E-government, Open Government, Open Data, ESIF, Partnership Agreement


The aim of the current research is to examine how and to what extent existing e-government services in planning, managing, and delivering EU funds in Greece, can evolve into new open-government models. It also aims to examine how to effectively engage citizens and potential beneficiaries to participate in processes, such as policymaking or projects’ and funds’ allocation within the framework of the Partnership Agreement 2014/2020.  The study comprises of a combination of both secondary and primary data being selected from public bodies (managing authorities) and potential beneficiaries (public entities and citizens) searching their awareness, perceptions, concerns and attitudes on existing and possible future open government models. Findings show that respondents recognize the benefits of e-government services, yet they encounter difficulties using them, mostly due to the platforms’ technocratic language. They are uncertain however on the impact open data have had on the EU funds management and demonstrate reservations on trust and security issues, including interaction and integration of their proposals in policy- and decision-making processes.  The study concludes with proposals on future academic research and policy applications in order to further advance the openness of governance in the EU funds. 

Full Text : PDF

  1. A Scuola di OpenCoesione - I video di #ASOC1617 (2018). Available at: (Accessed: 20 February 2018).
  2. Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D. and Preece, J. (2004) ‘User-centered design’, in W. Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Bainbridge: Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2010-1109.
  3. Abu-Shanab, E. A. (2015) ‘Reengineering the open government concept: An empirical support for a proposed model’, Government Information Quarterly. Elsevier Inc., 32(4), pp. 453–463. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.002.
  4. Andersen, K. N. et al. (2010) ‘Fads and facts of E-government: A review of impacts of E-government (2003-2009)’, International Journal of Public Administration, 33(11), pp.
  5. 564–579. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2010.517724.
  6. Åström, J. and Grönlund, Å. (2012) ‘Online Consultations in Local Government: What Works, When, and Why?’, in Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communication. MIT Press, pp. 75–96. Available at:
  7. Barker, M. et al. (2016) ‘Towards a DataPlace: mapping data in a game to encourage participatory design in smart cities’, in 3rd International Workshop on Pervasive Participation, a NordiCHI workshop. Göteborg, Sweden. Available at:
  8. Bekkers, V. and Homburg, V. (2007) ‘The Myths of E-government: Looking beyond the assumptions of a new and better government’, Information Society, 23(5), pp. 373–382. doi: 10.1080/01972240701572913.
  9. Breno, A. and Gama, K. (2018) ‘Global Gov Jam: Motivational Aspects of Participants’, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons, and Game Creation Events - March 18 - 18, 2018. San Francisco, CA, USA: ACM New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1145/3196697.3196701.
  10. Buttiglione, P. L. (2014) Toolkit Monithon. Available at: Monithon.pdf (Accessed: 10 April 2018).
  11. Buttiglione, P. L. and Reggi, L. (2015) ‘Il monitoraggio civico delle politiche di coesione e lo sviluppo delle comunità civiche’, Prisma Economia-Società-Lavoro, 1(2005), pp. 1–
  12. 17. Available at: (Accessed: 10 April 2018).
  13. Canova, L. et al. (2014) ‘OpenCoesione and Monithon - a transparency effort’, in 5th Samos Summit on ICT-enabled Governance. Samos, pp. 1–5. Available at:
  15. Chadwick, A. and May, C. (2003) ‘Interaction between States and Citizens in the Age of the Internet: “e-Government” in the United States, Britain, and the European Union.’, Governance, 16(2), pp. 271–300. doi: 10.1111/1468-0491.00216.
  16. Charalabidis, Y. and Loukis, E. (2011) ‘Transforming Government Agencies’ Approach to Eparticipation Through Efficient Exploitation of Social Media’, in Ecis 2011 Proceedings, pp. 1080–1091. Available at:
  17. Chourabi, H. et al. (2012) ‘Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework’, in
  18. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Maui,
  19. United States: 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2012, pp. 2289–2297. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2012.615.
  20. Coglianese, C. (2009) ‘The transparency president? The Obama administration and open government’, Governance, 22(4), pp. 529–544. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01451. x.
  21. Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States (2012) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated Version). Available at:
  23. Corchado, L. et al. (2018) ‘A comparative analysis of Cohesion Policy communication strategies - Cohesify Research Paper 11’. Available at:
  24. Curtin, D. and Mendes, J. (2011) ‘Transparence et participation: des principes démocratiques pour l’administration de l’union européenne’, Revue française d’administration publique, 137–138(1), p. 101. doi: 10.3917/rfap.137.0101.
  25. DESI (2018a/b/c/d) Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) - Country report Austria.
  26. Available at:
  27. Domínguez, L. R., Nchez, I. M. G. S. and Álvarez, I. G. (2011) ‘Determining factors of e-government development: A worldwide national approach’, International Public Management Journal, 14(2), pp. 218–248. doi: 10.1080/10967494.2011.597152.
  28. (2016) Payment of Investments Subsidy Grant. Available at:
  29.Καταβολή_Επιχορήγησης_Επένδυσης_των_Επενδυτικών_Νόμων (Accessed: 30 May 2018).
  30. European Commission (2003) The role of e-government for Europe’s future COM (2003) 567 final. Brussels. Available at:
  31. European Commission (2015a) ‘e-government action plan 2016-2020’, p. 12.
  32. European Commission (2015b) ‘Quality of Public Administration: A Toolbox for Practioners’, p. 140. doi: 10.2767/91797.
  33. European Commission (2016) Workshop Report: Supporting the implementation of e-government at regional and local level. Brussels. Available at:
  34. European Commission (2017) Flash Eurobarometer 452 Report "Citizens’ awareness and perceptions of EU regional policy". Brussels. Available at:
  35. ruments/FLASH/surveyKy/2145.
  36. European Commission (2018a) ‘E-Government in Greece’. Joinup. Available at:
  38. European Commission (2018b) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and financial r. Available at:
  39. European Commission (2018c) Standard Eurobarometer 89 - Spring 2018 ‘Public opinion in the European Union, First results. Brussels. doi: 10.2775/00.
  40. European Parliament (2014) Mapping Smart Cities in the EU. Available at:
  42. European Parliament (2016) Potential and Challenges of E-Participation in the European Union. doi: 10.2861/115760.
  43. European Union (2017) ‘Tallinn Declaration on e-government’. Tallinn. Available at:
  45. (2017) ΕΥΔΕ-ΕΤΑΚ Νέα. Available at:
  47. Field, T., Muller, E. and Lau, E. (2003) The e-government imperative, OECD e-government studies. Paris: OECD.
  48. Fragouli, E. and Vitta, A. (2012) ‘E-government Policy Administration: the case of Greece’, Science Journal of Business Management, (2), pp. 1–23. Available at:
  49. Freeman, J. and Quirke, S. (2013) ‘Understanding E-Democracy Government-Led Initiatives for Democratic Reform’, JeDEM, 5(2), pp. 141–154. Available at:
  50. Fung, A. and Weil, D. (2010) ‘Open government and open society’, in Lathrop, D. and
  51. Ruma, L. (eds) Open Government. Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. O’Reilly, pp. 107–114. doi: 10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
  52. Gil-Castineira, F. et al. (2014) ‘Smart City or Smart Citizens? The Barcelona Case’, Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), pp. 1–16. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2585682.
  53. Gómez, E. A. R. (2017) ‘Perceptions About the Concept and Benefits of Open Government in Local Governments in Spain’, in Baguma, R., De’, R., and Janowski, T. (eds) Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance - ICEGOV ’17. New York: ACM, pp. 594–597.
  54. Gruening, G. (2001) ‘Origin and theoretical basis of new public management’, International Public Management Journal, 4(1), pp. 1–25. doi: 10.1016/S10967494(01)00041-1.
  55. Hausmann, R. and Rodrik, D. (2003) ‘Economic development as self-discovery’, Journal of Development Economics, 72(2), pp. 603–633. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3878(03)00124-X.
  56. Hung, S. Y., Chang, C. M. and Yu, T. J. (2006) ‘Determinants of user acceptance of the e-government services: The case of online tax filing and payment system’, Government Information Quarterly, 23(1), pp. 97–122. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2005.11.005.
  57. Jaeger, P. and Bertot, J. (2012) ‘Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating User-centered and Citizen-centered E-government’, International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 6(2), pp. 1–17. doi: 10.4018/jegr.2010040101.
  58. Janita, M. S. and Miranda, F. J. (2018) ‘Quality in e-Government services: A proposal of dimensions from the perspective of public sector employees’, Telematics and Informatics. Elsevier, 35(2), pp. 457–469. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2018.01.004.
  59. Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y. and Zuiderwijk, A. (2012) ‘Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government’, Information Systems Management, 29(4), pp. 258–268. doi: 10.1080/10580530.2012.716740.
  60. Karamagioli, E., Staiou, E. R. and Gouscos, D. (2014) ‘Can open-government models contribute to more collaborative ways of governance? An assessment of the Greek OpenGov initiative’, in Gascó-Hernández, M. (ed.) Open Government: Opportunities and Challenges for Public Governance. New York: Springer International Publishing, pp. 37–50. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-9563-5_3.
  61. Kassen, M. (2017) ‘Open data and e-government – related or competing ecosystems: a paradox of open government and promise of civic engagement in Estonia*’, Information Technology for Development. Taylor & Francis, 0(0), pp. 1–27. doi: 10.1080/02681102.2017.1412289.
  62. Layne, K. and Lee, J. (2001) ‘Developing fully functional E- government: A four stage model’, Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), pp. 122–136.
  63. Lee, C. P., Chang, K. and Berry, F. S. (2011) ‘Testing the Development and Diffusion of E-Government and E-Democracy: A Global Perspective’, Public Administration Review, 71(3), pp. 444–454. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02228. x.
  64. Lee, G. and Kwak, Y. H. (2012) ‘An Open Government Maturity Model for social mediabased public engagement’, Government Information Quarterly. Elsevier Inc., 29(4), pp.
  65. 492–503. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.001.
  66. Linders, D. (2012) ‘From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media’, Government Information Quarterly. Elsevier Inc., 29(4), pp. 446–454. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003.
  67. Lourenço, R. P. (2015) ‘An analysis of open government portals: A perspective of transparency for accountability’, Government Information Quarterly. Elsevier Inc., 32(3), pp. 323–332. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.05.006.
  68. Magro, M. J. (2012) ‘A Review of Social Media Use in E-Government’, Administrative Sciences, 2(4), pp. 148–161. doi: 10.3390/admsci2020148.
  69. Margetts, H. and Naumann, A. (2017) ‘Government as a Platform: What Can Estonia Show the World?’, pp. 1–41. Available at:
  70. Meijer, A. J., Curtin, D. and Hillebrandt, M. (2012) ‘Open government: Connecting vision and voice’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), pp. 10–29. doi:
  71. 10.1177/0020852311429533.
  72. Mellouli, S., Luna-Reyes, L. F. and Zhang, J. (2014) Smart government, citizen participation and open data, Information Polity. doi: 10.3233/IP-140334.
  73. Messina, C. et al. (2008) Good practice in the field of regional policy and obstacles to the use of the Structural Funds. Brussels. Available at:
  75. Millard, J. (2013) ‘ICT-enabled public sector innovation: trends and prospects’, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance - ICEGOV ’13, pp. 77–86. doi: 10.1145/2591888.2591901.
  76. Ministry of Administrative Reconstruction (2014a) ‘E-Government Action Plan 20142020’. Available at:
  77. Ministry of Administrative Reconstruction (2014b) ‘E-Government Strategy 2014-2020’. Available at:
  79. Ministry of Administrative Reconstruction (2016) ‘3rd National Action Plan on Open Government 2016-2018’. Available at:
  80. Ministry of Digital Policy Telecommunications and Information (2016) ‘National Digital Strategy 2016-2021’. Available at:κείμεναστρατηγικής/220-digital-strategy-2016-2021.
  81. Ministry of the Interior and Administrative Reconstruction (2016) Analysis of Public
  82. Administration staff for the year 2015 (Ανάλυση τακτικού προσωπικού Δημόσιας Διοίκησης για το έτος 2015). Available at:
  83. Monithon | About – English (2018). Available at: (Accessed: 10 April 2018).
  84. Moon, M. J. (2002) ‘The Evolution of E - Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality?, Public Administration Review, 62(4). doi: 10.1111/0033-3352.00196.
  85. (2007) Opinion survey to evaluate Available at:
  86. (Accessed: 15 April 2018).
  87. (2015) Human Resources. Available at:
  88. (Accessed: 1 April 2018).
  89. National Coordination Authority (2016) ‘Evaluation of Information and Publicity Actions co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund for the period 2007-2013 in Greece’.
  90. Nic, N. et al. (2018) Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018, University of Oxford. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
  91. O’Reilly, T. (2010) ‘Government as a Platform’, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 6(1), pp. 13–40. doi: 10.1162/INOV_a_00056.
  92. Obama, B. (2009) Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government. Available at:
  94. OECD (2015) Government at a Glance - 2017 edition. Available at: (Accessed: 10 June 2018).
  95. OECD (2016) Open Government - The Global Context and the Way Forward. Paris:
  96. Oliveira, C. (2016) ‘A study on Engagement and Research Opportunities on Digital Democracy’.
  97. Palvia, S. C. J. and Sharma, S. S. (2007) ‘E-Government and e-governance: definitions/domain framework and status around the world’, Foundations of e-government, pp. 1–12. doi: 10.3991/ijac. v5i1.1887.
  98. Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E. and Tarabanis, K. (2008) ‘A framework for evaluating web sites of public authorities’, Aslib Proceedings, 60(5), pp. 517–546. doi:
  99. 10.1108/00012530810908229.
  100. Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E. and Tarabanis, K. (2014) ‘Success factors in designing eParticipation initiatives’, Information and Organization. Elsevier Ltd, 24(4), pp. 195– 213. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.08.001.
  101. Papadomichelaki, X. and Mentzas, G. (2011) ‘Analysing e-government service quality in Greece’, Electronic Government, an International Journal, 8(4), p. 290. doi: 10.1504/EG.2011.042808.
  102. Peixoto, T. (2013) ‘The uncertain relationship between open data and accountability: A response to Yu and Robinson’s The New Ambiguity of “Open Government”’, UCLA Law Review Discourse, 60(2007), pp. 200–213. Available at:
  103. Petrakaki, D. (2008) ‘E-Government and changes in the public sector: The Case of Greece’, in Barrett, M. et al. (eds) Information Technology in the Service Economy: Challenges and Possibilities for the 21st Century. IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing. Boston: Springer International Publishing, pp. 213–227. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-09768-8_15.
  104. Pina, V., Torres, L. and Royo, S. (2010) ‘Is E-Government Leading to More Accountable and Transparent Local Governments? an Overall View’, Financial Accountability & Management, 26(1), pp. 3–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0408.2009.00488. x.
  105. Reggi, L. and Dawes, S. (2016) ‘Open government data ecosystems: Linking transparency for innovation with transparency for participation and accountability’, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 9820 LNCS, pp. 74–86. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44421-5_6.
  106. Reggi, L. and Ricci, C. A. (2011) ‘Information strategies for open government in Europe:
  107. EU regions opening up the data on structural funds’, Lecture Notes in Computer Science
  108. (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in
  109. Bioinformatics), 6846 LNCS, pp. 173–184. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-22878-0_15.
  110. Roman, A. V. and Miller, H. T. (2013) ‘New Questions for E-Government: Efficiency but not (yet?) Democracy’, International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 9(1), pp. 65–81. doi: 10.4018/jegr.2013010104.
  111. Saija, F. and Avella, G. D. (2016) OpenCoesione: Monitoring Public Spending and its Impact in Italy. Available at:
  112. Schmidthuber, L. et al. (2017) ‘The emergence of local open government: Determinants of citizen participation in online service reporting’, Government Information Quarterly.
  113. Elsevier, 34(3), pp. 457–469. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2017.07.001.
  114. Szopiński, T. and Staniewski, M. W. (2017) ‘Manifestations of e-government usage in post-communist European countries’, Internet Research, 27(2), pp. 199–210. doi:
  115. 10.1108/IntR-01-2015-0011.
  116. Teo, T. S. H., Srivastava, S. C. and Jiang, L. (2008) ‘Trust and Electronic Government Success: An Empirical Study’, Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(3), pp. 99–131. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222250303.
  117. The World Wide Web Foundation (2017) Open Data Barometer 4th Edition - Global Report. Available at:
  118. Tinholt, D. et al. (2017) e-government Benchmark 2017. doi: 10.2759/002688.
  119. Torres, L., Pina, V. and Royo, S. (2005) ‘Egovernment and the transformation of public administrations in EU countries: Beyond NPM or just a second wave of reforms?’, Online Information Review, 29(5), pp. 531–553. doi: 10.1108/14684520510628918.
  120. United Nations (2018) Glossary, Glossary. Available at:
  121. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2016) United Nations E-government 2016: E-Government in Support of Sustainable Development. Available at:
  123. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2018) E-Government Survey 2018. Available at:
  124. Del Vicario, M. et al. (2016) ‘The spreading of misinformation online’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), pp. 554–559. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1517441113.
  125. Van Waart, P., Mulder, I. and de Bont, C. (2016) ‘A Participatory Approach for Envisioning a Smart City’, Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), pp. 708–723. doi: 10.1177/0894439315611099.
  126.  Washburn, D. and Sindhu, U. (2010) Helping CIOs Understand “Smart City” Initiatives.
  127. Cambridge, MA; Forrester Research, Inc. Available at:
  128. _city_initiatives.pdf.
  129. West, D. M. (2004) ‘E-Government and the Transformation of Public Sector Service
  130. Delivery’, Public Administration Review, 64(1), pp. 15–27. doi: :10.1111/j.15406210.2004.00343. x.
  131. Wijnhoven, F., Ehrenhard, M. and Kuhn, J. (2015) ‘Open government objectives and participation motivations’, Government Information Quarterly. Elsevier Inc., 32(1), pp. 30–42. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.10.002.
  132. Williamson, V. and Eisen, N. (2016) ‘The Impact of Open Government: Assessing the Evidence’, Brookings Institution, Development (December), pp. 1–30. Available at:
  134. Wong, W. and Welch, E. (2004) ‘Does E-Government Promote Accountability? A Comparative Analysis of Website Openness and Government Accountability’, Governance, 17(2), pp. 275–297. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2004.00246. x.
  135. Yildiz, M. (2007) ‘E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward’, Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), pp. 646–665. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2007.01.002.
  136. Yu, H. and Robinson, D. G. (2012) ‘The New Ambiguity of “Open Government”’, SSRN Electronic Journal, 178(2012), pp. 178–208. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2012489.
  137. Zola, D., Naletto, G. and Andreis, S. (2015) ‘Web-COSI “Web Communities for Statistics for Social Innovation”’, Web-COSI “Web Communities for Statistics for Social Innovation”, (610422), pp. 1–61. Available at: