![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})
Abstract
This article examines the extent to which the implementation of Internet technology by Birmingham City Council (BCC) is facilitating new forms of engagement with the communities it serves. The case study presented reveals BCC to be an organisation in complex, conflict‐ridden transition. Networked uses of Internet technologies have resulted in shifts being made towards a new form of ‘citizen‐facing’ organisation. However older, more traditional forms of hierarchical command and control persist. These are being sustained, in part, by adaptive uses of the same technologies that facilitate networking. Ultimately, this situation limits the extent to which new forms of community engagement have been achieved.
Notes
1. An earlier draft of this article was presented to the Queensland Government/United Nations International Conference on Engaging Communities in Brisbane, August 2005. The author would also like to thank Frank Webster for his advice and support during the conduct of this research, and the UK Economic and Social Research Council (award number R00429934167) for funding the research upon which this paper is based.
2. See, for example T. Byrne, Local Government in Britain: Everyone's Guide to How it all Works, 7th edition, Penguin, London, 2000; M. Cole, ‘Local government reform in Britain 1997–2001: national forces and international trends’, Government and Opposition, 2003, pp. 181–202; K. Orr, ‘Rethinking the purpose of local government’, Local Governance, 24, 3, 1998, pp. 225–36; S. Snape, ‘Three years on: reviewing local government modernisation’, Local Governance, 26, 3, 2000, pp. 119–26; G. Stoker (ed.), The New Management of British Local Governance, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1999; G. Stoker (ed.), The New Politics of British Local Governance, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2000.
3. D. Wilson and C. Game, Local Government in the UK, 3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2002, p. 14.
4. Cabinet Office, Modernising Government (CM4310), HMSO, London, 1999a.
5. See, for example, Cabinet Office IT Unit (CITU), Implementing E‐Government: Guidelines for Local Government, HMSO, London, 2000; Cabinet Office, E‐Government: A Strategic Framework for Public Services in the Information Age, HMSO, London, 2000; Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), E‐Gov: Electronic Government Services for the 21st Century, PIU/Cabinet Office, London, 2000.
6. Society of Information Technology Management (SOCITM), Better Connected 2003?, SOCITM, London, 2003.
7. G. Kuk, ‘The digital divide and the quality of electronic service delivery in local government in the United Kingdom’, Government Information Quarterly, 20, 2002, pp. 353–63.
8. For a useful overview of this approach see R. Williams and D. Edge, ‘The social shaping of technology’, in W. H. Dutton (ed.), Information and Communication Technologies: Visions and Realities, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996, pp. 53–68.
9. See, for example, J. Child, ‘Managerial strategies, new technology and the labour process’, in R. Finnegan, G. Salaman and K. Thompson (eds), Information Technology: Social Issues, Hodder and Stoughton and the Open University, London, 1987, pp. 76–97; J. Fulk and C. Steinfield (eds), Organisations and Communication Technology, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1990; J. Fulk and G. DeSanctis, ‘Electronic communication and changing organisational forms’, Organisational Science, 6, 4, 1995, pp. 337–49.
10. See, for example, B. Allen, L. Juillet, M. Miles, G. Paquet, J. Roy and K. Wilkins, ‘The organisational culture of digital government: technology, accountability and shared governance’, A. Pavilichev and G. David Garson (eds), Digital Government: Principles and Best Practices, Idea Group, London, 2004, pp. 78–96; K. Kraemer and J. King, ‘Computing and public organisations’, Public Administration Review, 46, 6 (special issue), 1986, pp. 488–96; D. Landsbergen and G. Wolken, ‘Realising the promise: government information systems and the fourth generation of information technology’, Public Administration Review, 61, 2, 2001, pp. 206–18.
11. J. Fountain, Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 2001.
12. W. H. Dutton, Society on the Line: Information Politics in a Digital Age, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999.
13. Fountain, op. cit., p. 10.
14. Fountain distinguishes institutions, as normative entities which generate rules to which actors must conform, from organisations as technical instruments in which products and/or services are produced. As Fountain notes, government agencies possess both sets of characteristics. To simplify matters, in this article the term ‘organisation’ is generically used to signal a concern with both these sets of issues.
15. Fountain, op. cit., p. 12.
16. Dutton, op. cit., p. 9.
17. See, for example, Cabinet Office, 1999a, op. cit.; Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People (CM4014), HMSO, London, 1998.
18. House of Commons, Local Government Act, HMSO, London, 1999; House of Commons, Local Government Act, HMSO, London, 2000.
19. See Cole, op. cit., for an overview of how these changes fit into New Labour's broader programme of reform.
20. An excellent overview of the Best Value regime is provided by M. Geddes and S. Martin, ‘The policy and politics of Best Value: currents, crosscurrents and undercurrents in the new regime’, Policy and Politics, 28, 3, pp. 379–95.
21. DETR, 1998, op. cit., p. 39.
22. House of Commons, 1999, op. cit.
23. See, for example, D. Chandler, ‘Active citizens and the therapeutic state: the role of democratic participation in local government reform’, Policy and Politics, 29, 1, 2001, pp. 3–14; M. Clarke and J. Stewart, ‘Community leadership’, Local Governance, 26, 3, 2000, pp. 127–33.
24. Stoker, 2000, op. cit.
25. S. Goss, Making Local Governance Work: Networks, Relationships and the Management of Change, Palgrave, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2001.
26. R. Leach and J. Percy‐Smith, Local Governance in Britain, Palgrave, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2001.
27. Ibid., p. 78.
28. Birmingham City Council (BCC), A New Partnership Approach for Governance, BCC, Birmingham, 2001, p. 8.
29. Cabinet Office, Our Information Age: The Governments Vision, HMSO, London, 1999b.
30. J. Hudson, ‘E‐galitarianism? The information society and New Labour's repositioning of welfare’, Critical Social Policy, 23, 2, 2003, pp. 268–90.
31. Cabinet Office, 2000, op. cit.
32. Cabinet Office IT Unit (CITU), op. cit.
33. Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), op. cit.
34. For an overview of how websites are being placed at the heart of public sector strategy see Society of Information Technology Management (SOCITM), Better Connected 2001?, SOCITM, London, 2001.
35. Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), op. cit., p. 17.
36. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), Best Value and Audit Commission Performance Indicators 2001/2002, HMSO, London, 2000, p. 17.
37. Cabinet Office, 1999a, op. cit., p. 5.
38. Cabinet Office IT Unit (CITU), op. cit.; Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), op. cit.
39. The name ‘Birmingham Assist’ was dropped by BCC as part of the revamp described. The banner over the website's homepage now simply gives the url birmingham.gov.uk (a move that is aimed to reflect the status of the site as representing the organisation as a whole).
40. Website Development Steering Group (WDSG), Report of the Website Development Steering Group to the Chief Officers Group 13 June 2001, BCC, Birmingham, 2001, p. 1.
41. Ibid., pp. 2–3.
42. Ibid.
43. Birmingham City Council (BCC), Implementing Electronic Government Statement 2003, BCC, Birmingham, 2003.
44. Society of Information Technology Management (SOCITM), 2003, op. cit.
45. Website Development Steering Group (WDSG), op. cit., p. 1.
46. BCC, Web Survey 2005 Results, 2005, available online at http://www.birmingham.co.uk. It should be noted, however, that these particular results should be read with some caution, as only 96 users took part in the online survey.
47. Interview, August 2001.
48. Interview, August 2001.
49. Interview, October 1999.
50. Ibid.
51. A. Chadwick, ‘Bringing e‐democracy back in: why it matters for future research on e‐governance’, Social Science Computer Review, 21, 4, 2003, pp. 443–55 at p. 446.
52. Birmingham City Council (BCC), Implementing Electronic Government Statement 2001, BCC, Birmingham, 2001, p. 17.
53. Website Development Steering Group (WDSG), op. cit., p. 3.
54. Interview, July 2000.
55. Interview, June 2001.
56. See R. Heeks and A. Davies, ‘Different approaches to information age reform’, in R. Heeks (ed.), Reinventing Government in the Information Age: International Practice in IT Enable Public Sector Reform, Routledge, London, 1999, pp. 22–48; Allen et al., op. cit.
57. Interview, September 2001.
58. Interview, August 2001.
59. Website Development Steering Group (WDSG), op. cit., p. 6.
60. Interview, October 1999.
61. Interview, October 2000.
62. Ibid.
63. A. Peled, ‘Centralization or diffusion? Two tails of online government’, Administration and Society, 32, 2001, pp. 686–709 at p. 690.
64. Interview, July 2000.
65. For example see Landsbergen and Wolken, op. cit.
66. BCC, 2003, op. cit., p. 13.
67. Interview, September 2000.
68. Interview, October 2000.
69. Fountain, op. cit.
70. Orr, op. cit., p. 232.
71. Ibid., p. 235.
72. Audit Commission, Comprehensive Performance Assessment: Corporate Assessment Report Birmingham City Council, Audit Commission, London, 2004.
73. Ibid., p. 4.