Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Korea has put forth Government 3.0 as a national drive to improve government operations. The incumbent administration's strong pledge for public sector reform through the Government 3.0 drive envisions a transparent, competent, and service-oriented government. The drive has received as much criticism as praise, and has raised the following issues. First, is Government 3.0 in Korea truly novel? The features of Government 3.0 are similar to those of Government 2.0 in other countries, which are based on the interactive potential of Web 2.0. Second, does Government 3.0 create visible outcomes as the achievement of ultimate objectives? Even leading agencies associated with the drive are unclear or confused between regarding its ends and means. Third, does disclosing more information guarantee better results? More disclosure may impose more burdens on public employees in terms of warranting the accuracy of information released and security of information sharing settings. Last, is the drive politically neutral and does it focus on administrative goals? Government 3.0 may be temporary, given the shifts in politics.

Keywords

Government innovation E-government Government 2.0 Government 3.0

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anttiroiko,

(2010). Innovation in democratic e-governance: Benefitting from Web 2.0 applications in the public sector. In Reddick,

C. G.

(ed.). Citizens and E-Government: Evaluating Policy and Management. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing, 110-130.

Bertot,

J. C.

, Jaeger,

P. T.

, & Grimes,

J. M.

(2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264-271.

Cho,

, & Hwang,

(2010). Government 2.0 in Korea: Focusing on e-participation services. In Reddick,

C. G.

(ed.). Politics, Democracy and E-Government: Participation and Service Delivery, Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing, 94-114.

Coglianese,

(2009). The transparency president? The Obama administration and open government. Governance, 22(4), 529-544.

Di Maio,

(2009a). Government 2.0: A Gartner definition. Available at http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2009/ 11/13/government-2-0-a-gartner-definition/.

Di Maio,

(2009b). It is time to look at government 3.0 (or better understand 2.0). Available at http://blogs.gartner.com/ andrea_dimaio/2009/12/21/it-is-time-to-look-at-government-3-0/.

Eggers,

W. D.

(2005). Government 2.0: Using Technology to Improve Education, Cut Red Tape, Reduce Gridlock, and Enhance Democracy. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Etzioni,

(1960). Two approaches to organizational analysis: A critique and a suggestion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5(2), 257-278.

Ferro,

, & Molinari,

(2009). Framing Web 2.0 in the process of public sector innovation: Going down the participation ladder. European Journal of ePractice, 9(1), 20-34.

10.

Harrison,

T. M.

, Guerrero,

, Burke,

G. B.

, Cook,

, Cresswell,

, Helbig,

, Hrdinova,

, & Pardo,

T. A.

(2012). Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity, 17(2), 83-97.

11.

McDermott,

(2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401-413.

12.

Millard,

(2009). Government 1.5: Is the bottle half full or half empty? European Journal of ePractice, 9(1), 35-50.

13.

Mintz,

(2008). Government 2.0: Fact or fiction? Public Manager, 36(4), 21-24.

14.

National Information Society Agency (2008). Concepts and Features of Government 2.0 and 3.0.

15.

National Information Society Agency (2013). Government 3.0: Dreaming New Korea. Available at http://www.gov30.kr. [Korean]

16.

Osimo,

(2009). Editorial: Government 2.0 - hype, hope, or reality? European Journal of ePractice, 9(1), 2-4.

17.

Parycek,

, & Sachs,

(2009). Open government: Information flow in Web 2.0. European Journal of ePractice, 9(1), 59-70.

18.

Piotrowski,

S. J.

, & Rosenbloom,

D. H.

(2002). Nonmission-based values in results-oriented public management: The case of freedom of information. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 643-657.

19.

Riccucci,

N. M.

(2010). Public Administration: Traditions of Inquiry and Philosophies of Knowledge. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

20.

Tapscott,

, Williams,

A. D.

, & Herman,

(2008). Government 2.0: Transforming Government and Governance for the Twenty-First Century. Available at http://www.newparadigm.com/media/gov_transforminggovernment.pdf.

21.

Wever,

E. P.

, & Khademian,

A. M.

(2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 334-349.