
OECD member countries.

[Table 3-8] Evaluation Results for OECD Member Countries (2005)

Ranking City Country Score
1 Seoul Republic of Korea 81.70
2 New York United States 72.71
3 Sydney Australia 60.82
4 Tokyo Japan 59.24
5 Zurich Switzerland 55.99
6 Toronto Canada 55.10
7 Warsaw Poland 53.26
8 Reykjavik Iceland 52.24
9 Prague Czech Rep. 47.27
10 Luxembourg city Luxembourg 46.58
11 Amsterdam Netherlands 46.44
12 Paris France 45.49
13 Dublin Ireland 44.10
14 Bratislava Slovak Republic 43.65
15 London United Kingdom 43.17
16 Rome Italy 42.67
17 Berlin Germany 42.55
18 Copenhagen Denmark 42.54
19 Istanbul Turkey 42.39
20 Budapest Hungary 40.40
21 Oslo Norway 39.22
22 Auckland New Zealand 39.05
23 Stockholm Sweden 36.28
24 Brussels Belgium 34.68
25 Helsinki Finland 34.62
26 Vienna Austria 33.04
27 Lisbon Portugal 30.27
28 Madrid Spain 23.24
29 Athens Greece 23.08
30 Mexico City Mexico 18.55

40 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 3-9] Evaluation Results for OECD Non-Member Countries (2005)
Ranking City Country Score
1 Shanghai China 63.93
2 Hong Kong Hong Kong 61.51
3 Singapore Singapore 60.22
4 Riga Latvia 53.95
5 Sofia Bulgaria 49.11
6 Macao Macao 45.48
7 Tallinn Estonia 41.02
8 Ho Chi Minh VietNam 40.75
9 Cape Town South Africa 37.88
10 Sao Paulo Brazil 35.88
11 Moscow Russia 34.62
12 Jerusalem Israel 33.03
13 Jakarta Indonesia 32.77
14 Tegucigalpa Honduras 32.40
15 Kiev Ukraine 31.10
16 Vilnius Lithuania 30.18
17 Belgrade Serbia & Montenegro 30.03
18 Cairo Egypt 29.49
19 Buenos Aires Argentina 29.05
20 Quezon City Philippines 27.78
21 Mumbai India 27.69
22 Minsk Belarus 26.91
23 Dubai U.A.E. 25.12
24 Bangkok Thailand 24.88
25 Riyadh Saudi Arabia 24.68
26 Santiago Chile 24.22
27 Ljubljana Slovenia 22.80
28 Bogota Colombia 22.00
29 Lagos Nigeria 21.68
30 Nicosia Cyprus 21.16
31 San Jose Costa Rica 20.76
32 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 20.35
33 Karachi Pakistan 19.15
34 Bucharest Romania 18.11
35 Amman Jordan 16.77
36 Beirut Lebanon 16.63
37 Colombo Sri Lanka 16.36
38 Caracas Venezuela 16.04
39 Guayaquil Ecuador 15.40

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 41

[Table 3-9] Results for OECD Non-Member Countries (Cont., 2005)
Ranking City Country Score
40 San Salvador El Salvador 14.91
41 Lima Peru 14.88
42 La Paz Bolivia 14.74
43 Dhaka Bangladesh 14.20
44 Guatemala City Guatemala 14.12
45 Panama City Panama 13.11
46 Tehran Iran 12.89
47 Zagreb Croatia 12.89
48 Chisinau Moldova, Rep. of 12.15
49 Montevideo Uruguay 11.78
50 Nairobi Kenya 10.43
51 Tashkent Uzbekistan 4.48

The results above are further analyzed (below) through

grouped averages. Figure 3-2 highlights how the OECD member
countries have a combined average of 44.35, well above the overall
average for all municipalities, 33.11. Non-OECD member countries
have an overall average of 26.50. The increase for OECD member
countries from 2003 was 8.01 points, and for non-OECD member
countries there was an increase of only 2.24 from 2003. More
importantly, the gap between OECD and non-OECD member
countries increased since the 2003 evaluation. The difference in
2003 between the average scores of OECD and non-OECD member
countries was 12.08. Based on the 2005 evaluations, the gap has
increased to 17.85. The increase in the overall average of scores has
been predominately a result of OECD member countries improving
overall municipal website performance.

42 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Figure 3-2] Average Score of Cities in OECD Member and Non-
Member Countries (2005)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
OECD Member Average Non-OECD Member
Countries Countries

To further highlight the results between OECD and non-

OECD member countries, the results presented below distinguish
results by the five e-governance categories. Table 3-10 presents the
scores for OECD member countries, non-OECD member countries
and overall average scores for each of the e-governance categories:
Usability, Content, Service, Privacy/Security, and Citizen
Participation. As would be expected, the average score for OECD
member countries in each e-governance category is higher than the
overall average score for each category. For non-OECD member
countries, the average scores in each category are lower than the
overall averages for each category. Most notably, the difference
between OECD and non-OECD member countries in the area of
Privacy and Security is 4.77. This is the largest difference in average
scores among the five categories. Figure 3-3 visually represents this
same data.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 43

[Table 3-10] Average Score of E-governance Categories in OECD
Member and Non-Member Countries (2005)
Privacy & Citizen
Usability Content Service
Security Participation
OECD
Member 14.30 10.21 7.50 7.17 5.18
Countries
Overall
Average 12.42 7.63 5.32 4.17 3.57
Scores
Non-OECD
Member 11.32 6.12 4.03 2.41 2.63
Countries

[Figure 3-3] Average Score by E-governance Categories in OECD

Member and Non-Member Countries (2005)

20.00
OECD Member
Countries
16.00

Overall Average
12.00 Scores

8.00 Non-OECD
Member
Countries
4.00

0.00
Usability Content Service Privacy & Citizen
Security Participation

The overall results presented in this chapter highlight an

overall increase in scores among municipalities surveyed in 2003
and the same municipalities surveyed in 2005. The highest ranked

44 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

municipalities in each continent have, for the most part, remained
the same in the 2005 evaluation as in the 2003 evaluation. The
results, when analyzed by OECD and non-OECD member countries,
highlight a growing gap between the two groups. The results of the
evaluation will be discussed in further detail in the following
chapters.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 45

46 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005
 4

PRIVACY AND SECURITY

Privacy and security results indicate that Seoul, Sydney, Zurich,

New York, and Hong Kong are top ranked cities in the category of
privacy and security. New to the top five are Sydney and Zurich.
Sydney was ranked 11th in 2003 with a score of 6.79, but has
improved to second overall with a score of 16.80 in 2005. Zurich
was ranked 20th in 2003 with a score of 3.57, but has improved to
third overall with a score of 16.40 in 2005. Table 4-1 summarizes
the results for all the municipalities evaluated in this category.
The average score in this category is 4.17, an increase from
a score of 2.53 in 2003. Thirty-one cities evaluated earned 0 points
in this category, a decrease in the total number of municipalities that
earned 0 points in 2003 (36). Many cities still have not properly
understood the importance of a privacy and security policy, a very
important deficiency in the development of digital governance.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 47

[Table 4-1] Results in Privacy and Security (2005)
Ranking City Country Score
1 Seoul Republic of Korea 17.60
2 Sydney Australia 16.80
3 Zurich Switzerland 16.40
4 New York United States 16.00
5 Hong Kong SAR Hong Kong, SAR 15.60
6 Rome Italy 13.20
7 Berlin Germany 12.80
8 Shanghai China 12.00
8 Tokyo Japan 12.00
10 Istanbul Turkey 11.60
10 Reykjavik Iceland 11.60
10 Vienna Austria 11.60
13 Toronto Canada 11.20
14 Amsterdam Netherlands 10.40
14 Copenhagen Denmark 10.40
14 Macao SAR Macao, SAR 10.40
14 Mumbai India 10.40
14 Singapore Singapore 10.40
19 Paris France 8.80
20 Dublin Ireland 8.00
20 Sofia Bulgaria 8.00
22 Auckland New Zealand 7.20
22 Luxembourg city Luxembourg 7.20
24 Riga Latvia 6.80
25 Ho Chi Minh VietNam 5.60
26 Tegucigalpa Honduras 5.20
27 London United Kingdom 4.80
27 Quezon City Philippines 4.80
29 Cairo Egypt 4.00
30 Riyadh Saudi Arabia 3.20
31 Madrid Spain 2.80
32 Brussels Belgium 2.40
32 Buenos Aires Argentina 2.40
32 Cape Town South Africa 2.40
32 Dubai U.A.E. 2.40
32 Jakarta Indonesia 2.40
32 Kiev Ukraine 2.40
38 Ljubljana Slovenia 1.60
38 Moscow Russia 1.60

48 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 4-1] Results in Privacy and Security (Cont. 2005)
38 Nairobi Kenya 1.60
41 Budapest Hungary 1.20
41 Guatemala City Guatemala 1.20
41 Lagos Nigeria 1.20
41 Lima Peru 1.20
41 Lisbon Portugal 1.20
41 San Jose Costa Rica 1.20
41 Bogota Colombia 1.20
41 Sao Paulo Brazil 1.20
41 Tallinn Estonia 1.20
41 Zagreb Croatia 1.20
51 Amman Jordan 0.00
51 Athens Greece 0.00
51 Bangkok Thailand 0.00
51 Beirut Lebanon 0.00
51 Belgrade Serbia & Montenegro 0.00
51 Bratislava Slovak Republic 0.00
51 Bucharest Romania 0.00
51 Caracas Venezuela 0.00
51 Chisinau Moldova, Rep. of 0.00
51 Colombo Sri Lanka 0.00
51 Dhaka Bangladesh 0.00
51 Guayaquil Ecuador 0.00
51 Helsinki Finland 0.00
51 Jerusalem Israel 0.00
51 Karachi Pakistan 0.00
51 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 0.00
51 La Paz Bolivia 0.00
51 Mexico City Mexico 0.00
51 Minsk Belarus 0.00
51 Montevideo Uruguay 0.00
51 Nicosia Cyprus 0.00
51 Oslo Norway 0.00
51 Panama City Panama 0.00
51 Prague Czech Rep. 0.00
51 San Salvador El Salvador 0.00
51 Santiago Chile 0.00
51 Stockholm Sweden 0.00
51 Tashkent Uzbekistan 0.00
51 Tehran Iran 0.00
51 Vilnius Lithuania 0.00
51 Warsaw Poland 0.00

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 49

 Table 4-2 represents the average score in Privacy and
Security by continent. Overall, cities in Oceania scored 12.00, while
cities in South America scored only 0.67 in this category. Oceania
remained as the continent with the highest average in scores
increased, from 7.32 in 2003. South America replaced Africa as the
continent with lowest average score. Africa increased from its score
of .67 in 2003 to a score of 2.30 in 2005. Table 4-2 also presents the
data separated by OECD and Non-OECD member countries for the
category of Privacy and Security. Cities in OECD countries scored
an average of 7.17, while cities in non-member countries scored
only 2.41 in this category. This result indicates that cities in
economically advanced countries continue to have more emphasis
on privacy and security policy than do cities in less developed
countries. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 illustrate the data presented Table 4-2.

[Table 4-2] Average Score in Privacy and Security by Continent and

OECD Member and Non-Member Countries (2005)
North South
Oceania Asia Europe Average Africa
America America
OECD
12.00 13.73 9.07 5.58 7.17 - -
Privacy
12.00 4.93 4.35 4.28 4.17 2.30 0.67
Averages
Non-
- 3.68 1.52 1.90 2.41 2.30 0.67
OECD

50 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Figure 4-1] Average Score in Privacy and Security by Continent
(2005)
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Oceania Asia North Europe Average Africa South
America America

[Figure 4-2] Average Score in Privacy and Security by OECD

Member and Non-Member Countries (2005)
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
OECD Member Overall Privacy Average Non-OECD Member
Countries Countries

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 51

 Table 4-3 lists the results of evaluation of key aspects in the
category of Privacy and Security by continent. Overall, cities in
Oceania and Europe are likely to pay more attention to privacy and
security matters on their websites as opposed to cities in other
continents. All cities evaluated in Oceania, 50% of cities in Africa,
and 47% of cities in Europe have developed a privacy or security
statement/policy. Cities in South America still have not developed
privacy statements for their websites. The overall percentage for
cities that have a privacy or security statement/policy online is 37%,
an increase from 22.5% in 2003.
With regard to the use of encryption in the transmission of
data, all of the cities evaluated in Oceania, as well as 25% of cities
in Africa and in North America, have a policy addressing the use of
encryption on their websites. The overall percentage for cities that
have a policy addressing the use of encryption online is 21%, a
significant increase from 5% in 2003. In addition, all cities
evaluated in Oceania, 29% of cities in Europe, and 25% of cities in
North America have a policy addressing the use of “cookies” or
“web beacons” to track users. The overall percentage for cities that
have a policy addressing the use of “cookies” or “web beacons” to
track users is 23%, also an increase from 5% in 2003. There were no
cities worldwide in the 2003 evaluation that had a privacy policy
addressing the use of digital signatures to authenticate users;
however, 9% of municipalities in the 2005 evaluation do address the
use of digital signatures.

[Table 4-3] Results for Privacy and Security by Continent (2005)

North South
Oceania Europe Asia Africa Average
America America
Privacy or
Security 100% 47% 29% 38% 0% 50% 37%
Policy
Use of
100% 24% 17% 25% 0% 25% 21%
encryption
Use of
100% 29% 21% 25% 0% 0% 23%
cookies
Digital
50% 9% 13% 0% 0% 0% 9%
Signature

52 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

 Table 4-4 lists the results of evaluation of key aspects in the
category of Privacy and Security by OECD and non-OECD member
countries. Overall, cities in OECD countries continue to pay more
attention to privacy and security matters on their websites rather
than cities in non-OECD countries. About 67% of cities evaluated in
OECD countries have developed a privacy or security statement/
policy, while about 20% of cities in non-OECD countries have a
privacy statement on their websites. With regard to the use of
encryption in the transmission of data, some 43% of cities evaluated
in OECD countries have a privacy policy addressing the use of
encryption, an increase from only 3.6% in 2003. However, only 8%
of cities in non-OECD countries have statements covering the use of
encryption on their websites. In addition, 43% of cities evaluated in
OECD countries have a privacy policy addressing the use of
“cookies” or “web beacons” to track users, while only 12% of cities
in non-OECD countries have statements as to the use of “cookies.”
In sum, while cities in OECD countries score above average
throughout the world, cities in non-OECD countries continue to be
below the overall average.

[Table 4-4] Results for Privacy and Security by OECD Member and
Non-Member Countries (2005)
OECD Average Non-OECD
Privacy or Security Policy 67% 37% 20%
Use of encryption 43% 21% 8%
Use of cookies 43% 23% 12%
Digital Signature 17% 9% 4%

In terms of the question “Does the site have a privacy or

security statement/ policy?” thirty cities evaluated (37%) have
privacy and security policies. Fifty-one cities (67%), however, have
not provided citizens with a privacy and security statement at all
(Figure 4-3). Cities such as Seoul, Sydney, Zurich, New York, and
Hong Kong have clear privacy or security statements/ policies, as
reflected through their overall rankings in the category.
[Figure 4-3] Existence of Privacy or Security Statement/Policy (2005)

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 53

 37%

Privacy/Security Statement

63% No Privacy/Security Statement

54 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

 5

USABILITY

The following chapter highlights the results for Usability. Results

indicate that New York, Shanghai, Seoul, Sydney and Riga are top
ranked cities in the category of Usability. New to the top five are
New York, Sydney and Riga. New York was ranked 11th in 2003
with a score of 15.63, but has improved to first overall with a score
of 19.06 in 2005. Sydney was ranked 34th in 2003 with a score of
12.19, but has improved to fourth overall with a score of 17.81 in
2005. Riga was ranked 51st in 2003 with a score of 10.00, but has
improved to fifth overall with a score of 17.50 in 2005. Table 5-1
summarizes the results for all the municipalities evaluated in the
category.
The average score in this category is 12.42, an increase
from a score of 11.45 in 2003. One of the best practices in the
category of Usability is New York, scoring 19.06. The websites for
New York are very “user-friendly.” For example, all pages use
consistent color, formatting, “default colors” and underlined text to
indicate links. There are consistent uses of navigation bars and links
to the homepage on every page. The websites contain very advanced
forms, allowing citizens to submit pertinent information.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 55

[Table 5-1] Results in Usability (2005)
Ranking City Country Score
1 New York United States 19.06
2 Shanghai China 18.75
3 Seoul Republic of Korea 17.81
3 Sydney Australia 17.81
5 Riga Latvia 17.50
6 Oslo Norway 17.19
7 Dublin Ireland 16.88
7 Jerusalem Israel 16.88
7 Prague Czech Rep. 16.88
10 Hong Kong Hong Kong 16.25
10 Stockholm Sweden 16.25
10 Tokyo Japan 16.25
13 Bratislava Slovak Republic 15.94
13 Paris France 15.94
13 Singapore Singapore 15.94
16 Auckland New Zealand 15.63
17 Kiev Ukraine 15.31
17 Luxembourg city Luxembourg 15.31
17 Warsaw Poland 15.31
20 Budapest Hungary 15.00
20 Copenhagen Denmark 15.00
20 Moscow Russia 15.00
23 Sao Paulo Brazil 14.69
23 Zurich Switzerland 14.69
25 Helsinki Finland 14.38
25 Ho Chi Minh VietNam 14.38
27 Quezon City Philippines 14.06
27 Toronto Canada 14.06
29 Belgrade Serbia & Montenegro 13.75
29 Lisbon Portugal 13.75
29 Tallinn Estonia 13.75
32 Macao Macao 13.44
32 Sofia Bulgaria 13.44
34 Reykjavik Iceland 13.13
34 Riyadh Saudi Arabia 13.13
34 Bogota Colombia 13.13
37 Santiago Chile 12.81
38 Amsterdam Netherlands 12.50
38 Minsk Belarus 12.50

56 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 5-1] Results in Usability (Cont., 2005)
38 Rome Italy 12.50
41 Brussels Belgium 12.29
42 Caracas Venezuela 12.19
42 Lagos Nigeria 12.19
42 Nicosia Cyprus 12.19
45 Amman Jordan 11.88
45 Cairo Egypt 11.88
45 Istanbul Turkey 11.88
45 Jakarta Indonesia 11.88
45 London United Kingdom 11.88
45 Madrid Spain 11.88
45 Vienna Austria 11.88
52 Buenos Aires Argentina 11.56
52 Cape Town South Africa 11.56
52 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 11.56
55 Colombo Sri Lanka 11.25
55 Ljubljana Slovenia 11.25
57 Vilnius Lithuania 10.94
58 Mumbai India 10.31
58 Tegucigalpa Honduras 10.31
60 Guayaquil Ecuador 10.00
61 Bucharest Romania 9.69
61 Dubai U.A.E. 9.69
61 Mexico City Mexico 9.69
61 Zagreb Croatia 9.69
65 Athens Greece 9.38
66 Beirut Lebanon 9.06
66 Dhaka Bangladesh 9.06
66 San Jose Costa Rica 9.06
69 Berlin Germany 8.75
69 Karachi Pakistan 8.75
71 Guatemala City Guatemala 8.44
71 Tehran Iran 8.44
73 Bangkok Thailand 8.13
74 Montevideo Uruguay 7.81
75 Chisinau Moldova, Rep. of 7.52
76 La Paz Bolivia 7.19
76 San Salvador El Salvador 7.19
78 Nairobi Kenya 6.56
79 Panama City Panama 5.94
80 Lima Peru 5.31
81 Tashkent Uzbekistan 4.06

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 57

 Table 5-2 represents the average score in Usability. Overall,
cities in Oceania scored 16.72, while cities in Africa scored 10.47 in
this category. Oceania remained as the continent with the highest
average in score, increasing from 14.53 in 2003. Africa replaced
South America as the continent with the lowest average score. South
America increased its score of 8.53 in 2003 to 10.52 in 2005. Table
5-2 also presents the data separated by OECD and Non-OECD
member countries for the category of Usability. Cities in OECD
countries scored an average of 14.30, while cities in non-member
countries scored only 11.32 in this category. This result indicates
that cities in economically advanced countries continue to have
more emphasis on usability than do cities in less developed
countries; however, the gap has slightly decreased from that in 2003.
Figures 5-1 and 5-2 illustrate the data presented Table 5-2.

[Table 5-2] Average Score in Usability by Continent and OECD

Member and Non-Member Countries (2005)
North South
Oceania Europe Average Asia Africa
America America
OECD
16.72 13.94 14.30 15.31 - - 14.27
Usability
16.72 13.44 12.42 12.29 10.55 10.52 10.47
Averages
Non-
- 12.53 11.32 11.86 10.55 10.52 8.19
OECD

58 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Figure 5-1] Average Score in Usability by Continent (2005)

20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Oceania Europe Average Asia Africa South North
America America

[Figure 5-2] Average Score in Usability by OECD Member

and Non-Member Countries (2005)

20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
OECD Member Usability Average Non-OECD Member
Countries Countries

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 59

Table 5-3 lists the results of the evaluation of key aspects in the
category of Usability by continent. In terms of homepage length,
with text size set to “medium” at the “view” menu of Internet
Explorer on a 17 inch monitor, cities in Europe, North America,
South America, and Oceania score above average, while cities in
Asia and Africa are below average. That is, under the conditions
above, many cities in Europe, North America, South America, and
Oceania require two screens or less to view the main city homepage.
Also, with regard to page length, about 68% of cities in Europe,
63% in North America and all cities evaluated in Oceania have
alternative versions (e.g., doc or pdf) available for documents which
are more than three to four screens long.
In addition, with respect to targeted audience links, 89% of
cities in South America and 56% in Europe have the targeted
audience links divided into more than three categories (e.g. general
citizens, youths, the old, women, family, citizens in need of social
welfare services, businesses, industry, small businesses, public
employees, etc.), while no cities in Africa and South America have
targeted audience links divided into more than three categories. This
is a significant increase for South American cities, which for 2003
reported having 0% for the same measure. Also, as to a site map,
with text size set to “medium” at the “view” menu of Internet
Explorer on a 17 inch monitor, 62% in Europe and 56% in South
America, have a sitemap containing active links and less than two
screens in length, whereas no cities in Oceania have that kind of
sitemap. Moreover, in terms of date of recent update of websites,
about 76% of cities in Europe and 75% in Asia and North America
had updated their websites within the past month or less, while only
50% in Oceania had updated websites that were one month or less
old.

60 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 5-3] Results for Usability by Continent (2005)
North South
Oceania Europe Average Asia Africa
America America
Homepage
100% 82% 81% 75% 88% 89% 75%
Length
Page
100% 68% 62% 54% 63% 56% 50%
Length
Targeted
50% 56% 57% 50% 50% 89% 50%
Audience
Site map 0% 62% 49% 46% 25% 56% 25%

Recent
50% 76% 75% 75% 75% 67% 75%
update

Table 5-4 indicates the results of assessments of usability

among OECD and non-OECD countries. In terms of homepage
length, about 77% of cities in OECD countries require two screens
or less to view the main city homepage, while about 84% in non-
OECD countries a homepage requiring two screens or less to view.
This is one of the few areas in which non-OECD member countries
exceed the performance of OECD member countries. Also, with
regard to page length, about 80% of cities in OECD countries have
alternative versions available for long documents which are more
than three to four screens long, whereas only about 51% of cities in
non-OECD countries have those alternative versions.
With respect to targeted audience links, about 63% of cities
in OECD countries have links divided into more than three
categories, while only 53% of non-OECD countries have such links.
As to site map, about 57% of cities throughout the world have a
sitemap containing active links and less than two screens in length.
Moreover, in terms of date of recent update of websites, about 83%
of cities in OECD countries had updated their websites in the past
month, while only 71% in non-OECD countries had accomplished
such updates.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 61

[Table 5-4] Results for Usability by OECD Member and Non-
Member Countries (2005)
OECD Average Non-OECD
Homepage 77% 81% 84%
Page Length 80% 62% 51%
Targeted Audience 63% 57% 53%
Site map 57% 49% 45%
Date of Recent update 83% 75% 71%

With regard to “Targeted audience links: Are targeted

audience links available on the homepage? (e.g. general citizens,
youths, the old, women, family, citizens in need of social welfare
services, businesses, industry, small businesses, public employees,
etc.),” 57% of municipal websites are divided into more than three
categories, representing 66 cities (Figure 5-3).

[Figure 5-3] Targeted Audience Links (2005)

Three Categories or
43%
More
Two Categories or less
57%

62 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

 6

CONTENT

Results for Content indicate that Seoul, New York, Tallinn, Zurich,
Hong Kong, and Riga are top ranked cities in the category of
Content. New to the top five are Tallinn, Zurich and Riga. Tallinn
was ranked 6th in 2003 with a score of 12.55, but has improved to
third overall with a score of 14.79 in 2005. Zurich was ranked 28th in
2003 with a score of 7.66, but has improved to fourth overall with a
score of 13.96 in 2005. Riga was ranked 51st in 2003 with a score of
4.26, but has improved to fifth overall with a score of 13.75 in 2005.
Table 6-1 summarizes the results for all the municipalities evaluated
in the Content category.
The average score for the top five cities has only slightly
increased from 2003. The average score for the top five ranked cities
in 2005 is 14.66, while the average score for the top five ranked
cities in 2003 was 14.08. However the overall average increase for
this category is second largest of the five categories. The average
score in this category is 7.63, an increase from a score of 6.43 in
2003.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 63

[Table 6-1] Results in Content (2005)
Ranking City Country Score
1 Seoul Republic of Korea 16.04
2 New York United States 14.79
2 Tallinn Estonia 14.79
4 Zurich Switzerland 13.96
5 Hong Kong Hong Kong 13.75
5 Riga Latvia 13.75
7 Reykjavik Iceland 13.54
7 Warsaw Poland 13.54
9 Macao Macao 13.13
9 Shanghai China 13.13
11 Sydney Australia 12.50
12 Tokyo Japan 12.29
13 Cape Town South Africa 11.88
13 Luxembourg city Luxembourg 11.88
15 Singapore Singapore 11.67
15 Sofia Bulgaria 11.67
17 Paris France 11.46
17 Toronto Canada 11.46
19 Bratislava Slovak Republic 11.04
19 Budapest Hungary 11.04
19 Dublin Ireland 11.04
22 Brussels Belgium 10.83
22 Jakarta Indonesia 10.83
24 Stockholm Sweden 10.63
25 Vilnius Lithuania 10.42
26 Prague Czech Rep. 10.21
27 Helsinki Finland 10.00
27 Oslo Norway 10.00
29 Amsterdam Netherlands 9.79
30 Jerusalem Israel 9.58
30 Copenhagen Denmark 9.58
32 London United Kingdom 9.17
33 Istanbul Turkey 8.96
33 Lisbon Portugal 8.96
35 Berlin Germany 8.54
36 Cairo Egypt 8.33
36 Ho Chi Minh VietNam 8.33
36 Sao Paulo Brazil 8.33
39 Tegucigalpa Honduras 8.13

64 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 6-1] Results in Content (Cont., 2005)
40 Moscow Russia 7.71
40 Rome Italy 7.71
42 Athens Greece 6.88
43 Auckland New Zealand 6.67
43 Kiev Ukraine 6.67
43 Santiago Chile 6.67
46 Belgrade Serbia & Montenegro 6.46
46 Minsk Belarus 6.46
48 Vienna Austria 6.25
49 Ljubljana Slovenia 6.04
50 Buenos Aires Argentina 5.83
51 Lima Peru 5.42
52 Karachi Pakistan 5.00
52 Riyadh Saudi Arabia 5.00
54 Bucharest Romania 4.79
54 Nicosia Cyprus 4.79
56 San Jose Costa Rica 4.58
56 Bogota Colombia 4.58
58 Dubai U.A.E. 4.38
58 Guayaquil Ecuador 4.38
58 Mumbai India 4.38
61 Bangkok Thailand 4.17
62 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 3.96
62 La Paz Bolivia 3.96
64 Chisinau Moldova, Rep. of 3.75
64 Madrid Spain 3.75
64 Mexico City Mexico 3.75
64 Panama City Panama 3.75
64 Quezon City Philippines 3.75
69 San Salvador El Salvador 3.54
69 Lagos Nigeria 3.54
71 Beirut Lebanon 3.13
72 Caracas Venezuela 2.50
72 Dhaka Bangladesh 2.50
74 Colombo Sri Lanka 2.29
75 Montevideo Uruguay 2.08
75 Nairobi Kenya 2.08
77 Amman Jordan 1.67
77 Zagreb Croatia 1.67
79 Guatemala City Guatemala 1.25
80 Tehran Iran 1.04
81 Tashkent Uzbekistan 0.42

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 65

 Table 6-2 represents the average score in Content by
continent. Overall, cities in Oceania scored 9.58, while cities in
South America scored only 4.86 in this category. Oceania remained
as the continent with the highest average score, a slight decrease
from 10.11 in 2003. South America remained as the continent with
the lowest average score. Africa increased its score of 4.36 in 2003
to a score of 6.46 in 2005. Table 6-2 also presents the data separated
by OECD and non-OECD member countries for the category of
Content. Cities in OECD countries scored an average of 10.21,
while cities in non-member countries scored only 6.12 in this
category. This result indicates that cities in economically advanced
countries continue to have more emphasis on website content than
do cities in less developed countries. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 illustrate
the data presented Table 6-2.

[Table 6-2] Average Score in Content by Continent and OECD

Member and Non-Member Countries (2005)
North South
Oceania Europe Average Asia Africa
America America
OECD
9.58 9.99 10.21 12.43 - 10.00 -
Content
9.58 9.23 7.63 6.84 6.46 6.41 4.86
Averages
Non-
- 7.85 6.12 6.04 6.46 4.25 4.86
OECD

66 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Figure 6-1] Average Score in Content by Continent (2005)

20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Oceania Europe Average Asia Africa North South
America America

[Figure 6-2] Average Score in Content by OECD Member and

Non-Member Countries (2005)
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
OECD Member Countries Overall Content Average Non-OECD Member
Countries

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 67

 Table 6-3 indicates the results of evaluation of Content by
continent. More than 30% of cities evaluated in all continents,
except South America, have websites with mechanisms in the area
of emergency management or alert mechanisms (severe weather,
etc.). Also, with regard to disability access for the blind, only about
10% of cites have websites providing such access (e.g. Bobby
compliant: http://www.cast.org/bobby). Asian cities had the highest
percentage of municipal websites with that feature. In addition, only
9% of cities have websites providing disability access for the deaf
(TDD phone service). Cities in the continents of Oceania, South
America, and Africa have no websites providing disability access for
the deaf.
With respect to the use of wireless technology, 29% of cities
in Europe and 25% in Asia and Africa have websites using wireless
technology, such as messages to a mobile phone, PDA (Personal
Digital Assistant) or a Palm Pilot to update applications, events etc.
No cities in North America and Oceania, however, have websites
using this technology. In addition, more than half of cities in Asia,
Europe, and Oceania have websites offering access in more than one
language. This finding is similar to that of 2003; however, the
overall average for websites offering access in more than one
language has increased to 65% from 45% in 2003.

[Table 6-3] Results for Content by Continent (2005)

North South
Oceania Europe Average Asia Africa
America America
Emergency
Management 50% 32% 40% 50% 50% 22% 50%
Access for
0% 12% 10% 17% 0% 0% 0%
the Blind
Access for
0% 9% 9% 13% 13% 0% 0%
the deaf
Wireless
technology 0% 29% 22% 25% 0% 11% 25%

More than
100% 82% 65% 79% 25% 22% 25%
one language

68 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

 Table 6-4 indicates the results of assessments of Content
among OECD and non-OECD countries. Like the other categories
discussed above, cities in OECD countries have more advanced
websites in terms of content than do cities in non-OECD countries.
As to an emergency management or an alert mechanism, however,
the 40% of cities in non-OECD countries have such websites, with
the same results for OECD member countries. Yet this is not
reflective of performance improvement for non-OECD member
countries. In 2003, OECD member countries had a significantly
lower score than those of non-OECD member countries.
With regard to disability access for the blind, about 20% of
cites in OECD countries have websites providing such access,
whereas only 4% of cities in non-OECD countries have that capacity.
In addition, about 17% of cities in OECD countries have websites
providing disability access for the deaf, while only 4% of cities in
non-OECD countries offer it. With respect to the use of wireless
technology, about 37% of cities in OECD countries have websites
using wireless technology to update applications, events etc. Even
fewer cities, about 14% in non-OECD countries, have websites
using that technology. In addition, about 83% of cities in OECD
countries have websites offering access in more than one language,
while only 55% in non-OECD countries offer multi-lingual access.

[Table 6-4] Results for Content by OECD Member and Non-

Member Countries (2005)
OECD Average Non-OECD
Emergency Management 40% 40% 40%
Access for the blind 20% 10% 4%
Access for the deaf 17% 9% 4%
Use of wireless technology 37% 22% 14%
More than one language 83% 65% 55%

Furthermore, in respect to the question “Does the site offer

access in more than one language?,” 53 cities of those evaluated
have a website that offers access in more than one language, while
only 28 cities have no such access. Figure 6-3 represents these
findings in terms of overall percentages.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 69

[Figure 6-3] Access in multiple languages (2005)

35%

Access in one more than

language
Access in only one
language

65%

70 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

 7

SERVICES

The following chapter highlights the results for online Services.

Results indicate that Seoul, New York, Singapore, Hong Kong, and
Warsaw are the top ranked cities in the category of online Services.
New to the top five are New York and Warsaw. New York was
ranked sixth in 2003 with a score of 1.93, but has improved to
second overall with a score of 15.76 in 2005. Warsaw was ranked
62nd in 2003 with a score of 1.93, but has improved to fifth overall
with a score of 11.86 in 2005. Table 7-1 summarizes the results for
all the municipalities evaluated in this category.
The average score in this category is 5.32, an increase from
a score of 4.82 in 2003. Only two cities evaluated earned 0 points in
this category, a decrease from the three municipalities that earned 0
points in 2003. The average score for the top five ranked cities in
2005 is 14.51, while the average score for the top five ranked cities
in 2003 was 13.69.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 71

[Table 7-1] Results in Service (2005)
Ranking City Country Score
1 Seoul Republic of Korea 16.61
2 New York United States 15.76
3 Singapore Singapore 14.58
4 Hong Kong Hong Kong 13.73
5 Warsaw Poland 11.86
6 Shanghai China 11.69
7 Tokyo Japan 10.34
7 Reykjavik Iceland 10.34
9 Prague Czech Rep. 10.00
10 Toronto Canada 9.83
11 Sao Paulo Brazil 9.66
12 Oslo Norway 9.49
12 Zurich Switzerland 9.49
14 Ho Chi Minh VietNam 8.98
14 Sydney Australia 8.98
16 Berlin Germany 8.64
17 Buenos Aires Argentina 7.80
18 Rome Italy 7.63
19 Tallinn Estonia 7.46
19 Sofia Bulgaria 7.46
21 Luxembourg city Luxembourg 7.29
22 Bangkok Thailand 6.95
22 Cape Town South Africa 6.95
24 London United Kingdom 6.78
25 Budapest Hungary 6.61
25 Helsinki Finland 6.61
27 Riga Latvia 6.44
28 Auckland New Zealand 6.10
28 Copenhagen Denmark 6.10
28 Vilnius Lithuania 6.10
31 Amsterdam Netherlands 5.93
31 Dubai U.A.E. 5.93
33 Bratislava Slovak Republic 5.76
33 Moscow Russia 5.76
35 Istanbul Turkey 5.59
35 Stockholm Sweden 5.59
37 Macao Macao 5.42
38 Lisbon Portugal 5.08
39 Brussels Belgium 4.97

72 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 7-1] Results in Content (Cont., 2005)
40 Belgrade Serbia & Montenegro 4.92
40 Dublin Ireland 4.92
42 Mexico City Mexico 4.75
42 Paris France 4.75
42 Santiago Chile 4.75
45 Quezon City Philippines 3.90
46 Ljubljana Slovenia 3.73
46 Madrid Spain 3.73
46 San Jose Costa Rica 3.73
49 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 3.56
49 Athens Greece 3.56
51 Karachi Pakistan 3.22
51 Minsk Belarus 3.22
53 Guatemala City Guatemala 3.05
53 La Paz Bolivia 3.05
53 Tehran Iran 3.05
56 Panama City Panama 2.88
57 Kiev Ukraine 2.54
57 Nicosia Cyprus 2.54
57 Bucharest Romania 2.54
57 San Salvador El Salvador 2.54
57 Bogota Colombia 2.54
62 Cairo Egypt 2.37
63 Jakarta Indonesia 2.20
63 Lagos Nigeria 2.20
63 Jerusalem Israel 2.20
66 Tegucigalpa Honduras 2.03
67 Lima Peru 1.86
67 Vienna Austria 1.86
69 Mumbai India 1.69
70 Montevideo Uruguay 1.53
71 Beirut Lebanon 1.36
71 Caracas Venezuela 1.36
71 Riyadh Saudi Arabia 1.36
74 Colombo Sri Lanka 1.19
74 Dhaka Bangladesh 1.19
76 Guayaquil Ecuador 0.85
77 Amman Jordan 0.68
78 Chisinau Moldova, Rep. of 0.51
79 Zagreb Croatia 0.34
80 Nairobi Kenya 0.00
80 Tashkent Uzbekistan 0.00

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 73

 Table 7-2 represents the average score of online Services by
continent. Overall, cities in Oceania scored 7.54, while cities in
Africa scored only 2.88 in this category. Oceania remained as the
continent with the highest average score, decreasing slightly from a
score of 7.89 in 2003. Africa replaced South America as the
continent with the lowest average score. Table 7-2 also presents the
data separated by OECD and Non-OECD member countries for the
category of online Services. Cities in OECD countries scored an
average of 7.50, while cities in non-member countries scored only
4.03 in this category. This result indicates that cities in developed
countries have provided citizens with more online Services than
have cities in less developed countries. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 illustrate
the data presented in Table 7-2.

[Table 7-2] Average Score in Services by Continent and OECD

Member and Non-Member Countries (2005)
North South Afr
Oceania Europe Asia Average
America America ica
OECD
7.54 6.68 10.11 10.85 7.50 - -
Services 2.8
Averages 7.54 5.82 5.57 5.33 5.32 3.71 8
Non- 2.8
OECD - 4.25 2.85 4.54 4.03 3.71 8

74 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Figure 7-1] Average Score in Services by Continent (2005)

20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Oceania Europe North Asia Average South Africa
America America

[Figure 7-2] Average Score in Services by OECD Member and

Non-Member Countries (2005)
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
OECD Member Overall Services Non-OECD Member
Countries Average Countries

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 75

 Table 7-3 indicates the results of key aspects selected in the
category of Service delivery by continent. With regard to searchable
databases, over 60% of cities in Europe and North America have
websites offering a searchable database, while only 33% of cities
evaluated in South America have sites offering that capacity. In
terms of portal customization, 13% of cities in North America and
about 11% in South America allow users to customize the main city
homepage, depending on their needs. In addition, with respect to
access to private information online (e.g. educational records,
medical records, point total of driving violations, lost pet dogs, lost
property), 50% of cities Oceania, 38% in North America and 33% in
South America allow users to access private information online,
while no cities in Africa allow citizens to do so.

[Table 7-3] Results for Services by Continent (2005)

North South
Oceania Europe Average Asia Africa
America America
Searchable
Database
50% 82% 60% 42% 63% 33% 50%
Portal
Customization 0% 9% 7% 4% 13% 11% 0%
Access to
Private Info
50% 21% 23% 21% 38% 33% 0%

Table 7-4 represents the results of key aspects selected in the

category of service delivery by OECD membership. With regard to
searchable databases, about 90% of cities in OECD countries have
websites offering a searchable database, and about 43% in non-
OECD countries have sites offering that capacity. In terms of portal
customization, about 6.6% of cities in OECD countries allow users
to customize the main city homepage depending on their needs, and
about 7.8% in non-OECD countries allow citizens to do so. This is
the second such instance in which non-OECD member countries
perform better than OECD member countries (pg 61). In addition,
with respect to access to private information online, 33% of cities in
OECD countries allow users to access such information, while 18%
of cities in non-OECD countries allow citizens to do so.

76 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 7-4] Results for Services by OECD Member and Non-
Member Countries (2005)
OECD Average Non-OECD
Searchable Database 90% 60% 43%
Portal Customization 6.6% 7.4% 7.8%
Access Private Info 33% 23% 18%

Nineteen cities (23%) do allow access to private information

online in response to the question “Does the site allow access to
private information online (e.g. educational records, medical records,
point total of driving violations, lost pet dogs, lost property)?” Over
70% of cities do not allow such access. Figure 7-3 illustrates this
finding.

[Figure 7-3] Access to Private Information Online (2005)

23%

Access to Private
Information
No Access to Private
Information

77%

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 77

78 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005
 8

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

The following chapter highlights the results for Citizen

Participation. Results indicate that Seoul, Warsaw, Bratislava,
London, and Prague are top ranked cities in the category of Privacy
and Security. New to the top five are all of those cities except Seoul,
which repeats as the top ranked city in the category. Warsaw was
ranked 74th in 2003 with a score of 0.00, but has improved to second
overall with a score of 12.55 in 2005. Bratislava was not ranked in
2003, but has received a third overall ranking with a score of 10.91
in 2005. London was ranked 51st in 2003 with a score of 1.54, but
has improved to fourth overall with a score of 10.55 in 2005. Prague
was not ranked in 2003 but has received a fifth overall ranking with
a score of 10.18 in 2005. Table 8-1 summarizes the results for all the
municipalities evaluated in this category.
The average score in this category is 3.57, an increase from
a score of 3.26 in 2003. The category of Citizen Participation
resulted in the smallest overall increase in performance. This can be
attributed in part to the additional questions added to the survey
instrument to better survey citizen participation online. However, the
results can also be attributed, in part, to the lack of support for such
online practices.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 79

[Table 8-1] Results in Citizen Participation (2005)
Ranking City Country Score
1 Seoul Republic of Korea 13.64
2 Warsaw Poland 12.55
3 Bratislava Slovak Republic 10.91
4 London United Kingdom 10.55
5 Prague Czech Rep. 10.18
6 Riga Latvia 9.45
7 Sofia Bulgaria 8.55
7 Toronto Canada 8.55
9 Shanghai China 8.36
10 Tokyo Japan 8.36
11 Amsterdam Netherlands 7.82
12 Singapore Singapore 7.64
13 New York United States 7.09
14 Tegucigalpa Honduras 6.73
15 Budapest Hungary 6.55
16 Bangkok Thailand 5.64
17 Jakarta Indonesia 5.45
18 Cape Town South Africa 5.09
19 Belgrade Serbia & Montenegro 4.91
19 Luxembourg city Luxembourg 4.91
21 Minsk Belarus 4.73
21 Sydney Australia 4.73
23 Moscow Russia 4.55
23 Paris France 4.55
25 Brussels Belgium 4.36
25 Istanbul Turkey 4.36
25 Jerusalem Israel 4.36
28 Kiev Ukraine 4.18
29 Berlin Germany 3.82
29 Tallinn Estonia 3.82
29 Stockholm Sweden 3.82
32 Reykjavik Iceland 3.64
32 Helsinki Finland 3.64
34 Auckland New Zealand 3.45
34 Ho Chi Minh VietNam 3.45
36 Athens Greece 3.27
36 Dublin Ireland 3.27
38 Beirut Lebanon 3.09
38 Macao Macao 3.09

80 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 8-1] Results in Citizen Participation (Cont., 2005)
40 Cairo Egypt 2.91
41 Dubai U.A.E. 2.73
41 Vilnius Lithuania 2.73
43 Lagos Nigeria 2.55
43 Amman Jordan 2.55
43 Oslo Norway 2.55
46 Hong Kong Hong Kong 2.18
46 Karachi Pakistan 2.18
46 San Jose Costa Rica 2.18
49 Riyadh Saudi Arabia 2.00
49 Sao Paulo Brazil 2.00
51 Nicosia Cyprus 1.64
51 Rome Italy 1.64
51 San Salvador El Salvador 1.64
51 Colombo Sri Lanka 1.64
55 Buenos Aires Argentina 1.45
55 Copenhagen Denmark 1.45
55 Dhaka Bangladesh 1.45
55 Vienna Austria 1.45
55 Zurich Switzerland 1.45
60 Lisbon Portugal 1.27
60 Quezon City Philippines 1.27
60 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 1.27
63 Bucharest Romania 1.09
63 Lima Peru 1.09
63 Madrid Spain 1.09
66 Mumbai India 0.91
67 La Paz Bolivia 0.55
67 Panama City Panama 0.55
67 Bogota Colombia 0.55
70 Chisinau Moldova, Rep. of 0.36
70 Mexico City Mexico 0.36
70 Montevideo Uruguay 0.36
70 Tehran Iran 0.36
74 Guatemala City Guatemala 0.18
74 Guayaquil Ecuador 0.18
74 Ljubljana Slovenia 0.18
74 Nairobi Kenya 0.18
78 Caracas Venezuela 0.00
78 Santiago Chile 0.00
78 Tashkent Uzbekistan 0.00
78 Zagreb Croatia 0.00

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 81

 Table 8-2 represents the average score in Citizen
Participation by continent. Overall, cities in Europe ranked the
highest among the continents with a score of 4.39, while cities in
South America scored only 0.69 in this category. Oceania was
replaced by Europe as the continent with the highest average. South
America replaced Africa as the continent with lowest average score.
Africa increased its score of 1.41 in 2003 to a score of 2.68 in 2005.
Table 8-2 also presents the data separated by OECD and Non-OECD
member countries for the category of Citizen Participation. Cities in
OECD countries scored an average of 5.18, while cities in non-
member countries scored only 2.63 in this category. This result
indicates that cities in economically advanced countries continue to
have more emphasis on citizen participation than do cities in less
developed countries. Figures 8-1 and 8-2 illustrate the data
presented Table 8-2.

[Table 8-2] Average Score in Citizen Participation by Continent and

OECD Member and Non-Member Countries (2005)
North South
Europe Oceania Asia Average Africa
America America
OECD 4.76 4.09 8.79 5.18 5.33 - -
Citizen
Participation
4.39 4.09 3.65 3.57 3.41 2.68 0.69
Non-OECD 3.71 - 2.92 2.63 2.25 2.68 0.69

82 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Figure 8-1] Average Score in Citizen Participation by Continent (2005)

20.00

18.00

16.00

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
Europe Oceania Asia Average North Africa South
America America

[Figure 8-2] Average Score in Citizen Participation by OECD

Member and Non-Member Countries (2005)
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
OECD Member Overall Citizen Non-OECD Member
Countries Participation Average Countries

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 83

 Table 8-3 indicates the results of key aspects selected for the
category of Citizen Participation by continent. In terms of the
evaluation of “Does the website allow users to provide comments or
feedback to individual departments/agencies through online
forms?,” 31% of municipalities provide a mechanism allowing
comments or feedback through online forms. Fifty percent of cities
in Oceania and Africa provide such an online feedback form. With
respect to online bulletin board or chat capabilities for gathering
citizen input on public issues (“Online bulletin board” or “chat
capabilities” means the city website where any citizens can post
ideas, comments, or opinions without specific discussion topics.),
over 32% do have these capabilities. Over 38% of cities in Oceania
and 25% of cities in Asia provide online bulletin board or chat
capabilities. With regard to online discussion forums on policy
issues (“Online discussion forum” means the city websites where the
city arranges public consultation on policy issues and citizens
participate in discussing those specific topics.), 25% of
municipalities evaluated do have a site containing an online
discussion forum. In addition, the results of citywide performance
measurement systems are provided by only 10% of municipal
websites evaluated. North American and African cities lead the way
with 25% of their cities currently offering such services. Figure 8-3
illustrates the overall presence online of performance measurement
cities.

[Table 8-3] Results for Citizen Participation by Continent (2005)

North South
Oceania Europe Average Asia America
Africa
America
Feedback
Form
50% 44% 31% 29% 0% 0% 50%
Bulletin
Board
0% 44% 32% 42% 13% 0% 0%
Policy
Forum
0% 38% 25% 25% 13% 0% 0%
Performance
Measurement 0% 9% 10% 8% 25% 0% 25%

84 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

 Table 8-4 represents the results of key aspects selected in the
category of Citizen Participation by OECD membership. In terms of
the evaluation of “Does the website allow users to provide
comments or feedback to individual departments/agencies through
online forms?,” 47% of municipalities in OECD countries provide a
mechanism allowing comments or feedback through online forms.
About 22% of municipalities in non-OECD countries provide a
mechanism allowing comments or feedback through online forms.
With respect to online bulletin board or chat capabilities for
gathering citizen input on public issues, 37% of municipalities in
OECD countries provide online bulletin board or chat capabilities.
Only 29% of municipalities in non-OECD countries provide online
bulletin board or chat capabilities. With regard to online discussion
forums on policy issues, 37% of municipalities in OECD countries
have a site containing an online discussion forum. Only 18% of
municipalities in non-OECD countries, however, have a site
containing an online discussion forum. The results of citywide
performance measurement systems are provided by 20% of
municipalities in OECD countries, while only 4% of municipalities
in non-OECD countries have performance measurement systems
online. Figure 8-3 illustrates the overall presence online of
performance measurement cities.

[Table 8-4] Results for Citizen Participation by OECD Member and

Non-Member Countries (2005)
OECD Average Non-OECD
Feedback Form 47% 31% 22%
Bulletin Board 37% 32% 29%
Policy Forum 37% 25% 18%
Performance Measurement 20% 10% 4%

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 85

[Figure 8-3] Online Policy Forums (2005)

25%

Online Policy Forum

No Online Policy Forum

75%

86 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

 9

BEST PRACTICES

SEOUL, REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Overall, Seoul has been ranked #1 in this evaluation, just as it was

in the 2003 evaluation. Seoul has a well developed website in all
five e-governance categories. In particular, it was the top ranked city
in the areas of Privacy/Security, Content, Service and Citizen
Participation. Seoul’s Cyber Policy Forum, established in 2003, is
representative of the municpality’s efforts towrard enhancing online
citizen particpation. The Cyber Policy Forum aims to, “provide
citizens with opportunities to understand policy issues and to
facilitate discussions; to encourage citizen participation in public
administration and to obtain feedback about policy issues; and to
reflect citizens’ opinions in city policies and produce more tailored
policy solutions for citizens.” So it is no surprise that Seoul’s
performance in the area of Citizen Participation remains as the top
ranked among all municipal websites evaluated. As Table 9-1
indicates, Seoul increased in its score for every e-governance
category except Citizen Participation. This is a reflection of the
additional survey questions for the category rather than a reduction
in functions. Seoul provides citizens with opportunities to participate
in governmental processes, including well-organized and systematic
opportunities to submit their ideas and suggestions on proposed
policies via policy forums in which citizens can freely suggest
policy ideas and agendas to public servants (Figure 9-1). It is
important to note that the gap in the overall score between Seoul and
the second ranked city increased in 2005 compared to 2003.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 87

[Table 9-1] Average Scores for Seoul, Korea in 2005 and 2003
Year Score Privacy Usability Content Service Participation
2005 81.70 17.60 17.81 16.04 16.61 13.64
2003 73.48 11.07 17.50 13.83 15.44 15.64

[Figure 9-1] Seoul, Republic of Korea Cyber Policy Forum

Accessed on March 21, 2006 at http://forum.seoul.go.kr/

88 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

NEW YORK CITY, UNITED STATES

New York City increased in its overall score and its ranking
from those in 2003. New York City was ranked fourth or higher in
the areas of Privacy/Security, Usability, Content and Service. As
indicated by Table 9-2 New York City improved in its score for all
the above-mentioned categories. New York City was the top ranked
municipality in the area of Usability, having a website design that
offers user-friendly functions such as a sitemap, expanded search
capabilities and pages intended for targeted audiences. In addition,
New York City continues to provide a very thorough page with
information about privacy and security, earning a top five ranking in
this category for 2005.

[Table 9-2] Average Scores for New York City, United States in
2005 and 2003
Year Score Privacy Usability Content Service Participation
2005 72.71 16.00 19.06 14.79 15.76 7.09
2003 61.35 11.07 15.63 14.68 12.28 7.69

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 89

[Figure 9-2] Official Website of New York City, United States

Accessed on March 22, 2006 at http://www.nyc.gov

SHANGHAI, CHINA

The inclusion of Shanghai as the third best practice for the

2005 report is based on its third place ranking in the 2005 evaluation.
Shanghai received an overall score of 63.93. The high score for
Shanghai’s website is not necessarily based on its best performance
in any one category, but rather a reflection of its balanced
performance throughout all five categories. Shanghai was also
highly ranked in 2003, fifth overall. Table 9-3 highlights the
comparison in scores by category from 2003 and 2005. As it did in
2003, Shanghai’s website ranked tenth or better in all five categories.
Figure 9-3 represents the official website of Shanghai.

90 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 9-3] Average Scores for Shanghai, China in 2005 and 2003
Year Score Privacy Usability Content Service Participation
2005 63.93 12.00 18.75 13.13 11.69 8.36
2003 58.00 9.64 17.19 11.28 12.46 9.74

[Figure 9-3] Official Website of Shanghai

Accessed on March 21, 2006 at http://www.shanghai.gov.cn

HONG KONG

The inclusion of Hong Kong as the fourth best practice for

the 2005 report is based on its forth place ranking in the 2005
evaluation. Hong Kong received an overall score of 61.51. Similar
to Shanghai, the high score for Hong Kong’s website is not
necessarily based on its best performance in any one category, but
rather a reflection of its balanced performance throughout all five
categories. Hong Kong was also highly ranked in 2003, second
overall, but dropped slightly in 2005. Table 9-4 highlights the
comparison in scores by category from 2003 and 2005. Figure 9-4
represents the official website of Hong Kong.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 91

[Table 9-4] Average Scores for Hong Kong in 2005 and 2003
Year Score Privacy Usability Content Service Participation
2005 61.51 15.60 16.25 13.75 13.73 2.18
2003 66.57 15.36 19.38 13.19 14.04 4.62

[Figure 9-4] Official Website of Hong Kong

Accessed on March 22, 2006 at http://www.info.go.hk

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA

The inclusion of Sydney as the fifth best practice for the

2005 report is based on its fifth place ranking in the 2005 evaluation.
Sydney received an overall score of 60.82. Not only was Sydney a
best practice in overall performance, but it also represents how a
municipal website can quickly improve in performance over a short
period of time. Sydney increased from its 19th place ranking to a top
five ranking for 2005. It score increased in all five categories for a

92 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

total score increase of 23.41. Table 9-5 highlights the comparison in
scores by category from 2003 and 2005. Figure 9-5 represents the
official website of Sydney.

[Table 9-5] Average Scores for Sydney in 2005 and 2003

Year Score Privacy Usability Content Service Participation
2005 60.82 16.80 17.81 12.50 8.98 4.73
2003 37.41 6.79 12.19 9.15 6.32 3.85

[Figure 9-5] Official Website of Sydney

Accessed on March 22, 2006 at http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 93

 10

LONGITUDINAL ASSESSMENT

The following chapter outlines the comparisons between the

findings from the 2003 evaluation and the findings of the 2005
evaluation. Of note, the overall average score for municipalities
surveyed has increased from 28.49 in 2003 to 33.11 in 2005 (Figure
10-1). This would be the expectation for municipalities increasingly
seeking ways to utilize technology to increase effectiveness and
efficiency. The Internet is an ideal medium for meeting such goals.
Table 10-1 and Figure 10-2 highlight these increases by continent.
All six identified regions have collectively improved in their e-
governance performance.

[Figure 10-1] Overall Average Score Comparison for 2005 and 2003
100

90

80

70

60

50

40 33.11
28.49
30

20

10

0
2003 2005

94 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

[Table 10-1] Average Score by Continent for 2005 and 2003
North South
Oceania Europe Average Asia Africa
America America
2005
Overall 49.94 37.17 33.11 33.05 30.21 24.87 20.45
Averages
2003
Overall 46.01 30.23 28.49 30.38 27.42 17.66 20.05
Averages

[Figure 10-2] Average Score by Continent for 2003 and 2005

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Oceania Europe Average Asia North America Africa South America

The improvements in score from 2003 to 2005 are

represented by both OECD and non-OECD member countries.
Municipalities surveyed from OECD member countries increased in
average score from 36.34 to 44.35. Municipalities surveyed from
non-OECD member countries increased in average score from 24.36
to 26.50. The most important finding between OECD and non-
OECD member countries is that the gap in average scores has
increased since 2003. Although the overall average score has
improved for non-OECD member countries, it has not done so at the
rate of OECD member countries. Table 10-2 above and Figure 10-3

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 95

below highlight these findings.
[Table 10-2] Average Scores by OECD Member and Non-Member
Countries for 2005 and 2003
OECD Average Non-OECD
2005 Overall
44.35 33.11 26.50
Averages
2003 Overall
36.34 28.49 24.36
Averages

[Figure 10-3] Average Score of Cities in OECD Member and Non-

Member Countries for 2003 and 2005
100.00

90.00

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
OECD Member Countries Average Non-OECD Member Countries

Specific increases in the five e-governance categories have

been discussed in the previous chapters, but it is important to note
that the most significant improvement in average score is in the area
of Privacy and Security. Municipalities have recognized website
security and citizen privacy as key components to effective and
efficient websites. The category with the smallest increase in
average score is Citizen Participation. Municipalities still have not
found that citizen participation in government is a critical

96 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

component for online functions. Table 10-3 and Figure 10-4
highlight these findings.

[Table 10-3] Average Score by E-governance Categories in 2005 and 2003

Privacy & Citizen
Usability Content Service
Security Participation
2005
Average 12.42 7.63 5.32 4.17 3.57
Scores
2003
Average 11.45 6.43 4.82 2.53 3.26
Scores

[Figure 10-4] Average Score by E-governance Categories in 2003

and 2005
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Usability Content Service Privacy Participation

The following section highlights some of the changes in the

individual municipal rankings from 2003 to 2005. Table 10-4 shows
the rankings of the top 10 municipalities based on the 2005
evaluations, as well as their change in ranking position. Websites
would not be expected to decrease in score or ranking significantly,
as a reduction in website services and functions is not a common
practice. For the most part, ranking changes were three places or

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 97

less; however, there are significant changes in a few websites that
have improved over the two years between evaluations. Those
websites that have improved their websites significantly, as is
apparent by their increase in overall ranking, are Sydney, Zurich,
and Riga. Sydney moved up 14 places in ranking to a fifth place
ranking in 2005. Zurich moved up 27 places to eighth overall. Riga
represented the most significant increase in rankings from those
municipal websites evaluated in 2003. Riga moved up 52 places to
tenth overall in the 2005 evaluation.

[Table 10-4] Change in Rank Between 2003 and 2005 Evaluations

Rank Rank Change in
Ranking City Country 2003 2005
(2003) 2005 Rank
1 Seoul Korea 73.48 81.70 1 1 0
2 New York United States 61.35 72.71 4 2 +2
3 Shanghai China 58.00 63.93 5 3 +2
4 Hong Kong Hong Kong 66.57 61.51 2 4 -2
5 Sydney Australia 37.41 60.82 19 5 +14
6 Singapore Singapore 62.97 60.22 3 6 -3
7 Tokyo Japan 46.52 59.24 9 7 +2
8 Zurich Switzerland 28.59 55.99 35 8 +27
9 Toronto Canada 46.35 55.10 10 9 +1
10 Riga Latvia 17.12 53.95 62 10 +52

As was discussed in the Methodology Chapter, the 2005

Rutgers-SKKU E-Governance Performance Index differs slightly
from the one used in 2003. The variation in scores can in part be
addressed by these improvements. However, as Table 10-5 indicates,
these changes were minimal and would not greatly affect the overall
performance between a website evaluation in 2003 and an
evaluation of performance in 2005. In 2003, we utilized a total of 92
measures. This most recent study has further developed the research
instrument to include 98 measures. The most significant change was

98 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

in the Citizen Participation component, where six new research
questions were added. These new questions are, in part, recognition
of the growing literature focusing on the various methods for more
digitally-based democracy. The new questions for the Citizen
Participation component bring the total number of questions to 20,
with a total possible raw score of 55. In addition, one question was
removed from the Security and Privacy component. That question
focused on the scanning of viruses during download of files from the
municipal website. This aspect was found to be more dependent on
personal computers than as a function of a municipal website’s
responsibility. The removal of the question for the Security and
Privacy component brings the total number of questions to 18, with
a total possible raw score of 25. The final change to the E-
Governance Performance Index was a question added to the Content
component. The additional question focuses on the number of
possible downloadable documents from a municipal website. The
new question for Content brings the total number of questions to 20,
with a total possible raw score of 48.

[Table 10-4] E-Governance Performance Index Comparison

Category 2005 2003 Change Description
Deleted question on
Privacy Q1~18 Q1~19 -1 scanning of viruses
during downloadable files
Usability Q19~38 Q20~39 0 No change
Added question focusing
Content Q39~58 Q40~58 +1 on the number of possible
downloadable documents
Service Q59~78 Q59~78 0 No change
Added questions which
survey the presence and
function of municipal
Participation Q79~98 Q79~92 +6 forums, online decision-
making (e-petitions, e-
referenda), and online
surveys and polls
98 92 6 new
Total
Questions Questions Questions

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 99

100 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005
 11

CONCLUSION

The study of municipal e-governance practices throughout the

world is an area that clearly requires ongoing research. Our studies
in 2003 and 2005 have produced findings that contribute to the e-
governance literature, in particular in the areas of website
Privacy/Security, Usability, Content, Services, and Citizen
Participation. The 2005 study highlights the increased attention
spent on Privacy and Security and the need for further attention in
the area of Citizen Participation via municipal websites.
In addition, the gap between OECD and non-OECD member
countries in average scores has increased since 2003. Although
overall average scores have improved for non-OECD member
countries, they have not done so at the rate of OECD member
countries. As we concluded in 2003, since there is a gap between
developed and under-developed countries, it is very important for
international organizations such as the UN and cities in advanced
countries to attempt to bridge the digital divide. We recommend
developing a comprehensive policy for bridging that divide. That
comprehensive policy should include capacity building for
municipalities, including information infrastructure, content, and
applications and access for individuals.
The continued study of municipalities worldwide, with a
third evaluation planned in 2007 will further provide insight in the
direction of e-governance and the performance of e-governance
throughout regions of the world. Every region has examples of best
practices for overall performance and in each specific e-governance
category. As municipalities seek to increase their municipal website
performance, looking within their region is an opportunity to

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 101

identify e-governance benchmarks. Those municipalities that serve
as top performers in their respective regions can then look at the top
ranked cities in municipalities throughout the world. Although the
2005 study highlights increases in e-governance performance
throughout the world, continuous improvement should be the norm
for every municipality.

102 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005

 ~

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Giga Consulting. (2000). Scorecard Analysis of the New Jersey

Department of Treasury. An unpublished report to the NJ Department
of Treasury.

Melitski, J., Holzer, M., Kim, S.-T., Kim, C.-G., & Rho, SY . (2005)
Digital Government Worldwide: An e-Government Assessment of
Municipal Web-sites. International Journal of E-Government Research.
1(1) 01-19.

Kaylor, C. et al. 2001. “Gauging e-government: A report on

implementing services among American cities.” Government
Information Quarterly 18: 293-307.

Moon, M. Jae. 2002. “The evolution of E-government among

municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?” Public Administration Review
62(4): 424-433.

Moon, M. Jae, and P. deLeon. 2001. “Municipal Reinvention:

Municipal Values and Diffusion among Municipalities.” Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 11(3): 327-352.

Musso, J. et. al. 2000. “Designing Web Technologies for Local

Governance Reform: Good Management or Good Democracy.”
Political Communication 17(l): 1-19.

Weare, C. et al. 1999. “Electronic Democracy and the Diffusion of

Municipal Web Pages in California.” Administration and Society 31(1):
3-27.

West, D. M. 2001 - 2005. Global E-Government Survey, Available at

http://www.insidepolitics.org/ Accessed March 16, 2006.

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 103

104 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005
 ~

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

Privacy/ Security
1-2. A privacy or security 12. Secure server
statement/policy 13. Use of “cookies” or “Web Beacons”
3-6. Data collection 14. Notification of privacy policy
7. Option to have personal 15. Contact or e-mail address for inquiries
information used 16. Public information through a
8. Third party disclosures restricted area
9. Ability to review personal data 17. Access to nonpublic information for
records employees
10. Managerial measures 18. Use of digital signatures
11. Use of encryption
Usability
19-20. Homepage, page length. 25-27. Font Color
21. Targeted audience 30-31. Forms
22-23. Navigation Bar 32-37. Search tool
24. Site map 38. Update of website
Content
39. Information about the location 49. GIS capabilities
of offices 50. Emergency management or alert
40. Listing of external links mechanism
41. Contact information 51-52. Disability access
42. Minutes of public 53. Wireless technology
43. City code and regulations 54. Access in more than one language
44. City charter and policy priority 55-56. Human resources information
45. Mission statements 57. Calendar of events
46. Budget information 58. Downloadable documents
47-48. Documents, reports, or
books (publications)

Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005 105

 Service
59-61. Pay utilities, taxes, fines 71. FAQ
62. Apply for permits 72. Request information
63. Online tracking system 73. Customize the main city homepage
64. Apply for licenses 74. Access private information online
65. E-procurement 75. Purchase tickets
66. Property assessments 76-77. Webmaster response
67. Searchable databases 78. Report violations of administrative
68. Complaints laws and regulations
69-70. Bulletin board about civil
applications
Citizen Participation
79-80. Comments or feedback 90-91. Online survey/ polls
81-83. Newsletter 92. Synchronous video
84. Online bulletin board or chat 93-94. Citizen satisfaction survey
capabilities 95. Online decision-making
85-87. Online discussion forum on 96-98. Performance measures, standards,
policy issues or benchmarks
88-89. Scheduled e-meetings for
discussion

106 Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide · 2005