Abstracts
Résumé
Dans cet article, nous abordons la notion de transparence gouvernementale et sa portée générale sur l’avenir de l’administration publique dans un contexte de cybergouvernement. Nous soutenons que l’Open Government Initiative de l’actuelle administration américaine estompe les différences conventionnelles entre cyberdémocratie et cybergouvernement par l’intégration, au moyen des technologies, de pratiques démocratiques traditionnelles dans les organismes administratifs. Nous examinons comment fonctionnent les pratiques démocratiques axées sur la transparence, la participation et la collaboration dans les organismes administratifs, en supposant qu’elles contribuent à l’action administrative et au processus décisionnel, contrairement à l’approche actuelle qui semble les considérer comme la finalité de l’action administrative. Nous étudions le gouvernement transparent sous l’angle de la « valeur publique » que souhaitent produire les organismes publics, car elle leur permet de combler les besoins et les aspirations de la population par ses avantages considérables et la valeur intrinsèque associée à un meilleur gouvernement. Nous appliquons cette vision à la notion de transparence gouvernementale pour décrire la valeur dégagée par une interaction gouvernement-citoyen fondée sur la transparence, la participation et la collaboration, c’est-à-dire une interaction plus démocratique.
Abstract
We consider open government (OG) within the context of e-Government and its broader implications for the future of public administration. We argue that the current US Administration’s Open Government Initiative blurs traditional distinctions between e-Democracy and e-Government by incorporating historically democratic practices, now enabled by emerging technology, within administrative agencies. We consider how transparency, participation, and collaboration function as democratic practices in administrative agencies, suggesting that these processes are instrumental attributes of administrative action and decision making, rather than the objective of administrative action, as they appear to be currently treated. We propose alternatively that planning and assessing OG be addressed within a “public value” framework. The creation of public value is the goal of public organizations ; through public value, public organizations meet the needs and wishes of the public with respect to substantive benefits as well as the intrinsic value of better government. We extend this view to OG by using the framework as a way to describe the value produced when interaction between government and citizens becomes more transparent, participative, and collaborative – i.e., more democratic.
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Abramson, J. B., F. C. Arterton et G. R. Orren (1988). The Electronic Commonwealth: The Impact of New Media Technologies on Democratic Politics, Basic Books.
- Allison, B. (2010). « My Data Can’t Tell You That », dans D. Lathrop et L. Ruma (dir.), Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice, Sebastopol, O’Reilly Media, Inc., p. 257-265.
- Arnstein, S. R. (1969). « A Ladder of Citizen Participation », Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 35, n° 4, p. 216-224.
- Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age, Berkeley, University of California Press.
- Bertelsen, D. A. (1992). « Media Form and Government: Democracy as an Archetypal Image in the Electronic Age », Communication Quarterly, vol. 40, n° 4, p. 325-337.
- Bowie, N. (1990). « Equity and Access to Information Technology », Annual Review of the Institute for Information Studies, p. 131-167.
- Chadwick, A. et C. May (2003). « Interaction between States and Citizens in the Age of the Internet: “e-Government” in the United States, Britain, and the European Union », Governance an International Journal of Policy and Administration, vol. 16, n° 2, p. 271-300.
- Clarke, M. et J. Stewart (2003). « Handling the Wicked Issues », dans J. Reynolds et autres (dir.), The Managing Care Reader, London, Routledge, p. 273-280.
- Cramton, R. C. (1971). « The Why, Where and How of Broadened Public Participation in the Administrative Process », The Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 60, n° 3, p. 1-26.
- Creighton, J. L. (2005). The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions through Citizen Involvement, Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.
- Cresswell, A. M., G. B. Burke et T. Pardo (2006). Advancing Return on Investment, Analysis for Government IT: A Public Value Framework, Albany, Center for Technology in Government.
- Cresswell, A. M. (2010). Public Value and Government ICT Investment, Antalya, Turkey.
- Cullen, R. (2010). « Defining the Transformation of Government: E-Government or e-Governance Paradigm », dans H. J. Scholl (dir.), E-Government: Information, Technology, and Transformation, M.E. Sharpe, p. 57-71.
- Curtin, D. et A. J. Meijer (2006). « Does Transparency Strengthen Legitimacy ? », Information Polity, vol. 11, n° 2, p. 109-122.
- Dawes, S. S. (2010). « Stewardship and Usefulness: Policy Principles for Information-based Transparency », Government Information Quarterly, vol. 27, n° 4, p. 377-383.
- Dawes, S. S. (2008). « The Evolution and Continuing Challenges of e-Governance », Public Administration Review, vol. 68, p. S86-S102.
- Dervin, B. (1994). « Information Democracy: An Examination of Underlying Assumptions », Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 45, n° 6, p. 369-385.
- Doctor, R. D. (1992). « Social Equity and Information Technologies: Moving toward Information Democracy », Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, vol. 27, p. 43-96.
- Ess, C. (1996). « The Political Computer: Democracy, CMC, and Habermas », dans C. Ess (dir.), Philosophical Perspectives on ComputerMediated Communication, Albany, State University of New York Press, p. 197-230.
- Ferranti, D. (de) (2009). How to Improve Governance: A New Framework for Analysis and Action, Brookings Institution Press.
- Florini, A. (2007). The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World, Columbia University Press.
- Fountain, J. (2005). « Central Issues in the Political Development of the Virtual State », dans M. Castells et G. Cardoso (dir.), The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy, Washington D.C., Center for Transatlantic Relations, p. 149-181.
- Frederickson, H. G. (2005). « Public Administration and Social Equity », dans J. Beckett et H. O. Koenig (dir.), Public Administration and Law, ASPA, p. 209-222.
- Fung, A. (2010). « Open Government and Open Society », dans D. Lathrop et L. Ruma (dir.), Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice, Sebastopol, O’Reilly Media, Inc., p. 105-113.
- Fung, A. (2006). « Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance », Public Administration Review, numéro spécial, vol. 66, p. 66-75.
- Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, MIT Press.
- Hacker, K. L. (1996). « Missing Links in the Evolution of Electronic Democratization », Media, Culture and Society, vol. 18, n° 2, p. 213-232.
- Harrison, T. et L. Falvey (2001). « Democracy and New Communication Technologies », dans W. B. Gudykunst (dir.), Communication yearbook 25, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 1-43.
- Heald, D. et C. Hood (2006). Transparency: The Key to Better Governance ?, Oxford University Press.
- Held, D. (1996). Models of Democracy, Stanford University Press.
- Hindman, M. S. (2009). The Myth of Digital Democracy, Princeton University Press.
- Kerwin, C. M. (1999). Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy, CQ Press College.
- King, C. S., K. M. Feltey et B. O. Susel (1998). « The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration », Public Administration Review, vol. 58, n° 4, p. 317-326.
- Kweit, M. G. et R. W. Kweit (1981). Implementing Citizen Participation in a Bureaucratic Society: A Contingency Approach, New York, Praeger.
- Lathrop, D. et L. Ruma (2010). Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice, Sebastopol, O’Reilly Media, Inc.
- Lee, G. et Y. Kwak (2010). Open Government Implementation Model: Moving to Increased Public Engagement, www.businessofgovernment.org/report/open-government-implementation-model-moving-increased-public-engagement (page consultée le 2 octobre 2011).
- McGuire, M. (2006). « Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We Know and How We Know It », Public Administration Review, vol. 66, Issue Supplement s1, p. 33-43.
- Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government, Harvard University Press.
- Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful, Brookings Inst Pr.
- Obama, B. (2009). Transparency and Open Government: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment (page consultée le 2 octobre 2011).
- OCDE (2009). Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy and Services, OCDE.
- Oldenburg, R. (1989). The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts, and How They Get You Through the Day, Paragon House.
- Orszag, P. (2009). Open Government Directive, www.whitehouse.gov/open/documents/opengovernment-directive (page consultée le 2 octobre 2011).
- Posner, P. L. (2002). « Accountability Challenges of Third Party Governance », The Tools of Government, New York, Oxford University Press.
- Provan, K. G. et H. B. Milward (2001). « Do Networks Really Work ? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks », Public Administration Review, vol. 61, n° 4, p. 414-423.
- Riley, T. (2003). E-Governance vs. e-Government, www.i4donline.net/articles/currentarticle.asp?articleid=453&typ=Features (page consultée le 2 octobre 2011).
- Rowe, G. et L. J. Frewer (2000). « Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation », Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 25, n° 1, p. 3 29.
- Rucinski, D. (1991). « The Centrality of Reciprocity to Communication and Democracy », Critical Studies in Mass Communication, vol. 8, n° 2, p. 184-194.
- Salamon, L. M. et O. V. Elliott (2002). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, Oxford University Press.
- Sifry, M. (2010). « You Can Be the Eyes and Ears: Barack Obama and the Wisdom of Crowds », dans D. Lathrop et L. Ruma (dir.), Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice, Sebestopol, O’Reilly Media, Inc., p. 115-122.
- Sirianni, C. (2009). Investing in Democracy: Engaging Citizens in Collaborative Governance, Brookings Institution Press.
- Stirland, S. (2008). Obama’s Secret Weapons: Internet, Databases and Psychology, http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/obamas-secretw/ (page consultée le 2 octobre 2011).
- Stone, D. et D. Lyons (2008). President 2.0, http://www.newsweek.com/2008/11/21/president-2-0.print.html (page consultée le 2 octobre 2011).
- Van Dijk, J. A. (1996). « Models of Democracy: Behind the Design and Use of New Media in Politics », Electronic Journal of Communication, vol. 6, n° 2.
- Wagner, M. (2008). Obama Election Ushering in First Internet Presidency, www.informationweek.com/news/government/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212000815 (page consultée le 2 octobre 2011).